new jacket invented

spindrift said:

So German cyclists are 2.5 times safer?

Most of the safety difference between the UK and either the Netherlands
or Germany can be accounted for by the greater numbers cycling. In fact
if you use the standard relationship between numbers and safety, on a
normalised basis it comes out as 1.8 times more dangerous in the
Netherlands but mitigated by the greater numbers.

--
Tony

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

"Most of the safety difference between the UK and either the
Netherlands
or Germany can be accounted for by the greater numbers cycling. In
fact
if you use the standard relationship between numbers and safety, on a
normalised basis it comes out as 1.8 times more dangerous in the
Netherlands but mitigated by the greater numbers. "

It took me 2 years to get CSE maths, sorry about this..

Five times as many cyclists in Germany than UK, but half as likely to
be in an accident....

The risk factor is an absolute for a given country- naturally effected
by the numbers of cyclists as I said above, so when the Daily Mail
read these illustrative stats:

2006- 400,000 cyclists, 100 accidents

2007- 600,000 cyclists, 110 accidents

and then scream in a headline:

"CYCLING MORE DANGEROUS!!"

They are spouting unmitigated bum gravy?

In article <[email hidden]>,
pindrift <[email hidden]> writes:
|>
|> Mr McClintock says that slowing cars would help cut cycling deaths
|> (put at 127 in 2000, according to the Royal Society for the Prevention
|> of Accidents).

Considering solely deaths is one of the many reasons that cycling is
not making a comeback, despite the figures you misquote[*]. There was
a significant increase in central London in the first few years after
the congestion charge, but that has effectively levelled off, and
cycling rates are effectively static or decreasing in relative terms
almost everywhere.

Most of the people that I have met who have given up in safety grounds
have done so because they were involved in an accident or assault that
did not lead to serious injury, but they knew that next time they might
not be so lucky. And they were right to take that decision.

Being knocked over at ANY speed (even < 5 MPH) is DANGEROUS for anyone
past 50, and carries a small chance of death or permanent disablement
even for younger people. There are no decent figures, but observation
indicates that the changes of the past decade or so have had the effect
of considerably increasing the chances of a cautious cyclist of being
knocked over at low speed.

And I don't JUST mean by motor vehicles - the same applies if you are
knocked over by a pedestrian or another cyclist, as it inevitable if
you have mediocre balance (as many older people do) and use many of
the psychle farcilities.

[*] You were quoting the increase in cycling from 2000 to 2006 when
comparing it with the increase in deaths from 2005 to 2006. That
is misquoting.

Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

spindrift said:

"Most of the safety difference between the UK and either the Netherlands
or Germany can be accounted for by the greater numbers cycling. In fact
if you use the standard relationship between numbers and safety, on a
normalised basis it comes out as 1.8 times more dangerous in the
Netherlands but mitigated by the greater numbers. "

It took me 2 years to get CSE maths, sorry about this..

Five times as many cyclists in Germany than UK, but half as likely to be
in an accident....

Yes, the usual rule is a doubling of cycling increases the number of
accidents by 32% but decreases the accident *rate* by 66%. For five
times as many cycling the accident rate should be 2.6 times lower which
is almost exactly what you see between Germany and the UK.
(Safety in numbers: more walkers and bicyclists, safer walking and
bicycling, Jacobsen PL, Inj Prev.2003; 9: 205-209)

--
Tony

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

"[*] You were quoting the increase in cycling from 2000 to 2006 when
comparing it with the increase in deaths from 2005 to 2006. That
is misquoting. "

Nope, I specifically mentioned the Standard and Mail articles which
covered the last 5 years:

Cyclist deaths rise by 10 per cent
Last updated at 22:13pm on 29th June 2006

MORE NEWS
A record number of cyclists are being killed on the roads as soaring
numbers of people take up pedalling to work.

Cyclist deaths have risen by an alarming 10 per cent as road
fatalities generally have fallen to a record low, official casualty
figures revealed yesterday.

Experts blame the astonishing rise in cycling deaths - the highest for
six years - on the boom in 'green' but inexperienced bicycle riders
taking to the road in a bid to beat congestion, reduce pollution and
get fitter.

Once the preserve of hard-line anti-car environmentalists, cycling to
work has now become a middle class fashion trend - epitomised by Tory
leader David Cameron - who was recently photographed cycling to the
House of Commons without his safety crash helmet.

But the aggressive antics of 'lycra lout' cyclists - running red
lights, intimidating vulnerable pedestrians on pavements and zebra
crossings, and sometimes even kicking queuing cars that get in their
way - is also blamed for contributing to accidents.

