1 in 6 incidents involving cyclists are ‘hit and runs’

National Audit Office:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/ma...ad-deaths-rise



Shocking.

The counter argument:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...may/08/cycling

A report from the National Audit Office (NAO) out today seems to
support many people's worst fears about cycling – that not only is it
so dangerous that you would have to be a suicidal maniac to do it, but
also that it is becoming more dangerous.

One "key finding" listed in the report is that the number of cyclists
killed on Britain's roads rose by 11% from 2004 to 2007, "despite the
amount of cycling staying broadly constant".

Before the usual thrashing and wailing begins about how you'd need a
death wish to get on a bicycle in this country/is it any wonder mums
would rather drive their children to school in SUVs than let them
cycle/why are we wasting money building more cycle lanes no one wants
to use, yadda yadda, it is worth pointing out that the NAO's finding
is really rather misleading.

I say this for two reasons. One: it contradicts the longer-term,
overwhelmingly positive trend, which is that far fewer cyclists are
being hurt and killed in the UK than 10 years ago. Two: there is a
question mark over the NAO's claim that the number of cyclists in the
UK hasn't increased.

While it's true that there was this miserable 11% increase in the
number of cyclists being killed or seriously injured (KSI) between the
2004 and 2007 figures, it's a bit naughty of the NAO to use 2004 as a
baseline. That's because, for reasons unclear, 2004 was a freakishly
"safe" year for cycling, with "just" 2,308 in the KSI bracket. The
figure for 2003 was 2,411, and in 2005 it was 2,360. It would have
been more sensible for the NAO to take a rolling average across a
number of years to look at the broader trend. With relatively small
numbers, there can often be quite extreme seasonal variations that can
distort the bigger picture.

As Chris Peck from the CTC, the UK's main cycling organisation, says:

The decision to look at serious injuries since 2004 is entirely
unhelpful. They've cherry-picked data to support their point – as
statisticians they should be aware that you shouldn't measure changes
against a single year.


Using the proper measures for cycle use and injuries shows that since
1994-98 – the baseline the government measure injuries against –
cycling has increased by 7% (2005-07) but deaths have fallen by 23%,
while KSIs have fallen by 34%.

On 8 May, 16:41, spindrift wrote:

My own anecdotal evidence supports the safety in numbers theory. On
our local dock's road I feel very vulnerable, but now and again a
bunch of Dutch roadies ride down there to the ferry and the HGVs give
way to us all and drivers give us plenty of room. There also appear to
be fewer drivers exceeding the speed limit.

--
Simon Mason

wrote in message
...
On 8 May, 16:41, spindrift wrote:

My own anecdotal evidence supports the safety in numbers theory. On
our local dock's road I feel very vulnerable, but now and again a
bunch of Dutch roadies ride down there to the ferry and the HGVs give
way to us all and drivers give us plenty of room. There also appear to
be fewer drivers exceeding the speed limit.

I find it especially so, if I am out with my children. The change in driver
attitude is so dramatic you would think it was a parallel universe...

On 8 May, 19:18, "mileburner" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On 8 May, 16:41, spindrift wrote:

My own anecdotal evidence supports the safety in numbers theory. On
our local dock's road I feel very vulnerable, but now and again a
bunch of Dutch roadies ride down there to the ferry and the HGVs give
way to us all and drivers give us plenty of room. There also appear to
be fewer drivers exceeding the speed limit.

I find it especially so, if I am out with my children. The change in driver
attitude is so dramatic you would think it was a parallel universe...

That's right, it's like a totally different road. They bring a touch
of Holland to the UK roads for a few minutes then it's back to the
usual Anglo Saxon car is king mentality.

--

Simon Mason

On 8 May, 18:18, wrote:
On 8 May, 16:41, spindrift wrote:

My own anecdotal evidence supports the safety in numbers theory. On
our local dock's road I feel very vulnerable, but now and again a
bunch of Dutch roadies ride down there to the ferry and the HGVs give
way to us all and drivers give us plenty of room. There also appear to
be fewer drivers exceeding the speed limit.

One of the reasons given for Critical Mass.

--
Critical Mass London
http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk
"We aren't blocking traffic, we are traffic".

