29% increase in cycling accidents? Really?

Sorry if this has already been posted, LV insurance put these stats out - I think they've had a fair amount of beating about it including people cancelling their insurance - 29% over 6 months sounds a bit silly to me, I haven't seen a third more people lying by the road bleeding...

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/Why_we_should_doubt__insurance_companys_cycling_accident_stats_article_275451.html

They were following us on the last Bridges Ride weren't they?

lol VB :D

They weren't accidents, that was people injuring themselves out of boredom whilst waiting on various bridges :-)

(disclaimer: I enjoyed the ride)

MASHTON, come to the Snow, now.

Interesting.

"18% of claims were related to unclip fails when trackstanding at lights"

Wonder if there was an age limit - "65% of injuries were related to 'Daddy letting go'"

Interesting.

"18% of claims were related to unclip fails when trackstanding at lights"

surely that doesn't count as an accident? I do it intentionally.

It's basically bullshit..

From Ealing Cycling:

Credit crunch brings chaos to the roads
Some rather sloppy reporting from the Independent caused a storm in the cycling world when they reported that financial pressure is forcing people to cycle and causing a big rise in cycling accidents.

'Financial pressure to ditch cars for bikes could be the cause of the big rise in cycling accidents, it was revealed today.

''There has been a 29% increase in road accidents involving cyclists in the last six months, according to figures from insurance company LV.

''It said that the switch from four wheels to two had led to many inexperienced cyclists taking to the road and a lack of formal cycling training may have contributed to the accident tally.

'A survey by the company showed 52% of cyclists had never read the Highway Code's advice for cyclists and only 42% had taken a cycling proficiency course.

'Also, 42% fail to wear a safety helmet, 41% cycle on the pavement, a third have cycled the wrong way up a one-way street and 6% have cycled under the influence of drink or drugs, with the same number using mobile phones while on the road.

'LV Car Insurance spokeswoman Emma Holyer said: "Cycling is a cheap and enjoyable way to get from A to B and great exercise at the same time but it's essential that cyclists are fully equipped to deal with the busy British roads to ensure their own safety and that of other road users.

"If cycling training was compulsory, and cyclists were better equipped to follow the rules of the roads we believe motorists, pedestrians and cyclists themselves would all benefit from fewer accidents and a safer environment on the road."'

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/credit-crunch-cyclists-causing-chaos-on-roads-1419070.html

This was despite the fact that the CTC have already put out a press release refuting the LV claims:

'Cheap PR stunt demonises cyclists 15/01/2009

'CTC – the UK’s national cyclists’ organisation has completely refuted claims by car insurance company LV that “inexperienced cyclists taking to the roads in the last 6 months have resulted in a 29% increase in road accidents involving cyclists”. The figure appears to be no more than the difference in casualty numbers for cyclists between summer and winter. LV’s estimate of the number of collisions involving cyclists is over 9 times higher than official figures and is based on a serious miscalculation of the number of cyclists in Britain. CTC has dismissed the figure as nothing more than a scaremongering publicity stunt.

Roger Geffen, CTC’s Campaigns and Policy Manager, said: “This is Mickey Mouse research and flies in the face all official published statistics on cycling. There is plenty of evidence showing that cycling gets safer the more cyclists there are. In London there has been a 91% increase in cycle use on the capital’s main roads since 2000, and a 33% reduction in cycle casualties in roughly the same period”.

'He added: “CTC has been researching cycle safety for over a century. Manipulating statistics for a PR stunt wastes the time of the people
who took part in the survey. By demonising cyclists and scaring people into staying in their cars, it also undermines the efforts of charities like CTC to encourage more cycling and improve road safety for all”.

'Singling out cyclists as a law-breaking group is discriminatory and serves only to create aggression and conflict between road users.
This is highly irresponsible behaviour for an insurance company professing to care about road safety.

The CTC are asking people to contact their Right to Ride department ([COLOR=#1E66AE]righttoride@ctc.org.uk[/COLOR]) if they see the story in local papers.

All in the last six months?

Ooops - I only got a bike 6 months ago, its amazing what one idiot can do to statistics.

Yes, this claim is absolute bollocks and not worth the paper it's printed on. There are often people who have an interest in putting out scare stories or otherwise negative stories on cycling. The CTC have done a good job rebutting it. Ignore safely.

