Petitions and psychle farcilities

[Nick Maclaren]

In article <[email protected]>,
MJ Ray <[email protected]> writes:
|>
|> > Me: So what you do regard as the absolute minimum standards below
|> > which no cycle facility is better than an attempt. Would it be
|> > if they are physically unusable or significantly more dangerous
|> > than no facility?
|> >
|> > Them: None. All cycle facilities are better than nothing. If we
|> > accepted any minimum standards, it would reduce the number of
|> > cycle facilities. [...]
|>
|> The above is definitely not CamCycle's current position. See
|> http://www.camcycle.org.uk/campaigning/papers/
|>
|> Learn from the past. Don't get stuck in it.

Yes, I suggest that you do. I resigned considerably less than a
decade ago, on the grounds that I was not getting anywhere. I was
pushing for one of two things:

An explicit and formal statement on at least one existing psychle
farcility that it should be removed and not replaced by anything, or
a similar response to a proposed psychle farcility.

An explicit and formal statement of some measurable minimal
standards which, if a psychle farcility could not reach, it should
not be built or should be removed (without replacement) if it had
been.

Let's see the evidence. I am not interested in vague weebling, but
in statements so explicit that the County Council cannot claim to
interpret them differently, and sufficiently formal that they can't
simply ignore them.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

 

[Nick Maclaren]

In article <[email protected]>,
Alex Selby <[email protected]> writes:
|>
|> > I think that the situation is that cycling on roads without pavements
|> > is significantly safer per kilometre, and may even be per hour, so
|> > cycling remains safer for most rural and SOME urban and suburban
|> > routes, but that is not true for MOST urban and suburban cycling.
|>
|> I'd be interested to see figures for this. (Are you saying that cycling
|> on roads without pavements is safer than walking on those same roads
|> where you'd have to walk in the road, or safer than walking on a random
|> road?)

So would I. That was a deduction from some very poor data. And I was
saying the former.

|> > It certainly used to be safer per kilometre, but less safe per hour,
|> > for all types of road, but things have changed a lot. I have failed
|>
|> That is not correct (in terms of fatalities at least) according to the
|> first reference given in my previous post (DFT national statistics). The
|> trend is the other way: i.e., cycling used to be even less safe than
|> walking per km. (From the graph, in 1980: 80 cycling fatalities per
|> 10^9km vs 60 pedestrian fatalities per 10^9km.)

Interesting. Thanks for the correction.

|> Can you point to other figures? I don't necessarily disbelieve you, but
|> I'd be interested in seeing the data.

No. I can't remember the date or context, so they could have been for
different conditions. It is certainly something that is inevitable if
cycling becomes marginally safer than walking per kilometre (as it is
significantly faster). But my statement of "for all types of road" is
not inevitable.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, MJ Ray wrote:
>[email protected] (Nick Maclaren) writes:
>> [...] Starting over a decade ago, I had repeated arguments
>> with many of the supporters of psychle farcilities, including members
>> and committee members of the Cambridge Cycling Campaign, the cycling
>> officials of Cambridgeshire County Council and others; almost all
>> of them ended up like the following:
>>
>> Me: So what you do regard as the absolute minimum standards below
>> which no cycle facility is better than an attempt. Would it be
>> if they are physically unusable or significantly more dangerous
>> than no facility?
>>
>> Them: None. All cycle facilities are better than nothing. If we
>> accepted any minimum standards, it would reduce the number of
>> cycle facilities. [...]
>
>The above is definitely not CamCycle's current position. See
>http://www.camcycle.org.uk/campaigning/papers/

That doesn't make it impossible that some unnamed committee member of
the campaign expressed a personal opinion to Nick that disagreed with
the campaign's position (past or current). (That almost all of Nick's
repeated arguments should end up that way may say more about the chances
of Nick getting into an argument than the prevalence of such views.)

 

[Nick Maclaren]

In article <[email protected]>,
Tony Raven <[email protected]> writes:
|>
|> > It certainly used to be safer per kilometre, but less safe per hour,
|> > for all types of road, but things have changed a lot. I have failed
|> > to find any decent figures, but I suspect that cycling in the UK is
|> > now quite a lot more dangerous than it was 50 or even 25 years back.
|> > The number of deaths etc. has fallen, but my understanding is that
|> > they have not fallen as fast as the amount of cycling.
|>
|> Actually you would be surprised.

