swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> During last year’s transit strike in Philadelphia, bike ridership boomed.
> That likely made streets safer for cyclists. In U.S. cities, there are a
> lot more people out bicycling than just a few years ago. You might
> reasonably think that the bicycle crash rate would skyrocket as more
> people, from wobbly new riders to the outright safety-averse, take to the
> streets on two wheels.
>
> It’s a fine, common-sense assumption — that happens to be wrong.

So what’s the Philadelphia cyclist death rate before and after the strike,
in deaths per bn miles?

> Research has been steadily showing, actually, that the more people are
> out there riding bicycles, the safer bicycling becomes. As ridership goes
> up, crash rates stay flat. It’s happening in Portland (see page 11 of
> this report [PDF]). It’s happening in New York City.
>
> Much of the ridership increase is due to cities’ investments in
> bicycle-specific infrastructure. But the efficacy of that infrastructure
> for safety is often questioned. And there’s one theory — based on a
> growing body of data — that suggests that a few painted lines on the
> road, bike racks, and traffic lights form only part of the safety
> equation. And maybe a smaller part than we tend to assume.
>
> The phenomenon, dubbed “safety in numbers,” was first identified in 2003,
> in an academic paper by public health researcher Peter Jacobsen [PDF].
> After being asked by officials in Pasadena, Calif., if their city “was a
> dangerous place to bicycle,” Jacobsen began looking at crash data from
> various communities where bicycle ridership had fluctuated over time.
>
> What he found surprised him: The number of crashes involving bikes
> correlated with the number of riders in a community. As ridership
> fluctuated, so did the crash rate. More riders, fewer crashes; fewer riders, more crashes.
>
> This happened too abruptly, Jacobsen decided, to be caused by slow-moving
> factors like infrastructure development and cultural change. Bicycling
> becomes safer when the number of riders increases, he concluded, at least
> in part because the number of riders increases.
>
> The inverse happens, as well. One data set Jacobsen looked at covered 49
> years of biking history in the United Kingdom. Those numbers showed that
> cycling became safer during the oil crisis of the 1970s, caused by the
> OPEC oil embargo. Once the crisis ended, both ridership and safety dropped.
>
> This all must sound terribly wonky. Actually, it’s been revolutionary.
>
> The idea of Safety in Numbers has slowly built up steam in traffic safety
> circles since Jacobsen introduced it. Supporting data continues to
> quietly (and sometimes dramatically) roll in from around the world,
> influencing mainly traffic engineers and planners who are trying to
> figure out how to improve bicycle safety.
>
> Bicycle safety is often seen in a sort of vacuum. Helmets tend to
> dominate the conversation, with visibility — lights and bright clothing —
> taking a close second. More sophisticated conversations get deep into
> infrastructure: Which is better, sharrows, bike lanes, or separated cycle
> tracks? We discuss educating cyclists in defensive riding techniques and
> the rules of the road.
>
> These are all good and important efforts. The problem is what’s missing.
> Here’s the core of Jacobsen’s analysis, from the 2003 “Safety in Numbers” report:
>
> Whose behavior changes, the motorist’s or that of the people walking
> and bicycling? It seems unlikely that people walking or bicycling obey
> traffic laws more or defer to motorists more in societies or time periods
> with greater walking and bicycling. Indeed it seems less likely. …
> Adaptation in motorist behavior seems more plausible.
>
> So why might this be the case?
>
> When there is a serious bicycle crash, it almost always involves someone
> driving a car. There are any number of ways drivers become involved in
> these crashes, primarily involving speed, turning, and the myriad
> distractions that are common behind the wheel.
>
> But when there are a lot of bicyclists on the road, according to this
> theory, drivers take notice. They become more attentive, slow down, pass
> more cautiously, double-check their blind spots, expect the unexpected.
> They sense that the road has become a more complicated place, and adjust
> their behavior accordingly. As a result, the road becomes safer, presumably for everyone.
>
> Safety in numbers is an important idea that has shifted the way planners
> and engineers think about bicycle safety. But it won’t be the final word.
> We will doubtless see this idea bandied back and forth for some time,
> especially as academic interest in bicycling and walking increases. As
> data improves we’ll likely see a more complex relationship emerge among
> ridership, safety, infrastructure, laws, and culture.
>
> Whatever the variables, as Jacobsen told me in a requisitely wonky email,
> “The bigger SIN story is that those cities /countries that have
> encouraged bicycling have been rewarded with more trips by bike, and not
> just a non-linear increase in injuries, but a decrease in injuries.”