The fatality findings have sparked calls for a crackdown by police and
the courts on the 'minority' of cyclists who flout the law, and for
better cycling training for inexperienced cyclists who put their own
lives and those of other road users at risk.

The new Transport Department figures show that despite the boom in
speed cameras - which supporters say are there to save lives not raise
cash- road deaths overall dropped just 1 per cent from 3,221 in 2004
to 3,201 - a fall of just 20. The RAC Foundation said the downward
tend had 'stalled'.

By contrast, the number of pedal cyclists killed in Britain rose by
10% to 148 in 2005 - the highest level since 1999. The number of
seriously injured rose by 2% to 2,212.

Total casualties among pedal cyclists, including those slightly
injured, fell by 1% in 2005 to 16,561.

Kevin Clinton, head of road safety at the Royal Society for the
Prevention of Accidents, and an active cyclist said:' We are deeply
disturbed that more pedal cyclists have died.'

He said a minority of cyclists gave the rest a bad name and should
face tougher enforcement:''Cyclists breaking traffic laws should be
prosecuted. The police should be dealing with bad and dangerous
cycling.'

He was aware of motorists' frustration over cyclists' abuses - such as
running red lights at busy junctions yet escaping scot free, while
motorists would be photographed, identified by their number plate and
prosecuted:'Cyclists have to obey the traffic laws.

'If cyclists want to be treated sympathetically they have to behave
responsibly. Some don't. Some behave obnoxiously. They do harm to all
cyclists.'

He did not believe it practical to completely separate bicycles and
cars on the road. But he did support better enforcement and fines in
line with those meted out to motorists.

Overall, the number of people killed on Britain's roads fell to an all-
time low with child casualties also well down.

A total of 3,201 people were killed in road accidents in Britain in
2005 - 1% fewer than in 2004 and the lowest total since records began
in 1926. Total deaths and serious injuries last year reached 32,155 -
6% down on the 2004 figure. Child casualties fell by 9%. A total of
141 children died on the roads last year - 15% fewer than in 2004.

Pedestrian casualties in 2005 totalled 32,281 - 5% fewer than in 2004.
There were 671 pedestrian deaths last year - the same as in 2004.
Serious injuries fell by 5% to 6,458.

Edmund King, executive director of the RAC Foundation said they were
'concerned at the sharp rise in cyclists killed' and called for better
training.

Robert Gifford, executive director of the Parliamentary Advisory
Council for Transport Safety said the cycling fatalities were
'especially alarming" because they followed an earlier 'substantial
rise' in 2004.

Tony Vickers of the Association of British Motorists said:'Cyclists
cannot be immune from the law. Roads are dangerous and the Government
must take a share of the blame for encouraging more cyclists onto
them. Reckless cyclists can also cause accidents if drivers have to
swerve to avoid them.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=393218&in_page_id=1770

"For five
times as many cycling the accident rate should be 2.6 times lower
which
is almost exactly what you see between Germany and the UK.
(Safety in numbers: more walkers and bicyclists, safer walking and
bicycling, Jacobsen PL, Inj Prev.2003; 9: 205-209) "

Thanks!

Nick Maclaren said:

Being knocked over at ANY speed (even < 5 MPH) is DANGEROUS for anyone
past 50, and carries a small chance of death or permanent disablement
even for younger people. There are no decent figures, but observation
indicates that the changes of the past decade or so have had the effect
of considerably increasing the chances of a cautious cyclist of being
knocked over at low speed.

And I don't JUST mean by motor vehicles - the same applies if you are
knocked over by a pedestrian or another cyclist, as it inevitable if you
have mediocre balance (as many older people do) and use many of the
psychle farcilities.

Oh dear, I'd better give up my mountain biking then where if I don't come
off more than once a trip, I'm not really trying.

--
Tony

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

In article <[email hidden]>,
Tony Raven <[email hidden]> writes:
|> >
|> > Being knocked over at ANY speed (even < 5 MPH) is DANGEROUS for anyone
|> > past 50, and carries a small chance of death or permanent disablement
|> > even for younger people. There are no decent figures, but observation
|> > indicates that the changes of the past decade or so have had the effect
|> > of considerably increasing the chances of a cautious cyclist of being
|> > knocked over at low speed.
|> >
|> > And I don't JUST mean by motor vehicles - the same applies if you are
|> > knocked over by a pedestrian or another cyclist, as it inevitable if you
|> > have mediocre balance (as many older people do) and use many of the
|> > psychle farcilities.
|>
|> Oh dear, I'd better give up my mountain biking then where if I don't come
|> off more than once a trip, I'm not really trying.