Yes, I am. Thanks for the correction. But that isn't the whole story.

|> Back in 1955, 708 cyclists were killed, in 1980 302 were killed compared
|> to 148 in the "bad year" of 2005. So cycling deaths have decreased 79%
|> and 51% in the last 50 and 25 years whereas the total distances cycled
|> fell 78% and 22% respectively (18.2Bn, 5.1Bn and 4Bn vehicle km). So
|> cycling today is as safe as 50 years ago and safer than 25 years ago
|> which given the increase in traffic is quite surprising.
|> Sources: Road Casualties Great Britain 2005, Transport Trends: 2006
|> Edition and Road Traffic Statistics 2005

Well, yes and no. Let's ignore the fact that most other forms of road
travel have got much safer, and consider just cycling in isolation.
That does not mean that it is as safe as in 1950 and safer than in 1980
for a comparable cyclist.

The first question is whether cyclists took more risks then, but that
is pure speculation, so let's assume not.

The second question is whether the death rate has fallen significantly
faster than the relevant incidents, mostly because of improved response
times and ambulance treatment. Mobile telephones are relevant here,
as well, which is a difference from 1980. We don't have the KSI figures
to check, though they would be incomparable, anyway. But let's assume
that cyclist deaths and KSI are pro rata to all casualties. We are
talking about 34,337, 10,433 and 12,530 KSIs. That is a 64% drop and
a 20% increase, respectively.

Using those, cycling is 46% more dangerous than in 1955 and 30% than
in 1980. But I agree that you are less likely to be killed than that
implies.

|> In London since 2000 cycling has increased 83% while the ksi has
|> decreased by 23%.

Yup. My belief is that this has levelled off, but that is another
matter.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

 

[Nick Maclaren]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Alan Braggins) writes:
|>
|> That doesn't make it impossible that some unnamed committee member of
|> the campaign expressed a personal opinion to Nick that disagreed with
|> the campaign's position (past or current). (That almost all of Nick's
|> repeated arguments should end up that way may say more about the chances
|> of Nick getting into an argument than the prevalence of such views.)

Accepted. That is a fair statement, and I can witness that it has a
lot of truth in it.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

 

[Tony Raven]

Nick Maclaren wrote:
>
> Well, yes and no. Let's ignore the fact that most other forms of road
> travel have got much safer, and consider just cycling in isolation.
> That does not mean that it is as safe as in 1950 and safer than in 1980
> for a comparable cyclist.
>
> The first question is whether cyclists took more risks then, but that
> is pure speculation, so let's assume not.
>
> The second question is whether the death rate has fallen significantly
> faster than the relevant incidents, mostly because of improved response
> times and ambulance treatment. Mobile telephones are relevant here,
> as well, which is a difference from 1980. We don't have the KSI figures
> to check, though they would be incomparable, anyway. But let's assume
> that cyclist deaths and KSI are pro rata to all casualties. We are
> talking about 34,337, 10,433 and 12,530 KSIs. That is a 64% drop and
> a 20% increase, respectively.
>
> Using those, cycling is 46% more dangerous than in 1955 and 30% than
> in 1980. But I agree that you are less likely to be killed than that
> implies.
>

Isn't it wonderful how given statistics that counter your perceptions
you revert to waving your arms around and picking invented figures out
of the air to re-establish your perceptions.

What was is someone said earlier about you and statistics?

Tony

 

[Ara]

Nick Maclaren wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Ara <[email protected]> writes:
> |>
> |> > |> I just mean to illustrate that Maclaren will happily use his own
> |> > |> observations (alone) to make an argument, but will deride others
> |> > |> for doing the same.
> |> >
> |> > Twaddle. If you knew the first thing about the properties of the
> |> > Poisson distribution for small parameters, you would know why I said
> |> > what I said. In all cases.
> |>
> |> Piffle. And a transparent appeal to authority.
>
> I would recommend a good book on the basics of statistics, except that
> I am afraid that I don't know of any that are elementary enough.

It's said that if you can't explain it to a layman, then you don't
understand it yourself. Why don't you try to explain it? I have a
couple of degrees in mathematical subjects, so you can assume a
little.


> |> Anyway, I am interested in what your TfL statistics running up to
> |> 2006 have to say about Tim's 2007 observation?
>
> Ah. So you are claiming that there has been a massive change this
> year? Would you like to explain what that change is?


Er, what? I didn't make any such claim.