And the Dutch data is…

> That’s huge. Safety in numbers will prove over time, I suspect, to be the
> first major theory based on objective data that can break down the double
> standard we all pedal under. Jacobsen’s research calls into question the
> foundation of a system in which the convenience of driving is exalted
> above the basic safety and mobility of people walking and bicycling.

--
Spike

Countries in Europe with high levels of cycle use tend to be less risky for cyclists. In Denmark, people cycle over 900 kilometres a year and it is a far safer country to cycle in than Portugal, where barely 30 km is covered by each person by bike annually.

Clearly, there is a correlation here between distance cycled, or number of cycling trips, and safety. That much is undeniable. But are we so clear about the the direction in which the correlation runs? The main thrust of the CTC argument seems to be based on the assumption that an increase in safety will arise from a greater numbers of cyclists making trips. In their words

Cycling gets safer the more people do it.

I think this is generally true. More people cycling should mean more awareness of cyclists, and so the averaged risk to a given cyclist will probably decrease.

But there is an alternative explanation that could lie behind the correlation exhibited in that graph, that the CTC don’t seem to focus on. Namely, that more people will cycle when they feel safe. Or, to invert the CTC slogan,

More people cycle when it gets safer.

This gives us two possible interpretations for the data point for the Netherlands in the graph above.

1) Dutch cyclists are safe, because the Dutch, as a nation, cycle a lot..

2) The Dutch, as a nation, cycle a lot, because they feel (or are) safe..

Likewise, for the UK –

1) British cyclists are not as safe as their Dutch counterparts because, unlike the Dutch, we do not cycle a lot.

2) The British, as a nation, do not cycle a lot, because they are not (or do not feel) safe.

To be clear, I don’t think these two interpretations of the correlation are mutually exclusive. There is probably a great deal of interplay between them. But it is interesting how the second interpretation figures so little in the conventional explanations of the ‘Safety In Numbers’ effect.

There are now significant numbers of cyclists at peak commuting hours on arterial roads in and out of London – the ‘Superhighways’ seem to have had the effect of concentrating cyclists’ movements on these roads. I suspect that this increase in numbers has indeed led to a decrease in the average cyclist’s exposure to risk. Nevertheless, the road environment doesn’t necessarily feel any safer for a cyclist, simply because of the greater numbers. And I think that is quite important if we are ever going to get the ‘numbers’ the CTC talk about.

For instance.

Eight cyclists are visible in this short clip, yet this seems (to me, at least) to be a deeply hostile and unpleasant environment to cycle in. All the regular motorists in this clip probably encounter hundreds of cyclists on a day-to-day basis, so they are certainly ‘aware’ of them. But the general attitude exhibited seems to be one of dangerous complacency, rather than consideration. They are used to cyclists – but only as objects they need to get past as quickly as possible.

Now, to be fair, the CTC do stress the need to make the road environment more welcoming and safe for cyclists. I suspect this is a tacit acknowledgement that a strategy of simply talking about how safe cycling actually is –

cycling isn’t as risky as commonly thought, with just one death every 32 million kilometres – that’s over 800 times around the world. Indeed not cycling is more risky than cycling: cyclists on average live two years longer than non-cyclists and take 15% fewer days off work through illness

– just isn’t going to cut it when it comes to getting people out there on bikes in significant numbers. Statistics about how they are actually going to extend their lives, on the basis of probability, by cycling aren’t really going to make up anyone’s mind when they are confronted with cycling conditions like those in the video above, ‘numbers’ or otherwise.

The starting point for cycle campaigning should be to make cycling seem safer and more attractive. The numbers will come.

By contrast, we shouldn’t simply endeavour to boost the numbers of people cycling in the hope that, somewhere down the line, cycling will become safer and more attractive.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> Countries in Europe with high levels of cycle use tend to be less
> risky for cyclists. In Denmark, people cycle over 900 kilometres a year
> and it is a far safer country to cycle in than Portugal, where barely 30
> km is covered by each person by bike annually.
>
> Clearly, there is a correlation here between distance cycled, or number
> of cycling trips, and safety. That much is undeniable. But are we so
> clear about the the direction in which the correlation runs? The main
> thrust of the CTC argument seems to be based on the assumption that an
> increase in safety will arise from a greater numbers of cyclists making
> trips. In their words
>
> Cycling gets safer the more people do it.
>
> I think this is generally true. More people cycling should mean more
> awareness of cyclists, and so the averaged risk to a given cyclist will probably decrease.
>
> But there is an alternative explanation that could lie behind the
> correlation exhibited in that graph, that the CTC don’t seem to focus on.
> Namely, that more people will cycle when they feel safe. Or, to invert the CTC slogan,
>
> More people cycle when it gets safer.
>
> This gives us two possible interpretations for the data point for the
> Netherlands in the graph above.
>
> 1) Dutch cyclists are safe, because the Dutch, as a nation, cycle a lot.
>
> 2) The Dutch, as a nation, cycle a lot, because they feel (or are) safe.
>
> Likewise, for the UK –
>
> 1) British cyclists are not as safe as their Dutch counterparts
> because, unlike the Dutch, we do not cycle a lot.
>
> 2) The British, as a nation, do not cycle a lot, because they are not
> (or do not feel) safe.

