‘That’s not right...’

[reohn2]

........Vulnerable road users are safer in the NL despite the cycle paths not because of them.

Where's your proof of that?
A dead or injured vulnerable cyclist or pedestrian is just that but so far you haven't offered any facts and figures to support you case that the NL model is less safe than the UK one.
There are many reasons for KSI of vulnerable road users but with percentage rates for Km travelled it's meaningless,cause and effect as Bob says isn't as straight forward as you are trying to make out.
To prove your point you'll have to unpick the strands of the why's and wherefore's,the causes and the the figures you're claiming.

Also see MJR's reply,he's saved me a job

[Vorpal]

There are a number of issues involved in making direct comparisons. Firstly, while it is true that parallel infrastructure tends to increase the numbe of incidents at junctions, the Dutch (and Danes) have come a long way toward mitigating those risks.

Secondly, there are very big differences in exposure. Besides the obvious--Britons walk more than the Dutch, while the Dutch cycle more than Britons--there are very large differences within the UK that are much smaller in the Netherlands. The worst of these is that in the UK four times as many people die in road traffic in economically deprived areas as in middle and high income areas.

A large part of that is exposure. More people walk and cycle in deprived areas; infrastructure is worse, and there are fewer safe outdoor places to gather. The government of the Netherlands studies this and mitigates transport poverty and the associated risks. The British government does neither.

And for encouraging cycling goes, cycleways can do that, but it's not the only way. It's much cheaper to reduce traffic permeability on rat runs. Put a couple of bollards smack in the middle; make residents enter from either end, and let cyclists through. The Dutch and Danes have completely redesigned thier cities doing things like that. Make the motor vehicles stick to designated / main routes, and keep alternatives quiet. It's amazing how many bicycles use such things in cities. If access is need for emergency services, use electronic gates, or retractable bollards.

Such things even gain political will through making it safer for children to walk to school, complaints from residents, and other politcal initiatives that have nothing to do with cycling.

[mjr]

There are a number of issues involved in making direct comparisons.

Agreed.

And for encouraging cycling goes, cycleways can do that, but it's not the only way. It's much cheaper to reduce traffic permeability on rat runs. Put a couple of bollards smack in the middle; make residents enter from either end, and let cyclists through. The Dutch and Danes have completely redesigned thier cities doing things like that. Make the motor vehicles stick to designated / main routes, and keep alternatives quiet. It's amazing how many bicycles use such things in cities. If access is need for emergency services, use electronic gates, or retractable bollards.

Such things even gain political will through making it safer for children to walk to school, complaints from residents, and other politcal initiatives that have nothing to do with cycling.

Whereas in backwards England, proposed reductions in motorist permeability generate complaints from residents and political will forms against them! http://www.lynnnews.co.uk/news/local/la ... -1-6516564 - being able to drive out in both directions and to the corner shop was more important to those residents then stopping the rat-runners who kill all semblence of outdoor community, with everyone retreating to back gardens or indoors and almost never seeing their neighbours. I doubt that's the only incident.

While simpler filters like bollarding would be far cheaper and possibly almost as encouraging, it's currently more difficult to achieve and maintain in this country than dedicated cycleways or 20mph zones.

[pwa]

One thing that depresses me is that new housing estates are not much better than older ones when it comes to the street environment.
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5285042 ... 6?hl=en-GB
This estate to the north of Bridgend is fairly typical of what I see. On the plus side you can't drive fast because of the endless bends, pinch point traffic calming and clutter. The cars are on the street because there are not enough off-street parking places, and some are partly on the pavement because somebody opposite also likes parking there and the road is narrow. Messy. But the cars do move fairly slowly.

