Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Cycling Safer than Walking?
70 views
Skip to first unread message
Judith
Oct 1, 2012, 3:14:14 PM10/1/12
to
I see from the DfT recent figures that there are 450 pedestrian casualties per
million of the England population compared to 350 pedal cyclist casualties per
million.
That must mean that riding a bike is only 70% as dangerous as waking.
Unless of course I am missing something?
million of the England population compared to 350 pedal cyclist casualties per
million.
That must mean that riding a bike is only 70% as dangerous as waking.
Unless of course I am missing something?
Mrcheerful
Oct 1, 2012, 4:15:54 PM10/1/12
to
equal amount of time that they walked. Since that is not the case it is
easy to show that the chance of having an injury while riding a bike is
vastly higher than it is if you don't.
Judith
Oct 1, 2012, 4:18:58 PM10/1/12
to
On Mon, 1 Oct 2012 21:15:54 +0100, "Mrcheerful" <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
Ahhhhh - many thanks for you - I knew that there would be an
easy explanation :-)
wrote:
easy explanation :-)
Paul Clarke
Oct 1, 2012, 5:47:01 PM10/1/12
to
PhilO
Oct 2, 2012, 9:36:03 AM10/2/12
to
On Monday, October 1, 2012 8:14:17 PM UTC+1, Judith wrote:
> I see from the DfT recent figures that there are 450 pedestrian casualties per
> million of the England population.
>
> Unless of course I am missing something?
I notice the switch to "per million of the England population"
> Unless of course I am missing something?
You always used "per billion passenger miles" before. Did that not suit you any more?
Is cycling a mile still less likely to lead to your death than walking a mile?
I think you'll find it is.
Cycling is not nearly as dangerous as you pretend.
Judith
Oct 2, 2012, 10:35:47 AM10/2/12
to
Cycling became more dangerous last year, when the rate of cyclists killed and
seriously injured rose sharply, official figures showed today.
The rate of cyclists killed and seriously injured measured as a proportion of
distance travelled rose by 9 per cent in 2011. It was the third consecutive
year in which the rate of death and serious injury amongst cyclists had
increased.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3551562.ece
You really are exceptional value.
Bertie Wooster
Oct 2, 2012, 11:46:46 AM10/2/12
to
On Tue, 02 Oct 2012 15:35:47 +0100, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk>
wrote:
Further proof, if further proof is needed, that motor traffic needs to
be slowed by more and bigger speed humps, with a bump bypass for
cyclists, more speed cameras with tougher enforcement, wider lanes for
use by buses and cyclists, and tougher restrictions on HGVs in town
centres.
wrote:
be slowed by more and bigger speed humps, with a bump bypass for
cyclists, more speed cameras with tougher enforcement, wider lanes for
use by buses and cyclists, and tougher restrictions on HGVs in town
centres.
Judith
Oct 2, 2012, 12:43:44 PM10/2/12
to
On Tue, 02 Oct 2012 16:46:46 +0100, Bertie Wooster <be...@wooster.invalid.com>
wrote:
And if you really think that that is going to happen then you really are
deluded.
Every time someone sees a cyclist on the footpath or jumping through red
lights, then support for cyclists as a group is further out of the window.
You can rest assured that there will be significant objection from the
non-cycling community for any money being spent on the roads with the idea of
it being beneficial for cyclists.
It won't happen.
(uk.rec.driving added)
wrote:
deluded.
Every time someone sees a cyclist on the footpath or jumping through red
lights, then support for cyclists as a group is further out of the window.
You can rest assured that there will be significant objection from the
non-cycling community for any money being spent on the roads with the idea of
it being beneficial for cyclists.
It won't happen.
(uk.rec.driving added)
Dave - Cyclists VOR
Oct 2, 2012, 3:56:39 PM10/2/12
to
The vast majority should not be inconvenienced by measures designed to
help the poor and/or strange minority - who contribute nothing to the roads.
--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton, of Lancaster
University, wrote in an interim assessment of the Understanding Walking
and Cycling study. "For them, cycling is a bit embarrassing, they fail
to see its purpose, and have no interest in integrating it into their
lives, certainly on a regular basis."
PhilO
Oct 3, 2012, 6:01:34 AM10/3/12
to
>
>
> Don't take my word for it:
>
> Cycling became more dangerous last year, when the rate of cyclists killed and
> seriously injured rose sharply, official figures showed today.
> The rate of cyclists killed and seriously injured measured as a proportion of
> distance travelled rose by 9 per cent in 2011. It was the third consecutive
> year in which the rate of death and serious injury amongst cyclists had
> increased.
>
> http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3551562.ece
>
Judith,
>
> Don't take my word for it:
>
> Cycling became more dangerous last year, when the rate of cyclists killed and
> seriously injured rose sharply, official figures showed today.