Now, you know very well that cyclist death rates in Holland and the UK are
practically identical at 22 per billion miles. So the Dutch feel safe and
are killed at the same rate as the Brits, who don’t feel safe.

Interesting, eh?

> To be clear, I don’t think these two interpretations of the correlation
> are mutually exclusive. There is probably a great deal of interplay
> between them. But it is interesting how the second interpretation figures
> so little in the conventional explanations of the ‘Safety In Numbers’ effect.
>
> There are now significant numbers of cyclists at peak commuting hours on
> arterial roads in and out of London – the ‘Superhighways’ seem to have
> had the effect of concentrating cyclists’ movements on these roads. I
> suspect that this increase in numbers has indeed led to a decrease in the
> average cyclist’s exposure to risk. Nevertheless, the road environment
> doesn’t necessarily feel any safer for a cyclist, simply because of the
> greater numbers. And I think that is quite important if we are ever going
> to get the ‘numbers’ the CTC talk about.
>
> For instance.
>
> Eight cyclists are visible in this short clip, yet this seems (to me, at
> least) to be a deeply hostile and unpleasant environment to cycle in. All
> the regular motorists in this clip probably encounter hundreds of
> cyclists on a day-to-day basis, so they are certainly ‘aware’ of them.
> But the general attitude exhibited seems to be one of dangerous
> complacency, rather than consideration. They are used to cyclists – but
> only as objects they need to get past as quickly as possible.
>
> Now, to be fair, the CTC do stress the need to make the road environment
> more welcoming and safe for cyclists. I suspect this is a tacit
> acknowledgement that a strategy of simply talking about how safe cycling actually is –
>
> cycling isn’t as risky as commonly thought, with just one death every
> 32 million kilometres – that’s over 800 times around the world. Indeed
> not cycling is more risky than cycling: cyclists on average live two
> years longer than non-cyclists and take 15% fewer days off work through illness

And what is the source of that claim?

> – just isn’t going to cut it when it comes to getting people out there on
> bikes in significant numbers. Statistics about how they are actually
> going to extend their lives, on the basis of probability, by cycling
> aren’t really going to make up anyone’s mind when they are confronted
> with cycling conditions like those in the video above, ‘numbers’ or otherwise.
>
> The starting point for cycle campaigning should be to make cycling seem
> safer and more attractive. The numbers will come.
>
> By contrast, we shouldn’t simply endeavour to boost the numbers of people
> cycling in the hope that, somewhere down the line, cycling will become
> safer and more attractive.

--
Spike

Objective: To examine the relationship between the numbers of people walking or bicycling and the frequency of collisions between motorists and walkers or bicyclists. The common wisdom holds that the number of collisions varies directly with the amount of walking and bicycling. However, three published analyses of collision rates at specific intersections found a non-linear relationship, such that collisions rates declined with increases in the numbers of people walking or bicycling.

Data: This paper uses five additional data sets (three population level and two time series) to compare the amount of walking or bicycling and the injuries incurring in collisions with motor vehicles.

Results: The likelihood that a given person walking or bicycling will be struck by a motorist varies inversely with the amount of walking or bicycling.. This pattern is consistent across communities of varying size, from specific intersections to cities and countries, and across time periods.

Discussion: This result is unexpected. Since it is unlikely that the people walking and bicycling become more cautious if their numbers are larger, it indicates that the behavior of motorists controls the likelihood of collisions with people walking and bicycling. It appears that motorists adjust their behavior in the presence of people walking and bicycling. There is an urgent need for further exploration of the human factors controlling motorist behavior in the presence of people walking and bicycling.

Conclusion: A motorist is less likely to collide with a person walking and bicycling if more people walk or bicycle. Policies that increase the numbers of people walking and bicycling appear to be an effective route to improving the safety of people walking and bicycling.

False premise:

“Discussion: This result is unexpected. Since it is unlikely that the
people walking and bicycling become more cautious if their numbers are
larger, it indicates that the behavior of motorists controls the likelihood
of collisions with people walking and bicycling.”

