Interesting statistics on historial road safety

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
Post Reply
chocjohn9
Posts: 300
Joined: 20 Mar 2012, 10:07pm
Location: Sunny Belgium

Interesting statistics on historial road safety

Post by chocjohn9 »

TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: Interesting statistics on historial road safety

Post by TonyR »

Shame it has to make the comparison with safety not pedestrian safety. But that would go against the BBC's institutional prejudice against cycling.
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Interesting statistics on historial road safety

Post by thirdcrank »

Reduce the amount of any activity and you will tend to reduce the frequency of everything related to it. I suspect a similar chart could be produced to show sales of bicycle innertubes. For the rest it seems to be accepting the assumptions of casualty reduction as the definition of safety, which again fits well with the reduction in the activity.

In common with most of the rest of the media, the BBC's output on cycling is aimed at provoking controversy.
User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 19793
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Interesting statistics on historial road safety

Post by [XAP]Bob »

I've just raised a complaint to that effect, also pointing out that they can't do maths. They magic up a 5 times increased risk without actually extending the motorists journey appropriately...
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
mrjemm
Posts: 2933
Joined: 20 Nov 2011, 4:33pm

Re: Interesting statistics on historial road safety

Post by mrjemm »

thirdcrank wrote:In common with most of the rest of the media, the BBC's output on cycling is aimed at provoking controversy.


This bothered me during today's section on the breakfast programme 'Cycle Week' (of which the Chris Boardman controversial feature was part). They were talking about increased sentences for drivers who knock down cyclists and had a guest who was widowed when her husband was killed by a drunken, speeding motorist while on his Sunday ride. What annoyed me was when Louise Minchin (I think) asked me, rather apropos to nothing, what he had been wearing, leading the guest to explain how he'd always worn full hi-viz and his helmet. I suspect they would've asked her beforehand whether this to be the case, and decided to use it. Just stinks of victim blaming to me.
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20308
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Interesting statistics on historial road safety

Post by mjr »

mrjemm wrote:What annoyed me was when Louise Minchin (I think) asked me, rather apropos to nothing, what he had been wearing, leading the guest to explain how he'd always worn full hi-viz and his helmet. I suspect they would've asked her beforehand whether this to be the case, and decided to use it. Just stinks of victim blaming to me.

I saw that too. Louise Minchin seemed to be smirking (slightly inappropriate IMO) between video and interview at 0825ish which made me wonder if it was actually a "see, hi-viz and helmets don't save us" dig at yesterday's commenters.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
Elizabethsdad
Posts: 1158
Joined: 15 Jan 2011, 7:09pm

Re: Interesting statistics on historial road safety

Post by Elizabethsdad »

Another factor between today and 1934 will be the improvement in ambulance response and medical treatment. In 1934 you'd be scooped off the road by a couple of blokes slotted into the back of the ambulance and taken to hospital to be treated by a doctor. Today a paramedic treats you at the scene vastly improving your chances of survival. This may be one reason for the increase in serious injuries vs reduction in fatalities.
pete75
Posts: 16370
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: Interesting statistics on historial road safety

Post by pete75 »

Elizabethsdad wrote:Another factor between today and 1934 will be the improvement in ambulance response and medical treatment. In 1934 you'd be scooped off the road by a couple of blokes slotted into the back of the ambulance and taken to hospital to be treated by a doctor. Today a paramedic treats you at the scene vastly improving your chances of survival. This may be one reason for the increase in serious injuries vs reduction in fatalities.


Which point is covered in the article :-
"It is possible that falling deaths and rising serious injuries could be a result of lives being saved by the healthcare system, for example, with the use of specialist trauma centres."
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker
iviehoff
Posts: 2411
Joined: 20 Jan 2009, 4:38pm

Re: Interesting statistics on historial road safety

Post by iviehoff »

Now we have this too.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29894590

Many people will glance at this and think there are 5 useful things cyclists can do to make themselves a lot safer, even though that is actually not what the article says at all. We have to read a long way down near the bottom to find the opinion that they are discussing the wrong things.

Personal protective equipment is the very last step in creating a safe system, says Walker. Take aviation, maritime and rail, he says. "The starting point for every aspect of that system is the driver will make mistakes. It's insane that we utterly ignore human fallibility [for cars and cycling]."

"If we really are serious about trying to make cycling part of our culture, either the cars have to be tamed, or the cyclists have to be segregated," Franklin says.

"A sensible cyclist - and there are some fools out there - has pretty much done all he or she can do for their safety," Garrard adds.


Now, can we have a discussion of the changes that might succeed in "taming the car", at least when it comes to taking a reasonable level of care around the cyclist, so we can have a proportionate discussion of the various options?

