Some Cycling is dangerous stats

[judith]

Some stats - dedicated to Guy Chapman:

In 2007 there were 522 pedal cyclists aged under 16 who were killed
or seriously injured.

In 2006 there were 1631 pedestrian casualties of all severities per
billion passenger kilometres.

This compares with 3494 pedal cyclist casualties.

Cycling is dangerous for children - ten a week killed or seriously
injured.

Cycling is twice as dangerous as walking for all ages.

--
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
Some evidence shows that helmeted cyclists are more likely to hit
their heads. (Guy Chapman)
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy
Chapman) - proven to be an outright lie.
He then quickly changed his web page - but "forgot" to change the date
of last amendment

[Simon Mason[_2_]]

"judith" > wrote in message
...
> Some stats - dedicated to Guy Chapman:
>
> In 2007 there were 522 pedal cyclists aged under 16 who were killed
> or seriously injured.
>
> In 2006 there were 1631 pedestrian casualties of all severities per
> billion passenger kilometres.
>
> This compares with 3494 pedal cyclist casualties.
>
> Cycling is dangerous for children - ten a week killed or seriously
> injured.
>
> Cycling is twice as dangerous as walking for all ages.
>
>

How many people die through obesity related ilnesses brought on by sitting
on your fat backside all day? In other words, how many lives does cycling
save by keeping people fit and healthy? Look at the fat kids being driven to
school and then see which is the greatest killer.


--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/

[Ruth Marx]

On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 12:43:37 +0100, "Simon Mason"
> wrote:

>
>"judith" > wrote in message
...
>> Some stats - dedicated to Guy Chapman:
>>
>> In 2007 there were 522 pedal cyclists aged under 16 who were killed
>> or seriously injured.
>>
>> In 2006 there were 1631 pedestrian casualties of all severities per
>> billion passenger kilometres.
>>
>> This compares with 3494 pedal cyclist casualties.
>>
>> Cycling is dangerous for children - ten a week killed or seriously
>> injured.
>>
>> Cycling is twice as dangerous as walking for all ages.
>>
>>
>
>How many people die through obesity related ilnesses brought on by sitting
>on your fat backside all day? In other words, how many lives does cycling
>save by keeping people fit and healthy? Look at the fat kids being driven to
>school and then see which is the greatest killer.

So you admit that you want people to be stopped from driving by any
means necessary, so as to "save" their own lives as well as those of
their passengers and other road users? So if (say) speed cameras make
things so unpleasant for drivers that they start using other forms of
transport instead, then that's a good thing, right?

[MasonS@BP.com]

On 19 Oct, 13:11, "Ruth Marx" > wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 12:43:37 +0100, "Simon Mason"
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
>
> >"judith" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Some stats - dedicated to Guy Chapman:
>
> >> In 2007 there were *522 pedal cyclists aged under 16 who were killed
> >> or seriously injured.
>
> >> In 2006 there were 1631 pedestrian casualties of all severities per
> >> billion passenger kilometres.
>
> >> This compares with 3494 pedal cyclist casualties.
>
> >> Cycling is dangerous for children *- ten a week killed or seriously
> >> injured.
>
> >> Cycling is twice as dangerous as walking for all ages.
>
> >How many people die through obesity related ilnesses brought on by sitting
> >on your fat backside all day? In other words, how many lives does cycling
> >save by keeping people fit and healthy? Look at the fat kids being driven to
> >school and then see which is the greatest killer.
>
> So you admit that you want people to be stopped from driving by any
> means necessary, so as to "save" their own lives as well as those of
> their passengers and other road users? *So if (say) speed cameras make
> things so unpleasant for drivers that they start using other forms of
> transport instead, then that's a good thing, right?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I fail to see how speed cameras make things "unpleasant for drivers".
I do not give them a second thought, I don't see them as "unpleasant"
except for perhaps their ugly appearance. No measures will "force"
people out of their cars, it's ingrained in our culture now as the
default mode of transport and will take much more than cameras to
change anything.

--
Simon Mason

[Ian Smith]

On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 13:11:52 +0100, Ruth Marx > wrote:
>
> So if (say) speed cameras make things so unpleasant for drivers
> that they start using other forms of transport instead, then that's
> a good thing, right?