It is highly likely that as walkers and cyclists increase in number,
collisions between members of those groups will increase, possibly
exponentially. More caution rather than less will be taken. That has
nothing to do with motorists.

This is a very poor report.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> Objective: To examine the relationship between the numbers of people
> walking or bicycling and the frequency of collisions between motorists
> and walkers or bicyclists. The common wisdom holds that the number of
> collisions varies directly with the amount of walking and bicycling.
> However, three published analyses of collision rates at specific
> intersections found a non-linear relationship, such that collisions rates
> declined with increases in the numbers of people walking or bicycling.
>
> Data: This paper uses five additional data sets (three population level
> and two time series) to compare the amount of walking or bicycling and
> the injuries incurring in collisions with motor vehicles.
>
> Results: The likelihood that a given person walking or bicycling will be
> struck by a motorist varies inversely with the amount of walking or
> bicycling. This pattern is consistent across communities of varying size,
> from specific intersections to cities and countries, and across time periods.
>
> Discussion: This result is unexpected. Since it is unlikely that the
> people walking and bicycling become more cautious if their numbers are
> larger, it indicates that the behavior of motorists controls the
> likelihood of collisions with people walking and bicycling. It appears
> that motorists adjust their behavior in the presence of people walking
> and bicycling. There is an urgent need for further exploration of the
> human factors controlling motorist behavior in the presence of people
> walking and bicycling.
>
> Conclusion: A motorist is less likely to collide with a person walking
> and bicycling if more people walk or bicycle. Policies that increase the
> numbers of people walking and bicycling appear to be an effective route
> to improving the safety of people walking and bicycling.
>

--
Spike

It seems paradoxical but the more people ride bicycles on our city streets, the less likely they are to be injured in traffic accidents. International research reveals that as cycling participation increases, a cyclist is far less likely to collide with a motor vehicle or suffer injury and death - and what's true for cyclists is true for pedestrians.

International research reveals that as cycling participation increases, a cyclist is far less likely to collide with a motor vehicle or suffer injury and death - and what's true for cyclists is true for pedestrians. And it's not simply because there are fewer cars on the roads, but because motorists seem to change their behaviour and drive more safely when they see more cyclists and pedestrians around.

Studies in many countries have shown consistently that the number of motorists colliding with walkers or cyclists doesn't increase equally with the number of people walking or bicycling. For example, a community that doubles its cycling numbers can expect a one-third drop in the per-cyclist frequency of a crash with a motor vehicle.

"It's a virtuous cycle," says Dr Julie Hatfield, an injury expert from UNSW who address a cycling safety seminar in Sydney, Australia, on September 5. "The likelihood that an individual cyclist will be struck by a motorist falls with increasing rate of bicycling in a community. And the safer cycling is perceived to be, the more people are prepared to cycle."

Experts say the effect is independent of improvements in cycling-friendly laws such as lower speed limits and better infrastructure, such as bike paths. Research has revealed the safety-in-numbers impact for cyclists in Australia, Denmark, the Netherlands, 14 European countries and 68 Californian cities.

"It's a positive effect but some people are surprised that injury rates don't go up at the same rate of increases in cycling," says Sydney University's Dr Chris Rissel, co-author of a 2008 research report on cycling.

"It appears that motorists adjust their behaviour in the presence of increasing numbers of people bicycling because they expect or experience more people cycling. Also, rising cycling rates mean motorists are more likely to be cyclists, and therefore be more conscious of, and sympathetic towards, cyclists."

Safety concerns are among the most significant barriers preventing Australians from cycling, including among those who cycle regularly, according to the report, titled Cycling: Getting Australia Moving. Despite this, over 1.68 million adults cycled in 2006, an increase of almost 250,000 since 2001. During this period, Australian capital cities experienced an average 22 percent increase in bicycle journeys to work. The city of Melbourne led with a 42 percent increase, while the city of Sydney lagged the field with a nine percent increase. 2006 figures reveal that 12,132 Sydneysiders cycle to work.

Dr Rissel says transport authorities should highlight the fun, convenience and health and environmental benefits of cycling, rather than what he views as an undue emphasis on danger and safety messages, which can deter cyclists: "We should create a cycling friendly environment and accentuate cycling's positives rather than stress negatives with 'safety campaigns' that focus on cyclists without addressing drivers and road conditions. Reminding people of injury rates and risks, to wear helmets and reflective visible clothes has the unintended effect of reinforcing fears of cycling which discourages people from cycling."

