Interesting risk differences between two countries.

http://www.caa.govt.nz/Towards_2010/Cross_Modal_Safety_Outcome_Comparisons.pdf

--
JS

On Wed, 24 Jun 2015 07:47:34 +1000, James
wrote:

http://www.caa.govt.nz/Towards_2010/...omparisons.pdf


Ah yes. As some great man once said. "Figures don't lie, but liars
figure"

It apparent from your reference that bicyclists never die, or at least
they don't die on the roads, as none are listed on the reference you
posted :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

On 24/06/15 08:38, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2015 07:47:34 +1000, James
wrote:

http://www.caa.govt.nz/Towards_2010/...omparisons.pdf


Ah yes. As some great man once said. "Figures don't lie, but liars
figure"

It apparent from your reference that bicyclists never die, or at least
they don't die on the roads, as none are listed on the reference you
posted :-)

?? bicyclists may not be listed, but cyclists certainly are.

--
JS

On Tuesday, June 23, 2015 at 10:47:40 PM UTC+1, James wrote:
http://www.caa.govt.nz/Towards_2010/Cross_Modal_Safety_Outcome_Comparisons.pdf

--
JS

Extremely interesting; thanks for this.

One has to wonder whether the strikingly greater safety of pedestrians when compared to cyclists in New Zealand than in Australia is a function of different rates or intensities of urbanization.

After reading your tables, I've given up the idea of buying a BMW GS... I'm too young to be an organ donor.

Andre Jute

On 6/23/2015 5:47 PM, James wrote:
http://www.caa.govt.nz/Towards_2010/Cross_Modal_Safety_Outcome_Comparisons.pdf

Very interesting! I'd like it even better if in addition to the ratios
relative to car travel, they gave at least one raw number - e.g. "xxx
fatalities per hours of travel" - for at least one mode. If they gave
one, we could deduce the rest.

The only actual per-hour figures are in the first graph, but since it's
accidents per hour (instead of fatalities or injuries) we can't tell
much from it.

But comparing pedestrians and cyclists: In New Zealand, peds have a
fatality per hour rate about 0.84 that of motorists, while cyclists have
a rate about 1.55 that of motorists. So cyclists are 1.55/0.84= 1.84
higher risk per hour exposure.

If we assume an average pedestrian speed of 3 mph or 5 kph (typical
walking pace), then a cyclist would have to travel only about 5.5 mph or
9 kph to be safer than pedestrians on a per-mile basis. IOW, in NZ,
cyclists are safer than pedestrians per mile (or km) traveled. That
last fact keeps popping up for almost every westernized country.

Australia's data is old, from the 1980s. But it shows cyclists being
safer per hour, as well as safer per mile.

Of course, none of those figures includes the health benefits from
active travel, nor the benefits to other members of society from not
using a deadly form of transport.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Tuesday, June 23, 2015 at 7:19:55 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/23/2015 5:47 PM, James wrote:
http://www.caa.govt.nz/Towards_2010/Cross_Modal_Safety_Outcome_Comparisons.pdf

Very interesting! I'd like it even better if in addition to the ratios
relative to car travel, they gave at least one raw number - e.g. "xxx
fatalities per hours of travel" - for at least one mode. If they gave
one, we could deduce the rest.

The only actual per-hour figures are in the first graph, but since it's
accidents per hour (instead of fatalities or injuries) we can't tell
much from it.

But comparing pedestrians and cyclists: In New Zealand, peds have a
fatality per hour rate about 0.84 that of motorists, while cyclists have
a rate about 1.55 that of motorists. So cyclists are 1.55/0.84= 1.84
higher risk per hour exposure.

If we assume an average pedestrian speed of 3 mph or 5 kph (typical
walking pace), then a cyclist would have to travel only about 5.5 mph or
9 kph to be safer than pedestrians on a per-mile basis. IOW, in NZ,
cyclists are safer than pedestrians per mile (or km) traveled. That
last fact keeps popping up for almost every westernized country.

Australia's data is old, from the 1980s. But it shows cyclists being
safer per hour, as well as safer per mile.

Of course, none of those figures includes the health benefits from
active travel, nor the benefits to other members of society from not
using a deadly form of transport.


Face it Frank, it's deadly riding a bike in New Zealand. And as James points out, the injury rate is for cyclists and not bicyclists. The rate is twice as high for bicyclists.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 24/06/15 11:49, Andre Jute wrote:
On Tuesday, June 23, 2015 at 10:47:40 PM UTC+1, James wrote:
http://www.caa.govt.nz/Towards_2010/Cross_Modal_Safety_Outcome_Comparisons.pdf




Extremely interesting; thanks for this.

