TMS320 wrote in news
On 09/10/17 00:12, TMS320 wrote:
On 08/10/17 08:52, MrCheerful wrote:
We were told that their low inertia and rotating couples couldn't
hurt a fly,

*We* have not been told this.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/863...bicycle-accide
nt-two-pedestrians-every-week


The Department of Transport data, which does not state who is at fault in
the accidents, shows three pedestrians were killed in crashes with bikes
last year and another 112 were seriously injured.

In a year


...compared to the 10 a week killed and 100 a week injured by
drivers.

*52

On Jeremy Vine yesterday (I can't a weblink to the story), a case of
driver being cleared of killing someone on a zebra crossing helps
build a case of there being one law for drivers and another for
cyclists.

Actually, the figures above are interesting. We are told that cycle
journeys represent 2% of road journeys (I can't be bothered to
verify). The figures show that injuries involving bicycles are about
2% (*) of those involving motor vehicles.

But 6.8% of the injuries involving motor vehicles lead to death,
whereas only 1.8% of the injuries involving a bicycle do so. Which
also means that out of the whole spectrum of non-fatal injuries, those
from a bicycle must be much less severe. So yes, it demonstrates that
bicycles are considerably less dangerous.

(*) Direct correlation or coincidence? Impossible to know because it
is likely that a greater proportion of vehicle journeys are through
non-dense urban areas or that pedestrians stay out of the way of areas
with heavy traffic.


Please stop posting relevant information; it upsets the regular trolls.
TIA.