Road Casualties 2009

On 20/07/10 19:11, JMS wrote:
Road Casualties Great Britain Main Results: 2009 are out at the DfT
webpages.

Main Highlights are :

Total road casualties down 4%
Seriously injured down 6%
Child casualties down 6%
All pedestrian casualties down 6%
Motor cycle casualties down 4%

All good news - oh - there are a couple mo

Number of seriously injured cyclists up 6%
Total casualties among cyclists up 5%

Fatalities dropped by 10% though, must be all those unlit red light jumpers
getting better at what they do.

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
Tom Crispin gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying:

Sadly, in 2009, there was the first child cyclist fatality in London
since 2004. A young lad was killed by a policeman driving a fast moving
police car, with lights but no siren, as the child was cycling across a
pedestrian crossing.

It would probably be inappropriate to ask why somebody was cycling across
a pedestrian crossing, wouldn't it?

I'm not sure it's relevant, either. The only relevant fact is that
somebody using a pedestrian crossing was not observing traffic properly.
On it's own, that should not result in a fatality. The police driver was
clearly not prepared for the crossing to be in use. As usual,
contributory ****wittery on the part of both those involved.

Nor do I see the fact it was a child as being particularly relevant - if
the child wasn't old enough to properly understand the rules of the road,
then it's a failure of the parents to properly supervise their child.


We've got at least three pedestrian crossings around here which "cyclists"
use to cross from the pavement on one side, to the pavement on the other.
They actually have to ride across two red cycle lanes (one on each side of
the road) to get to the far pavement.

In message , at 21:21:59 on
Tue, 20 Jul 2010, Tom Crispin
remarked:
A young lad was killed by a policeman driving a fast moving police car,
with lights but no siren, as the child was cycling across a pedestrian
crossing.

That has a certain resonance with a youngster reportedly run over by an
ambulance while crossing a motorway a few nights ago.
--
Roland Perry

"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
news:VOl1o.235346$sD7.191566@hurricane...

Number of seriously injured cyclists up 6%
Total casualties among cyclists up 5%

that is probably because of an increase in their numbers coupled with a
lack of training/regulation

Well, it's obviously a combination of factors (all of which will be talked
to death herevbg)

"Up is up" and only complacency JUST challenges the basis on which they are
compiled without wanting to reduce both.

That may be just using flakey figures as an excuse to improve road safety
for cyclists, but if it reduces real numbers, I'd say that's a good thing.

--
Brian
"Fight like the Devil, die like a gentleman."
www.imagebus.co.uk/shop

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 19:52:37 +0100, Tony Raven
wrote:

Somehow the minor fact that cyclist fatalities fell by 10% seems to
have been overlooked. I can't think why on earth that would be.

Not according to the Guardian's headline: "Sharp rise in number of
cyclists killed on roads"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/no...t-of-transport



"The number of pedal cyclists killed fell by 10 per cent from 115 in
2008 to 104 in 2009. The number of seriously injured rose by 6 per cent
to 2,606. The total casualties among pedal cyclists rose by 5 per cent
to 17,064."
Reported Road Casualties Great Britain Main Results: 2009
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics...ainresults2009

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

"The Peeler" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 19:52:37 +0100, Tony Raven
wrote:

Somehow the minor fact that cyclist fatalities fell by 10% seems to have
been overlooked. I can't think why on earth that would be.

That only encourages the *******s.

Cyclists are *******s? Surely not.

:-)

--
Brian
"Fight like the Devil, die like a gentleman."
www.imagebus.co.uk/shop

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 21:37:03 +0100, Tosspot
wrote:

On 20/07/10 19:11, JMS wrote:
Road Casualties Great Britain Main Results: 2009 are out at the DfT
webpages.

Main Highlights are :

Total road casualties down 4%
Seriously injured down 6%
Child casualties down 6%
All pedestrian casualties down 6%
Motor cycle casualties down 4%

All good news - oh - there are a couple mo

Number of seriously injured cyclists up 6%
Total casualties among cyclists up 5%

Fatalities dropped by 10% though, must be all those unlit red light jumpers
getting better at what they do.


I think it is probably due to increased use of cycle helmets
:-)

However - it does look as if cycling is becoming more dangerous as a
means of transport; particularly when compared to walking.


--
Many cyclists are proving the need for registration by their contempt for the Highway Code and laws.

The answer:
All cyclists over 16 to take compulsory test, have compulsory insurance, and be registered.
Registration number to be clearly visible on the back of mandatory hi-viz vest.
Habitual law breakers' cycles confiscated and crushed.
(With thanks to KeithT for the idea)

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 19:21:38 +0100, "Mrcheerful"
wrote:

JMS wrote:
Road Casualties Great Britain Main Results: 2009 are out at the DfT
webpages.

Main Highlights are :

Total road casualties down 4%
Seriously injured down 6%
Child casualties down 6%
All pedestrian casualties down 6%
Motor cycle casualties down 4%

All good news - oh - there are a couple mo

Number of seriously injured cyclists up 6%
Total casualties among cyclists up 5%

that is probably because of an increase in their numbers coupled witha lack
of training/regulation

Oh - I see you have found a straw - why not have a clutch at it?

Numbers have not risen as much as injuries/casualties.

--
Many cyclists are proving the need for registration by their contempt for the Highway Code and laws.

The answer:
All cyclists over 16 to take compulsory test, have compulsory insurance, and be registered.
Registration number to be clearly visible on the back of mandatory hi-viz vest.
Habitual law breakers' cycles confiscated and crushed.
(With thanks to KeithT for the idea)

On 20 Jul 2010 20:31:16 GMT, Adrian wrote:

Tom Crispin gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying:

Sadly, in 2009, there was the first child cyclist fatality in London
since 2004. A young lad was killed by a policeman driving a fast moving
police car, with lights but no siren, as the child was cycling across a
pedestrian crossing.

It would probably be inappropriate to ask why somebody was cycling across
a pedestrian crossing, wouldn't it?

Presumably to get to the other side of the road.

I'm not sure it's relevant, either. The only relevant fact is that
somebody using a pedestrian crossing was not observing traffic properly.
On it's own, that should not result in a fatality. The police driver was
clearly not prepared for the crossing to be in use. As usual,
contributory ****wittery on the part of both those involved.

Nor do I see the fact it was a child as being particularly relevant - if
the child wasn't old enough to properly understand the rules of the road,
then it's a failure of the parents to properly supervise their child.

I note that the Google Streetview car went through the pedestrian
crossing while the lights were red.
http://tinyurl.com/2etmkl6 from:
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?ie=UTF...88.77,,0,16.69

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 21:59:21 +0100, Tony Raven
wrote:

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 19:52:37 +0100, Tony Raven
wrote:

Somehow the minor fact that cyclist fatalities fell by 10% seems to
have been overlooked. I can't think why on earth that would be.

Not according to the Guardian's headline: "Sharp rise in number of
cyclists killed on roads"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/no...t-of-transport



"The number of pedal cyclists killed fell by 10 per cent from 115 in
2008 to 104 in 2009. The number of seriously injured rose by 6 per cent
to 2,606. The total casualties among pedal cyclists rose by 5 per cent
to 17,064."
Reported Road Casualties Great Britain Main Results: 2009
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics...ainresults2009

I am not disputing what you say, only the accuracy of the Guardian's
headline.