Safety in Numbers

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0903112034.htm

"It's a virtuous cycle," says Dr Julie Hatfield, an injury expert from
UNSW who address a cycling safety seminar in Sydney, Australia, on
September 5. "The likelihood that an individual cyclist will be struck by
a motorist falls with increasing rate of bicycling in a community. And the
safer cycling is perceived to be, the more people are prepared to cycle."

Roos

Roos Eisma wrote:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0903112034.htm

"It's a virtuous cycle," says Dr Julie Hatfield, an injury expert from
UNSW who address a cycling safety seminar in Sydney, Australia, on
September 5. "The likelihood that an individual cyclist will be struck by
a motorist falls with increasing rate of bicycling in a community. And the
safer cycling is perceived to be, the more people are prepared to cycle."

Finishing off with

"Dr Rissel says transport authorities should highlight the fun,
convenience and health and environmental benefits of cycling, rather
than what he views as an undue emphasis on danger and safety messages,
which can deter cyclists: "We should create a cycling friendly
environment and accentuate cycling's positives rather than stress
negatives with 'safety campaigns' that focus on cyclists without
addressing drivers and road conditions. Reminding people of injury rates
and risks, to wear helmets and reflective visible clothes has the
unintended effect of reinforcing fears of cycling which discourages
people from cycling."

But Troll-j thinks otherwise, so that can't be right! ;-/

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 12:08:43 +0100, Peter Clinch
said in
:

(quoting the report)

Reminding people of injury rates
and risks, to wear helmets and reflective visible clothes has the
unintended effect of reinforcing fears of cycling which discourages
people from cycling.

I would be interested to know if there is any credible evidence to
support the contradictory view, that "safety" campaigns do not
adversely affect participation in cycling. I know of a few which
come up "inconclusive", a fair number that come up with something
more or less as above, and one rather hopeless effort from BHIT
which asserts that such campaigns do not deter cycling - but that
one is, to put it charitably, amateurish and poorly designed.

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

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 12:08:43 +0100, Peter Clinch
said in
:

(quoting the report)

Reminding people of injury rates
and risks, to wear helmets and reflective visible clothes has the
unintended effect of reinforcing fears of cycling which discourages
people from cycling.

I would be interested to know if there is any credible evidence to
support the contradictory view, that "safety" campaigns do not
adversely affect participation in cycling. I know of a few which
come up "inconclusive", a fair number that come up with something
more or less as above, and one rather hopeless effort from BHIT
which asserts that such campaigns do not deter cycling - but that
one is, to put it charitably, amateurish and poorly designed.

Guy

Without fail, the number one reason folk give to me as to why they won't
cycle on roads is that it is "unsafe". Of course, those of us who do cycle
know that in the great scheme of things it is no more dangerous than walking
and a zillion other activities deemed as safe to do

On Sep 8, 12:27*pm, "wafflycat"
wrote:
"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in messagenews:592ac41ibc9nm873md5bue3k945rs9aaho@4ax .com...





On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 12:08:43 +0100, Peter Clinch
said in
:

(quoting the report)

Reminding people of injury rates
and risks, to wear helmets and reflective visible clothes has the
unintended effect of reinforcing fears of cycling which discourages
people from cycling.

I would be interested to know if there is any credible evidence to
support the contradictory view, that "safety" campaigns do not
adversely affect participation in cycling. *I know of a few which
come up "inconclusive", a fair number that come up with something
more or less as above, and one rather hopeless effort from BHIT
which asserts that such campaigns do not deter cycling - but that
one is, to put it charitably, amateurish and poorly designed.

Guy

Without fail, the number one reason folk give to me as to why they won't
cycle on roads is that it is "unsafe". Of course, those of us who do cycle
know that in the great scheme of things it is no more dangerous than walking
and a zillion other activities deemed as safe to do- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Mo


Safety in numbers: more walkers and bicyclists, safer walking and
bicycling
P L Jacobsen

Conclusion: A motorist is less likely to collide with a person walking
and bicycling if more people walk or bicycle. Policies that increase
the numbers of people walking and bicycling appear to be an effective
route to improving the safety of people walking and bicycling.