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On 8 May, 18:18, wrote:
On 8 May, 16:41, spindrift wrote:

My own anecdotal evidence supports the safety in numbers theory. On
our local dock's road I feel very vulnerable, but now and again a
bunch of Dutch roadies ride down there to the ferry and the HGVs give
way to us all and drivers give us plenty of room. There also appear to
be fewer drivers exceeding the speed limit.

One of the reasons given for Critical Mass.


A bloody stupid justification if you ask me.

You don't make cycling 'normal' by making it a 'customary procession'
(whatever that means) once a month in a small part of one SE English city.

On 9 May, 19:00, "OG" wrote:
"Doug" wrote in message

...

On 8 May, 18:18, wrote:
On 8 May, 16:41, spindrift wrote:

My own anecdotal evidence supports the safety in numbers theory. On
our local dock's road I feel very vulnerable, but now and again a
bunch of Dutch roadies ride down there to the ferry and the HGVs give
way to us all and drivers give us plenty of room. There also appear to
be fewer drivers exceeding the speed limit.

One of the reasons given for Critical Mass.

A bloody stupid justification if you ask me.

I didn't say it was a justification. A cycle ride doesn't need a
justification.

You don't make cycling 'normal' by making it a 'customary procession'
(whatever that means) once a month in a small part of one SE English city.

It provides safety in numbers for frightened cyclists. CM was deemed a
customary procession by the Law Lords but some riders believe it is
merely traffic.

BTW, a customary procession is one held regularly, a like the rush-
hour car-Mass or the Lord Mayor's show.

--
Critical Mass London
http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk
"We aren't blocking traffic, we are traffic".

"Doug" wrote in message news:360aa991-444b-4e00-a2a8-

BTW, a customary procession is one held regularly, a like the rush-
hour car-Mass or the Lord Mayor's show.

Our Lord Mayor's show closes the road to cyclists. If I am at work that day
I have to go via an alternative route.


--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/

On May 8, 4:41*pm, spindrift wrote:

While it's true that there was this miserable 11% increase in the
number of cyclists being killed or seriously injured (KSI) between the
2004 and 2007 figures, it's a bit naughty of the NAO to use 2004 as a
baseline. That's because, for reasons unclear, 2004 was a freakishly
"safe" year for cycling, with "just" 2,308 in the KSI bracket. The
figure for 2003 was 2,411, and in 2005 it was 2,360. It would have
been more sensible for the NAO to take a rolling average across a
number of years to look at the broader trend. With relatively small
numbers, there can often be quite extreme seasonal variations that can
distort the bigger picture.

Funny how you're quite happy to point out RTTM when it suits you, yet
you never point it out when it's used in support of speed cameras, and
you even start vicious hate campaigns against those who do. Almost as
though you know that cameras don't save lives, and you're just
determined to pretend that they do save lives because you want to keep
them for other reasons, like, say, ooh, I don't know, just a stab in
the dark, an intense and pathological dislike of car drivers?

Motorist-hating ******.

(At least 8 posts today, as Chapman posted yesterday. I see that he
"cleverly" posted just after midnight at the start of yesterday,
having not posted at all for the 24 hours before midnight, obviously
hoping that I'd fall into his "trap" and post myself yesterday. But
he underestimated me, just like he arrogantly underestimates
everyone. Still, nice that I'm managing to influence his posting
behaviour already (though he'd deny it of course, being a compulsive
liar), and hopefully now he and everyone else will believe that I will
post if and only if he does, bringing the "Chapman attracts the
'trolls'" issue into focus like never before.)

On May 10, 7:21*am, Doug wrote:
On 9 May, 19:00, "OG" wrote:

"Doug" wrote in message

...

On 8 May, 18:18, wrote:
On 8 May, 16:41, spindrift wrote:

My own anecdotal evidence supports the safety in numbers theory. On
our local dock's road I feel very vulnerable, but now and again a
bunch of Dutch roadies ride down there to the ferry and the HGVs give
way to us all and drivers give us plenty of room. There also appear to
be fewer drivers exceeding the speed limit.

One of the reasons given for Critical Mass.

A bloody stupid justification if you ask me.

I didn't say it was a justification. A cycle ride doesn't need a
justification.

You don't make cycling 'normal' by making it a 'customary procession'
(whatever that means) once a month in a small part of one SE English city.

It provides safety in numbers for frightened cyclists.

That's not why you do it. You just do it to **** off motorists and
show them that you think they shouldn't be driving. Unfortunately all
you do is get their backs up and give cyclists a bad reputation.