While I was in Spain last week, I noticed some new signs (that weren't there last year) instructing vehicles to give cyclists at least 1.5m space when overtaking. They were placed here and there on windy country roads popular with cyclists. I'd be interested to know if that is law or just advice.
Postboxer
Posts: 1929
Joined: 24 Jul 2013, 5:19pm

Re: Interesting statistics on historial road safety

Post by Postboxer »

Better driving standards.
Harsher penalties for most driving offences.
GPS linked speed limiters?
Driverless cars.
Carless drivers.
Postboxer
Posts: 1929
Joined: 24 Jul 2013, 5:19pm

Re: Interesting statistics on historial road safety

Post by Postboxer »

I think there are just far too many variables to draw any conclusions, healthcare, helmets, cars being completely different, including maybe being softer to be hit by? Different demographics of cyclists and drivers, improved road surfaces, improved lighting, the list is endless.

I would also like the article to include mention of the health benefits, say a cycle commuter compared to a driver, to point out that overall, cycling wins.
iviehoff
Posts: 2411
Joined: 20 Jan 2009, 4:38pm

Re: Interesting statistics on historial road safety

Post by iviehoff »

What I meant was, it would be nice if the BBC presented such a discussion, rather than the silly one they actually presented. (The health benefits point was mentioned in at least one of the two articles).

But on the points you make, I disagree that there are too many variables to draw conclusions, I think it is possible to come to sensible conclusions on the relative merits of various policies.

Better driving standards - motherhood and apple pie, the question is how do you get there?

Harsher penalties for most driving offences - actually I think the main problem is the definition of the driving offences, not the penalties. There is good evidence that harsh penalties make little difference to behaviour, it's the being nicked and found guilty that are the most important thing in deterring antisocial behaviour. Too many people kill or injure cyclists who were doing nothing wrong in driving along the road, and the driver is found guilty of no offence, or only a minor offence, for doing something that killed or seriously injured them. Killing someone because you were unsighted should be a serious offence, not an excuse. This is a matter of definition of what the offences are, not the penalties. Enforcement is also an important issue - currently the police are very reluctant to enforce unless there has actually been a collision, an attitude like leaving stable doors open.

Driverless cars - I agree, once these work well enough they probably will avoid help avoid all kinds of collisions quite considerably. They will also be programmed to obey speed limits, I expect.
User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 19793
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Interesting statistics on historial road safety

Post by [XAP]Bob »

[XAP]Bob wrote:I've just raised a complaint to that effect, also pointing out that they can't do maths. They magic up a 5 times increased risk without actually extending the motorists journey appropriately...

BBC wrote:Thanks for contacting us regarding the BBC News Website.

We note you found there was an error in one of the stats given in our article, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29878233. You also felt that pedestrians should have been included as a comparison.

We appreciate your concerns. However, the stats are from the Department of Transport. You’ll find the comparison rates on the final page of https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... 013-02.pdf

We’d add that we’re not responsible for the content of non-BBC websites.

On including pedestrians, the item compared two sets of road users – cyclists and car drivers - asking "How safe is cycling?" in a road using context.

Nonetheless, we'd assure you we do very much appreciate your feedback on the article. All complaints are sent to senior management and BBC News every morning and we included your points in this overnight report. These reports are among the most widely read sources of feedback in the BBC and ensures that your complaint has been seen by the right people quickly. This helps inform their decisions about current and future content.


They've not corrected their maths, and have completely failed to justify their decision not to compare with pedestrians.

Do I reply again?
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
iviehoff
Posts: 2411
Joined: 20 Jan 2009, 4:38pm

Re: Interesting statistics on historial road safety

Post by iviehoff »

[XAP]Bob wrote:
BBC wrote:Thanks for contacting us regarding the BBC News Website.

We note you found there was an error in one of the stats given in our article, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29878233. You also felt that pedestrians should have been included as a comparison.

We appreciate your concerns. However, the stats are from the Department of Transport. You’ll find the comparison rates on the final page of https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... 013-02.pdf

We’d add that we’re not responsible for the content of non-BBC websites.

On including pedestrians, the item compared two sets of road users – cyclists and car drivers - asking "How safe is cycling?" in a road using context.

Nonetheless, we'd assure you we do very much appreciate your feedback on the article. All complaints are sent to senior management and BBC News every morning and we included your points in this overnight report. These reports are among the most widely read sources of feedback in the BBC and ensures that your complaint has been seen by the right people quickly. This helps inform their decisions about current and future content.


They've not corrected their maths, and have completely failed to justify their decision not to compare with pedestrians.

Do I reply again?

They say they got all their numbers from the DfT, but I've just checked their reference to be sure, and the figure you complained of is not sourced from DfT reference they give, nor in fact can I find casualties per hour travel time anywhere on the DfT. This different source gives cycling fatality risk per unit travel time as about 3 to 4 times higher than car http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2014.pdf which is a bit less than the 5 times BBC reckoned, but not so different as to get all sweated up over. (Though I don't quite understand why they say a cyclist riding 280hrs per year has a lower accident rate per hour than the average one.)

They are mistaken in thinking that pedestrians are not road users. Dead pedestrians mainly die on the roads. Thus peds vs cyclists is a sensible comparison, since both are human-powered vulnerable road users. That is the mistake they make that is more significant as far as I am concerned, but they probably just don't get it and won't see it.

If one had had the prescience to work out their possible complaints in advance, then it would have been good to close them off in advance. But complaining again probably puts you in the raging loon category.
Post Reply