You probably don't have enough brain to damage, so I wouldn't worry
if I were you.

More seriously, whether or not you take such risks is your business,
but to claim that anyone must accept such risks in order to cycle
(as you are doing) is at best stupid. Most people quite reasonably
avoid activities that involve a significant risk.

I know of someone who was killed by being knocked off at c. 3 MPH
(and he was neither run over nor hit anything except the road), I
know of a teenager who had her neck broken in a similar accident,
I know of people who had a hip broken similarly (very common in
women past the menopause), I am in daily pain from a similar one
and so on.

Many of the people I have spoken to have said that they would have
given up the FIRST time they were knocked off, and not the THIRD
time, as I did.

Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"I know of someone who was killed by being knocked off at c. 3 MPH "

Interesting. His name?

In article <[email hidden]>,
spindrift <[email hidden]> writes:
|> "I know of someone who was killed by being knocked off at c. 3 MPH "
|>
|> Interesting. His name?

I never knew that. A close colleague was a witness at the inquest.
Yes, the victim was elderly.

Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

(Nick Maclaren) said:

In article <[email hidden]>,spindrift <[email hidden]> writes:

|> "I know of someone who was killed by being knocked off at c. 3 MPH "
|>
|> Interesting. His name?

I never knew that. A close colleague was a witness at the inquest.
Yes, the victim was elderly.

Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

I think falls are a major factor in elderly deaths. I'm not sure if
this is indicative of the dangers or otherwise of cyling since
countries with high rates of elderly people cycling have a longer life
expectancy.

spindrift said:

"I was astonished, in Germany on the other hand, at how cyclists
seemed
to be given less road space than in Britain. "

Cycling rates are five times higher in Germany than the UK:

It seemed the norm in Bavaria for cyclists to travel in the right-most
six inches of the road, generally to the right of any edge marking. On
the other hand, the cycle paths looked like motorways compared to
Sustrans' dodgy efforts round these parts.

Cheers,
Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

Nick Maclaren said:

You probably don't have enough brain to damage, so I wouldn't worry if I
were you.

True. The inner calm of not being able to remember you had things to
worry about ;-)

Quoted message said:

More seriously, whether or not you take such risks is your business, but
to claim that anyone must accept such risks in order to cycle (as you
are doing) is at best stupid. Most people quite reasonably avoid
activities that involve a significant risk.

If it were significant I would but the risk of being killed is a one in
20,000 year event (and probably much lower than that as experienced
cyclists have a much lower accident rate than the general population).
Now among other one in 20,000 year events I need to worry about are the
earth being hit by an asteroid (perhaps I should wear a helmet) or being
killed by a tsumani or lightning. Or I could consider that my biggest
risk is sitting on my bum getting heart disease and that cycling will
help reduce that significantly.

Quoted message said:

Many of the people I have spoken to have said that they would have given
up the FIRST time they were knocked off, and not the THIRD time, as I
did.

Its amazing how people assess risk. So people will happily travel by car
but have a morbid fear of flying. Or sit around with their arteries
furring up while worrying about the risks of cycling.

--
Tony

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

"If it were significant I would but the risk of being killed is a one
in
20,000 year event (and probably much lower than that as experienced
cyclists have a much lower accident rate than the general
population). "

BMA reckon the health BENEFITS of cycling outweight the RISKS 8 to 1.

Nick Maclaren said:

As I have posted before, you are abusing statistics. You are also
misquoting.

In the same way as I abuse the laws of physics by pointing out bumble
bees can fly and Bromptons can stop?

Quoted message said:

On the first point, even if the population statistics are one death per
20,000,000 miles of cycling (as you say is the case), that does not mean
that the same is true for all cyclists on all routes. Cyclists have
self-selected by avoiding the most dangerous routes and practices, and
many of the most vulnerable ones have given up. But is that the most
vulnerable 10% or 70%? I don't know, and nor do you.

Presumably the risk statistics cover all that - I doubt they include
phantom cyclists who would have cycled if they hadn't given up. And yes
I'm sure there is an individual somewhere wearing a Russell's Teapot T-
shirt with a big arrow over him saying "Hit me!"

Quoted message said:

On the second one, I made it very clear that I was saying that the error
was to concentrate entirely on the death rate; you have returned to it
as a dog returns to his, er, doings. It is the much higher risk of
lesser injuries that puts people off. Quite rightly.