(As usual with google streetview, you see the streets at a time when lots of people are at work. That place looks a lot more crowded with parked cars in the evening)

[reohn2]

One thing that depresses me is that new housing estates are not much better than older ones when it comes to the street environment.
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5285042 ... 6?hl=en-GB
This estate to the north of Bridgend is fairly typical of what I see. On the plus side you can't drive fast because of the endless bends, pinch point traffic calming and clutter. The cars are on the street because there are not enough off-street parking places, and some are partly on the pavement because somebody opposite also likes parking there and the road is narrow. Messy. But the cars do move fairly slowly.

(As usual with google streetview, you see the streets at a time when lots of people are at work. That place looks a lot more crowded with parked cars in the evening)

Those houses are built like that because builders are allowed to build for maximum profit by packing as many houses into as little space as possible.
UK building regs in that respect are years behind more forward thinking countries.

[Debs]

Still struggling to walk, but can ride the tandem... biggest physical issue is mounting it...
I just can’t move my right hip/leg enough.

Had the wound dressed at the GP yesterday, dressing (suitable for up to a week) is already coming off )

Bob

Hope you're recovering okay...

and compiling all the evidence, damage list, injury list, expenses, etc, for the claim.
If you have household insurance consider using their recommended accident claims firm. They can be particularly helpful if you have any prolonged injuries or niggles that require more detailed investigation than the NHS has time for, you can get access to private consultants who will diagnose and treat faster and with far more enthusiasm - and the bill gets passed on to SMIDSY's insurance co.

I know money is not the answer to everything, but getting a sizeable settlement cheque does help with closure

[[XAP]Bob]

Injuries have been mostly superficial, loss of fitness through inactivitybis likely to be more of an issue than anything else over the next few weeks/months...

Other than my elbow I’m pretty much back in one piece - that is still giving me pain, but Instill don’t think there is anything broken in there...

[pwa]

Injuries have been mostly superficial, loss of fitness through inactivitybis likely to be more of an issue than anything else over the next few weeks/months...

Other than my elbow I’m pretty much back in one piece - that is still giving me pain, but Instill don’t think there is anything broken in there...

A bit of a rest may do you good.

[The utility cyclist]

The Netherlands has 900 cycling kilometers per inhabitant. In England, it's only 75 km per inhabitant.

So, they have 12 times as many cycling kilometers and somewhat less than 2 times as many fatal collisions.

That isn't solely because of segregated infrastructure. In fact most cyclists use much less of that then most people imagine. It is also because of limited motor traffic permeability, low speed limits in residential areas, the design of streets where all modes of transport share, driver attitudes, enforcement and prosecution, etc.

You should't compare per inhabitant, how about per individual who cycles at all because that is the true value isn't it?
Actually it's 85km per inhabitant as of 2106 but only 12% of the population cycle once per week even if for a very short distance so that brings it to 708km per person who actually cycles 'regularly', man woman or child.

Also what rates of vehicles per hour, that also has a huge influence on how safe roads are. Given the approx 23000 miles of segregated lanes in NL and at least 23 times less than that in the UK, UK cyclists are exposed far far more to motorised traffic, by a factor greater than that of the multiplier of how many more miles the Dutch cycle per individual. Even if you ignore the per person (who actually cycles) distance per year you have approx 1.8x more deaths in a country that has an extensive segregated system so the exposure to the single main reason cyclists get KSI is massively, massively less than in the UK, this proves that despite the Dutch cycling further per inhabitant that due to the lack of exposure to the main threat/cause of KSI their roads/drivers in NL are worse than ours, the cyclists are worse at taking risks or there is an inherent flaw in the infra.
Again I ask, which is it?
Hint, NL road deaths per million population stands at 28, so actually not safer than the UK at all is it.

I'm not sure what point you are making. Is your quoted road deaths figures for cyclists, pedestrian, or car occupants or all of those? Have you a source for your figures?

