Times Diabolical article

burtthebike said:

Make sure you're sat down and there is nothing throwable in the immediate
vicinity before you read this. Can it be just a coincidence that yet
another 10 minute bill is before parliament?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article2658130.ece

Cycling still emerges, per trip, as ten times safer than motorcycling.
I also note that they don't publish the death rate per journey for
motor cars.

It's hardly a surprise that cycling is three time more dangerous per
journey than walking when the average journey by bike is more than
three times longer than the average journey by foot.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics
..
..
..
..
..
and journalism 😉

squeaker said:

Lies, damned lies, and statistics
.
.
.
.
.
and journalism 😉

Covered under the first category.

burtthebike said:

Make sure you're sat down and there is nothing throwable in the
immediate vicinity before you read this. Can it be just a coincidence
that yet another 10 minute bill is before parliament?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article2658130.ece

The article seems quite sensible to me. What do you think is wrong with it?

burtthebike said:

Make sure you're sat down and there is nothing throwable in the
immediate vicinity before you read this. Can it be just a coincidence
that yet another 10 minute bill is before parliament?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article2658130.ece

Quote: "Motorcycle experts have blamed diesel spillage from lorries for
making roads more dangerous, and safety campaigners have queried whether
pizza delivery staff should continue to be allowed to operate with
learner licences. But the Government has denied that there is enough
clear evidence around these issues for it to intervene."

Presumably there is not enough clear evidence around the cycle helment
issue for it to intervene either then.

Nick said:

burtthebike said:

Make sure you're sat down and there is nothing throwable in the
immediate vicinity before you read this. Can it be just a coincidence
that yet another 10 minute bill is before parliament?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article2658130.ece

The article seems quite sensible to me. What do you think is wrong with it?

While it's true that a per unit distance will slant the figures one way,
it's equally true that a per unit time measure will slant them the other
way: if, as the article suggests, it's silly to compare my per unit
distance measure to a pedestrian's, because I travel for more distance,
it's just as silly to only compare per unit time for exactly the same
reasons.

The fact is that you can't /directly and equitably/ compare the
transport modalities that way. The information is useful but it can't
be taken as an absolute measure of safety.

Why is the per unit distance "wrong" and per unit time "right"? The
article clearly implies that to to be the case.

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:

Nick said:

burtthebike said:

Make sure you're sat down and there is nothing throwable in the
immediate vicinity before you read this. Can it be just a coincidence
that yet another 10 minute bill is before parliament?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article2658130.ece

The article seems quite sensible to me. What do you think is wrong with it?

While it's true that a per unit distance will slant the figures one way,
it's equally true that a per unit time measure will slant them the other
way: if, as the article suggests, it's silly to compare my per unit
distance measure to a pedestrian's, because I travel for more distance,
it's just as silly to only compare per unit time for exactly the same
reasons.

The fact is that you can't /directly and equitably/ compare the
transport modalities that way. The information is useful but it can't
be taken as an absolute measure of safety.

Why is the per unit distance "wrong" and per unit time "right"? The
article clearly implies that to to be the case.

AIUI the article was measuring per journey not per unit time.

Quoted message said:

Pete.

Nick said:

AIUI the article was measuring per journey not per unit time.

"But The Times requested figures per journey and per hour. These
unpublished numbers show a very different pattern of death rates."

I must admit I missed the "per journey", but it remains a problem for
the same reason: I walk to work because it's only 1 km, I cycle into
town which is 4, so I cover 4 times as much road in which to have an
accident. A typical cycling journey is longer than a typical walking
journey, so the same onjection applies as to a per unit time measure.

You can't take just those and say it's more dangerous, period.

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:

Nick said:

AIUI the article was measuring per journey not per unit time.

"But The Times requested figures per journey and per hour. These
unpublished numbers show a very different pattern of death rates."

I must admit I missed the "per journey", but it remains a problem for
the same reason: I walk to work because it's only 1 km, I cycle into
town which is 4, so I cover 4 times as much road in which to have an
accident. A typical cycling journey is longer than a typical walking
journey, so the same onjection applies as to a per unit time measure.

You can't take just those and say it's more dangerous, period.

We can't really say any thing period.

The article raises questions about how to measure risk which I believe
is a good thing. Obviously it wasn't exhaustive and it did sex up its
findings to make them seem more significant.

Its always a challenge how to present statistics in the best way. At
least this article made people think about it a bit.

FWIW the article got it right in my case, cycling does pose a much
greater risk to me than walking. I hardly ever walk anywhere ;o)

Quoted message said:

Pete.

Nick said:

We can't really say any thing period.

Not true at all: we can say lots of things, but we must carefully
qualify them.

Quoted message said:

The article raises questions about how to measure risk which I believe
is a good thing.

Agreed, though it does rather imply that their way is the better way and
the current published figures are a nonsense that are invalidated by
these new ones.

Quoted message said:

Obviously it wasn't exhaustive and it did sex up its
findings to make them seem more significant.

Also agreed.

