Cycling and your child feedback: IMPORTANT!

Quoted message said:

So you have to be careful not to say more than you can defend. In the
leaflet on your site, there is the statement to the effect "a child
cycling in the road is safer than its friend walking on the pavement".

Were there any other statements that needed changing? Sounds like his
example was just an, er, example of what to look for.

Suggest:

"Records suggest that, per mile, children are safer cycling than as
pedestrians. Cycle training can make them even safer."

Peter Clinch said:

So you have to be careful not to say more than you can defend. In the
leaflet on your site, there is the statement to the effect "a child
cycling in the road is safer than its friend walking on the pavement".

There may be another issue with that statement. AIUI the official
statistics that support the assertion are misleading, because
those casualties classed as "pedestrian" are badly skewed, with
up to about 50% attributable to the single activity of getting
in and out of cars. So there's a crucial difference between
"pedestrian" and "walking on the pavement".

Quoted message said:

"Police casualty records consistently show that children are more
vulnerable to motor traffic as pedestrians than as cyclists. Also, risk
assessment using official records do not suggest children are much more
at risk per mile of cycling than walking.

That, on the other hand, is not so hard to contract: for example,

"Police casualty records consistently show that child cyclists
are at lower risk from motor traffic than child pedestrians".

--
not me guv

Mark Thompson said:

Were there any other statements that needed changing? Sounds like his
example was just an, er, example of what to look for.

He specifically singled out the bit highlighted as the notable hole.

Quoted message said:

Suggest:

"Records suggest that, per mile, children are safer cycling than as
pedestrians. Cycle training can make them even safer."

That's a good start. I'll collect any more folk come with over the next
24 hours or so and ask Malcolm what he thinks.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Peter Clinch said:

Mark Thompson said:

Were there any other statements that needed changing? Sounds like his
example was just an, er, example of what to look for.

He specifically singled out the bit highlighted as the notable hole.

Quoted message said:

Suggest:

"Records suggest that, per mile, children are safer cycling than as
pedestrians. Cycle training can make them even safer."

That's a good start. I'll collect any more folk come with over the next
24 hours or so and ask Malcolm what he thinks.

Possibly "Police accident records suggest..."

...d

Peter Clinch wrote on 21/06/2006 09:32 +0100:

Quoted message said:

The basis of the problem is he thinks it will fall foul of ASA rules as
it stands if someone wants to make life difficult (and there are people
who will happily make life difficult), so it would be best to change it.
Given his experience here, I think he's worth listening to...

In what way does it come within the ASA's remit? It is not advertising
anything, just giving advice. I believe that BsHIT got away with a lot
of what they say on the same basis.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

Tony Raven said:

In what way does it come within the ASA's remit? It is not advertising
anything, just giving advice.

That argument didn't get the CTC anywhere in 2004 though.

We know from the 2004 episode and BHIT treatment that ASA isn't
necessarily going to be fair and balanced, and saying that it /should/
be doesn't necessarily help :-(

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Mark Thompson said:

Quoted message said:

So you have to be careful not to say more than you can defend. In the
leaflet on your site, there is the statement to the effect "a child
cycling in the road is safer than its friend walking on the
pavement".

Were there any other statements that needed changing? Sounds like his
example was just an, er, example of what to look for.

Suggest:

"Records suggest that, per mile, children are safer cycling than as
pedestrians. Cycle training can make them even safer."

That still tries to draw more meaning from the data than is there.
Population level accident data does not translate directly into individual
risk factors.

"Records show that per mile more children are killed or injured as
pedestrians than as cyclists" is indisputably correct.

pk

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Records suggest that, per mile, children are safer cycling than as
pedestrians. Cycle training can make them even safer."

That still tries to draw more meaning from the data than is there.
Population level accident data does not translate directly into
individual risk factors.

My use of "children" should get around that. I am admittedly taking it on
trust that the data does show that children are safer cycling than when
pedestrians, per mile.

p.k. said:

"Records show that per mile more children are killed or injured as
pedestrians than as cyclists" is indisputably correct.

Though it's not really what a worried parent wants to read :-( I'd
prefer to emphasize relative safety rather than relative danger in the
text, IYSWIM.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Mark Thompson said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Records suggest that, per mile, children are safer cycling than as
pedestrians. Cycle training can make them even safer."

That still tries to draw more meaning from the data than is there.
Population level accident data does not translate directly into
individual risk factors.

My use of "children" should get around that. I am admittedly taking
it on trust that the data does show that children are safer cycling
than when pedestrians, per mile.

The data shows that more child pedestrians are killed or injured than child
cyclists.

The data includes kids killed playing in the street, running out between
parked cars, crossing at dangerous places etc. & of course child cyclists
behaving in similarly ill advised ways.

The conclusion that it is safer to cycle along the road than walk on the
pavement is not supported by the data.

pk

Peter Clinch said:

p.k. said:

"Records show that per mile more children are killed or injured as
pedestrians than as cyclists" is indisputably correct.

Though it's not really what a worried parent wants to read :-( I'd
prefer to emphasize relative safety rather than relative danger in the
text, IYSWIM.

how about:

"Records show that, per mile travelled, child cyclists have fewer accidents
than child pedestrians"

That is factually correct from the data and avoids trying to take population
accident data down to individual risk.

The original "a child cycling in the road is safer than its friend walking
on the pavement" is not demonstrated by the data and is open to challenge:

Pedestrian accidents occur most often whilst crossing the roadway,
especially for older
pedestrians. (snip) .... 67 per cent of pedestrians in the
United Kingdom were killed or injured whilst crossing the road more than 50
meters away
from a pedestrian crossing.