> The rate of cyclists killed and seriously injured measured as a proportion of
> distance travelled rose by 9 per cent in 2011. It was the third consecutive
> year in which the rate of death and serious injury amongst cyclists had
> increased.
>
> http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3551562.ece
>
You seem to have missed the question I asked - hopefully you weren't avaoiding it:
Judith
Oct 3, 2012, 8:24:53 AM10/3/12
to
seriously injured if you are a cyclist than if you are a pedestrian.
PhilO
Oct 3, 2012, 9:03:01 AM10/3/12
to
On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 1:25:28 PM UTC+1, Judith wrote:
>
> >Is cycling a mile still less likely to lead to your death than walking a mile?
>
>
> Yes. I also certainly know that you are much more likely to be killed or
> seriously injured if you are a cyclist than if you are a pedestrian.
Good. Now we agree cycling isn't that dangerous. Let's all go cycling.
>
> >Is cycling a mile still less likely to lead to your death than walking a mile?
>
>
> Yes. I also certainly know that you are much more likely to be killed or
> seriously injured if you are a cyclist than if you are a pedestrian.
Judith
Oct 3, 2012, 6:46:49 PM10/3/12
to
you there did it?
Message has been deleted
PhilO
Oct 4, 2012, 3:42:42 AM10/4/12
to
On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 11:46:55 PM UTC+1, Judith wrote:
> So the fact that you are more likely to be KSI'd cycling than walking missed
> you there did it?
No more than the fact you are less likely to die cycling a mile than walking a mile missed you. I think the whole picture is that neither cycling nor walking are particulary dangerous. One of them is probably more dangerous, but it will be a close thing. I just take exception to you only posting the figures that make cycling look dangerous and deliberately missing out figures that show it to be even safer than walking.
> So the fact that you are more likely to be KSI'd cycling than walking missed
> you there did it?
Why do you try to deceive so?
Scion
Oct 4, 2012, 5:49:11 AM10/4/12
to
PhilO spake thus:
Cycling for pleasure and walking for pleasure will broadly speaking take
up the same amount of time, so isn't it disingenuous to use the KSI per
mile figure to argue that cycling is safer?
up the same amount of time, so isn't it disingenuous to use the KSI per
mile figure to argue that cycling is safer?
PhilO
Oct 4, 2012, 6:03:56 AM10/4/12
to
On Thursday, October 4, 2012 10:49:12 AM UTC+1, Scion wrote:
>
> Cycling for pleasure and walking for pleasure will broadly speaking take
> up the same amount of time, so isn't it disingenuous to use the KSI per
> mile figure to argue that cycling is safer?
An awful lot of cycling is not purely for pleasure, though. Cycling to work and walking to work will cover the same distance. If I walk to work, nobody is surprised. If I cycle to work, people think I am doing something dangerous.
>
> Cycling for pleasure and walking for pleasure will broadly speaking take
> up the same amount of time, so isn't it disingenuous to use the KSI per
> mile figure to argue that cycling is safer?
The general perception of cycling is that it is much more dangerous than the data would suggest.
Scion
Oct 4, 2012, 6:10:51 AM10/4/12
to
PhilO spake thus:
> On Thursday, October 4, 2012 10:49:12 AM UTC+1, Scion wrote:
>>
>> Cycling for pleasure and walking for pleasure will broadly speaking
>> take up the same amount of time, so isn't it disingenuous to use the
>> KSI per mile figure to argue that cycling is safer?
>
> An awful lot of cycling is not purely for pleasure, though. Cycling to
> work and walking to work will cover the same distance. If I walk to
> work, nobody is surprised. If I cycle to work, people think I am doing
> something dangerous.
Depends on whether you're wearing a helmet, surely? ;-)
> The general perception of cycling is that it is much more dangerous than
> the data would suggest.
Yerbut I don't think it helps to say "cycling is safer than walking
because KSI per mile travelled is less" when KSI per hour may well be
more. "Cycling is generally no more dangerous than walking" might be a
better angle, then there's less reason getting bogged down in stats trying
to prove one is "safer" than the other.
> On Thursday, October 4, 2012 10:49:12 AM UTC+1, Scion wrote:
>>
>> Cycling for pleasure and walking for pleasure will broadly speaking
>> take up the same amount of time, so isn't it disingenuous to use the
>> KSI per mile figure to argue that cycling is safer?
>
> An awful lot of cycling is not purely for pleasure, though. Cycling to
> work and walking to work will cover the same distance. If I walk to
> work, nobody is surprised. If I cycle to work, people think I am doing
> something dangerous.
> The general perception of cycling is that it is much more dangerous than
> the data would suggest.
because KSI per mile travelled is less" when KSI per hour may well be
more. "Cycling is generally no more dangerous than walking" might be a
better angle, then there's less reason getting bogged down in stats trying
to prove one is "safer" than the other.
