-
• #2
Repost--and also highly incomplete data that paints a distorted picture. (E.g., no distinction between different severities of collisions, no data on how many cyclists use each street (essential for putting collisions into context), etc.)
-
• #3
I didn't say it was perfect.
-
• #4
I didn't say you did--but it's worth warning people off giving this sort of distortion much credence. It only creates urban myths that it takes forever to dispel.
-
• #5
Ireland looks safe
-
• #6
So does mid Wales, it's only a curiosity and unlikely to really to surprise anyone.
-
• #7
Mid Wales is not safe. There may be no cycling accidents there but it certainly far from safe.
-
• #8
There's a giant sleeping under the hills.
-
• #9
Mid Wales is not safe. There may be no cycling accidents there but it certainly far from safe.
It's safe if you're an Irishman playing rugby!
-
• #10
It's safe if you're an Irishman playing rugby!
Do they play rugby in Wales?
-
• #11
Not this year they bloody didn't!!! Deserved 4th after the shite 'performance' against italy.
-
• #12
this is a great look at the numbers of accidents in london.
it seems that the number of cyclists and number of accidents on the roads are not correlated.
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/PC-Cas-Factsheet-Final-1986-2007.pdf
-
• #13
Research apparently indcates, as do these figures, that the more cyclists there are, the fewer accidents there are. As cycling increases, motorists' awareness of cycling increases.
We need more nodders on the roads!
-
• #14
They are correlated - more cyclists = less cycling collisions.
And they aren't accidents - accident implies something unavoidable, for which no-one can be blamed. Whereas, at least in my experience, most collisions are wholly avoidable.
-
• #15
A friend found this. It's a map of recorded accidents in 2007.
[URL="http://labs.timesonline.co.uk/2009/cycling_accidents/"][/URL]Great stuff! It proves that cycling around Regent's Park is riskier than cycling around the M25. Aren't stats wonderful.
-
• #16
They are correlated - more cyclists = less cycling collisions.
And they aren't accidents - accident implies something unavoidable, for which no-one can be blamed. Whereas, at least in my experience, most collisions are wholly avoidable.
+1.
imo - no way are they accidents. they are crashes or collisions.
-
• #17
They are correlated - more cyclists = less cycling collisions.
And they aren't accidents - accident implies something unavoidable, for which no-one can be blamed. Whereas, at least in my experience, most collisions are wholly avoidable.
Exactly. And another reason to say 'collision' is because the reasons why they occur are quite well-known and somehow 'built into' the traffic environment and actually fairly predictable (much as it would be much better if they were prevented altogether). There is no reason to hide behind the lazy notion of an 'accident' to avoid taking action.
-
• #18
Didn't I read that if there's more cyclists on the road, vehicle drivers take more notice (i.e. not only looking out for vehicle and motorbikes but also bicycles), as less cyclists on the road mean the vehicle drivers wouldn't be able to look out for them because there's no need to?
-
• #19
Didn't I read that if there's more cyclists on the road, vehicle drivers take more notice (i.e. not only looking out for vehicle and motorbikes but also bicycles), as less cyclists on the road mean the vehicle drivers wouldn't be able to look out for them because there's no need to?
Probably read that about 5 posts above =P
-
• #20
-
• #21
In today's Standard...
the comments from readers are revealing
Thanks for posting this. I hadn't seen it yet.
-
• #22
you can't overstate from lorry drivers - a warning to us all
-
• #23
overstate the DANGER from lorry drivers
-
• #24
you can't overstate from lorry drivers - a warning to us all
overstate the DANGER from lorry drivers
It's a serious topic, but this omission made me laugh. :)
A friend found this. It's a map of recorded accidents in 2007.
http://labs.timesonline.co.uk/2009/cycling_accidents/