Eh? How on earth could speed cameras "make things unpleasant for
drivers"? They are not exactly a thing of beauty, but no more grating
on the eye than (for example) a keep left bollard or a roundabout
chevrons sign. The particular shade of yellow is a bit harsh.

What _are_ you talking about?

As it happens, I think it would be a good thing if more drivers used
other forms of transport instead. I would have thought everyone would
regard it as a good thing - especially the other motorists who now
have less congestion to contend with.

Maybe if lots switched to cycling it would be a bit more difficult to
find a vacant bike rack in shopping centres, but it's about equally
likely that the councils might put in more racks to compensate
(possibly using some of the now-unused car parking provision).

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

[JNugent[_5_]]

Simon Mason wrote:
>
> "judith" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Some stats - dedicated to Guy Chapman:
>>
>> In 2007 there were 522 pedal cyclists aged under 16 who were killed
>> or seriously injured.
>>
>> In 2006 there were 1631 pedestrian casualties of all severities per
>> billion passenger kilometres.
>>
>> This compares with 3494 pedal cyclist casualties.
>>
>> Cycling is dangerous for children - ten a week killed or seriously
>> injured.
>>
>> Cycling is twice as dangerous as walking for all ages.

> How many people die through obesity related ilnesses brought on by
> sitting on your fat backside all day? In other words, how many lives
> does cycling save by keeping people fit and healthy?

So how many, then?

For the sake of argument, let's first posit that the figure is a big "fat"
zero (because there is no instant evidence to suggest that the figure is
greater than that).

Prove that wrong. It should be easy for you seeing that you are so bullish
about it. You must have the figures readily to hand, and not a made-up number
(or "assumption" as the people who make up numbers prefer to say) among them.

> Look at the fat
> kids being driven to school and then see which is the greatest killer.

What "fat kids"?

And what a nice turn of phrase you have there - no-one can accuse you of
being over-keen on PC, eh?

I'd have to ask my 6 foot+ and skinny as a rake twenty-something son about
the "fat kids", because he went to school more recently than I did. Of
course, once at secondary school (six-and-a-bit miles away), he travelled
there in one of his parents' cars every day for seven years. It's amazing he
isn't a "fat kid", eh?

[SW]

On 24 Oct, 23:01, JNugent > wrote:
> Simon Mason wrote:
>
> > "judith" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Some stats - dedicated to Guy Chapman:
>
> >> In 2007 there were *522 pedal cyclists aged under 16 who were killed
> >> or seriously injured.
>
> >> In 2006 there were 1631 pedestrian casualties of all severities per
> >> billion passenger kilometres.
>
> >> This compares with 3494 pedal cyclist casualties.
>
> >> Cycling is dangerous for children *- ten a week killed or seriously
> >> injured.
>
> >> Cycling is twice as dangerous as walking for all ages.
> > How many people die through obesity related ilnesses brought on by
> > sitting on your fat backside all day? In other words, how many lives
> > does cycling save by keeping people fit and healthy?
>
> So how many, then?
>
> For the sake of argument, let's first posit that the figure is a big "fat"
> zero (because there is no instant evidence to suggest that the figure is
> greater than that).
>
> Prove that wrong. It should be easy for you seeing that you are so bullish
> about it. You must have the figures readily to hand, and not a made-up number
> (or "assumption" as the people who make up numbers prefer to say) among them.
>
> > Look at the fat
> > kids being driven to school and then see which is the greatest killer.
>
> What "fat kids"?
>
> And what a nice turn of phrase you have there - no-one can accuse you of
> being over-keen on PC, eh?
>
> I'd have to ask my 6 foot+ and skinny as a rake twenty-something son about
> the "fat kids", because he went to school more recently than I did. Of
> course, once at secondary school (six-and-a-bit miles away), he travelled
> there in one of his parents' cars every day for seven years. It's amazing he
> isn't a "fat kid", eh?

Obesity is killing more than 1,100 people a year, and in five years
has gone up by a third as a cause of death.

The number of people who died because they were obese rose from 762 in
1999 to 1,104 in 2003 in England and Wales - more than the number of
people dying each year from the hospital superbug MRSA, according to
figures released by the Department of Health.

The Tories said the figures showed obesity was now a "killer disease"
and called for a public awareness campaign similar to that used to
highlight the dangers of HIV/Aids.