PhilO
Oct 4, 2012, 9:47:40 AM10/4/12
to
On Thursday, October 4, 2012 11:10:52 AM UTC+1, Scion wrote:
> Yerbut I don't think it helps to say "cycling is safer than walking
> because KSI per mile travelled is less" when KSI per hour may well be
> more. "Cycling is generally no more dangerous than walking" might be a
> better angle, then there's less reason getting bogged down in stats trying
> to prove one is "safer" than the other.
I'll go along with that. "About as safe as walking" is my view of cycling.
> Yerbut I don't think it helps to say "cycling is safer than walking
> because KSI per mile travelled is less" when KSI per hour may well be
> more. "Cycling is generally no more dangerous than walking" might be a
> better angle, then there's less reason getting bogged down in stats trying
> to prove one is "safer" than the other.
Unfortunately, People like Judith insist on posting figures that show only the dangers of cycling. I respond with figures to balance the picture. This whole threas started with such a posting from Judith. She knows the figure intimately, but chooses to post only those that imply cycling may be dangerous.
I'm just trying to provide a little balance.
Message has been deleted
Ian Smith
Oct 5, 2012, 1:58:48 AM10/5/12
to
On Thu, 4 Oct 2012 10:10:51 +0000 (UTC), Scion <a...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> Yerbut I don't think it helps to say "cycling is safer than walking
> because KSI per mile travelled is less" when KSI per hour may well be
> more. "Cycling is generally no more dangerous than walking" might be a
> better angle, then there's less reason getting bogged down in stats trying
> to prove one is "safer" than the other.
You mean Phil should have said something like "the whole picture is
>
> Yerbut I don't think it helps to say "cycling is safer than walking
> because KSI per mile travelled is less" when KSI per hour may well be
> more. "Cycling is generally no more dangerous than walking" might be a
> better angle, then there's less reason getting bogged down in stats trying
> to prove one is "safer" than the other.
that neither cycling nor walking are particulary dangerous. One of
them is probably more dangerous, but it will be a close thing.", like,
err, Phil did?
regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
Scion
Oct 5, 2012, 4:39:23 AM10/5/12
to
Ian Smith spake thus:
Exactly!
Roger Merriman
Oct 7, 2012, 8:16:24 AM10/7/12
to
Bertie Wooster <be...@wooster.invalid.com> wrote:
snips
time I rode that way.
I'd rather chose my line than have it forced upon me.
Roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com
snips
>
> Further proof, if further proof is needed, that motor traffic needs to
> be slowed by more and bigger speed humps, with a bump bypass for
> cyclists, more speed cameras with tougher enforcement, wider lanes for
> use by buses and cyclists, and tougher restrictions on HGVs in town
> centres.
Bump Bypass = gutter full of crap, ones nr walton have small trees last
> Further proof, if further proof is needed, that motor traffic needs to
> be slowed by more and bigger speed humps, with a bump bypass for
> cyclists, more speed cameras with tougher enforcement, wider lanes for
> use by buses and cyclists, and tougher restrictions on HGVs in town
> centres.
time I rode that way.
I'd rather chose my line than have it forced upon me.
Roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com
Bertie Wooster
Oct 7, 2012, 1:13:50 PM10/7/12
to
On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 13:16:24 +0100, NE...@sarlet.com (Roger Merriman)
wrote:
>Bertie Wooster <be...@wooster.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>snips
>>
>> Further proof, if further proof is needed, that motor traffic needs to
>> be slowed by more and bigger speed humps, with a bump bypass for
>> cyclists, more speed cameras with tougher enforcement, wider lanes for
>> use by buses and cyclists, and tougher restrictions on HGVs in town
>> centres.
>
>Bump Bypass = gutter full of crap, ones nr walton have small trees last
>time I rode that way.
I like the pillows. The gap means that cars have to have at least one
wheel go over the bump, but cyclists can go between the pillows.
wrote:
>Bertie Wooster <be...@wooster.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>snips
>>
>> Further proof, if further proof is needed, that motor traffic needs to
>> be slowed by more and bigger speed humps, with a bump bypass for
>> cyclists, more speed cameras with tougher enforcement, wider lanes for
>> use by buses and cyclists, and tougher restrictions on HGVs in town
>> centres.
>
>Bump Bypass = gutter full of crap, ones nr walton have small trees last
>time I rode that way.
wheel go over the bump, but cyclists can go between the pillows.
Roger Merriman
Oct 10, 2012, 5:53:48 PM10/10/12
to
again I'd rather chose my line than be channeled.
> >I'd rather chose my line than have it forced upon me.
> >
> >Roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com
Dave - Cyclists VOR
Oct 11, 2012, 3:45:14 AM10/11/12
to
0 new messages