Dangerous Drivers

[Loz]

LD,

> I have also read that it was about 5 deaths by cycle in a few years. Sonething like one every two

> years or something like that, so I'm not sure your stats are correct, but can't be arsed searching

> for my source right now.

I used binary_star's own stats, and he/she gave their source on the original post back on page 1 or 2. Hassle him/her for their authenticity. My source for the mileage figures was included in my post.

Besides, the challenge from binary_star was:

Prove this wrong. I've asked anyone who asserts any different to pick any parameter for danger they like, then choose any study, any data set, from any date range. And demonstrate that cyclists are more dangerous than drivers.

I think my little calculation meets the given challenge, no?

[Loz]

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Any chance you could compare the distance an

> earthworm moves over a six minute period with a leg of lamb?

Depends. Is the leg still attached to said lamb?

[LadyDeliah]

Ok, if the parameters are just pedestrian deaths per mile driven and those stats are correct then I guess your analysis is correct, even if it isn't really a true refelection of the reletive dangers of cyclists v motorists.

But we are not comparing like with like. Pedestrians and cyclists mix more often and like I said cyclists are silent so pedestrians are more likely to step out in front of a cyclist than they are a car or bus etc.

If you were to keep the analysis just to pedestrians, you would have to look at whose fault the collision was, because I would imagine from my own experience, more collisions involving cyclists and pedestrians were the fault of the pedestrian not looking before stepping into the road.

Another way to determine releative danger to pedestrians would be to get the stats for all collisions with pedestrians and see what percentage of those resulted in a fatality, to get a more accurate idea of relative danger.

If you want to go with danger relative to miles driven / ridden, I think because of where each of them do their riding / driving relative to pedestrians, you would have to look at all fatal accidents / collisions not just with pedestrians to get a true picture of the relative dangers.

So off you pop. Lots of homework for you there!

[Loz]

LadyDeliah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Lots of homework for you there!

Do your own legwork!! Here's where I started:

http://www.google.co.uk

Anyway, stats to the depth of causal and contributory factors are incomplete and, for those there are, even the authors recognise they are, at best, subjective and unscientific.

[Voyageur]

Stats are marvelous guys, but here's something for you: In my 50 years I have been hit by a car not once but I have been knocked flying as a kid on a pavement by a man on a bike pelting down that pavement (and have the scars to prove it) , I have had a cyclist hit me on a pedestrian crossing and I have had to dodge out of the way of cyclists on pavements and careering through red lights on crossings countless times. Fact.

I have nothing against cyclists who cycle safely and courteously, the rest I would like to see rounded up and tarred and feathered (and that's just for starters!).

[LadyDeliah]

Lol, thanks for that Loz.

Just another thought on your analysis of pedestrian deaths by cyclists per mile travelled, cars do long journeys outside of urban conurbations where there are very few pedestrians (everyone drives or uses public transport), so pedestrian deaths per miles again tells you nothing about relative danger.

Pedestrians stay away from cars because they are too dangerous to go near. I reckon the deaths per mile of pedestrian deaths at the hands of other pedestrians would be the highest rate of dangerousness of all of them.

Maybe we should all suit up in Iron Man armour incase a pedestrian decides he/she doesn't like the look of us and takes us down! Actually, I know I can get pretty much everything I need delivered to my door, so I'm not going to take any chances, I'm staying in my house from now on.

What's that Loz? You say it works for you? Great, I won't need my silly helmet cam now, I'll be safe as houses if I never go anywhere :-)

[Voyageur]

And so will we! :-D

[LadyDeliah]

Lol, ok got to admit that did make me chuckle.

To be honest though I'm much more of a danger on foot on the pavement than on a bike. Lack of exercise makes me incredibly grumpy and when I'm due on, I'm a menace to society.

At least on a bike, I'd be past you in a flash and my endorphins would keep me happy enough not to want to go postal on someone blocking my way, walking reeeeaaaallllyyyy slowly whilst typing on their phone.

[Loz]

LD, I'm not saying those stats prove conclusively who or what is universally more dangerous, just that binary_star set up a challenge and so I took it up. And, I have to say, rather aced it. :))

But, I think it does show that cycles aren't the fluffy-bumpkins of travelling that some would try to portray and maybe, just maybe, all idiots on the roads, no matter what they are sitting on or in, would at least suitably fined, and maybe even stopping them from causing any more mayhem by preventing them from using the roads. I don't actually care about the relative dangers of their choice of mode of travel, fewer morons on the road would be better for everyone.

[binary_star]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think my little calculation meets the given

> challenge, no?