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> It seems paradoxical but the more people ride bicycles on our city
> streets, the less likely they are to be injured in traffic accidents.
> International research reveals that as cycling participation increases, a
> cyclist is far less likely to collide with a motor vehicle or suffer
> injury and death - and what's true for cyclists is true for pedestrians.

Supposition.

> International research reveals that as cycling participation increases, a
> cyclist is far less likely to collide with a motor vehicle or suffer
> injury and death - and what's true for cyclists is true for pedestrians.
> And it's not simply because there are fewer cars on the roads, but
> because motorists seem to change their behaviour and drive more safely
> when they see more cyclists and pedestrians around.

Supposition

> Studies in many countries have shown consistently that the number of
> motorists colliding with walkers or cyclists doesn't increase equally
> with the number of people walking or bicycling. For example, a community
> that doubles its cycling numbers can expect a one-third drop in the
> per-cyclist frequency of a crash with a motor vehicle.

Sleight of hand. The claim does NOT mean that there will be fewer cyclists
killed or injured.

The sleight of hand comes from quoting a ‘likelihood’ for individual
cyclists and so avoiding the unwelcome fact that the total number of
incidents will increase.

The ignorant, blinkered, or dim are easily taken in by such subterfuge.

> "It's a virtuous cycle," says Dr Julie Hatfield, an injury expert from
> UNSW who address a cycling safety seminar in Sydney, Australia, on
> September 5. "The likelihood that an individual cyclist will be struck by
> a motorist falls with increasing rate of bicycling in a community. And
> the safer cycling is perceived to be, the more people are prepared to cycle."

And Dr Julie Hatfield had just repeated the same claim. See above for the
alternative view.

> Experts say the effect is independent of improvements in cycling-friendly
> laws such as lower speed limits and better infrastructure, such as bike
> paths. Research has revealed the safety-in-numbers impact for cyclists in
> Australia, Denmark, the Netherlands, 14 European countries and 68 Californian cities.

Dutch cycling deaths have held steady for over 20 years. Someone is bending
credulity.

> "It's a positive effect but some people are surprised that injury rates
> don't go up at the same rate of increases in cycling," says Sydney
> University's Dr Chris Rissel, co-author of a 2008 research report on cycling.

Note that a ‘rate’ is not the same as total numbers.

UK cycle deaths…85
Dutch cycle deaths…200

UK mileage cycled…3.9 bn
Dutch mileage cycled…9.3bn

UK death rate…22
Dutch death rate…22

The unwelcome message, never mentioned in cycling circles, is that on a
rate basis - otherwise all the rage in the mendacious cycling media -
Holland is no safer than the UK!

> "It appears that motorists adjust their behaviour in the presence of
> increasing numbers of people bicycling because they expect or experience
> more people cycling. Also, rising cycling rates mean motorists are more
> likely to be cyclists, and therefore be more conscious of, and
> sympathetic towards, cyclists."

Note that use of the word ‘rate’ yet again…

> Safety concerns are among the most significant barriers preventing
> Australians from cycling, including among those who cycle regularly,
> according to the report, titled Cycling: Getting Australia Moving.
> Despite this, over 1.68 million adults cycled in 2006, an increase of
> almost 250,000 since 2001. During this period, Australian capital cities
> experienced an average 22 percent increase in bicycle journeys to work.
> The city of Melbourne led with a 42 percent increase, while the city of
> Sydney lagged the field with a nine percent increase. 2006 figures reveal
> that 12,132 Sydneysiders cycle to work.

Bully for Australia.

> Dr Rissel says transport authorities should highlight the fun,
> convenience and health and environmental benefits of cycling, rather than
> what he views as an undue emphasis on danger and safety messages, which
> can deter cyclists: "We should create a cycling friendly environment and
> accentuate cycling's positives rather than stress negatives with 'safety
> campaigns' that focus on cyclists without addressing drivers and road
> conditions. Reminding people of injury rates and risks, to wear helmets
> and reflective visible clothes has the unintended effect of reinforcing
> fears of cycling which discourages people from cycling”.

So, lambs to the slaughter, then?

Do you see Ukrainian soldiers on the front lines wearing Hollister or
Superdry or Tommy Hilfiger?They haven’t abandoned their helmets in favour
of Pirelli or Audi caps, and their armoured vehicles aren’t painted in
Ukraine’s colours or look like rainbows. They don’t switch their lights on
at night.

Any idea why that should be?

Go on, have a think…if you can.

--
Spike

The more people get around by bike, the safer it is, according to the "safety in numbers" rule first popularized by researcher Peter Jacobsen.