You said that you trusted measured statistics more than observations
(clearly Tim has made more than one observation, contrary to your
disparagement, since he drew a qualitative comparison). Well, there
aren't any measured statistics for the period of interest so all
that remains is anecdotal evidence. Since you frequently expect
others to take your anecdotal observations at face value, I suggest
that you could extend the same courtesy to everyone else. Or, if
you insist that your observations are really data, then please give
us the numbers.

I am impressed that, on the basis of a walk from King's Cross to
Euston and back, you have concluded that cycling across London is
static post-2006, despite others' thoughts to the contrary!

Ara

 

[Nick Maclaren]

In article <[email protected]>,
Tony Raven <[email protected]> writes:
|> >
|> > Well, yes and no. Let's ignore the fact that most other forms of road
|> > travel have got much safer, and consider just cycling in isolation.
|> > That does not mean that it is as safe as in 1950 and safer than in 1980
|> > for a comparable cyclist.
|> >
|> > The first question is whether cyclists took more risks then, but that
|> > is pure speculation, so let's assume not.
|> >
|> > The second question is whether the death rate has fallen significantly
|> > faster than the relevant incidents, mostly because of improved response
|> > times and ambulance treatment. Mobile telephones are relevant here,
|> > as well, which is a difference from 1980. We don't have the KSI figures
|> > to check, though they would be incomparable, anyway. But let's assume
|> > that cyclist deaths and KSI are pro rata to all casualties. We are
|> > talking about 34,337, 10,433 and 12,530 KSIs. That is a 64% drop and
|> > a 20% increase, respectively.
|> >
|> > Using those, cycling is 46% more dangerous than in 1955 and 30% than
|> > in 1980. But I agree that you are less likely to be killed than that
|> > implies.
|>
|> Isn't it wonderful how given statistics that counter your perceptions
|> you revert to waving your arms around and picking invented figures out
|> of the air to re-establish your perceptions.

Isn't it wonderful how you use abuse as your preferred form of argument
when I point out that things aren't as black and white as you claim?

Those calculations were all using the data in Table 2 of Road Casualties
Great Britain 2005, the first reference you gave. Thin air?


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

 

[Tony Raven]

Nick Maclaren wrote:
>
> Isn't it wonderful how you use abuse as your preferred form of argument
> when I point out that things aren't as black and white as you claim?
>
> Those calculations were all using the data in Table 2 of Road Casualties
> Great Britain 2005, the first reference you gave. Thin air?
>

Pot, kettle etc. You start with a figure of casualties in all road
users, not cyclist casualties, then make some massive assumptions to
arrive at the answer you want on cyclist casualties. You totally ignore
other factors such that over that period motor traffic increased 700%
while cycling decreased ~80%. Smacks of starting with the wrong data
and hand waving to convert it to the answer you want. I am prepared to
accept it may be the case if the real figures are produced but the way
you have done it is nothing more than invention to give the answer you want.

Tony

 

[Nick Maclaren]

In article <[email protected]>,
Tony Raven <[email protected]> writes:
|>
|> I don't have the 50 year figures to hand but lets compare your hand
|> waving estimates with the actual figures for 25 years ago.
|>
|> You: The figures for 1980 and 2005 are 10,433 and 12,530 KSIs which is
|> a 20% increase.
|>
|> The data: The figures for 1980 and 2005 are 12,100 and 3,500 KSIs, a
|> decrease of 71%.
|> Source: Transport Trends 2006 Edition Table 7.3.

Well, the version of that I find implies c. 5,000 and c. 3,000, but has
only a multi-coloured graph. Which is numbered 7.3.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/trends/
current/transporttrends2006

A reduction from 12,100 to 3,500 would be startling, when combined with
the other figures. It could be correct, but any statistician would be
a little suspicious that one of the figures (not necessarily that one)
might be erroneous or measured differently.

|> You may consider 350% out in the wrong direction a reasonable estimate
|> but I don't.

It isn't rare in such population statistics, but I suspect that the
higher figures are based on one classification of KSI and the lower
figures on another. That could well be wholly or partly wrong, too,
but the mismatch between your quoted Table 7.3 and my referenced
Figure 7.3 is indicative.

|> The sad thing is it only took me 5 minutes with Google to
|> dig up all the relevant data whereas you asserted you had "failed to
|> find any decent figures"

Yes, it is sad. It is one of the reasons that I very often ask anyone
with data to post references.