Well, kudos for a valiant effort but I don't think so, no. Firstly, the stats you provided on traffic type are estimates not actual figures. That's not too much of a problem but something to note. Secondly, if we are going to use 'pedestrian deaths per mile travelled', it was a bit naughty of you to only exempt the miles clocked up by motorway traffic. I can think of a dozen other journey types that aren't typically made by bicycle but that allow motorists to have a relatively pedestrian free (and speedy) journey. What about all those country roads that stretch on for miles without so much as a footpath, let alone a pedestrian crossing?

Cars can rack up a massive amount of deathless miles on those pelting along at national speed limit! From the link you provided, those journeys make up another 45% of traffic ON TOP of the 20% from motorways.

The types of journeys made by bicycle are typically much shorter, much slower and will have much more chance of the cyclist coming into contact with pedestrians because they are likely to be on minor roads and may even involve the use of a shared cycle/footpath. From the link you provided: "The distribution of traffic across road types varies considerably between vehicle types. At one extreme four-fifths of pedal cycle traffic is on minor roads."

So, if we're going to persist with 'deaths per mile', I think that we should really only be counting minor roads and maybe even narrow that down to inner city or urban areas where cars and bike at least have the same chance of coming into contact with pedestrians! Otherwise you might as well say that trains kill less pedestrians than bikes per mile. It's not really fair if one vehicle type doesn't use the types of miles where there are no actual pedestrians to kill!

So if we exempt A roads as well, we're not looking at discounting 20% but more like 65% of those car miles. Unfortunately, I can't get to the raw data for the miles on minor roads by vehicle type as the links in the study you provided don't work for me. But I have a hunch bikes aren't coming out so bad any more?

Would you agree with that analysis?

[Loz]

binary_star,

I repeat your challenge, with a little highlighting...

> I've asked anyone who asserts any different to pick any parameter for danger

> they like, then choose any study, any data set, from any date range

I have chosen my parameters and reached my conclusions. Your challenge was met and even the indefatigable LadyD has (grudgingly) accepted it.

And all you have done is nit-pickingly throw in a few desperate questions. If you want to challenge my figures, then get out your pen, paper and start googling. Until you have better, fully sourced, reputable figures then suck it up. You lost. Your challenge was taken up and beaten.

[LadyDeliah]

Lol, Binary I think the 'any parameters' clause kind of opened the door to Loz's argument!

So he may have won this minor victory, but if you can be arsed, maybe getting stats using more relevant parameters we can win the next round :-)

[binary_star]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> binary_star,

>

> I repeat your challenge, with a little

> highlighting...

>

> > I've asked anyone who asserts any different to

> pick any parameter for danger

> > they like, then choose any study, any data set,

> from any date range

>

> I have chosen my parameters and reached my

> conclusions. Your challenge was met and even the

> indefatigable LadyD has (grudgingly) accepted it.

>

>

> And all you have done is nit-pickingly throw in a

> few desperate questions. If you want to challenge

> my figures, then get out your pen, paper and start

> googling. Until you have better, fully sourced,

> reputable figures then suck it up. You lost.

> Your challenge was taken up and beaten.

Yeh I opened it up and I'm not challenging the stats, I'm challenging their validity in proving your argument that cyclists are more dangerous. You can't use traffic mile figures from traffic miles that don't include cyclists or pedestrians..? Well you can but I don't think any sensible person would accept that as 'proof'. Do you honestly think your analysis is fair? That is a serious question.

ETA: added 'or pedestrians'

[binary_star]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> LD, I'm not saying those stats prove conclusively

> who or what is universally more dangerous, just

> that binary_star set up a challenge and so I took

> it up. And, I have to say, rather aced it. :))

>

Aced it!?

There were two parts to the 'challenge' as you put it. The first part was to choose a study with a data set, year, and parameter for danger etc. You did that part ok but not 100% (no study, just data). The second was to do exactly what you've admitted it doesn't...use it to prove cycling is more dangerous.

[Loz]

That is my analysis. It proved that cycling causes relatively, by total mileage, more casualties that cars and vans and, thus, is more dangerous. And it met all your criteria. Do you concede the challenge, or are you going to try and weasel out of it and be dishonest? As she has said, even Lady D agrees you set a very careless challenge.

Also, my analysis is fair because it proved the point as I outlined in my 11.11am post above. So, get off your bum and do your own if you want to prove some other point. Bandying about a few conjectures is easy, but uninformative. Do the research and the math and then come back to me.

But, to answer one point: "You can't use traffic mile figures from traffic miles that don't include cyclists..?". Of course it is fair, as long as there are pedestrian casualties - I thought that would be obvious? It's not about cyclists, it's about dangers to pedestrians. That is why I allowed the exclusion of motorway traffic, as it explicitly bans pedestrians (so the fact that it bans cyclists as well is actually immaterial to any calculation).