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/.../short/9/3/205

More cycling is making UK roads safer
Oct 20th
CTC has welcomed news that an increase in cycling has made it safer to
cycle on UK roads.
Basing its figures on Department for Transport statistics, CTC
estimates that cycle use in the UK has increased by 10 per cent since
1993, and that the rate of reported pedal casualties has decreased by
more than 34
per cent over the same period.

Roger Geffen, CTC campaigns and policy manager, said:

"The relationship between increased cycle use and reduced cycle
casualties found in mainland Europe also holds for Britain - the more
people that cycle, the safer it is to cycle."

http://www.bikebiz.co.uk/news/22045/...UK-roads-safer

The more people cycle, the more aware drivers become and the safer the
roads are for cyclists.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...ntre/4188.aspx

CYCLING MAKES ROADS SAFER!

Recent statistics gathered throughout the UK confirm that an increase
in cycle use leads to safer roads. Apart from the fact that drivers
who also cycle tend to be more aware of other road users, more
cyclists on the road ensures that even drivers who don't cycle are
more likely to expect the presence of cyclists, motorcyclists and
pedestrians.

http://www.cyclingscotland.org/didyouknow.aspx


After all, the more people who take up cycling, the safer it will be
for all road users, not just for cyclists – hence the conference
title:

“Safer Cycling = More Cycling = Safer Cycling = More Cycling = Safer
Cycling = More Cycling .....”

http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4802

Perception is a big problem here," says Wilson. "Unsurprisingly, many
people think cycling is dangerous but it has been proved that the more
cyclists there are on the road, the safer it is per cyclist. Drivers
get used to them."

http://motoring.independent.co.uk/fe...cle1088929.ece



Cycle journeys in the capital have risen by 100 per cent since 2000
and have met the Mayor Ken Livingstone's cycling targets five years
early.

http://www.london.gov.uk/view_press_...releaseid=5944

So a doubling in eight years.

And the accident rate?

In cities where cycling levels are very buoyant such as York and
London, cycling is getting safer. Cycling in London has doubled in 5
years, and the numbers killed have dropped by almost 50 per cent since
the mid-90s.

A statement from CTC said: "It is important not to take single years
in isolation as fluctuations can happen when small numbers are
concerned. Since the mid 90s the number of cyclists who have been
killed or seriously injured has fallen by 37 per cent - from 3,732 to
2,360 per year."

http://www.bikebiz.co.uk/news/19243/...atalities-down

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

I would be interested to know if there is any credible evidence to
support the contradictory view, that "safety" campaigns do not
adversely affect participation in cycling. I know of a few which
come up "inconclusive", a fair number that come up with something
more or less as above, and one rather hopeless effort from BHIT
which asserts that such campaigns do not deter cycling - but that
one is, to put it charitably, amateurish and poorly designed.

I could run a safety campaign that had no adverse effect whatever on
participation in cycling, by the simple measure of locking all the
publiity materials in a filing cabinet marked "beware of the leopard"
and otherwise not telling anybody at all that I was doing it. It
would of course have no effect on safety either.

That's an extreme example, of course, but I do wonder if campaigns
claiming "no adverse effect on participation" do actually have any
effect on safety[*], or if the reason they have no effect on
participation is simply that they were unsuccessful in reaching the
target audience with any message whatsoever. If your target is
teenage males, say, that could very likely be the case.


-dan
[*] we _could_ make this a tad bit easier for them by accepting
"helmet wearing rates" as a success criterion instead of further
requiring them to demonstrate that this has a positive effect on
safety.

On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 04:37:16 -0700 (PDT), spindrift
wrote:



You missed off a report from earlier this year:
(Evening Standard 28.01.08)


The number of seriously injured cyclists being treated in London
hospitals is soaring, official figures have revealed.