I find Google about as unhelpful as it could possibly be, because I
cannot prevent it flooding me with false hits. I used to get on with
Altavista until they introduced so many bugs that it had the same problem.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

 

[Nick Maclaren]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Nick Maclaren) writes:
|> In article <[email protected]>,
|> Tony Raven <[email protected]> writes:
|> |>
|> A reduction from 12,100 to 3,500 would be startling, when combined with
|> the other figures. It could be correct, but any statistician would be
|> a little suspicious that one of the figures (not necessarily that one)
|> might be erroneous or measured differently.
|>
|> |> You may consider 350% out in the wrong direction a reasonable estimate
|> |> but I don't.
|>
|> It isn't rare in such population statistics, but I suspect that the
|> higher figures are based on one classification of KSI and the lower
|> figures on another. That could well be wholly or partly wrong, too,
|> but the mismatch between your quoted Table 7.3 and my referenced
|> Figure 7.3 is indicative.

Spot on. My statistician's intuition is still there, even if it is a
bit rusty! I have rechecked them.

Road Casualties Great Britain 2005: Killed and injured: 329,000 (1980)
to 271,000 (2005). An 18% reduction. This is Transport Trends' total
casualty figure, and the one I was using in my calculations.

Transport Trends: 2006 Edition: KSIs: c. 80,000 (1980) to c. 30,000
(2005). A 62% reduction.

It would have been pretty flabberghasting if, in 1980, 12,100 KSIs
out of 80,000 were cyclists!

Almost certainly, 12,100 was the total casualty figure and was later
corrected to the correct one which was several times lower. Also,
we know that there have been several changes in the classification
of KSIs, and it is unclear how much of the reduction is due to that
and how much to a genuine reduction in the number.

Given that, my calculations seem to remain valid as the best available
estimate of the risk to cyclists involving actual injury. Whether or
not the above KSI reduction is genuine, the risk of death has dropped
slightly, and it is certainly possible that the risk of the most serious
injuries has, too.

No, Tony, I don't expect you to apologise for maligning me


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

 

[Colin McKenzie]

Alex Selby wrote:
> You could argue that the real thing you want to know is "is it safer for
> me to travel by foot or bike?",

or car

> which is slightly different from what
> was measured because the kind of people who travel by bike might be
> different in some important way from the kind of people who travel by
> foot.

The main group over-represented among cyclists, at least here in
London, is young adult males. That's right, the group that have the
worst safety record as drivers.

Colin McKenzie

--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at
the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as
walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

 

[Tony Raven]

Nick Maclaren wrote:
>
> Spot on. My statistician's intuition is still there, even if it is a
> bit rusty! I have rechecked them.

Yes it is, as wrong as ever too.

>
> Road Casualties Great Britain 2005: Killed and injured: 329,000 (1980)
> to 271,000 (2005). An 18% reduction. This is Transport Trends' total
> casualty figure, and the one I was using in my calculations.
>
> Transport Trends: 2006 Edition: KSIs: c. 80,000 (1980) to c. 30,000
> (2005). A 62% reduction.
>
> It would have been pretty flabberghasting if, in 1980, 12,100 KSIs
> out of 80,000 were cyclists!

Be flabberghasted. 33,200 car users, 19,000 pedestrians, 22,700
motorcyclists, 12,100 cyclists and 5,500 others ksi'd. Slight casualties
were another 243,000 total (table 7.2a)

>
> Almost certainly, 12,100 was the total casualty figure and was later
> corrected to the correct one which was several times lower. Also,
> we know that there have been several changes in the classification
> of KSIs, and it is unclear how much of the reduction is due to that
> and how much to a genuine reduction in the number.

Good grief still flailing around with the wrong data trying to prove
your beliefs with conjecture and you can't even find the right data
despite being pointed at it. But I will wait to see just how long it
takes you to find the Excel spreadsheets on the internet rather than
trying to put your micrometer on a pdf on the screen.

>
> Given that, my calculations seem to remain valid as the best available
> estimate of the risk to cyclists involving actual injury. Whether or
> not the above KSI reduction is genuine, the risk of death has dropped
> slightly, and it is certainly possible that the risk of the most serious
> injuries has, too.

The risk of death dropped significantly as did the risk of serious
injuries. But I doubt you will admit it.

>
> No, Tony, I don't expect you to apologise for maligning me
>

I don't apologise and why should I when you are still in your hole and
digging vigorously. Still you seem to prefer to flail your arms around
making up numbers as you go while excoriating others for not using
statistics properly.