Up to 10 per cent of transport budgets should be invested in cycling
and walking initiatives to fight obesity, politicians have been urged.

If we really want to see levels of obesity declining, we have to move
on from the rhetoric. We need to see a visible investment in
infrastructure that makes cycling and walking the travel modes of
choice.

[JNugent[_5_]]

SW wrote:

> JNugent > wrote:
>> Simon Mason wrote:

[ ... ]

[i]
>>>> Cycling is twice as dangerous as walking for all ages.

>>> How many people die through obesity related ilnesses brought on by
>>> sitting on your fat backside all day? In other words, how many lives
>>> does cycling save by keeping people fit and healthy?

>> So how many, then?
>> For the sake of argument, let's first posit that the figure is a big "fat"
>> zero (because there is no instant evidence to suggest that the figure is
>> greater than that).
>> Prove that wrong. It should be easy for you seeing that you are so bullish
>> about it. You must have the figures readily to hand, and not a made-up number
>> (or "assumption" as the people who make up numbers prefer to say) among them.

>>> Look at the fat
>>> kids being driven to school and then see which is the greatest killer.

>> What "fat kids"?
>> And what a nice turn of phrase you have there - no-one can accuse you of
>> being over-keen on PC, eh?
>> I'd have to ask my 6 foot+ and skinny as a rake twenty-something son about
>> the "fat kids", because he went to school more recently than I did. Of
>> course, once at secondary school (six-and-a-bit miles away), he travelled
>> there in one of his parents' cars every day for seven years. It's amazing he
>> isn't a "fat kid", eh?

> Obesity is killing more than 1,100 people a year, and in five years
> has gone up by a third as a cause of death.
> The number of people who died because they were obese rose from 762 in
> 1999 to 1,104 in 2003 in England and Wales - more than the number of
> people dying each year from the hospital superbug MRSA, according to
> figures released by the Department of Health.
> The Tories said the figures showed obesity was now a "killer disease"
> and called for a public awareness campaign similar to that used to
> highlight the dangers of HIV/Aids.
> Up to 10 per cent of transport budgets should be invested in cycling
> and walking initiatives to fight obesity, politicians have been urged.
> If we really want to see levels of obesity declining, we have to move
> on from the rhetoric. We need to see a visible investment in
> infrastructure that makes cycling and walking the travel modes of
> choice.

Blimey, I could sense the light gleaming in your eyes as you typed that.

So...are you trying to claim that travelling to school by car makes children
obese?

Please be very precise in your answer.

I say that it doesn't and that only obsessive nutters who don't actually know
any schoolchildren would claim that it does.

[judith]

On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 22:52:38 +0100, Phil W(anker) Lee
<phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote:


<snip>

>Ah, let's get this completely straight - you are claiming that lack of
>exercise is not harmful?


Now then Anchor

Now lets see - what was the question:" So...are you trying to claim
that traveling to school by car makes children obese?"

Can you see the word "exercise" or the word "harmful" in that
sentence?

No? - so how come you came to such a stupid conclusion.


--
Commenting on a legal gate in a public park: I'd think it comes under
the heading of "causing an obstruction", and should be investigated by
the police as such. Phil W(anker) Lee - well known Psycho-list

[JNugent[_5_]]

Phil W Lee wrote:

> JNugent > considered Sat, 25 Oct 2008:

>> So...are you trying to claim that travelling to school by car makes children
>> obese?

> If you're trying to claim (against all the evidence) that it doesn't,
> you'll need to come up with some research to support that assertion.

What evidence would that be?

I can cite a case (very familiar to me) where a child was taken to school by
car every day for seven years of secondary education and has never shown the
slightest sign of obesity.

If being taken to school by car made children obese (it obviously does not),
he'd be obese. But he isn't. So being driven to school does not make a child
obese. Full stop.

Try to get round that if you wish. There is no way around it.

But there's more to it than that. Whan I was at primary school in a tough
inner-city part of Liverpool, ever such a long time ago, no-one's parents had
a car. Absolutely no-one's. But I can remember several children who were
overweight. So I could claim (were I as dedicated to the non-sequitur as you
seem to be) that walking to school makes you obese. But that'd be as silly as
claiming that being driven to school makes you fat, wouldn't it?

