Deaths since 7 July

WHAT, are you on???

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

Quoted message said:

I'd be interested to know how many of the 'new cyclists', since what we
must now call 7/7, have been killed or seriously injured. Any ideas?

Quoted message said:

I'd be interested to know how many of the 'new cyclists', since what we
must now call 7/7, have been killed or seriously injured. Any ideas?

Deaths are so rare that they don't provide a reliable indicator of anything
- being such a small number they vary more by pure chance than anything
else. It's only when you have a few years or more of data and draw a trend
line before the data becomes useful.

KSI rates are a better bet. Larger numbers mean year to year results are
less affected by wossname variations. AFAIK the latest KSI results show
(another) fall - the already safer-than-walking cycling is getting even
safer.

in message <[email hidden]>,

(') said:

I'd be interested to know how many of the 'new cyclists', since what we
must now call 7/7, have been killed or seriously injured. Any ideas?

Probably none. Cycling is an extremely safe activity and deaths are rare;
in the whole of 2003 only 19 cyclists were killed in London.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Semper in faecibus sumus, sole profundum variat.

Quoted message said:

I'd be interested to know how many of the 'new cyclists', since what we
must now call 7/7, have been killed or seriously injured. Any ideas?

Get. Lost.

John Hearns said:

Quoted message said:

I'd be interested to know how many of the 'new cyclists', since what we
must now call 7/7, have been killed or seriously injured. Any ideas?

Quoted message said:

Get. Lost.

Seems like a perfectly reasonable question. I wondered something similar
myself.

Daniele

D.M. Procida said:

John Hearns said:

Quoted message said:

I'd be interested to know how many of the 'new cyclists', since what
we must now call 7/7, have been killed or seriously injured. Any
ideas?

Quoted message said:

Get. Lost.

Seems like a perfectly reasonable question. I wondered something similar
myself.

A good friend of mine, who is certainly no 'new cyclist' was recently run
over in London. He was very seriously injured.
This eejit it talking about real people, with real lives, and who leave
behind real people grieving for their deaths.

John Hearns said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> I'd be interested to know how many of the 'new cyclists', since what
> we must now call 7/7, have been killed or seriously injured. Any
> ideas?

Quoted message said:

Get. Lost.

Seems like a perfectly reasonable question. I wondered something similar
myself.

Quoted message said:

A good friend of mine, who is certainly no 'new cyclist' was recently run
over in London. He was very seriously injured.
This eejit it talking about real people, with real lives, and who leave
behind real people grieving for their deaths.

What sort of people should he be asking about, imaginary ones? Why does
it make him an idiot to ask about real ones? Are we not allowed to ask
these questions or something? I wondered about this quesiton myself;
does that make me an idiot?

Daniele

D.M. Procida said:

What sort of people should he be asking about, imaginary ones? Why does it
make him an idiot to ask about real ones? Are we not allowed to ask these
questions or something? I wondered about this quesiton myself; does that
make me an idiot?

No. But these are not statistics - we are talking about real people,
and real injuries.

John Hearns said:

Quoted message said:

What sort of people should he be asking about, imaginary ones? Why does it
make him an idiot to ask about real ones? Are we not allowed to ask these
questions or something? I wondered about this quesiton myself; does that
make me an idiot?

Quoted message said:

No. But these are not statistics - we are talking about real people,
and real injuries.

And statistics represent... what, exactly?

Daniele

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

D.M. Procida said:

What sort of people should he be asking about, imaginary ones? Why does it
make him an idiot to ask about real ones? Are we not allowed to ask these
questions or something? I wondered about this quesiton myself; does that
make me an idiot?

No. But these are not statistics - we are talking about real people,
and real injuries.

However, if the figures exist that show how many new cyclists have been
injured or killed in London since 7 July, are they not represented as
statistics?

--

Hywel
http://kibo.org.uk/

"D.M. Procida" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

John Hearns said:

Quoted message said:

What sort of people should he be asking about, imaginary ones? Why does
it
make him an idiot to ask about real ones? Are we not allowed to ask
these
questions or something? I wondered about this quesiton myself; does
that
make me an idiot?

Quoted message said:

No. But these are not statistics - we are talking about real people,
and real injuries.

And statistics represent... what, exactly?

I think John's taking it a little seriously, probably with good reason. But
the OP's question "how many new cyclists have been killed" is pretty crass
and certainly could have been worded far, far better. e.g. "Has there been
an increase in cycling related fatal injuries since 7/7".

Personally, as most of the accidents/roadkills/'whatever you want to term it
as' in the UK get posted up here anyway, I'm sure the 'stats' could be made
just by reading U.R.C.

elyob said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No. But these are not statistics - we are talking about real people,
and real injuries.

And statistics represent... what, exactly?

I think John's taking it a little seriously, probably with good reason. But
the OP's question "how many new cyclists have been killed" is pretty crass
and certainly could have been worded far, far better. e.g. "Has there been
an increase in cycling related fatal injuries since 7/7".

That's not wording it better, that's a completely different question.
The question was: how many of the cyclists who took to the road since
(or because of) the London Underground bombs have been hurt or killed.

It's a perfectly reasonable question. It's not crass.

Daniele

Quoted message said:

It's a perfectly reasonable question. It's not crass.

Iinterview the approx 6 [1] corpses unless you can think of a better way of
establishing post mortem the corpses' pre 7/7 cycling habits.

[1] derived from 19 annual deaths as posted here and the three months since
7/7

Still can't see why someone wants to know the unestablishable.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No. But these are not statistics - we are talking about real people,
and real injuries.

