People living in deprived areas and those from minority ethnic backgrounds are notably more likely to be killed or injured as pedestrians on the roads, according to a new study.
The research, using 10 years of casualties reported to the police across England and Wales, found black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) pedestrians living in poorer areas were more than three times as likely to be injured or die than white people in more affluent districts.
Car ownership is strongly correlated to affluence. Of households in the top income quintile, 86% have access to a car, whereas only 55% of those in the bottom quintile do. Members of the richest group also make fewer walking trips, an average of 215 a year against 307 for those in the lowest income group.
There is also a connection to ethnicity, with black adults more than twice as likely to live in households without a car – 39% against 17% for white adults.
People living in deprived areas and those from minority ethnic backgrounds are notably more likely to be killed or injured as pedestrians on the roads, according to a new study.
The research, using 10 years of casualties reported to the police across England and Wales, found black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) pedestrians living in poorer areas were more than three times as likely to be injured or die than white people in more affluent districts.
Car ownership is strongly correlated to affluence. Of households in the top income quintile, 86% have access to a car, whereas only 55% of those in the bottom quintile do. Members of the richest group also make fewer walking trips, an average of 215 a year against 307 for those in the lowest income group.
There is also a connection to ethnicity, with black adults more than twice as likely to live in households without a car – 39% against 17% for white adults.
Quite correct Clapped out! Biased inquiry being employed to facilitate someone's agenda.
Back a few years our council decided to use all of the road maintenance budget on install speed bumps, so they flagged up a fair number of pedestrian injuries to justify the silly things. The number given for my area seemed a bit too high so I asked for a complete breakdown of the incidents, especially their location.
Upshot the vast majority were well outside of our area, got it down to just 3 incidents. Two were outside a pub, shortly after closing time. Obvious conclusion to be drawn. The last one involved traffic entering a roundabout?
So how could they justify the inverted policemen on that basis?
Obviously they couldn't, but that didn't stop the money being used in that fashion.
So virtually all of the available money went on elevating sections of tarmac, whilst leaving lots of missing tarmac in the form of pot-holes!
I told the council leader to his face that I would accept the installation of a few of the things as long as they were the burial mounds of the idiots who dreamt up the stupid schemes!
I better not get started on the idiots who dream up the asinine cycle provision in many areas, worse than a joke!
One absolute beauty in Liverpool involves a cycle lane going against the traffic flow on a one-way street, cyclist downhill in one direction, coming up the other way cyclist would have to mix in with all other traffic.
But the real cherry on the top was the fact that the entry into the cycle provision is done with raised kerbing and bollard. It is 15 inches wide?
My tricycles are in the region of 30 inches wide!
The council officer said - "We don't have to consider tricycles"?????????? Their statuary instruments don't mention bicycles only "Cycles", very narrow minded lot doing that job. MM
The report has merely confirmed what has be known for many years. The explanation is pretty obvious; people with more money have a greater choice of where to live so so can afford to avoid living in places where traffic danger is high. In the same way they tended to move to the western side of cities during the industrial revolution to avoid the pollution.
Of course having moved away from those areas they then become the cause, rather than the victims, of road danger. So they do not select political representatives who advocate solving the problem rather than perpetuating it.
Hi, I said biased because they had q very specific outcome to aim for, the hobbyhorse of letting their created for a purpose body implement road destruction practise of speed bumps!
The framework for safe design of the silly things is a joke, whilst there is a maximum height specification, they offer little control over the length of the ramp element! How any times have you seen a hearse or other extended wheelbase machine hung up on one of them? I saw one beached on one right outside of the office of Thomas Porter (Funeral Directors) in Liverpool! Not funny. Hitting some of them on a pedal cycle is not pleasant. MM
ClappedOut wrote: ↑21 May 2021, 10:24am
Another useless study with an agenda
Well the agenda of Living Streets is to make the streets safer and more pleasant for those on foot. Presumably, since you take issue with this, you assume that the idea of of people campaigning for safer streets is so outragious that simply mentionning their agenda will somehow discredit anything they say. I can see how this might work for you if you were posting to say the Daily Hate comments section or attempting to provoke yet another a culture war on behalf of the government, but you are unlikely to gain much traction posting to a cycle forum where the idea of safer streets isn't self evidently unwelcome.
Now if you do have specific issues with the methodology of the report then by all means mention them (though the findings are not in anyway unexpected), but a simple ad-homenim attack on the authers of the report is not going to cut it.
So who is running them over?
Were they walking American J walking? As many tourists in our local town don't look and also get stuck in mud.
Is it poor in unroadworthy cars?
Ethnicity of driver
Were cars insured
Was it street racing.
It's a report with as much content as a wet paper bag- no doubt to secure funding for said report.
It is looking at 10 years worth of pedestrian casualty statistics and finds - as similar studies have found in the past - that poor people are more likely to be squished by motors than rich people. It is not a controversial or novel finding, we have known this for a long time. Road danger is a class issue, which is why labour governments have tended to take it seriously and conservative governments have tended to oppose the so called "war on motorists".
Given that we have a conservative government in place that is eager to stoke culture wars at any mention of concern about racial injustice, it is probably a tactical mistake for Living Streets to highlight the impact of road danger on minorities.
It seems to be an article from the looney left guardian, so no surprises there - they're obsessed with trying to get a racist angle onto anything and everything they stumble upon. Tedious beyond belief.
Pebble wrote: ↑22 May 2021, 12:04am
It seems to be an article from the looney left guardian, so no surprises there - they're obsessed with trying to get a racist angle onto anything and everything they stumble upon. Tedious beyond belief.
So is it the concept of making the roads safer that you hate so much? Or does the fact that making the roads safer will benefit benefit poor people offend your conservative principles?