On Thu, 26 May 2005 18:14:15 GMT, "Ian" <
[email protected]>
wrote:
>> the severity ratio in pedestrians
>> struck at motorway speeds is going to be high by comparison with that
>> for urban roads.
>True, but somewhere else in this thread someone thought that pedestrians
>weren't a factor in the KSI figures for motorways. The figures show
>otherwise.
I know. The problem is much more complex than these simple statistics
will account for, I think.
>>>Any other excuses for considering that cyclists aren't as dangerous as
>>>they really are?
>> Hmmmm. Explain: why is it thought appropriate to mix cyclists and
>> pedestrians on some footways?
>Where that happens in my area the footway is either very wide and separate
>lanes are painted to show where pedestrians and cyclists should travel, or
>the footway is rarely used by pedestrians. It seems to be a new piece of
>political correctness to encourage greater use of cycles, without
>encouraging abeyance of the law.
I can show you a shared-use footway which is under 4ft wide and has no
segregation whatever. Several, in fact. Since it is also surfaced
with paviors and routinely ice-slick due to tree litter, needless to
say I avoid it like the plague. And get shouted at for my pains...
>>How come the fatality rate for
>> pedestrians on footways is 185:1 car:bike?
>What we don't know is whether the car swerved on to the footway and hit a
>pedestrian or was driving along it. In the case of a cycle it is most likely
>they were cycling along it as so many do. I rarely see cars driving along
>pavements, although cars legally cross them to enter adjacent properties and
>could strike a pedestrian.
I would suggest that in the majority of cases the car is out of
control. But that raises an interesting question: mile for mile,
which is more dangerous on the pavement? I have a pretty good idea...
> To what extent have you
>> accounted for the documented fact that cyclists are least likely to be
>> to blame in injury collisions?
>Do you have official figures to support that statement?
Three studies, but the cites are not to hand (note to self: add
non-helmet studies to web-accessible database). They were: a study of
cycle crashes on Oxford, a report by TRL, and a document from the
Metropolitan Police.
>>In what proportion of the cyclist
>> injuries you are counting was the cyclist to blame?
>I wasn't counting injuries to cyclists, only injuries to pedestrians.
I was unclear. In what proportion of the injuries caused by cyclists
was the ped to blame?
>> What of the
>> documented fact that of all road users involved in fatal collisions,
>> cyclist are least likely to be over the alcohol limit and pedestrians
>> the most likely?
>Do you have official figures to support that statement? Although I admit it
>is probably correct and must affect the KSI rate for cars and other vehicles
>too. Unfortunately the DFT figures don't say who was to blame for the
>accidents; just the result in terms of human life.
As I say, yes, but not with citations to hand. Actually I think at
least two are quoted in Bob Davis' book.
>> Still, it's a fascinating thesis: vehicles weighing of the order of
>> 100kg loaded, travelling at speeds typically between 12mph and 20mph,
>> whose operators stand a chance of serious injury in any collision,
>> pose a bigger threat to pedestrians than vehicles weighing 1.5 tonnes
>> and more laden, generally travelling at or above 30mph, whose
>> operators are almost never injured when hitting a pedestrian. I'm
>> struggling a bit with the physics of it, but look forward to seeing
>> your argument develop.
>I agree that on the face of it the heavier vehicle would be expected to do
>the most damage, but the figures show that in terms of distance travelled a
>cycle is more likely to kill or seriously injure compared to a light van and
>nearly as likely as a car.
Which suggests that perhaps your chosen measure of exposure is flawed,
in that it reverses the findings on the relative severity ratios taken
from hospital admissions data. If the figures for exposure were not
essentially speculative it would be a puzzling conundrum indeed, but
actually I think it is simply that the figures from the DfT stats are
too coarse to give a meaningful answer.
>The motorised vehicles are driven by people who
>have passed a test
So are most bikes.
>and have a licence at risk if they cause an accident.
>Cyclists are much more vulnerable but have not necessarily passed a test (I
>passed the cycling proficiency test many years ago) and are unlikely to be
>called to book for any misdemeanour.
So you say, but all the stats I've seen say that the cyclist is
actually *less* likely to be at fault when injured or killed, which
suggests that vulnerability, the self-preservation instinct, and the
massively lower kinetic energy, offset the lack of training and
accountability.
>If that was not so it wouldn't be a
>rare event to see a cycle with lights on at night.
So you say. Actually violations of the road vehicles lighting
regulations are common in car drivers as well. And I don't know of
any evidence that links light use to reduced injuries, though it may
exist (I hope so, given the fortunes I spend on lights!).
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
