Cyclist casualties up 9% in London.

"The highest number of road deaths in London last year happened in
Barnet, Transport for London figures show.

In 2010, nine people died and 1,520 injured on the borough's road
network, a rise of 8% on the previous year..."

Hmm! So casualties are up and our roads are not getting safer after
all, contrary to popular opinion from motorists on these newsgroups.

"...Overall, outer London saw a 4% increase in casualties, up to
16,507 for the 12 months, and inner London, a 2% increase.

Cyclist casualties showed a 9% increase in both inner and outer
London."

Mo

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-13499789

But get this!

"...During his time as a councillor in the London Borough of Barnet,
Coleman has built up a reputation as an outspoken supporter of car
driving, leading Richard Littlejohn to label him a "hero" for
introducing a policy of removing road humps when the roads of Barnet
are resurfaced.[27] Coleman quotes the Metropolitan Police and the
London Ambulance Service as being supporters of this policy while road
safety critics argue that the policy is reckless and driven by
populism and self promotion..."

Mo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_C...Pro-car_policy

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.(Recently updated).
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

Doug wrote:

"Cyclist casualties showed a 9% increase in both inner and outer
London."

I rather thought from postings made earlier this year mentioning some
cycling guru quoting a brochure published by his pro-cycling
organisation that individual cyclists were now safer on the road due
to the increasing number of them.

Have cyclist numbers in London fallen, and thus the risk to individual
cyclists increased? If so, why?

"Cycling gets safer the more cyclists there are.

That's the message of CTC's Safety in Numbers campaign (see brochure,
5MB pdf) which explains that the more people cycle, the safer it is
for each individual cyclist."

http://www.ctc.org.uk/desktopdefault.aspx?tabid=5225

"London has seen a 91% increase in cycling since 2000 and a 33% fall
in cycle casualties since 1994-98. This means that cycling in the city
is 2.9 times safer than it was previously"

"In fact cycling isn’t as risky as commonly thought, with just one
death every 32 million kilometres – that’s over 800 times around the
world."

http://www.ctc.org.uk/resources/Camp...in_Numbers.pdf

HTH

--
from
Kim Bolton

On 23/05/2011 12:16, Doug wrote:
"The highest number of road deaths in London last year happened in
Barnet, Transport for London figures show.

In 2010, nine people died and 1,520 injured on the borough's road
network, a rise of 8% on the previous year..."

Hmm! So casualties are up and our roads are not getting safer after
all, contrary to popular opinion from motorists on these newsgroups.

"...Overall, outer London saw a 4% increase in casualties, up to
16,507 for the 12 months, and inner London, a 2% increase.

Cyclist casualties showed a 9% increase in both inner and outer
London."

You missed a bit Doug: 'Overall however, road fatalities decreased by
28% in inner London to 51 and by 34% in outer London.'

Of course, none of these figures mean anything without relating them to
road use. We need to know whether cycle use has risen by more or less
than 9% to know whether a 9% increase in casualties is a worsening or an
improvement in the situation.

Colin Bignell

On Mon, 23 May 2011 04:16:09 -0700 (PDT), Doug
wrote:

"The highest number of road deaths in London last year happened in
Barnet, Transport for London figures show.

In 2010, nine people died and 1,520 injured on the borough's road
network, a rise of 8% on the previous year..."

Hmm! So casualties are up and our roads are not getting safer after
all, contrary to popular opinion from motorists on these newsgroups.

"...Overall, outer London saw a 4% increase in casualties, up to
16,507 for the 12 months, and inner London, a 2% increase.

Cyclist casualties showed a 9% increase in both inner and outer
London."

Not nearly enough.

On 23/05/2011 12:16, Doug wrote:
"The highest number of road deaths in London last year happened in
Barnet, Transport for London figures show.

In 2010, nine people died and 1,520 injured on the borough's road
network, a rise of 8% on the previous year..."

Hmm! So casualties are up and our roads are not getting safer after
all, contrary to popular opinion from motorists on these newsgroups.