[Scientific Expert Group on the Safety of Vulnerable Road Users (RS7)
DSTI/DOT/RTR/RS7(98)1/FINAL]

pk

Quoted message said:

The conclusion that it is safer to cycle along the road than walk on the
pavement is not supported by the data.

Good job I wasn't saying that then :-)

Does the data enable us to get some sort of exposure wossname thingy (per
mile, hour, whatever?)

p.k. said:

"Records show that, per mile travelled, child cyclists have fewer accidents
than child pedestrians"

A bit less blood and guts, which is good! ;-)

We'll quite possibly need to reword the whole bullet point, rather than
just the second half. Just to save people the bother of going back to
source...

We currently have (exact wording, from the pamphlet):

"A bicycle journey is just as safe as walking: mile for mile a child
cycling on the road is safer than their friend walking on the pavement"

Perhaps change to:

"A bicycle journey can be comparably safe to walking: police records
show that per mile travelled child cyclists have fewer accidents than
child pedestrians"

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

"Peter Clinch" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

p.k. said:

"Records show that, per mile travelled, child cyclists have fewer
accidents than child pedestrians"

A bit less blood and guts, which is good! ;-)

We'll quite possibly need to reword the whole bullet point, rather than
just the second half. Just to save people the bother of going back to
source...

We currently have (exact wording, from the pamphlet):

"A bicycle journey is just as safe as walking: mile for mile a child
cycling on the road is safer than their friend walking on the pavement"

Perhaps change to:

"A bicycle journey can be comparably safe to walking: police records show
that per mile travelled child cyclists have fewer accidents than child
pedestrians"

What about

"A bicycle journey is just as safe as walking : mile for mile, child
cyclists have fewer accidents than child pedestrians"?

I prefer "mile for mile" to "per mile travelled" - less scarily
mathematical. Ditto "just as safe" as "can be comparably safe" - simpler,
more obvious language. If you really feel the need for sources, put "police
records show that" just before "mile for mile". But I don't think it's
necessary.

cheers,
clive

Peter Clinch said:

p.k. said:

"Records show that, per mile travelled, child cyclists have fewer
accidents than child pedestrians"

A bit less blood and guts, which is good! ;-)

We'll quite possibly need to reword the whole bullet point, rather
than just the second half. Just to save people the bother of going
back to source...

We currently have (exact wording, from the pamphlet):

"A bicycle journey is just as safe as walking: mile for mile a child
cycling on the road is safer than their friend walking on the
pavement"
Perhaps change to:

"A bicycle journey can be comparably safe to walking: police records
show that per mile travelled child cyclists have fewer accidents than
child pedestrians"

Pete.

"Cycling is a safe activity - in fact police* records show that per mile
travelled child cyclists have fewer serious accidents than child
pedestrians"

* check that it is police records

pk

Clive George said:

What about

"A bicycle journey is just as safe as walking : mile for mile, child
cyclists have fewer accidents than child pedestrians"?

The problem is we're extrapolating from population figures to *a*
journey. Clearly you can have /particular/ journeys where this is
emphatically not the case.

Quoted message said:

I prefer "mile for mile" to "per mile travelled" - less scarily
mathematical. Ditto "just as safe" as "can be comparably safe" -
simpler, more obvious language.

I agree with the first, the second where I used "can" is quite
deliberate for the above reason. But "can be just as safe as walking"
seems to get us around that.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Peter Clinch wrote on 21/06/2006 11:59 +0100:

Quoted message said:

That argument didn't get the CTC anywhere in 2004 though.

We know from the 2004 episode and BHIT treatment that ASA isn't
necessarily going to be fair and balanced, and saying that it /should/
be doesn't necessarily help :-(

You need to read the adjudication for the reasons why. I don't believe
those reasons would apply to this leaflet. To save looking it up the
relevant section is:

"The advertisers said CTC, the Cycle Campaign Network (CNN) and the
London Cycling Campaign (LCC) co-operated to produce the leaflet; CTC
responded on behalf of the other two organisations. The advertisers said
the leaflet was a policy briefing that targeted Members of Parliament
(MPs) primarily and was intended to encourage them to oppose the
Protective Headgear for Young Cyclists Bill, which was a Private
Members'' Bill being considered in Parliament at the time the leaflet
was distributed. They said the remaining leaflets were distributed to
cycle campaigners who were engaged in lobbying MPs to oppose the Bill.
The advertisers believed the leaflet was public relations material and
did not fall within the remit of the Code. They said they did not oppose
the wearing of helmets, but opposed a law that would make it illegal for
children to cycle without a helmet.

The Authority noted the advertisers'' assertions that the leaflet fell
outside the remit of the Code but considered that, because it sought to
persuade recipients to the advertisers'' point of view, the leaflet
constituted advertising material."

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

p.k. wrote on 21/06/2006 13:40 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Peter Clinch said:

p.k. said:

"Records show that per mile more children are killed or injured as
pedestrians than as cyclists" is indisputably correct.

Though it's not really what a worried parent wants to read :-( I'd
prefer to emphasize relative safety rather than relative danger in the
text, IYSWIM.

how about:

"Records show that, per mile travelled, child cyclists have fewer accidents
than child pedestrians"

You can leave out the "Records show that" as you can produce the
independent documents to substantiate the claim. But I don't think its
accidents is it, its injuries requiring hospital attendance.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

Tony Raven said:

You need to read the adjudication for the reasons why. I don't believe
those reasons would apply to this leaflet. To save looking it up the
relevant section is:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

The Authority noted the advertisers'' assertions that the leaflet fell
outside the remit of the Code but considered that, because it sought to
persuade recipients to the advertisers'' point of view, the leaflet
constituted advertising material."

How is what we're doing not trying to persuade readers to our point of view?

Or rather, can we be 100% sure if that is the case, and if we can avoid
the possibility wouldn't that be a Cunning Plan?

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/