that in some locations, during rush hour, cyclists not only outnumber private cars but all other road vehicles (private cars , lorries, taxis motorbikes buses) to constitute 64% if vehicles.
Cole's law
Quote from: i.munro on November 20, 2013, 05:07:33 pmthat in some locations, during rush hour, cyclists not only outnumber private cars but all other road vehicles (private cars , lorries, taxis motorbikes buses) to constitute 64% if vehicles. - and thus cyclist accident/death rates fall at a higher rate.. theres a name for it
IIRC, the whole 'helmets makes you worse off' debate is based on one Australian study (where its compulsory) where they measured how close people drive to cyclists with and without helmets. They showed (nto sure how well) that motorists drove closer to those with helmets - to which the paper 'interpreted' this to mean that motorists assumed those wearing helmets were protected to a degree so they could drive closer to them. I know of no other study that supports these (oft cited) findings - but am happy to be corrected otherwise..
Not commenting on the rest of what you said - but the above introduces another interesting concept whereby as the amount of cyclists increase you reach a tipping point where it gets safer as there are so many cyclists they start to outnumber cars - and by being the dominant form of transport car drivers are forced to take more notice of them - and thus cyclist accident/death rates fall at a higher rate.. theres a name for it (sorry forgotten - but its named after the person who came up with the idea - its Sydneys law or something like that..)
Quote from: petejh on November 20, 2013, 01:12:13 pmThese figures for the whole of London from the DfT 2012 report are quite eye-opening to me:Number killed or seriously injured by vehicle type:Pedestrians 5,272 Cyclists 4,619 Motorcyclists 4,653 Cars 12,298Taking those figures and combining it with what I saw in central London yesterday:There are obviously hundreds (thousands?) times more pedestrians than there are cyclists in London.There are hundreds times more cars than cyclists.The figures quoted here http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/move-over-amsterdam-the-london-cycling-revolution-is-in-top-gear-8671069.htmlwould suggest that your impressions are simply wrong & that in some locations, during rush hour, cyclists not only outnumber private cars but all other road vehicles (private cars , lorries, taxis motorbikes buses) to constitute 64% if vehicles.
These figures for the whole of London from the DfT 2012 report are quite eye-opening to me:Number killed or seriously injured by vehicle type:Pedestrians 5,272 Cyclists 4,619 Motorcyclists 4,653 Cars 12,298Taking those figures and combining it with what I saw in central London yesterday:There are obviously hundreds (thousands?) times more pedestrians than there are cyclists in London.There are hundreds times more cars than cyclists.
16% of the traffic is not consistent with "There are hundreds times more cars than cyclists." At the very most it means that there are 6.25 times as many & that assumes that there are no taxis lorries or buses.
But not 'hundreds', no. The interesting part of my post is the accident ratio no?
Jesus wept, wish I hadn't asked as I'll be dead by Christmas.
...Given that, surprising thing about your accident figures , for me, is that car travel doesn't actually appear to be that much safer than cycling despite all the money spent on it , the viciously anti-bike mayor & everything else.
Take away buses and large trucks and you have the figure. Lets say, for sake of argument, the remaining 50% are cars and vans etc.So,25% of people killed or seriously injured in road accidents in C.London come from a group (cars/vans etc.) comprising 50% of total road users.26% of people killed or seriously injured in road accidents in C.London come from a group (cyclists) comprising 16% of total road users.
There are all sorts of reasons for believing that that 16% figure is an underestimate of the number of cyclists but I'd guess we're in the right sort of ballpark now i.e. 3 times as many cars as cycles on the road overall.
It's easy to assume that transport in London is car dominated because they are allocated all the space, priority & money but in practice the numbers are (relatively) extremely low.Sorry to bore everyone crapless with this but the technique that you (I assume inadvertently) used, of associating genuine stats with a whopping great lie, is one that the tories & the right-wing press use frequently to peddle their shit & it really winds me up.
Quote from: SA Chris on November 20, 2013, 02:04:17 pmQuote from: Snoops on November 20, 2013, 09:21:06 amhttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/boris-johnson-ban-cyclists-from-wearing-headphones-8948964.htmlI think a ban is ridiculous idea, but he is right how crazy it is to wear headphones whilst cycling on roads. There seems quite a few commuting in Sheffield with the music on, and I do think 'death wish'Surely passing compulsory bike helmet law (like in Oz) would be more useful in reducing deaths?Depends whether you consider the proximity with which cyclists are passed by cars is a factor. If so you could just grow your hair long and look like a girl....http://www.drianwalker.com/overtaking/Usual caveats of sample size, reading the paper yourself and drawing your own conclusions apply, and of course there may be spatial differences due to the factors that petejh highlighted which are discussed in this blog post.http://bamboobadger.blogspot.co.uk/2009/03/bicycle-overtaking-and-rebuttals.html
Quote from: Snoops on November 20, 2013, 09:21:06 amhttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/boris-johnson-ban-cyclists-from-wearing-headphones-8948964.htmlI think a ban is ridiculous idea, but he is right how crazy it is to wear headphones whilst cycling on roads. There seems quite a few commuting in Sheffield with the music on, and I do think 'death wish'Surely passing compulsory bike helmet law (like in Oz) would be more useful in reducing deaths?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/boris-johnson-ban-cyclists-from-wearing-headphones-8948964.htmlI think a ban is ridiculous idea, but he is right how crazy it is to wear headphones whilst cycling on roads. There seems quite a few commuting in Sheffield with the music on, and I do think 'death wish'
Quote from: Duma on August 02, 2012, 07:22:24 pm (really think having a lid on will make the slightest difference when a juggernaut turns left onto you?), Yes. It will increase your chance of not having a permanent head injury if you pull through. Several times a year I have the pleasure of seeing cyclists in Sheffield in the Royal Hallamshire. There are exceptions, but most of the ones with brain contusions and questionable neurological prognoses weren't wearing a helmet
I wear headphones cycling (but not at max volume). I'm certainly not about to look over my shoulder just because a vehicle is approaching. I'll look behind me before signalling to manoeuvre and not wearing headphones would not change this one bit.Should deaf or hearing impaired people not be allowed to cycle because they can't hear whats going on around them? (which is presumably the logic behind proposing a ban on headphones).
But you have shifted from your original assertion that there are "hundreds of times more cars than cycles" (which would lead to the conclusion that cycling is 100s of times more dangerous) to the position that there are around 3 times as many.TFL & the mayor have a vested interest in people beleiving that this ratio is much higher than it actually is in order to justify the way that they choose to allocate resources
Re the helmets, we've been here before. Here's what I said/think. I've seen a few more since then as well:QuoteQuote from: Duma on August 02, 2012, 07:22:24 pm (really think having a lid on will make the slightest difference when a juggernaut turns left onto you?), Yes. It will increase your chance of not having a permanent head injury if you pull through. Several times a year I have the pleasure of seeing cyclists in Sheffield in the Royal Hallamshire. There are exceptions, but most of the ones with brain contusions and questionable neurological prognoses weren't wearing a helmetI'm sure you can find a few links telling me I'm wrong Slackers!
Maybe rethink your attire needs..