'42% had taken a cycling proficiency course.
42% fail to wear a safety helmet,
41% cycle on the pavement,
third have cycled the wrong way up a one-way street
6% have cycled under the influence of drink or drugs"

In the context of LFGSS or other experienced riders, not exactly a revelation, for a novice cyclist perhaps disaster on toast...

lfgss version of stats

    2% had taken a cycling proficiency course.

fuckyouit'snotthefuckinglawcuntface% fail to wear a safety helmet,
1% cycle on the pavement - the curryers and people parking up somewhere,
30% have cycled the wrong way up a one-way street, 70% have done and slagged off traffic coming the other way.
100% have cycled under the influence of drink or drugs"
50% cycling under the influence of drink or drugs 100% of the time

'42% had taken a cycling proficiency course.
42% fail to wear a safety helmet,
41% cycle on the pavement,
third have cycled the wrong way up a one-way street
6% have cycled under the influence of drink or drugs"

In the context of LFGSS or other experienced riders, not exactly a revelation, for a novice cyclist perhaps disaster on toast...

That's gotta be a misprint shirley.

'42% had taken a cycling proficiency course.
42% fail to wear a safety helmet,
41% cycle on the pavement,
third have cycled the wrong way up a one-way street
6% have cycled under the influence of drink or drugs"

In the context of LFGSS or other experienced riders, not exactly a revelation, for a novice cyclist perhaps disaster on toast...

lfgss version of stats

    2% had taken a cycling proficiency course.

fuckyouit'snotthefuckinglawcuntface% fail to wear a safety helmet,
1% cycle on the pavement - the curryers and people parking up somewhere,
30% have cycled the wrong way up a one-way street, 70% have done and slagged off traffic coming the other way.
100% have cycled under the influence of drink or drugs"
50% cycling under the influence of drink or drugs 100% of the time

Both sets of stats are equally made up, I tells ya. It's just that in one case it's more obvious, coming from hippy.

they are proably just doing it cos they have to pay out so much when their drivers take out cyclists. they are probably trying to say in court, to try and cut the payout, that our research shows that

" joe bloggs who got hit by a car is an idiot, who was on his phone whilst drunk, and high on crack, cycling up a one way street the wrong way without a helmet on, and that it's not the car drivers fualt, even if he wasn't paying attention and was slightly drunk"

Both sets might be made up but mine are more accurate.

i heard the government was planning to make cyclists pay road tax and have number plates? surely that will never work? i hope?

Yes, and we have to have little barcodes printed on our foreheads and a RFID chip injected into our left buttock.

the article should read "29% increase in nosy ba$t4rds reporting cycling accidents"

i heard the government was planning to make cyclists pay road tax and have number plates? surely that will never work? i hope?

Both of those come up constantly. Search on the forum for 'Vehicle Excise Duty' and you'll find a few threads, I think. As for compulsory registration, none other than Ken Livingstone floated that one a few years ago, and we had a pretty good and effective campaign against it. It will come up again.

the article should read "29% increase in nosy ba$t4rds reporting cycling accidents"

The LV= data was not based only on reporting of collisions but also on a YouGov survey with additional inferences. The CTC has asked LV= to provide its actual data so that it can be examined properly, but as far as I'm aware LV= haven't done that yet. As it is, as far as anyone can tell, the data is of very dubious value.

Cycling organisations are actually very much in favour of accurate levels of reporting. We want to know what really goes on so that we can tell the Government what it should be addressing by its policy. This will be higher than the current official reported figures, but it is unlikely to be 9.25 times higher, as the LV= figures apparently are.

^^^ thanks! Hope the number plate thing doesn't stick. it would spoil the look of my bike. Grumble

Interesting that a company whose business relies on selling car insurance is actively making up stats to scare people back into their cars.

The gov wants to give 2bil to the auto industry to bail them out.. fuck off.
Put your technology and materials into doing something useful.

Both of those come up constantly. Search on the forum for 'Vehicle Excise Duty' and you'll find a few threads, I think. As for compulsory registration, none other than Ken Livingstone floated that one a few years ago, and we had a pretty good and effective campaign against it. It will come up again.

The LV= data was not based only on reporting of collisions but also on a YouGov survey with additional inferences. The CTC has asked LV= to provide its actual data so that it can be examined properly, but as far as I'm aware LV= haven't done that yet. As it is, as far as anyone can tell, the data is of very dubious value.

Cycling organisations are actually very much in favour of accurate levels of reporting. We want to know what really goes on so that we can tell the Government what it should be addressing by its policy. This will be higher than the current official reported figures, but it is unlikely to be 9.25 times higher, as the LV= figures apparently are.

Fight the power Ollie !