One death per 35m km of cycling in 2004 and the serious injury rate was
15 times that (remembering the definition of serious injuries includes
many that are transient and not major) gives me a one in 1,500 year risk
of serious injury which I shall consider alongside the similar risk of
being being killed crossing the road. We'll omit minor injuries if you
don't mind as they are minor and generally agreed to be under-reported
but I do expect to have a minor injury cycling.

Quoted message said:

Have you ever been in daily pain, including waking up almost every night
because of it, for several years - with the prospect of it continuing
for the rest of your life?

No, but a personal anecdote is not an indicator of risk.

--
Tony

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

In article <[email hidden]>,
Tony Raven <[email hidden]> writes:
|>
|> > As I have posted before, you are abusing statistics. You are also
|> > misquoting.
|>
|> In the same way as I abuse the laws of physics by pointing out bumble
|> bees can fly and Bromptons can stop?

You are misquoting AGAIN. Incidentally, I measured a few folders
around here, and they all had the characteristics I described.
I shall not respond until I have had an opportunity to measure a
Brompton.

|> > On the first point, even if the population statistics are one death per
|> > 20,000,000 miles of cycling (as you say is the case), that does not mean
|> > that the same is true for all cyclists on all routes. Cyclists have
|> > self-selected by avoiding the most dangerous routes and practices, and
|> > many of the most vulnerable ones have given up. But is that the most
|> > vulnerable 10% or 70%? I don't know, and nor do you.
|>
|> Presumably the risk statistics cover all that - I doubt they include
|> phantom cyclists who would have cycled if they hadn't given up. And yes
|> I'm sure there is an individual somewhere wearing a Russell's Teapot T-
|> shirt with a big arrow over him saying "Hit me!"

Your frequent falls clearly have given you serious brain damage.

You are claiming that the same statistics would apply to the cyclists
who have given up, and the people who have not taken up cycling. I am
pointing out that is implausible.

|> > On the second one, I made it very clear that I was saying that the error
|> > was to concentrate entirely on the death rate; you have returned to it
|> > as a dog returns to his, er, doings. It is the much higher risk of
|> > lesser injuries that puts people off. Quite rightly.
|>
|> One death per 35m km of cycling in 2004 and the serious injury rate was
|> 15 times that (remembering the definition of serious injuries includes
|> many that are transient and not major) gives me a one in 1,500 year risk
|> of serious injury which I shall consider alongside the similar risk of
|> being being killed crossing the road. We'll omit minor injuries if you
|> don't mind as they are minor and generally agreed to be under-reported
|> but I do expect to have a minor injury cycling.

You seem to have (deliberately?) omitted the fact that the injury rate
is being seriously under-reported, as the BMA has pointed out, and that
a great many injuries with permanent effects do not get onto even the
hospital records.

Those incredibly low figures don't match the proportion of my friends
and colleagues who have been left with significant scarring or long-term
pain after cycling accidents. And it is the high likelihood of that
sort of thing that puts most people off. Possibly Cambridge is far
more dangerous than other places, as far as such accidents go, but more
probably those figures are seriously misleading.

|> > Have you ever been in daily pain, including waking up almost every night
|> > because of it, for several years - with the prospect of it continuing
|> > for the rest of your life?
|>
|> No, but a personal anecdote is not an indicator of risk.

Your brain damage is causing you trouble again; I never used it as
an indicator of risk.

It is an example of how an injury that would not be included in those
statistics, has a significant, permanent, deleterious effect on a
person's life. And I assert that people are being entirely rational
in trying to avoid that category of injury.

How common it is, I don't know, but I have met many people who have
had permanent pain or minor disablement after injuries that did not
involve them going to hospital. Only one or two happened when cycling,
but it is certainly something that can happen in cycling accidents.

Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Nick Maclaren said:

You are misquoting AGAIN. Incidentally, I measured a few folders
around here, and they all had the characteristics I described.
I shall not respond until I have had an opportunity to measure a
Brompton.

AFAICT the characteristics you've measured were geometrical. The
characteristics Tony claims to experience are what happens when a tall
man uses the brakes on a Brompton. They are not necessarily the same
thing, if it turns out you've mis-applied theory somewhere, which is why
scientific method asks for experimental verification of theory. For
your theory of a small wheel folder being intrinsically unsafe under
braking with a tall rider to be properly proven you need to do an
experiment with a tall person braking a small wheel folder, not more
geometrical measurements. If one of them can do it okay, that's proof
of it being wrong.

Quoted message said:

You seem to have (deliberately?) omitted the fact that the injury rate
is being seriously under-reported, as the BMA has pointed out, and that
a great many injuries with permanent effects do not get onto even the
hospital records.