This chart from the International Transport Forum [PDF] shows how the safety in numbers effect plays out at the national scale. As you can see, biking is safer in the countries where people bike the most.

There was, however, some variation country to country. The report noted that Korea's cycling fatality rates were greater than what its biking rates would suggest. Researchers speculated that might be due to a rapid recent growth in cycling. Perhaps, they write, "neither cyclists nor other transport participants have had time to assimilate each other's presence."

Meanwhile, in some nations with high cycling rates, biking has become even safer over time. That was the case in Denmark, where cycling rates have been high but fairly stable for the last decade, but fatality rates have dropped 40 percent during the same period.

The safety in numbers effect has been observed at the scale of cities too. Recently, for example, bicycle injury rates in Minneapolis have declined as total ridership has risen. The same trend has played out in New York, as cycling has increased while total injuries and fatalities have not.

Do more people on bikes cause cycling to become safer, or does safer infrastructure attract more people to bike? There's no conclusive evidence either way, but the answer is probably a mix of both. Safer infrastructure entices more people to ride, and more people riding instill greater awareness on the part of motorists and increase the demand for safer infrastructure.

SEE: https://lede-admin.usa.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/46/2015/02/B-jBsAjCQAAn9rR.png

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> The more people get around by bike, the safer it is, according to the
> "safety in numbers" rule first popularized by researcher Peter Jacobsen.
>
> This chart from the International Transport Forum [PDF] shows how the
> safety in numbers effect plays out at the national scale. As you can see,
> biking is safer in the countries where people bike the most.
>
> There was, however, some variation country to country. The report noted
> that Korea's cycling fatality rates were greater than what its biking
> rates would suggest. Researchers speculated that might be due to a rapid
> recent growth in cycling. Perhaps, they write, "neither cyclists nor
> other transport participants have had time to assimilate each other's presence."
>
> Meanwhile, in some nations with high cycling rates, biking has become
> even safer over time. That was the case in Denmark, where cycling rates
> have been high but fairly stable for the last decade, but fatality rates
> have dropped 40 percent during the same period.

And the Danish are explaining this how?

> The safety in numbers effect has been observed at the scale of cities
> too. Recently, for example, bicycle injury rates in Minneapolis have
> declined as total ridership has risen. The same trend has played out in
> New York, as cycling has increased while total injuries and fatalities have not.
>
> Do more people on bikes cause cycling to become safer, or does safer
> infrastructure attract more people to bike? There's no conclusive
> evidence either way, but the answer is probably a mix of both. Safer
> infrastructure entices more people to ride, and more people riding
> instill greater awareness on the part of motorists and increase the
> demand for safer infrastructure.
>
> SEE:
> https://lede-admin.usa.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/46/2015/02/B-jBsAjCQAAn9rR.png

An uninteresting conflation of apples and oranges.

Whenever did the Netherlands have a cyclist death rate of 10.7 per bn km
travelled?

Dutch cycle deaths and bn km travelled have been fairly constant at 200 and
15.5 respectively, giving a rate of over 12.

The UK is currently at a very similar figure, so that part of the chart
needs serious revision.

How much more needs correcting?

--
Spike

Abstract
That motorists are a lot less likely to hit someone walking or bicycling if more people walk or bicycle surprised researchers. In contrast, the number of car crashes increases proportionally with the number of cars. The evidence of a prevalence effect implies that injury risk is more than just a matter of physics, and that something occurs with human physiology or psychology.

Safety in Numbers likely occurs because humans have difficulty detecting rare items. That injury risk decreases with more walking and biking creates opportunity for implementing public policies for reducing damage to the climate and improving health. This non-linear risk also explains why the recent NTSB recommendation for compulsory bicycle helmet laws could increase injury risk.

https://ecommons.cornell.edu/handle/1813/111000

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Abstract
> That motorists are a lot less likely to hit someone walking or bicycling
> if more people walk or bicycle surprised researchers. In contrast, the
> number of car crashes increases proportionally with the number of cars.
> The evidence of a prevalence effect implies that injury risk is more than
> just a matter of physics, and that something occurs with human physiology or psychology.
>
> Safety in Numbers likely occurs because humans have difficulty detecting
> rare items. That injury risk decreases with more walking and biking
> creates opportunity for implementing public policies for reducing damage
> to the climate and improving health. This non-linear risk also explains
> why the recent NTSB recommendation for compulsory bicycle helmet laws
> could increase injury risk.
>
> https://ecommons.cornell.edu/handle/1813/111000

Anyone care to point up the inconsistency between

“…motorists are a lot less likely to hit someone walking or bicycling if
more people walk or bicycle…”

and

“…the number of car crashes increases proportionally with the number of
cars…”

and

“… Safety in Numbers likely occurs because humans have difficulty detecting
rare items…”

Honestly, Mason, don’t you have any critical faculties at all?