The real bottom of this is that people with your mindset will clutch at
anything - however obviously ridiculous - in order to try to justify their
own preferences and force them onto others. Meanwhile, of course, the
preferences and wishes of those others, are, for you, just meaningless.

> And, of course, you'll need to show how their parents benefit from
> being lazy slobs as well.

I don't think anyone benefits from that, so there is no need to answer that
silly strawman, is there?

>> Please be very precise in your answer.

>> I say that it doesn't and that only obsessive nutters who don't actually know
>> any schoolchildren would claim that it does.

> Ah, let's get this completely straight - you are claiming that lack of
> exercise is not harmful?

No.

I am stating that being driven to school in a car does not make a child
obese. And it doesn't.

Someone previous claimed that it does. He was wrong, and so are you if you
agree with him.

But you knew that and are trying to change the subject into something where
the ground is less slippery for you.

[JNugent[_5_]]

judith wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 22:52:38 +0100, Phil W(anker) Lee
> <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote:
>
>
> <snip>
>
>> Ah, let's get this completely straight - you are claiming that lack of
>> exercise is not harmful?
>
>
> Now then Anchor
>
> Now lets see - what was the question:" So...are you trying to claim
> that traveling to school by car makes children obese?"
>
> Can you see the word "exercise" or the word "harmful" in that
> sentence?
>
> No? - so how come you came to such a stupid conclusion.

Because it's easier than trying to argue from his previous standpoint.

[Sir Jeremy]

On 25 Oct, 15:18, SW > wrote:
> On 24 Oct, 23:01, JNugent > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Simon Mason wrote:
>
> > > "judith" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >> Some stats - dedicated to Guy Chapman:
>
> > >> In 2007 there were *522 pedal cyclists aged under 16 who were killed
> > >> or seriously injured.
>
> > >> In 2006 there were 1631 pedestrian casualties of all severities per
> > >> billion passenger kilometres.
>
> > >> This compares with 3494 pedal cyclist casualties.
>
> > >> Cycling is dangerous for children *- ten a week killed or seriously
> > >> injured.
>
> > >> Cycling is twice as dangerous as walking for all ages.
> > > How many people die through obesity related ilnesses brought on by
> > > sitting on your fat backside all day? In other words, how many lives
> > > does cycling save by keeping people fit and healthy?
>
> > So how many, then?
>
> > For the sake of argument, let's first posit that the figure is a big "fat"
> > zero (because there is no instant evidence to suggest that the figure is
> > greater than that).
>
> > Prove that wrong. It should be easy for you seeing that you are so bullish
> > about it. You must have the figures readily to hand, and not a made-up number
> > (or "assumption" as the people who make up numbers prefer to say) among them.
>
> > > Look at the fat
> > > kids being driven to school and then see which is the greatest killer..
>
> > What "fat kids"?
>
> > And what a nice turn of phrase you have there - no-one can accuse you of
> > being over-keen on PC, eh?
>
> > I'd have to ask my 6 foot+ and skinny as a rake twenty-something son about
> > the "fat kids", because he went to school more recently than I did. Of
> > course, once at secondary school (six-and-a-bit miles away), he travelled
> > there in one of his parents' cars every day for seven years. It's amazing he
> > isn't a "fat kid", eh?
>
> Obesity is killing more than 1,100 people a year, and in five years
> has gone up by a third as a cause of death.
>
> The number of people who died because they were obese rose from 762 in
> 1999 to 1,104 in 2003 in England and Wales - more than the number of
> people dying each year from the hospital superbug MRSA, according to
> figures released by the Department of Health.
>
> The Tories said the figures showed obesity was now a "killer disease"
> and called for a public awareness campaign similar to that used to
> highlight the dangers of HIV/Aids.
>
> Up to 10 per cent of transport budgets should be invested in cycling
> and walking initiatives to fight obesity, politicians have been urged.
>
> If we really want to see levels of obesity declining, we have to move
> on from the rhetoric. We need to see a visible investment in
> infrastructure that makes cycling and walking the travel modes of
> choice.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

What do you mean by a "visible investment in infrastructure" in your
last para above? More footpaths and cyclepaths?

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_]]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Simon Mason wrote:

> How many people die through obesity related ilnesses brought on by
> sitting on your fat backside all day? In other words, how many lives
> does cycling save by keeping people fit and healthy? Look at the fat
> kids being driven to school and then see which is the greatest killer.