Have fun with that shovel ;-)

Tony

 

[Nick Maclaren]

In article <[email protected]>,
Tony Raven <[email protected]> writes:
|>
|> Good grief still flailing around with the wrong data trying to prove
|> your beliefs with conjecture and you can't even find the right data
|> despite being pointed at it. But I will wait to see just how long it
|> takes you to find the Excel spreadsheets on the internet rather than
|> trying to put your micrometer on a pdf on the screen.

I suggest that you stop spouting abuse and think for a bit. You don't
need a micrometer to distinguish discrepancies as large as the ones
shown here. One or other of the documents produced by the DfT will
therefore have the wrong data in it.

Why are you so certain that you know which?


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

 

[Jeremy Parker]

"Nick Maclaren" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Jeremy Parker" <[email protected]> writes:
> |>
> |> The key battleground isn't Cambridge; it's London. London is
> |> pissing away £17M a year on bicycle facilities, but that just
> helps
> |> to strengthen the case against them. Cycling is growing in
> London,
> |> enough to get the mass media's attention and the media is [media
> is?
> |> sorry classicists] beginning to write articles, and so on, which
> are
> |> quite sensible, and those articles get read by the whole
> country,
> |> even by a few people abroad..
>
> Well, maybe. But, when I looked at the statistics, cycling is no
> longer growing in London - it had two years of growth following the
> introduction of the congestion charge, and is not static at a more
> or less insignificant level.
>
> I failed to find the references again on a quick search - can you
> provide any solid evidence for the growth of cycling?

Well, I don't blame you for being suspicious of London. They have a
very weird attitude to releasing their data. I haven't gone as far as
invoking the Freedom of Information act, but I probably ought to.

There was a press release on the Tour de France London site
http://www.tourdefrancelondon.com/en/why_london/ that I downloaded on
14 feb 06. That had a graph of bike traffic over 4 week periods from
March 2000 through to Sept 2005. That's the latest complete time
series I have.

There was a press release on 2 May 2007, "Mayor announces huge rise
in cycling, which quoted an 83% increase since 2000. It ought to be
on the Transport for London web site www.tfl.gov.uk somewhere. There
was another press release on 1 May 2007 talking, I presume, about the
same figures, on the London Govt's web site, see
www.london.gov.uk/view_press_release.jsp?releaseid=11791

It said "The number of cyclists on the capital's major roads
increased by a further six per cent between March 2006 and March
2007, continuing the strong annual growth since 2000. There are now
an estimated 480,000 cycle journeys every day across London, around
30,000 more than a year ago."

I assume the 83% increase since 2000 is March to March. That's the
way London does things.

Looking at the Tour de France graph, which is normalised with March
2000=100, March 2005 seems to be about 150, but there was a steep
linear rise starting just after that, until about the time of the
07/07 bombings, after which it levelled off, hovering at around 200
until the graph ended in Sept 2005.

Superimposed on an overall increase starting at about 2000 or 2001
there's a strong seasonal pattern, of course. Christmas-New Year is
the minimum.

London's figures are based on the road network that Transport for
London owns, not borough roads. That's the trunk roads. In the
middle of London the trunk roads ("the TLRN roads") are just fairly
normal streets, but in outer London those roads are the inter-war
bypasses. Not only are they horrible roads to ride on, but because
they are bypasses they tend not to go to the destinations you want.
There's fairly obviously less cycling in outer London than central
London, but using trunk roads, and London wide totals of bikes, must
mean that the numbers almost totally reflect only central and inner
London

I think that, in the speeches at the TdF Grand Depart, Ken
Livingstone was still quoting that 83%

I hope this helps. If you have any other data, I would be interested
to see it

Jeremy Parker

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Daniel Barlow
('[email protected]') wrote:

> Simon Brooke wrote:
>> That's possible, yes. I'm unconvinced that it's likely. Mind you, having
>> taken a beautifully absolutist position, I will agree that there are
>> places where it is not undesirable from a public policy point of view to
>> permit bicycles, but where it would be undesirable to permit cars -
>> residential streets and urban centres being cases in point. But these
>> should not be seen as 'alternative provision for cyclists' so much
>> as 'places where cars are excluded'.
>
> This is possibly the nearest any post on the thread so far has come to
> admitting that bus lanes exist. Or are the supporters of position (a)
> also against bus lanes?

No. Bus lanes are a bloody good idea.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; Sending your money to someone just because they've erected
;; a barrier of obscurity and secrets around the tools you
;; need to use your data does not help the economy or spur
;; innovation. - Waffle Iron Slashdot, June 16th, 2002

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Jeremy Parker
('[email protected]') wrote:

> Personally, I don't worry about this safety-of-critical-mass
> business.  Even if was the lone cyclist, I would be quite happy.
> Cycling is safer than walking, after all, and that's with about 80%
> of bike accidents essentially self induced

According to the Department for Transport, the vast majority of
motorist/cyclist collisions are the fault of the motorist. Do you know
something they don't?