If you want to go into the mess of trying to separate different road types then back it with sourced, reputable stats (i.e. no interested lobby groups) and separate the casualties as well. No vague guesses allowed.

So, if you think my analysis is unfair then do your own. Just sitting there sniping and trying to pick holes is lazy debating.

[LadyDeliah]

binary_star said:

> There were two parts to the challenge. The first

> was to choose your data set, year, parameter for

> danger etc. you did that part ok. The second was

> to exactly what you've admitted it doesn't...use

> it to prove cycling is more dangerous.

Oooo, Loz I do think she's got you there. The flaw in your argument is that you anslysis of the data and you parameters DO NOT prove that cyclists are more dangerous than motorised vehicles. Narrowing the parameters too much makes a nonsense of any relative danger argument.

Premature congratulations I'm afraid.

I think it's you who needs to go off and do a bit more homework. I'll give you an A for effort though!

[binary_star]

Loz come on you can't be serious? You have proved that mile for mile there are more pedestrian deaths. Yes I concede that. What I will not concede is that means cycling is more dangerous to pedestrians. Why? Because most of those car miles don't involve going anywhere near pedestrians. It's like saying mile for mile planes aren't a danger to pedestrians...so what does that prove? Nothing. I'm not weaselling out of anything I'm saying your data (which is estimated btw) does nothing to indicate what you are saying it does. I will if I can get to the data use the same study to make my own calculation.

[Loz]

LadyDeliah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> binary_star said:

>

> > There were two parts to the challenge. The first

> > was to choose your data set, year, parameter for

> > danger etc. you did that part ok. The second was

> > to exactly what you've admitted it doesn't...use

> > it to prove cycling is more dangerous.

>

> Oooo, Loz I do think she's got you there. The flaw

> in your argument is that you anslysis of the data

> and you parameters DO NOT prove that cyclists are

> more dangerous than motorised vehicles. Narrowing

> the parameters too much makes a nonsense of any

> relative danger argument.

Eh? Conclusion: on a per mileage basis, cyclists cause 6.0 pedestrian casualties to between 2.98 (on all roads) and 3.73 casualties (on non-M-way roads) caused by cars and vans, so within those parameters they are more dangerous.

How the hell is that, within those parameters, not 'more dangerous'? Are you saying it is less dangerous?

Careless wording by b_s, you must agree, so challenge quite easily met. Aced, as I said.

[LadyDeliah]

I agree the drafting was imprecise, but it clearly says that use your own parameters to prove cycling (general) is more dangerous. It does not say, use your own paraneters to prove cycling is more dangerous within those parameters. Otherwise you could rightly say, parked card cause zero deaths per mile compared to moving cyclists per mile.

Nonesense parameters don't prove general relative danger, they just prove relative danger that is a nonesense.

[Loz]

LadyDeliah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I agree the drafting was imprecise, but it clearly says that use your own parameters to prove cycling

> (general) is more dangerous. It does not say, use your own paraneters to prove cycling is more

> dangerous within those parameters. Otherwise you could rightly say, parked card cause zero deaths

> per mile compared to moving cyclists per mile.

But that is exactly how stats work. You set the parameters, collate the data that correspond with those parameters and reach a conclusion. Anything else would be to introduce bias. Normally, you could either argue the stats or the parameters, but b_s has accepted the stats and then tried to argue the parameters, which under the terms of the challenge is not allowed (as only I get to decide the parameters).

But actually, it was a pretty interesting conclusion anyway, and one I bet you didn't expect - even given the parameters. I suspect that, even if you do whittle it down, the best you could hope for is something close to parity, given the wideness of the 2:1 result I got originally. And I reckon that, if the stats were available, certain road types would still give a bad result for cyclists.

But that is all conjecture. I await b_s's thorough and well-sourced analysis. And parameters.

[Loz]

LadyDeliah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I agree the drafting was imprecise, but it clearly says that use your own parameters to prove cycling

> (general) is more dangerous. It does not say, use your own paraneters to prove cycling is more dangerous

> within those parameters.

Actually, the exact wording was "I've asked anyone who asserts any different to pick any parameter for danger they like". I chose relative deaths of pedestrians per mile travelled across all road types.

QED, I believe. Challenge aced.

[LadyDeliah]

Smartarse!

[binary_star]

.

[Loz]

You rang, m'lady? :))

[LadyDeliah]

Well dudes, fun as this has been, I think it's about time I got on with all the interesting things I've got planned for this weekend.

To be continued ...