The main problem with judith's thesis is that it is an example of
"policy-based evidence making" - she worked back from the conclusion
without checking whether the results were valid when working back
forwards again.

Most pedestrian injuries are classified as trips and falls, and trips
and falls account for more hospital injury admissions than any other
single cause.

Also all cycling accidents are attributed to cycling, but in a
mixed-mode journey the miles are attributed to the major mode, so as far
as transtats goes I commute by train, not by bike, but if I fall that
will be a bike crash.

This is evident if you read the source data and the HASS/LASS data as was.

As far as I am aware there has never been any credible peer-reviewed
evidence to show that cycling is unusually dangerous.

Guy
- --
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

** Please see <http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Troll_code> **

GPG sig #3FA3BCDE <http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFJBhpjHBDrsD+jvN4RAgWWAKCe+3naPzbhNclaky7ara Pf0qSRAQCfclco
1Dmun1b5bomDP0NobiQ5wpw=
=0XKk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_]]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Sir Jeremy wrote:

> What do you mean by a "visible investment in infrastructure" in your
> last para above? More footpaths and cyclepaths?

They could start by resurfacing Constitution Hill. The atrocious
surface drives cyclists onto the shared-use path, and there have been
several serious and fatal injuries (mostly peds I think) caused by the
poor sight lines where this crosses the slip road from Hyde Park Corner,
so that could do with fixing as well.

Guy
- --
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

** Please see <http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Troll_code> **

GPG sig #3FA3BCDE <http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFJBhrWHBDrsD+jvN4RAhO0AJ4nxqtft+gWW7eaxyu4nn WLvyVsowCgkYf2
Cj+Rw96hbOxUBHZ7ttZnfXQ=
=75Ah
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[judith]

On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 19:47:34 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Sir Jeremy wrote:
>
>> What do you mean by a "visible investment in infrastructure" in your
>> last para above? More footpaths and cyclepaths?
>
>They could start by resurfacing Constitution Hill. The atrocious
>surface drives cyclists onto the shared-use path, and there have been
>several serious and fatal injuries (mostly peds I think) caused by the
>poor sight lines where this crosses the slip road from Hyde Park Corner,
>so that could do with fixing as well.
>
>Guy


Hello Guy

Can you fix your PGP **** please - it is broken.


You do talk ****e.
Just how many serious and fatal injuries have there been there then
which could be in any way attributed to the poor road surface - and
over what period?




--
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
Some evidence shows that helmeted cyclists are more likely to hit
their heads. (Guy Chapman)
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy
Chapman) - proven to be an outright lie.
He then quickly changed his web page - but "forgot" to change the date
of last amendment

[judith]

On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 19:45:39 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Simon Mason wrote:
>
>> How many people die through obesity related ilnesses brought on by
>> sitting on your fat backside all day? In other words, how many lives
>> does cycling save by keeping people fit and healthy? Look at the fat
>> kids being driven to school and then see which is the greatest killer.
>
>The main problem with judith's thesis is that it is an example of
>"policy-based evidence making" - she worked back from the conclusion
>without checking whether the results were valid when working back
>forwards again.
>
>Most pedestrian injuries are classified as trips and falls, and trips
>and falls account for more hospital injury admissions than any other
>single cause.
>
>Also all cycling accidents are attributed to cycling, but in a
>mixed-mode journey the miles are attributed to the major mode, so as far
>as transtats goes I commute by train, not by bike, but if I fall that
>will be a bike crash.


There were 1631 pedestrian casualties of all severities per
billion passenger kilometres - so you are saying that most of these
were actually caused by trips and falls.

What about the comparable 3494 pedal cyclist casualties - what were
they caused by?

So - cycling has twice as many casualties as pedestrians.

However, if you neglect trips and falls to the pedestrians - then the
ratio must be much greater - what is it - three, four times as many?

So you travel to work by train and cycle. If you had an accident on
your bike going to work - it would be classed as a train accident!!!


--
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
Some evidence shows that helmeted cyclists are more likely to hit
their heads. (Guy Chapman)
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy
Chapman) - proven to be an outright lie.
He then quickly changed his web page - but "forgot" to change the date
of last amendment