One has to wonder whether the strikingly greater safety of
pedestrians when compared to cyclists in New Zealand than in
Australia is a function of different rates or intensities of
urbanization.


Agree. No doubt there are numerous factors that influence the results.
Urbanization is one. There will be cultural differences, road design,
speed limits, law enforcement, and others I'm sure.

After reading your tables, I've given up the idea of buying a BMW
GS... I'm too young to be an organ donor.


I helped drag a new looking Ducati out of a ditch on Sunday. Initially
it was pinning the rider's leg. Once we had him out, with suspected
broken or dislocated shoulder, we were able lift and untangle the bike
from a barbed wire fence and rocks to get it back to road level. He
missed the left turn on to the bridge here;

/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sroIEkf_dNNbB9a8xBHYUaA!2e0!7i3 328!8i1664

Temporary Australians is what the ambos call them.

--
JS

On 24/06/15 12:51, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, June 23, 2015 at 7:19:55 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
On 6/23/2015 5:47 PM, James wrote:
http://www.caa.govt.nz/Towards_2010/Cross_Modal_Safety_Outcome_Comparisons.pdf



Very interesting! I'd like it even better if in addition to the ratios
relative to car travel, they gave at least one raw number - e.g.
"xxx fatalities per hours of travel" - for at least one mode. If
they gave one, we could deduce the rest.

The only actual per-hour figures are in the first graph, but since
it's accidents per hour (instead of fatalities or injuries) we
can't tell much from it.

But comparing pedestrians and cyclists: In New Zealand, peds have
a fatality per hour rate about 0.84 that of motorists, while
cyclists have a rate about 1.55 that of motorists. So cyclists are
1.55/0.84= 1.84 higher risk per hour exposure.

If we assume an average pedestrian speed of 3 mph or 5 kph
(typical walking pace), then a cyclist would have to travel only
about 5.5 mph or 9 kph to be safer than pedestrians on a per-mile
basis. IOW, in NZ, cyclists are safer than pedestrians per mile
(or km) traveled. That last fact keeps popping up for almost every
westernized country.

Australia's data is old, from the 1980s. But it shows cyclists
being safer per hour, as well as safer per mile.

Of course, none of those figures includes the health benefits from
active travel, nor the benefits to other members of society from
not using a deadly form of transport.


Face it Frank, it's deadly riding a bike in New Zealand. And as
James points out, the injury rate is for cyclists and not bicyclists.
The rate is twice as high for bicyclists.


LOL.

--
JS

On Wed, 24 Jun 2015 05:38:04 +0700, John B
wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2015 07:47:34 +1000, James
wrote:

http://www.caa.govt.nz/Towards_2010/...omparisons.pdf


Ah yes. As some great man once said. "Figures don't lie, but liars
figure"

It apparent from your reference that bicyclists never die, or at least
they don't die on the roads, as none are listed on the reference you
posted :-) -- cheers,

Well, riding your bike *is* good for you...

On Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 3:51:12 AM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, June 23, 2015 at 7:19:55 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/23/2015 5:47 PM, James wrote:
http://www.caa.govt.nz/Towards_2010/Cross_Modal_Safety_Outcome_Comparisons.pdf

Very interesting! I'd like it even better if in addition to the ratios
relative to car travel, they gave at least one raw number - e.g. "xxx
fatalities per hours of travel" - for at least one mode. If they gave
one, we could deduce the rest.

The only actual per-hour figures are in the first graph, but since it's
accidents per hour (instead of fatalities or injuries) we can't tell
much from it.

But comparing pedestrians and cyclists: In New Zealand, peds have a
fatality per hour rate about 0.84 that of motorists, while cyclists have
a rate about 1.55 that of motorists. So cyclists are 1.55/0.84= 1.84
higher risk per hour exposure.

If we assume an average pedestrian speed of 3 mph or 5 kph (typical
walking pace), then a cyclist would have to travel only about 5.5 mph or
9 kph to be safer than pedestrians on a per-mile basis. IOW, in NZ,
cyclists are safer than pedestrians per mile (or km) traveled. That
last fact keeps popping up for almost every westernized country.

Australia's data is old, from the 1980s. But it shows cyclists being
safer per hour, as well as safer per mile.

Of course, none of those figures includes the health benefits from
active travel, nor the benefits to other members of society from not
using a deadly form of transport.


Face it Frank, it's deadly riding a bike in New Zealand. And as James points out, the injury rate is for cyclists and not bicyclists. The rate is twice as high for bicyclists.

-- Jay Beattie.

Heh-heh. Lemme at those numbers and I'll massage them into something Frankie-boy will want to know about. Maybe we can count tricyclists 161 times, as Michael "Hide the decline" Mann counted the most unsuitable trees 161 times in establihsing global warming as a "science".

Andre Jute