preaching to the choir

'there is no evidence whatsoever of
cycling safety improving purely based on the number of cyclists. '





Safety in numbers, says Cyclists Touring Club




‘Safety in numbers’, puts the case that more cyclists = less
collisions per mile cycled.

The evidence:

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 capital
is 2.9 times safer than it was previously.


The Netherlands has witnessed a 45% increase in cycling from 1980-2005
and a 58% decrease in cyclist fatalities.


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

Peter Clinch wrote:
today's Graun has a piece on the safety in numbers effect, how making
cycling normal encourages it etc. etc.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandsty...ork-calderdale

The pretty picture at the top of pages 3 and 4 of this is quite interesting:

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

However I would not argue that it is statistically meaningful (too few
data).

Martin.

"Brimstone" wrote in message
...
Light of Aria wrote:
"Brimstone" wrote in message
...
Light of Aria wrote:

The A14 which is a major dual carriageway used by left hand drive
lorries that is 127 miles long has a high accident rate compared to
my own cul-de-sac that is 100 metres long and widely used by
children on bicycles.

How can a section of road be "widely used"?

Where does the qualifying word "section" interject itself from in my
sentence?

From, "my own cul-de-sac ".

However as it happens, guys and girls, I can confidently state that
the ratio of cycles to vehicles in my cul-de-sac exceeds 50:50 if it
helps.

OK but I still don't understand how a road can be "widely used". "Heavily
used" makes sense.

'Widely', 'commonly', 'frequently','habitually' are all interchangable in
the context of the sentance. The phrase 'widely used' is in common use in
the English language, unlike 'rendition'. Get a thesaurus.

"David Lloyd" wrote in message
...

"Brimstone" wrote in message
...
Light of Aria wrote:
"Brimstone" wrote in message
...
Light of Aria wrote:

The A14 which is a major dual carriageway used by left hand drive
lorries that is 127 miles long has a high accident rate compared to
my own cul-de-sac that is 100 metres long and widely used by
children on bicycles.

How can a section of road be "widely used"?

Where does the qualifying word "section" interject itself from in my
sentence?

From, "my own cul-de-sac ".

However as it happens, guys and girls, I can confidently state that
the ratio of cycles to vehicles in my cul-de-sac exceeds 50:50 if it
helps.

OK but I still don't understand how a road can be "widely used". "Heavily
used" makes sense.

'Widely', 'commonly', 'frequently','habitually' are all interchangable in
the context of the sentance. The phrase 'widely used' is in common use in
the English language, unlike 'rendition'. Get a thesaurus.


I always think that "thesaurus" sounds like a dinosaur with a particularly
wide vocabulary. Probably find it in the Uxbridge English Dictionary.

Colin

Colin Reed wrote:

I always think that "thesaurus" sounds like a dinosaur with a
particularly wide vocabulary. Probably find it in the Uxbridge English
Dictionary.


Theosaurus always springs to my mind. The fossilised bible carrying
dinosaur, the discovery of which would force me to reconsider a number
of things.
Roger Thorpe

On Thu, 07 May 2009 23:30:11 +0100, wrote:

On Thu, 07 May 2009 17:55:45 +0100, Andy Key
wrote:

Judith Smith wrote:


Ah - yes - that well known independent scientific research
organisation the CTC.

Can we believe what they say?

What did the ASA say about them and their leaflet "7 REASONS TO OPPOSE
A CHILD HELMET LAW"? Could their stated views and evidence be
believed? - no. The ASA said that they were biased and their claims
were wrong.


http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudicati...ation_id=39144

Perhaps you could point out where the words "wrong" and "biased" appear.

Are you saying that the CTC were not biased and wrong?


I did not say that they used the actual words "biased" and "wrong" -
how about "at best, ambiguous and at worst, misleading" - is that
better for you.



What the ASA actually said about the CTC and their article was:

1) "the CTC had not proved that their statement was true,
the Authority concluded that the claim was misleading."

2) readers could interpret the claim "a helmet law would make it
a crime for children to take part in a health giving activity " to
imply that the proposed legislation would make it illegal for children
to cycle and take part in a health giving activity.

The ASA concluded the claim was misleading and told the advertisers to
amend it to remove the implication that helmet legislation would
criminalize all children for cycling.

3) The ASA considered the CTC's claim that "Cycling gives a
fitness equivalent to being 10 years younger and a life expectancy 2
years above the average" to be an absolute claim which was not
justified and told the CTC to remove it.

4) The ASA considered that the CTC's use of 3000 years to
describe the period of time, albeit of on-road cycling, after which
one could or would suffer a serious head injury was, at best,
ambiguous and, at worst, misleading, because it implied a single
cyclist would never suffer from a serious head injury. It told the CTC
not to repeat the claim.

5) The CTC ..." exaggerated the number of children who had faced
detention for not wearing a helmet while cycling in another country
and the likelihood of that being a result of a change in British
legislation. The ASA told the CTC not to repeat the claim.

6) The ASA concluded that the approach adopted by the CTC was
misleading.

7) The ASA considered that the claim that cyclehelmets.org (ie
the BHRF) to be " ... an international site supported by ..." implied
the website was fully endorsed by doctors, cycling safety experts,
statisticians and people with professional involvement in helmet
design and performance. Because it was not, the ASA concluded that
the claim was misleading. It told the CTC to amend it


--




The Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation (BHRF) is an independent body with the message:
Helmets are not beneficial to cyclists - unless the evidence forces them to a dramatically different conclusion.

Andy Key wrote:
Judith Smith wrote:


Ah - yes - that well known independent scientific research
organisation the CTC.

Can we believe what they say?

What did the ASA say about them and their leaflet "7 REASONS TO OPPOSE
A CHILD HELMET LAW"? Could their stated views and evidence be
believed? - no. The ASA said that they were biased and their claims
were wrong.


http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudicati...ation_id=39144


Perhaps you could point out where the words "wrong" and "biased" appear.

.... I'll take that as a "no", then.

Judith Smith wrote:


I did not say that they used the actual words "biased" and "wrong" -
how about "at best, ambiguous and at worst, misleading" - is that
better for you.



What the ASA actually said about the CTC and their article was:

....etc


Exactly. Very different from "biased and wrong".

On Sat, 09 May 2009 00:04:52 +0100, Andy Key
wrote:

Judith Smith wrote:


I did not say that they used the actual words "biased" and "wrong" -
how about "at best, ambiguous and at worst, misleading" - is that
better for you.



What the ASA actually said about the CTC and their article was:

...etc


Exactly. Very different from "biased and wrong".


Not at all - very biased and very, very wrong.

Wrong : Incorrect, false,

biased: a particular tendency or inclination, esp. one that prevents
unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice.

"Reputable organisation my arse".



Go on - disagree with that as well.


(I like the slagging of cyclehelmets.org - I must admit I had not
seen the adjudication until recently; funny that I had reached the
same conclusion though.)



--

"Primary position" the middle of a traffic lane. To take the "primary position" : to ride a bike in the middle of the lane in order to obstruct other road vehicles from overtaking.

A term invented by and used by psycholists and not recognised in the Highway Code.

Highway Code Rule 168 : "Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass."

Judith Smith wrote:
...

"Reputable organisation my arse".



Go on - disagree with that as well.


I'm, sorry, I've obviously upset you. You did ask for people to point
out any errors in your note, so that's all I was doing.