On 10/10/2017 13:09, TMS320 wrote:

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...ans-every-week

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

On Jeremy Vine yesterday (I can't a weblink to the story),

Never mind. You'll probably find a job soon, one hopes.

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).

Even if it were true (as unlikely as it sounds - just think of how few
daily cyclists live in *your* street, wherever it may be), it would
certainly not be true on a distance travelled basis.

In the last three weeks, I've driven just under 5,000 miles. Can anyone
claim anywhere near that distance on a bike in the same sort of time-frame?

The figures show that injuries involving bicycles are about 2% (*) of
those involving motor vehicles.

So a lot more bicycle accidents per mile travelled.

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.

Less dangerous?

Or less deadly?

Just because a badly-ridden bike is more likely to break a pedestrian's
collarbone rather than their spine, that is not to say that being hit by
a bike is not 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.

Why does that matter?