And statistics represent... what, exactly?

In this instance the same obsessive behaviour exhibited by my parents and
their peers when poring over the births marriages and deaths columns of the
local comic hoping to spot the demise of someone that they knew/knew of/were
related to/shared the same birthday as/used the same undertaker as their
second cousin twice removed in the pointless exercise of establishing links
wher none of substance previously existed

in message
<[email hidden]>,

D.M. Procida (') said:

elyob said:

Quoted message said:

> No. But these are not statistics - we are talking about real
> people, and real injuries.

And statistics represent... what, exactly?

I think John's taking it a little seriously, probably with good
reason. But the OP's question "how many new cyclists have been killed"
is pretty crass and certainly could have been worded far, far better.
e.g. "Has there been an increase in cycling related fatal injuries
since 7/7".

That's not wording it better, that's a completely different question.
The question was: how many of the cyclists who took to the road since
(or because of) the London Underground bombs have been hurt or killed.

And the answer is, quite possibly none at all. If the KSI rate is as
reported still falling (that's the absolute KSI rate, not KSI/billion
Km) then there is not only no excess of cyclist injuries due to the
'new' cyclists, but there are actually cyclists around and cycling today
who would be dead were it not for the influx of 'new' cyclists.

Of course it's also possible that those who are killed or seriously
injured are predominantly inexperienced cyclists, and that the 'new'
cyclists are predominantly inexperienced, and that consequently a
disproportionate number of 'new' cyclists are included in the reduced
KSI figures.

But even if that is true, cycling is so safe and so health beneficial
that, provided they keep cycling, in forty years time there are likely
to be more of the 7/7/2005 'new' cyclists still alive than would have
been still alive if they had not taken to their bikes.

Quoted message said:

It's a perfectly reasonable question. It's not crass.

It was a question which seemed to seek an answer which would justify
saying 'how foolish they are for choosing to cycle'. Of course if risk
of sudden violent death was the sole factor in their choice it would be
irrational, since the tube has a very low fatal accident rate. But if
that was just the last straw after years of tolerating gross
overcrowding, unexplained delays, jostling, noise, petty crime and all
the other joys of modern mass transit travel, then the decision looks
very rational to me.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Wannabe a Web designer?
<URL:http://userfriendly.org/cartoons/archives/97dec/19971206.html>

vernon said:

In this instance the same obsessive behaviour exhibited by my parents
and their peers when poring over the births marriages and deaths
columns of the local comic hoping to spot the demise of someone that
they knew/knew of/were related to/shared the same birthday as/used
the same undertaker as their second cousin twice removed in the
pointless exercise of establishing links wher none of substance
previously existed

If you're referring to the OP, then I don't think that was where the querant
was coming from. More like, "what's the accident rate amongst 'new' cyclists
in London?".

--
Wally
www.artbywally.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk

Simon Brooke said:

Quoted message said:

It's a perfectly reasonable question. It's not crass.

It was a question which seemed to seek an answer which would justify
saying 'how foolish they are for choosing to cycle'.

Why on earth do you judge it that way? Given a sudden influx of new -
inexperienced and probably unprepared and naive - cyclists to the
notoriously impatient streets of a capital city, I also wondered how
many of them would get into unpleasant scrapes or worse. I wasn't
wondering it because I was hoping for a grim answer.

The person who asked the question might just have likely been asking it
in order to have an answer to other people who were of the 'how foolish
they are for choosing to cycle' persuasion. In fact, since Michael Green
has been a regular contributor to this group for a couple of years or
more, and is clearly a cyclist, it makes the people accusing him of sly
nasty-mindedness look a bit stupid, not to mention rude and
over-sensitive.

Daniele

"D.M. Procida" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

elyob said:

Quoted message said:

> No. But these are not statistics - we are talking about real people,
> and real injuries.

And statistics represent... what, exactly?

I think John's taking it a little seriously, probably with good reason.
But
the OP's question "how many new cyclists have been killed" is pretty
crass
and certainly could have been worded far, far better. e.g. "Has there
been
an increase in cycling related fatal injuries since 7/7".

That's not wording it better, that's a completely different question.
The question was: how many of the cyclists who took to the road since
(or because of) the London Underground bombs have been hurt or killed.

It's a perfectly reasonable question. It's not crass.

Okay, I thought part of it would be understood from the original question.

"Has there been an increase in cycling related fatal injuries since 7/7 due
to new cyclists taking to the road".

Also, the reasonability of the question depends on how the question is
received. I thought it was a bit of an insenstive way of asking, not
necessarily the subject of the question itself. I think the subject is a
valid one, and if fatal incidents do increase, then is this down to lack of
experience/training?

D.M. Procida said:

elyob <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> No. But these are not statistics - we are talking about real people,
> and real injuries.

And statistics represent... what, exactly?

I think John's taking it a little seriously, probably with good reason. But
the OP's question "how many new cyclists have been killed" is pretty crass
and certainly could have been worded far, far better. e.g. "Has there been
an increase in cycling related fatal injuries since 7/7".

Quoted message said:

That's not wording it better, that's a completely different question.
The question was: how many of the cyclists who took to the road since
(or because of) the London Underground bombs have been hurt or killed.

Quoted message said:

It's a perfectly reasonable question. It's not crass.

It wouldn't be too surprising if one of them had been injured falling
down a staircase. Staircases are much more dangerous than cycling.

--
Chris Malcolm [email hidden] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]