Forum menu
[URL] http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/may/07/cycling-safety-york-calderdale [/URL]
apols if this has been done already - but this is slightly ironic considering the loaction of STW
Important quote there for me:
[i]"the fact that if car drivers also occasionally cycle they are likely to be more careful with bikes"[/i]
Cycle Heaven is a great shop for commuting stuff by the way. Check it out if you're in York.
Surely it's also down to rural areas having poorer roads with faster traffic and less folk cycling due to distances?
Seems like hilly places are more dangerous than flat places... there will be fewer cyclists in hilly places, but also the roads tend to be narrower with more bends, and cyclists' speed will be variable - much slower than cars uphill, but possibly faster than cars downhill.
Other areas awarded the A grade and near the top of the safety league include Hull, Lincolnshire and Cambridgeshire, while others given an E rating include Bradford, Blackburn and Kirklees.
I thought this quote might be more appropriate for Calderdale riding...
[i]the statistical quirk that a higher proportion of riders in low-cycling areas tend to be young men with a higher than average threshold for risk[/i]
😉
cynic-al, very good point which seems to have been overlooked in that article. Personally though I'd rather ride on 60 limit A roads through the hills than through the centre of Glasgow 😀
Surely it's also down to rural areas having poorer roads with faster traffic and less folk cycling due to distances?
That doesn't explain mostly rural areas like Cambridgeshire and Lincolnshire doing well and mostly urban areas like Bradford and Kirklees doing badly.
The survey said that it was safer where more people rode bikes, because more people ride bikes.
More people ride bikes in Cambridgeshire and Lincolnshire, than in Bradford and Kirklees, because it a lot flatter there.
Article and map both refer to Britain but it's actually only England.
🙁
The survey said that it was safer where more people rode bikes, because more people ride bikes.More people ride bikes in Cambridgeshire and Lincolnshire, than in Bradford and Kirklees, because it a lot flatter there.
Yes but a statistical relationship does not a causal relationship prove. Especially when there are other interacting factors.
You're right - but that's the statistical relationship the survey is using to support its conclusion that it is safer for cyclists in areas where more people ride bikes. And they appear to be pulling in comparative statistics from elsewhere in Europe to support that conclusion.
They're pointing out that there might be a number of mechanisms in action that are making it safer, related to the fact that more people are riding bikes. Obvously there's a chicken and egg situation here, but the egg is likely to be the relative ease and usefulness of using a bike in each location - and hills are often the limiting factor.
Having lived for the first 23 years of my life in York and then the last 6 in Halifax, I know where I'd prefer to ride (albeit, nowhere near any roads!).
Consider this though - York is as flat as a pancake and has cycle lanes everywhere.
Halifax is just a touch hillier (its like the Alps compared to York) with very few cycle lanes and the council seem to provide very few decent facilities to cyclists who would want to commute. Plus the driving skill level of your average driver in Halifax is probably below that of your average Parisian.