Road map of Death..
At home (on the Coast) 1 person killed by bike (about 1/2 a mile away from my home) no pedestrians…
In Town (Canary Wharf) none kiled by bike where I am until you get to Shorditch area (the other side of Shadwell) 1 pedestrian until, again, you get up towards Shorditch again.
Seems to me I’m in a safe(ish) area either way 8)Posted 3 years agomintimperialSubscriber
In about a 10 mile radius around me there has been 6 times the amount of pedestrian fatalities, than cycle. Kind of puts things into perspective.
That depends on your viewpoint. Absolute numbers, i.e. total deaths, don’t tell you everything. Nearly everyone is a pedestrian at some point, but relatively few ride a bike. So there are far, far more pedestrians than cyclists, and you would expect far more of them to die even when they are much less likely to be killed on the roads.
For real perspective, as an individual, you want to know your own personal risk. So you need to know something like deaths per 100k of a given group, or deaths per 100k hours travelling or something like that (even deaths per million kms/miles travelled doesn’t tell you much because motor vehicles move much further than bikes on average, and pedestrians much less). I would be surprised if cyclists aren’t massively over-represented as a proportion of deaths compared to most other user groups. This would basically be because there is so little infrastructure, whereas pedestrians get pavements, dedicated crossings, and greater respect from drivers, who are also pedestrians.
However, if you’re a policy-maker aiming to reduce casualties, logically you would look at total deaths. Perhaps this explains why cyclists get such a relatively shit deal on the roads? Not enough of us are getting KSIed for it to be worth making an effort…Posted 3 years agowhatnobeerMember
Not sure of the accuracy or how up-to-date their data is – there’s been 2 cyclist deaths near me in the past couple of years which aren’t shown on there.
Data is only up to 2010, says at the top of the page.
Scary and a little sad when you remember the accidents in question.Posted 3 years agojohndohMember
one of which was a 94 year old man on a bike, 94
Just clicked around on some of the other pages,
For every fatal collision, there is a one in two chance that the driver responsible has a criminal record, according to preliminary research by South Yorkshire police.
The researchers found that van drivers and truckers involved in a crash are amongst the most likely to have either a motoring offence or a criminal record.
Those two statements are quite fascinating…
1 > ~50% of fatal collisions involve someone with a criminal record, there’s got to be some interesting discussions there about propensity of risk taking/disregarding rules.
2 > of those people involved in incidents, Professional drivers* are the ones most likely to have previous record of motoring offence. Must be some more data behind that, as you would expect professional drivers to be the most competent/less likely to have accident, but then they do a great deal more miles so I imagine that probably explains it
*I know it doesn’t say that specifically but vast majority of vans and trucks are driven for business rather than personal use.Posted 3 years ago
true, I was think more of the bigger vans and trucks, with test/license extended requirements.
For smaller vans with no extended requirements I have no idea what the split between professional drivers in fleet vehicles and self employed van drivers on the roads is though?Posted 3 years agoircSubscriber
That is such a huge number, and it’s totally socially acceptable for some reason.
It’s not a big number in terms of overall deaths. Look locally to get it in perspective. In my council area there were no cyclist deaths out of 27 total RTA deaths. Roughly 3 a year.
In comparison deaths from all causes were 962 a year. So RTAs are around 1/3 of 1% of all deaths.
As for avoidable deaths. Smoking killed 192 a year. Alcohol killed 73. RTA deaths are trivial compared to other causes.Posted 3 years agokonabunnyMember
I don’t suppose it reflects accurately the number of accidents, but it’s interesting the disproportionate number of deaths of motorcyclists in certain areas. They seem to make up roughly 90% of fatalities on one road near me.
presumably those are roads where the guys are fanging it on their weekend sports bikes…?Posted 3 years ago
The difference between smoking and RTAs though is that someone else can kill you in an RTA when you’re doing nothing wrong at all. You could be just driving along carefully, paying attention, and someone can come flying around a blind bend on your side of the road, and it’s curtains.
It’s not always in your hands.Posted 3 years agoDracSubscriber
yeh I noticed this also in my area, almost all peds killed were over 70.
Old people die very quickly from traumatic injuries that younger adults and even kids will survive from. Kids have a great compensatory mechanism but when it reaches it’s limit they go downhill fast. Adults have a reasonably good one and deteriorate a lot slower when to starts to fail. The elderly really don’t have a great compensatory mechanism so go downhill very rapidly.Posted 3 years agoMoreCashThanDashSubscriber
Seem to recall that the RNLI had a campaign recently stating more people died at the beach than were killed cycling. We all know how dangerous it can be, but the chances of being killed are very, very small.
But data like this is great for commute planning for cyclists. I wish planners used it though.Posted 3 years agosamuriMember
Indeed. This is a great chart showing the causes of deaths. Puts things in perspective. Cycling is very safe, could be safer.
I read that 4 people a year die putting their trousers on. Go careful now.Posted 3 years ago
The topic ‘Road map of Death..’ is closed to new replies.