Discussion...

[[XAP]Bob]

Ended up having a helmet discussion this evening. On the way home from dropping the babysitter I realised I had been pulled into the wrong discussion...

I don't actually care how effective they might be, although the literature is split, the real point is therelatige risk of activities.

I need to get some good statistics, preferably by age, on injuries - preferably head and other - for walking and cycling.

[TonyR]

Ended up having a helmet discussion this evening. On the way home from dropping the babysitter I realised I had been pulled into the wrong discussion...

I don't actually care how effective they might be, although the literature is split, the real point is therelatige risk of activities.

I need to get some good statistics, preferably by age, on injuries - preferably head and other - for walking and cycling.

Head injuries make up a greater proportion of pedestrian hospital admissions than cyclists - about 25% more

About a third fewer cyclists are killed per journey km than pedestrians.

Injury stats are difficult to compare because the main database - RRCGB - only records accidents and injuries involving a vehicle. So if you fall off your bike and hit your head its counted but if you trip over a paving stone its not. But from the data available the number of pedestrian admissions to hospital with serious injuries from trips and falls on the highway is, per km, about six times greater than admissions of seriously injured cyclists.

[Mick F]

About a third fewer cyclists are killed per journey km than pedestrians.

That's the statement I was asking for in another thread. The one I was being castigated for saying that we should do away with cycling facilities and get back on the roads.

If this fact is to do with being killed by vehicles, we are all better off cycling than walking!

[TonyR]

You'll find it in RRCGB2012 which is a mine of interesting information. Not sure which table its in - it used to be Table 53 but this year its all been changed around.

[[XAP]Bob]

Is the reduction anything to do with helmet wearing

[Geriatrix]

If this fact is to do with being killed by vehicles, we are all better off cycling than walking!

I remember reading somewhere that drunk walking is more dangerous (to the drunk individual) than drunk driving.

[Ellieb]

I'm sure if you want stats to support whatever case you want to make..you'll be able to find them. Personally I think they are ludicrously unreliable. I suspect that the figures for walking/cycling are never properly measured & by the time you take into the complicating factors I doubt what you have left gives an accurate picture of relative risk.

[[XAP]Bob]

I'm sure if you want stats to support whatever case you want to make..you'll be able to find them. Personally I think they are ludicrously unreliable. I suspect that the figures for walking/cycling are never properly measured & by the time you take into the complicating factors I doubt what you have left gives an accurate picture of relative risk.

I think the traffic surveys are pretty well researched, combined with the various hospital admission stats make a pretty good large scale study

[BeeKeeper]

I'm sure if you want stats to support whatever case you want to make..you'll be able to find them. Personally I think they are ludicrously unreliable. I suspect that the figures for walking/cycling are never properly measured & by the time you take into the complicating factors I doubt what you have left gives an accurate picture of relative risk.

Exactly. The pedestrian figures will include I suspect a high proportion of the very elderly who might be expected to take a tumble more frequently. Cyclists will tend as a group to be fitter. Likewise 5 year olds on a pushbike are more likely to be supervised by an adult than a 5 year old kicking a football around in the street. These factors make comparisons between the two sets of data difficult unless at the very least age can be factored in.

But to answer the original question, these figures don't exist. If they did the anti-helmet activists wouldn't be bringing up this topic with such regularity. Its like atheists always looking for reasons to talk about God.

[Vorpal]

I'm sure if you want stats to support whatever case you want to make..you'll be able to find them. Personally I think they are ludicrously unreliable. I suspect that the figures for walking/cycling are never properly measured & by the time you take into the complicating factors I doubt what you have left gives an accurate picture of relative risk.

I think the traffic surveys are pretty well researched, combined with the various hospital admission stats make a pretty good large scale study

Traffic surveys come in two forms...

1) count all the vehicles; these are commonly done by highways authorities and will get you numbers of each type of vehicle passing a particular point. They only count vehicles drvien/ridden in the carriageway (and not those on a parallel shared use path or pavement). Sometimes a specific piece of infrastructure will have a user count (i.e. to count all pedestrians, pedal cycles, equestrians, etc.). These surveys may be done by local authorities, statutory undertakers, landowners, or campaign groups. More and more, counts are being done by some automated system. these are accurate, but only obtain numbers of each of type of vehicle. They cannot provide informaiton about how far the vehicles travel, and results are biased by location.

2) ask people how many trips they make and/or how far they go by various modes of transport. This seems a reasonable approach, but most people underestimate how far they go, especially for short trips that combine multiple stops or activities. The farther in time from the event, the worse the problem becomes. This tendancy will have a greater impact on data collected about walking.

Maybe, we could get good information by selecting a large, representative sample of the population & attaching pedometers to the people & computers to their pedal cycles. Then, we would have to collect data every couple of days about what forms of transport they used, and the distances travelled. This obviously would not be a cheap way to get data, and it is not entirely without problems, but it would get data that are much better than anything we currently have.

[[XAP]Bob]

More easily we could take a sample population and ask google and apple to provide their smartphone locations...

Would work across a large set of the public, from mid teens up to 60's/70's at least.

[Vorpal]

How would you distinguish between walking, jogging, and cycling at speeds below 4 or 5 mph?

[[XAP]Bob]

How would you distinguish between walking, jogging, and cycling at speeds below 4 or 5 mph?

By comparison with other segments of the same journey.

Even people who cycle slowly tend to freewheel downhill faster than they otherwise might.

[Vorpal]

I think that there will always be some overlap where it would be impossible to distinguish between modes: a fast walker, jogger, slow cyclist, wheel chair user, skateboarder, mobility scooter user, kick bike, and others can travel at the same speeds. It may be possible to distinguish between those on wheels and those without in areas where there are hills, but not otherwise.

[kwackers]

How would you distinguish between walking, jogging, and cycling at speeds below 4 or 5 mph?

Easily.

Accelerometers. The signature is different for each mode.