The government and cycling UK, it's on their respective websites, suggest you check them for the facts your seeking.
The point I'm making is that given the exposure to motorvehicles is massively less than in the UK by a similar amount of how much more the Dutch cycle and the density of traffic even when there is exposure is hugely less in NL that It doesn't seem to give that much of an advantage with regards to deaths, I asked the question why.
The distance travelled per x of populous isn't an accurate way to measure, exposure to traffic is. The Dutch are hardly ever exposed to traffic given their huge network of segregated, ours is 12 times less and what there is, is shockingly poor for the most part and is unusable, the exposure to traffic and of a higher density is massively more.
And if we are using deaths per population as a measure then Dutch roads are no safer than the UK, as I mentioned the current rate of deaths per million is just above ours. That doesn't seem to tally up does it?

[Vorpal]

And if we are using deaths per population as a measure then Dutch roads are no safer than the UK, as I mentioned the current rate of deaths per million is just above ours. That doesn't seem to tally up does it?

Death per population isn't a very good measure, but if that's what you would like to use, at least consider the proportion made up of vulnerable users. In the UK, that proportion has been increasing becuase all of the improvements in number of fatalities has come from the occupants of 4 (or more) wheeled motor vehicles. In the Netherlands, while their improvement in numebrs of fatalities have been quite similar to the UK, the proportions have remained similar for some years. That means that fatality rates for vulnerable users have improved at a similar rate as those for motor vehicle occupants in the Netherlands.

[MikeF]

You should't compare per inhabitant, how about per individual who cycles at all because that is the true value isn't it?
Actually it's 85km per inhabitant as of 2106 but only 12% of the population cycle once per week even if for a very short distance so that brings it to 708km per person who actually cycles 'regularly', man woman or child.

Also what rates of vehicles per hour, that also has a huge influence on how safe roads are. Given the approx 23000 miles of segregated lanes in NL and at least 23 times less than that in the UK, UK cyclists are exposed far far more to motorised traffic, by a factor greater than that of the multiplier of how many more miles the Dutch cycle per individual. Even if you ignore the per person (who actually cycles) distance per year you have approx 1.8x more deaths in a country that has an extensive segregated system so the exposure to the single main reason cyclists get KSI is massively, massively less than in the UK, this proves that despite the Dutch cycling further per inhabitant that due to the lack of exposure to the main threat/cause of KSI their roads/drivers in NL are worse than ours, the cyclists are worse at taking risks or there is an inherent flaw in the infra.
Again I ask, which is it?
Hint, NL road deaths per million population stands at 28, so actually not safer than the UK at all is it.

I'm not sure what point you are making. Is your quoted road deaths figures for cyclists, pedestrian, or car occupants or all of those? Have you a source for your figures?

The government and cycling UK, it's on their respective websites, suggest you check them for the facts your seeking.
The point I'm making is that given the exposure to motorvehicles is massively less than in the UK by a similar amount of how much more the Dutch cycle and the density of traffic even when there is exposure is hugely less in NL that It doesn't seem to give that much of an advantage with regards to deaths, I asked the question why.
The distance travelled per x of populous isn't an accurate way to measure, exposure to traffic is. The Dutch are hardly ever exposed to traffic given their huge network of segregated, ours is 12 times less and what there is, is shockingly poor for the most part and is unusable, the exposure to traffic and of a higher density is massively more.
And if we are using deaths per population as a measure then Dutch roads are no safer than the UK, as I mentioned the current rate of deaths per million is just above ours. That doesn't seem to tally up does it?

You're quoting "facts". It's up to you to provide a link to justify what you're saying and not for me to verify them. I presume you mean this link for CUK https://www.cyclinguk.org/resources/cycling-uk-cycling-statistics, but I don't know where your Dutch figures came from or what government figures you are referring to. I give up about what point you are making. Your argument seems to be that the Dutch have 23000 miles of segregated lanes (23X the UK) and many more cyclists, but cycling on roads, and that's difficult to define in Holland, is just as dangerous. Are you saying therefore that cycle infrastructure is good?

[[XAP]Bob]

Trike at ICE, quote has come back after they’ve looked at it closely... quite a lot lower than it might have been.

And my insurance company has agreed to cover it... Now to get the motorist's insurance to pay them, and the excess...