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; Let's have a moment of silence for all those Americans who are stuck
;; in traffic on their way to the gym to ride the stationary bicycle.
;; Rep. Earl Blumenauer (Dem, OR)

 

[Jeremy Parker]

"Alan Braggins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, MJ Ray wrote:
>>[email protected] (Nick Maclaren) writes:
>>> [...] Starting over a decade ago, I had repeated arguments
>>> with many of the supporters of psychle farcilities, including
>>> members
>>> and committee members of the Cambridge Cycling Campaign, the
>>> cycling
>>> officials of Cambridgeshire County Council and others; almost all
>>> of them ended up like the following:
>>>
>>> Me: So what you do regard as the absolute minimum standards
>>> below
>>> which no cycle facility is better than an attempt. Would it
>>> be
>>> if they are physically unusable or significantly more
>>> dangerous
>>> than no facility?
>>>
>>> Them: None. All cycle facilities are better than nothing. If
>>> we
>>> accepted any minimum standards, it would reduce the number of
>>> cycle facilities. [...]
>>
>>The above is definitely not CamCycle's current position. See
>>http://www.camcycle.org.uk/campaigning/papers/

I only studied that briefly, but it was not obvious that CamCycle
didn't hold such a position. There was a paper about pavement bike
paths, where it said that they were the "last resort". That's fine
if "doing nothing" is on the list at last-but-one, or higher.
However, if "doing nothing is not an option", as politicians today
like to say, then it's not fine.

I once said, talking to a bureaucrat, and said it fairly casually,
thinking it to be obvious, "Well, I guess you have to compare any
solution to the no-build option, after all, that's always quickest
and cheapest". However, he was adamant that you couldn't do that.
It's the "Yes Minister idea", "Minister, we've got to do something.
This is something, so we've got to do it."

Jeremy Parker

 

[Colin McKenzie]

Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <[email protected]>, at 18:50:15 on Wed, 11
> Jul 2007, Tim Ward <[email protected]> remarked:
>> All I can say is, I nearly got mown down by cyclists several times in
>> London yesterday, and on previous visits I'm not conscious of ever
>> seeing a single cyclist ... There has been a significant change.
>
> 7/7 has been credited with a modal shift away from Public Transport, but
> I haven't noticed a lot more cyclists myself.

1. [anecdote]
In central London, ie boroughs like Hackney, Camden, Westminster,
there does seem to have been a big increase in cycling, and you have
to be much more careful than you used to be when passing motor
vehicles - other cyclists are often trying to pass you.

2. [evidence]
In Ealing we have been counting moving cyclists on the main E-W route
for 7 years, and parked cycles in various locations for 5. The most
important conclusion is that the effect of weather is huge, swamping
any underlying increase or decrease there may be in cycling.

Both counts show gentle increase up to about 2003, followed by steep
decline, and then another increase in the last couple of years.

We are definitely not seeing the sort of increases claimed for London
as a whole, but if this autumn's counts are no worse than last, there
has probably been some sort of increase since 2002 or so.

Colin McKenzie

--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at
the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as
walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

 

[Tony Raven]

Nick Maclaren wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Tony Raven <[email protected]> writes:
> |>
> |> Good grief still flailing around with the wrong data trying to prove
> |> your beliefs with conjecture and you can't even find the right data
> |> despite being pointed at it. But I will wait to see just how long it
> |> takes you to find the Excel spreadsheets on the internet rather than
> |> trying to put your micrometer on a pdf on the screen.
>
> I suggest that you stop spouting abuse and think for a bit. You don't
> need a micrometer to distinguish discrepancies as large as the ones
> shown here. One or other of the documents produced by the DfT will
> therefore have the wrong data in it.
>
> Why are you so certain that you know which?
>

Because there is no inconsistency as is apparent by studying the two
sources together?

Road Casualties Great Britain 2005 Table 2 Road Casualties, all
severities for 1980: 329,000 (Column N) (no data on ksi)

Transport Trends 2006 Table 7.2a. Road Casualties ksi (column C) +
slight casualties (column D) for 1980: 329,000 (column B) (which is
completely consistent with Graph 7.2a in the pdf version)

Tony