tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37583332747236920.post4035469745605206759..comments2023-09-27T16:07:50.948+01:00Comments on (Drawing) Rings Around The World: No, cycling is not safer in Britain than in the NetherlandsJimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04831368698879583744noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37583332747236920.post-18998042150529106912012-05-03T13:41:41.842+01:002012-05-03T13:41:41.842+01:00You may be interested in David Hembrow's post ...You may be interested in David Hembrow's post that comments on the politians' cyclebabble.<br />http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2012/04/challenges-to-growth-in-cycling-in.htmlamoebahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15783694650121687459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37583332747236920.post-32053622259960282922012-05-01T12:34:09.040+01:002012-05-01T12:34:09.040+01:00If the NL data is looked at closely it can be seen...If the NL data is looked at closely it can be seen that older cyclists make up a higher proportion of cyclists deaths compared with the UK. If the mid range age groups are compared, the figures are more like 5-6 for the Netherlands and 21 for the UK.Colin.cyclinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08328811802252157872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37583332747236920.post-86996512310325499622012-04-24T16:19:11.407+01:002012-04-24T16:19:11.407+01:00There is no doubt in my mind that Baker and Pennin...There is no doubt in my mind that Baker and Penning misused those statistics (what did Mark Twain say about damned lies?) and even if they qualified their presentation, they still managed to leave an impression with the uninitiated that cycling is safer here than there.<br /><br />The population-based statistic does however have some validity, and needs to be addressed – can be addressed, in my view, thus: assuming that all those Dutchmen and women who cycle would otherwise have used an alternative form of transport, how many more, or fewer, casualties would have arisen? If they had all walked, probably more. If they had all driven, probably fewer, based on the casualty per km statistic for each. I imagine that in a non-cycling nation there would be a cut-off, somewhere, for most people where they switch from walking to driving, so there will be some in both directions.<br /><br />This of course ignores other health factors influenced by the choice between car and bike, where I think the evidence is firmly in favour of active travel over inactive, for improvement in obesity, cardiovascular fitness, lung function, etc and hence life expectancy, and this effect greatly outweighs the road danger effect.<br /><br />It also doesn’t take account of the secondary casualty effect, on which I don’t think I have seen any stats. We see figures for casualties for walkers, cyclists, car occupants, per km walked, cycled, or driven. We see figures for pedestrians, cyclists and car occupants per year. We don’t see, but could presumably work out from data used to compile the other stats, the cyclist or pedestrian casualties per km DRIVEN by motor vehicles.<br /><br />If we leave aside the distraction of the “safety in numbers” argument, it must surely be the case that, as it is generally motor vehicles (cars included) which kill both pedestrians and cyclists on the roads, a reduction in car mileage, isolated from any change in cycle or walking mileage, must lead to a reduction in pedestrian or cyclist casualties, or indeed in their casualties per km. The relationship between the two is complex.<br /><br />Finally, I think one can focus too much on absolute numbers. I have absolutely no doubt that there is a statistic somewhere that says more people die gardening or doing DIY than cycling. We could all stop putting up shelves and concrete over our lawns, but we won’t. We know that some risk is inevitable if we are not to fall into total paralysis. We just have a sense of where the risk tips from acceptable to unacceptable. In UK cycling, for most people it is still unacceptable.Paul Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07929808238663838155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37583332747236920.post-73294798545709599972012-04-24T15:16:08.482+01:002012-04-24T15:16:08.482+01:00Thanks again for the information Jim.
In reply to...Thanks again for the information Jim.<br /><br />In reply to perimonger, whether you consider a better measure of safety to be fatalities per km, or per hour, depends whether you regard cycling, or any other mode of transport, as a means of covering distance, or a means of occupying time. This is a philosophical question. All forms of transport can have both functions. But I think most people would have a "common sense" opinion that the first is the primary purpose.David Ardittihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06255565837583244148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37583332747236920.post-45660868075243967962012-04-24T15:15:14.553+01:002012-04-24T15:15:14.553+01:00Great idea perlmonger - and you only need to know ...Great idea perlmonger - and you only need to know or estimate mean speed to get that info.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37583332747236920.post-59309935755473094222012-04-24T15:05:32.641+01:002012-04-24T15:05:32.641+01:00Given the huge disparity in average speeds (outsid...Given the huge disparity in average speeds (outside urban areas at any rate :) an even better measure of comparative safety might be fatalities per million journey hours. I haven't tuits to research the data right now, but I suspect on those terms cycling would be significantly *safer* than driving in the Netherlands, and possibly so even here in the UK.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com