That's true, but it's also true for motoring and pedestrian victims of
RTAs. It's a tricky call as to the relative extents because, of course,
they're under reported, but that's a "we don't know" rather than
"cycling is clearly much worse than".

Quoted message said:

Those incredibly low figures don't match the proportion of my friends
and colleagues who have been left with significant scarring or long-term
pain after cycling accidents.

Fair enough. But OTOH the only one of my colleagues with long term
significant pain from an RTA was driving a car. So going by my
anecdotes rather than yours I should avoid cars... We get back to
anecdotes not really being enough.

Quoted message said:

How common it is, I don't know, but I have met many people who have
had permanent pain or minor disablement after injuries that did not
involve them going to hospital. Only one or two happened when cycling,
but it is certainly something that can happen in cycling accidents.

But does a general air of danger surround what the others were doing?
Wouldn't it be just as fair if it did? There isn't a general air of
Doom around cycling in NL compared to the UK AFAICT, but there's just as
much scope (or so ISTM) for injuries that don't require a trip to the
hospital. So is it perhaps still the case that the UK is still
surrounding cycling with a comparably greater air of Doom than it
actually deserves /relative to other activities that also cause injury
problems/.

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/

Nick Maclaren said:

I know of someone who was killed by being knocked off at c. 3 MPH
(and he was neither run over nor hit anything except the road),

I know plenty of people who have heart attacks, or morbid obesity, or
other health problems because they didn't do exercise.

Removing one risk just adds another in its place. I know enough people
who feel a constant malaise simply because they are unfit.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

"Matt B" <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote

Quoted message said:

spindrift said:

Paris:
The number of road accidents in France has decreased more that 85
percent since the installation of automatic traffic radars
last year,

Wow! An 85% decrease in road accidents in 1 year! Sounds too good to be
true, doesn't it. Do you have the source for that phenomenal news?

Agreed, 85% is a bit optimistic.
year fatals injuries
2001 7859 154832

2002 7242 137839

2003 5744 116107

2004 5738 115894

2005 5318 108076 (39811 hospitalised)

2006 aren't fully compiled but probably show another fall

The big change between 2003 and 2004 was clamping on speeding.

Quoted message said:

To put it into context, ours dropped by just 17%, from 238,923 to 198,735
in the 7 years from 1998 to 2005.

There is a graph on page 18 of
http://www.securiteroutiere.equipement.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/sric-depliant-accidentologie-2005.pdf

My French isn't good enough to interpret the text but it suggests to me that
rates in different countries have been converging since the early '90s and
might have reached limiting values. Remember I told you that urban and rural
pedestrian fatal rates were identical; that distance travelled had no
obvious effect on injury crash rates? So it's possible that other than
nibbling at the edges, what can be done is done.

DavidR said:

"Matt B" <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote

Quoted message said:

spindrift said:

Paris:
The number of road accidents in France has decreased more that 85
percent since the installation of automatic traffic radars
last year,

Wow! An 85% decrease in road accidents in 1 year! Sounds too good to be
true, doesn't it. Do you have the source for that phenomenal news?

Agreed, 85% is a bit optimistic.

He never even tried to justify it.

Quoted message said:

year fatals injuries
2001 7859 154832
2002 7242 137839
2003 5744 116107
2004 5738 115894
2005 5318 108076 (39811 hospitalised)
2006 aren't fully compiled but probably show another fall

The big change between 2003 and 2004 was clamping on speeding.

So they claim. But looking at the graph there is no step change, but
there _was _a pause in the downward trend between 2000 and 2002. They
also clamped-down heavily on drink driving 2003-2004, so I think they
are unjustified in claiming that their modest attack on speeders have
had a significant effect.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

To put it into context, ours dropped by just 17%, from 238,923 to 198,735
in the 7 years from 1998 to 2005.

Yes whilst our number of speed cameras, and our reliance ipon them
increased.

Quoted message said:

There is a graph on page 18 of
http://www.securiteroutiere.equipement.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/sric-depliant-accidentologie-2005.pdf

My French isn't good enough to interpret the text but it suggests to me that
rates in different countries have been converging since the early '90s and
might have reached limiting values.

Yes, we need a new measure (or measures) which will introduce another
step-change.

Quoted message said:

Remember I told you that urban and rural
pedestrian fatal rates were identical; that distance travelled had no
obvious effect on injury crash rates? So it's possible that other than
nibbling at the edges, what can be done is done.

The other measure which we need to worry about, the one which doesn't
show us in such a good light, is that of pedestrian, and particularly
child pedestrian casualty rates.

--
Matt B