--
Spike

In road safety, the principle of safety in numbers refers to risks for vulnerable road users. It implies that as the number of cyclists and pedestrians increases their crash risk decreases; or the increase in the number of crashes among these road users is smaller than would be expected considering the increase in their numbers in traffic. This mechanism has been demonstrated in several studies.

https://swov.nl/en/fact/cyclists-10-what-does-safety-numbers-imply

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> In road safety, the principle of safety in numbers refers to risks for
> vulnerable road users. It implies that as the number of cyclists and
> pedestrians increases their crash risk decreases; or the increase in the
> number of crashes among these road users is smaller than would be
> expected considering the increase in their numbers in traffic. This
> mechanism has been demonstrated in several studies.
>
> https://swov.nl/en/fact/cyclists-10-what-does-safety-numbers-imply

“ This mechanism has been demonstrated in several studies, but the
magnitude of the found road safety effect considerably differs. Nor is it
clear whether the effect relates to a direct causal relationship [25]”

--
Spike

The idea of ‘safety in numbers’ for cyclists has been questioned since it was first mooted two decades ago.

Now a three-year study of cycling safety in the city of Oslo, Norway, confirms it is not simply an attractive theory but is actually true – more cyclists equals safer cycling.

“Cycling advocates have long believed in safety in numbers but the important thing has been to understand what is really going on,” Dr Aslak Fyhri, senior research psychologist and lead author of the 72-page report, tells BikeRadar.

Dr. Fyhri’s team surveyed road users and analysed hours of traffic video from Oslo. They wanted to see if the number of dangerous events changed when the numbers of cyclists increased significantly between April and September.

The results are convincing, he says. Car drivers say they become more aware of cyclists and, as the summer months pass, so do pedestrians. Near-misses fall from April to June and video analysis shows conflicts between cars and bicycles decrease between June and September.

Official safety figures, which distinguish between collisions and single bicycle-only accidents, reflect this safety improvement. “The data for Oslo show a pattern that can be interpreted as a ‘Safety in Numbers’ effect, with a higher share of collisions relative to single accidents in winter, where there are few cyclists,” the study says. “When spring arrives, and cyclists turn to the streets, the number of accidents increase, but the number of collisions increases less than single accidents.”

https://www.bikeradar.com/features/heres-why-youre-less-likely-to-be-hit-by-a-car-in-the-summer/

“When spring arrives, and cyclists turn to the streets, the number of
accidents increase”

So the safety, such as it is, is relative rather than absolute. Greater
numbers of cyclists will be killed.

Thank you, Dr Aslak Fyhri.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> The idea of ‘safety in numbers’ for cyclists has been questioned since it
> was first mooted two decades ago.
>
> Now a three-year study of cycling safety in the city of Oslo, Norway,
> confirms it is not simply an attractive theory but is actually true –
> more cyclists equals safer cycling.
>
> “Cycling advocates have long believed in safety in numbers but the
> important thing has been to understand what is really going on,” Dr Aslak
> Fyhri, senior research psychologist and lead author of the 72-page report, tells BikeRadar.
>
> Dr. Fyhri’s team surveyed road users and analysed hours of traffic video
> from Oslo. They wanted to see if the number of dangerous events changed
> when the numbers of cyclists increased significantly between April and September.
>
> The results are convincing, he says. Car drivers say they become more
> aware of cyclists and, as the summer months pass, so do pedestrians.
> Near-misses fall from April to June and video analysis shows conflicts
> between cars and bicycles decrease between June and September.
>
> Official safety figures, which distinguish between collisions and single
> bicycle-only accidents, reflect this safety improvement. “The data for
> Oslo show a pattern that can be interpreted as a ‘Safety in Numbers’
> effect, with a higher share of collisions relative to single accidents in
> winter, where there are few cyclists,” the study says. “When spring
> arrives, and cyclists turn to the streets, the number of accidents
> increase, but the number of collisions increases less than single accidents.”
>
> https://www.bikeradar.com/features/heres-why-youre-less-likely-to-be-hit-by-a-car-in-the-summer/
>
>

--
Spike

To help Los Angeles cyclists commute with confidence, Fabian Wagmister, founder of the group Civic Bicycle Commuting (CiBiC), is creating opportunities for “carpooling, but on bikes.” Essentially, this means cycling together in small, tight groups of 10 or 12 — taking up about as much space as a car — and riding right down the middle of a traffic lane. These “pods” of riders coordinate with each other via an app that CiBiC has developed. Participants enter their location, their destination and their arrival time, and the app groups them together for a collective commute.