Quoted message said:

Its always a challenge how to present statistics in the best way. At
least this article made people think about it a bit.

Up to a point. Since most people have a somewhat dubious understanding
of stats, in many cases it will reinforce a prejudice that cycling is
much more dangerous than it really is.

Quoted message said:

FWIW the article got it right in my case, cycling does pose a much
greater risk to me than walking. I hardly ever walk anywhere ;o)

Then you won't have the walking practice and may well be much worse at
it, making you more prone to accidents... ;-/

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

Quoted message said:

burtthebike said:

Make sure you're sat down and there is nothing throwable in the
immediate vicinity before you read this. Can it be just a
coincidence that yet another 10 minute bill is before parliament?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article2658130.ece

The article seems quite sensible to me. What do you think is wrong
with it?

That it took so long to get the news, for one thing. I think Mike
Hudson discussed all this more than a quarter of a century ago in his
bike planning books, and it's one of those subjects that comes up
about once per year on newsgroups.

Somewhere I have written down the official speeds and trip lengths
for each mode, so one can convert between per mile, per hour and per
trip.

Jeremy Parker

On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 14:03:56 +0100 someone who may be Peter Clinch
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

The fact is that you can't /directly and equitably/ compare the
transport modalities that way. The information is useful but it can't
be taken as an absolute measure of safety.

Indeed. The figures normalised in various ways are useful in
informing opinion, but they don'y provide "an answer" other than a
simplistic one.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

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

Quoted message said:

Nick said:

AIUI the article was measuring per journey not per unit time.

"But The Times requested figures per journey and per hour. These
unpublished numbers show a very different pattern of death rates."

I must admit I missed the "per journey", but it remains a problem for
the same reason: I walk to work because it's only 1 km, I cycle into
town which is 4, so I cover 4 times as much road in which to have an
accident. A typical cycling journey is longer than a typical walking
journey, so the same onjection applies as to a per unit time measure.

You can't take just those and say it's more dangerous, period.

Personally I prefer the per mile figures. My reasoning is comparing the
different options for the same journey is the only sensible way of
making a decision on which mode to use. The accident rates of cycling,
cars and trains are irrelevant if you want to go to New York and the
accident rates of aircraft and ships are also irrelevant if you want to
go to the shops.

--
Tony

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

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

Quoted message said:

burtthebike said:

Make sure you're sat down and there is nothing throwable in the immediate
vicinity before you read this. Can it be just a coincidence that yet
another 10 minute bill is before parliament?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article2658130.ece

The article seems quite sensible to me. What do you think is wrong with
it?

The quite deliberate impression given that the stats that the Times has
"extracted" from the DfT are somehow better than the ones they had before.
The quite deliberate impression given that the DfT were keeping those
figures secret. The quite deliberate impression that cycling is much more
dangerous than it really is.

In all the years I've read the Times, I've never come across such a grossly
biased article. As many of the people responding on the website make clear,
the author should be ashamed. Does he know the tory MP proposing the 10
minute rule bill in parliament, Peter Bone(head)?

"burtthebike" <[email hidden]> wrote

[snip]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The article seems quite sensible to me. What do you think is wrong
with it?

The quite deliberate impression given that the stats that the Times
has "extracted" from the DfT are somehow better than the ones they
had before. The quite deliberate impression given that the DfT were
keeping those figures secret. The quite deliberate impression that
cycling is much more dangerous than it really is.

In all the years I've read the Times, I've never come across such a
grossly biased article.

[snip]

Usually, I think Ben Webster's articles are pretty good. He came
along to a London Cycling Campaign AGM one year as a featured
speaker, and I was impressed by him in person as well. Thus I was
quite surprised by the article

I wasn't at last night's AGM, so I don't know whether he was.

While we are on the subject of per mile vs. per hour etc., I seem to
recall that motorways are very safe roads, as measured per mile.
However, if you measure them per hour, I think that they are about
the same as anything else

Jeremy Parker

Andrew May said:

burtthebike said:

Make sure you're sat down and there is nothing throwable in the
immediate vicinity before you read this. Can it be just a coincidence
that yet another 10 minute bill is before parliament?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article2658130.ece

Quote: "Motorcycle experts have blamed diesel spillage from lorries for
making roads more dangerous, and safety campaigners have queried whether
pizza delivery staff should continue to be allowed to operate with
learner licences. But the Government has denied that there is enough
clear evidence around these issues for it to intervene."

Presumably there is not enough clear evidence around the cycle helment
issue for it to intervene either then.

Consistentcy has never been applied in government.

The ignorance shown by the government beggers belief sometimes. How
can you say about Diesel spills "that there is enough clear evidence
around these issues for it to intervene.". Can anyone imagine any
beneficial effects of Diesel spills?

M

Mark said:

Can anyone imagine any beneficial effects of Diesel spills?

Well, over on uk.tosspot everything is a conspiracy to increase evil
unfair tax revenue extracted from the poor downtrodden motorist. If
the diesel is spilled, then the vehicle owner will need to buy more,
thus maximising income to government coffers.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|