"...Overall, outer London saw a 4% increase in casualties, up to
16,507 for the 12 months, and inner London, a 2% increase.

Cyclist casualties showed a 9% increase in both inner and outer
London."

Mo

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-13499789

But get this!

"...During his time as a councillor in the London Borough of Barnet,
Coleman has built up a reputation as an outspoken supporter of car
driving, leading Richard Littlejohn to label him a "hero" for
introducing a policy of removing road humps when the roads of Barnet
are resurfaced.[27] Coleman quotes the Metropolitan Police and the
London Ambulance Service as being supporters of this policy while road
safety critics argue that the policy is reckless and driven by
populism and self promotion..."

Mo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_C...Pro-car_policy

Fancy a local politician having the bare-faced effrontery to do what the
majority want.

Where *will* it end?

On 23/05/2011 12:16, Doug wrote:
"The highest number of road deaths in London last year happened in
Barnet, Transport for London figures show.

In 2010, nine people died and 1,520 injured on the borough's road
network, a rise of 8% on the previous year..."

Hmm! So casualties are up and our roads are not getting safer after
all, contrary to popular opinion from motorists on these newsgroups.

"...Overall, outer London saw a 4% increase in casualties, up to
16,507 for the 12 months, and inner London, a 2% increase.

Cyclist casualties showed a 9% increase in both inner and outer
London."

Just goes to prove that a push bike isn't a suitable form of transport
on modern roads.


But get this!

"...During his time as a councillor in the London Borough of Barnet,
Coleman has built up a reputation as an outspoken supporter of car
driving, leading Richard Littlejohn to label him a "hero" for
introducing a policy of removing road humps when the roads of Barnet
are resurfaced.[27] Coleman quotes the Metropolitan Police and the
London Ambulance Service as being supporters of this policy while road
safety critics argue that the policy is reckless and driven by
populism and self promotion..."

LAS have considerable problems with road humps slowing them down when
attending to Cat A calls and transporting seriously ill patients to
hospitals.


--
Dave - Cyclists VOR.

More reasons to ban them from the roads.

"Theodore" wrote in message
...

More reasons to ban them from the roads.

And move them onto pavements, or ban them completely?

It would however be odd to one of the most effective forms of transport in
central London (to be replaced with what, cars? That would be one of the
most impossible ways of getting around, even if you had a car that could
magically fold up and be put away at the end of the journey).

Anyway the figures don't say by how much the amount of cycling has itself
increased (or decreased), so they could mean nothing.

--
Bartc

wrote in message
...
On 23/05/2011 12:16, Doug wrote:
"The highest number of road deaths in London last year happened in
Barnet, Transport for London figures show.

In 2010, nine people died and 1,520 injured on the borough's road
network, a rise of 8% on the previous year..."

Hmm! So casualties are up and our roads are not getting safer after
all, contrary to popular opinion from motorists on these newsgroups.

"...Overall, outer London saw a 4% increase in casualties, up to
16,507 for the 12 months, and inner London, a 2% increase.

Cyclist casualties showed a 9% increase in both inner and outer
London."

Just goes to prove that a push bike isn't a suitable form of transport on
modern roads.

According to the article, casualties across *all* forms of transport
increased by 8% in Barnet.

Which presumably goes to show that modern transport isn't a suitable form of
transport on modern roads, at least in Barnet! That is, following your own
logic.

--
Bartc

On 23/05/2011 22:13, BartC wrote:

Just goes to prove that a push bike isn't a suitable form of transport on
modern roads.

According to the article, casualties across *all* forms of transport
increased by 8% in Barnet.

Which presumably goes to show that modern transport isn't a suitable
form of
transport on modern roads, at least in Barnet! That is, following your own
logic.

Oh look! You missed this "Overall however, road fatalities decreased by
28% in inner London to 51 and by 34% in outer London".

But since figures for accidents by all forms of transport are down -
except cycling - which is increasing.

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR.