On Apr 4, 1:43*pm, Phil W Lee wrote:
Doug considered Sat, 31 Mar 2012 02:47:20 -0700
(PDT) the perfect time to write:





On Mar 31, 6:41*am, Simon Mason wrote:
And as practically nobody wears a helmet, other factors must be
involved like traffic calming and 20mph zones.

http://www.swldxer.co.uk/safer.jpg

Safety in numbers. I agree about the irrelevance of cycle helmets,
though I would hardly use the word "plummet".

"1. Safety According to the Jacobsenís Growth Rule, if the amount of
cycling doubles, the risk per cyclist falls by 34 percent. If cycling
halves, the risk per cyclist increases by 52 percent. Source: Safety
in numbers, more walkers and bicyclists, safer walking and
bicycling,"

PL Jacobsen, Injury Prevention, Sept 2003. (Vandenbulcke et al, 2009).
Cycle Rates by Country."

The impressive thing is that Hull seems to have beaten the safety
improvement rate predicted by that study, and by a considerable
margin.


It is largely due to the 130 odd 20mph zones I reckon.

http://lydall.standard.co.uk/2010/10...ads-safer.html

--
Simon Mason