irc wrote:Did anyone doubt this?
Judging by the column inches and airtime given to the subject, yes.
irc wrote:Did anyone doubt this?
IIRC you are wrong - more than half are on the carriageway, not sure what the blame apportionment is. Whilst it is a "constipated, Holmes?" to point out that that it's far easer to kill a pedestrian with a car, even on the pavement, perception is otherwise.MikeL wrote:We do not know * where* these bike/ped collisions occurred. I suspect most or all of them were on the pavement. If I am correct, then those of us who always ride on the road represent a risk to the public of near enough to zero to make no practical difference.
There is a standard definition of death "cause" which is time-related, probably different for murder/manslaughter vs RTA (sic). A greater proportion of car-derived fatalities are likely to be instant/quick but the same threshold injury, be it car or bicycle induced, could fall foul of this.The pedestrian fatality rate *may* be an underestimate, depending on how you define causality. For an old person, suffering a broken neck of femur after being knocked down by a bike (easily plausible) could well set in train a sequence of events which leads to chronic debility and eventually death even if many months later. Would this be counted? It would be a source of bias, since injuries caused by motor traffic would be more likely to cause early death because of the greater trauma.
SilverBadge wrote: IIRC you are wrong - more than half are on the carriageway, not sure what the blame apportionment is. Whilst it is a "constipated, Holmes?" to point out that that it's far easer to kill a pedestrian with a car, even on the pavement, perception is otherwise.
snibgo wrote:A cycle is more dangerous (EDIT: per mile) to a pedestrian than an LGV, HGV or car. It is worse than the average motor vehicle. In absolute numbers, cycles are very safe for pedestrians, but this is only because of the low number of miles cycled.
I suspect that most cycle-versus-pedestrian collisions are on pavements, although the single fatality in 2009 wasn't.
meic wrote:The figures would probably be a lot different if there was a cyclist equivalent of motorways, where cyclists could do millions of miles safe from any chance of hitting pedestrians.
meic wrote:Also the figures are probably higher for cycles and motorcycles because pedestrians ( the same people as motorists but out of their cars) are not expecting them and dont notice them.
Light good vehicles: 41 - 7.6 = 33.4; 247; 7.40
Heavy good vehicles: 16 - 7.0 = 9.0; 109; 12.11
All motor vehicles: 313 - 62 = 251; 5091; 20.28
Cars and taxis: 249 - 47 = 202; 4100; 20.30
Pedal cycles: 3.1 - 0.0 = 3.1; 73; 23.55
Motorcycles: 3.2 - 0.3 = 2.9; 193; 66.55
Buses and coaches: 3.2 - 0.3; 293; 101.03
Pedal cycles: 3.1; 1; 0.32
Motorcycles: 3.2; 8; 2.50
Cars and taxis: 249; 291; 1.17
Buses and coaches: 3.2; 37; 11.56
Light good vehicles: 41; 16; 0.39
Heavy good vehicles: 16; 58; 3.62
All motor vehicles: 313; 420; 1.34
meic wrote:The figures would probably be a lot different if there was a cyclist equivalent of motorways, where cyclists could do millions of miles safe from any chance of hitting pedestrians.
Also the figures are probably higher for cycles and motorcycles because pedestrians ( the same people as motorists but out of their cars) are not expecting them and dont notice them.