They show twice as many riders are being admitted for treatment as six
years ago. The biggest rises were in Kensington and Chelsea,
Wandsworth, Camden, Kingston and Havering.


Cases of cyclists admitted to hospital jumped from 422 in 2000/01 to
819 in 2006/07.

For children under 16, the number rose from 145 to 184, and for
under-11s it went from 70 to 75.

In Kensington and Chelsea, cycling casualties increased from 38 to 69;
in Wandsworth from 43 to 84; in Kingston from 23 to 55; in Havering
from 11 to 48; and in Camden from 22 to 53.


Looks like cycling is dangerous to me.




--

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). He then quickly changed his web page - but "forgot" to
change the date of last amendment

Roos Eisma wrote:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0903112034.htm

"It's a virtuous cycle," says Dr Julie Hatfield, an injury expert from
UNSW who address a cycling safety seminar in Sydney, Australia, on
September 5. "The likelihood that an individual cyclist will be struck by
a motorist falls with increasing rate of bicycling in a community. And the
safer cycling is perceived to be, the more people are prepared to cycle."

This raises the question: just what is "safety"? What should the
measure of risk be?

If, with more people from a fixed population of, say, 60,000,000, using
bikes, the absolute number of casualties increases, then the risk per
capita is higher. However, if the increase in the absolute number of
casualties is proportionately less than the increase in the number of
cyclists, then the risk per cyclist has decreased.

You can make the numbers reflect your agenda by selecting an appropriate
"denominator". What is the "best" denominator to use to fairly convey
"safety" or "danger"? Total population? Total number of cyclists?
Total distance cycled? Total time cycled? Should the environment
(urban streets, rural roads, cycle paths, cycle lanes) be considered?

--
John

In message
"wafflycat" wrote:

[snip]

Without fail, the number one reason folk give to me as to why they
won't cycle on roads is that it is "unsafe". Of course, those of us
who do cycle know that in the great scheme of things it is no more
dangerous than walking and a zillion other activities deemed as safe
to do


It would be interesting to know how many of those who don't regularly
cycle because of fears of danger do take an annual skiing holiday? Last
time I looked at the statistics it was somewhere in the region of one
serious accident (requiring medical assistance and recovery from the
piste) per 300 skier days.

That's a lot higher than the risks for cycling on our roads.

Mike
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
" || _`\,_ |__\ \ | reader in immunology, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"

On 8 Sep, 13:18, judith wrote:
On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 04:37:16 -0700 (PDT), spindrift

wrote:

You missed off a report from earlier this year:
(Evening Standard 28.01.08)

Would that me this article:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...les/article.do

The number of seriously injured cyclists being treated in London
hospitals is soaring, official figures have revealed.

They show twice as many riders are being admitted for treatment as six
years ago. The biggest rises were in Kensington and Chelsea,
Wandsworth, Camden, Kingston and Havering.

Cases of cyclists admitted to hospital jumped from 422 in 2000/01 to
819 in 2006/07.

For children under 16, the number rose from 145 to 184, and for
under-11s it went from 70 to 75.

In Kensington and Chelsea, cycling casualties increased from 38 to 69;
in Wandsworth from 43 to 84; in Kingston from 23 to 55; in Havering
from 11 to 48; and in Camden from 22 to 53.

You missed:

Dr Tim Crayford, president of the Association of Directors of Public
Health and a campaigner for better cycling routes in London, said: "
Without changes to the infrastructure and design of the roads, if you
are going to get twice as many cyclists you are going to get twice as
many seriously injured cyclists.

and:

Studies show police figures on cycling casualties, which have fallen,
are significantly below those for hospital admissions. This may be
down to people not calling the police, officers underestimating injury
severity, or better recording by doctors.

Transport for London said the number of cyclists had soared by 83 per
cent since 2000, with at least 480,000 bike journeys a day in the
capital.

A spokesman said: "Road casualty figures provided by the police are
the most reliable. Last year there was a 31 per cent reduction in the
number of cyclists killed or seriously injured in the capital compared
with the mid to late Nineties."