The pilot program, funded with a $1 million grant, launches October 1 and will focus mainly on riders in lower-income communities of color. “So many people say they would like to commute by bike, but are afraid to do so,” says Wagmister. “And so we started thinking, how can we make it safer?”

On 18/07/2023 05:53 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> To help Los Angeles cyclists commute with confidence, Fabian Wagmister, founder of the group Civic Bicycle Commuting (CiBiC), is creating opportunities for “carpooling, but on bikes.” Essentially, this means cycling together in small, tight groups of 10 or 12 — taking up about as much space as a car — and riding right down the middle of a traffic lane. These “pods” of riders coordinate with each other via an app that CiBiC has developed. Participants enter their location, their destination and their arrival time, and the app groups them together for a collective commute.
>
> The pilot program, funded with a $1 million grant, launches October 1 and will focus mainly on riders in lower-income communities of color. “So many people say they would like to commute by bike, but are afraid to do so,” says Wagmister. “And so we started thinking, how can we make it safer?”

Los Angeles?

A guaranteed damp squib (or, as May Sun would put it, a damp squid).

People never seem to take cognisance of the most basic reasons why
travellers use self-directed transport (car, truck, motor-cycle,
chav-cycle).

They don't do it because they want to hang around waiting for others.
They don't want to waste time while travelling. If dead time was what
they wanted, they could travel by bus or train.

The idea of ‘Safety in Numbers’ has been known for years.
Mike Hudson wrote in 1978: "the fact that cyclists’ rights are
more respected in towns where cycling is prevalent suggests
than an increase in the number of cyclists on all roads would
condition car drivers to expect and allow for them."

So what about bikes? Is the risk per cyclist also related to
the amount of cycling? Peter Jacobsen’s research,[1] the Injury
Prevention Editor’s Choice for Volume 9, Issue 3, shows the
answer is a resounding ‘yes!’

Fig 4 compares the risks per cyclist and pedestrian with the
proportion cycling and walking to work in 68 Californian
cities. Risks were estimated by dividing the total number of
reported injuries by the number of people cycling (walking) to
work (used as a proxy for the total amount of cycling/walking).
A strong relationship (remarkably similar to Smeed’s law for
motor vehicles) is evident. Risks per cyclist or pedestrian are
substantially lower in cities where a higher proportion of the
population cycles or walks to work.

Safety in Numbers is not confined to the US. Cycling in
Denmark is generally popular and very safe; fatalities per
million km cycled are about a third of the UK rate. Yet when
distances cycled are plotted against the injury rate per million
km, as in the US, cities where people cycle more have lower
injury rates per unit distance

http://www.cycle-helmets.com/safety_in_numbers2.pdf

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> The idea of ‘Safety in Numbers’ has been known for years.
> Mike Hudson wrote in 1978: "the fact that cyclists’ rights are
> more respected in towns where cycling is prevalent suggests
> than an increase in the number of cyclists on all roads would
> condition car drivers to expect and allow for them."

"the fact that cyclists’ rights are more respected in towns”

Is that a fact?

If it is, why isn’t it referenced to the peer-reviewed paper that found
that? Tut tut.

> So what about bikes? Is the risk per cyclist also related to
> the amount of cycling? Peter Jacobsen’s research,[1] the Injury
> Prevention Editor’s Choice for Volume 9, Issue 3, shows the
> answer is a resounding ‘yes!’
>
> Fig 4 compares the risks per cyclist and pedestrian with the
> proportion cycling and walking to work in 68 Californian
> cities. Risks were estimated by dividing the total number of
> reported injuries by the number of people cycling (walking) to
> work (used as a proxy for the total amount of cycling/walking).
> A strong relationship (remarkably similar to Smeed’s law for
> motor vehicles) is evident. Risks per cyclist or pedestrian are
> substantially lower in cities where a higher proportion of the
> population cycles or walks to work.

Para 2 states:

“In 1985, John Adams reviewed Smeed’s work and mar- velled at how well
predictions from 1938 data (when the highest V/P was 0.23) fitted data with
V/P of more than 0.5 vehicles per person (Fig 2, drawn on a log-log
scale).[3] Adams argued that to represent real advances in road safety,
measures must be shown to provide benefits over and above what would be
predicted by Smeed’s law.”

Unfortunately for this demonstration, neither the 1938 data or the year
with the V/P >0.5 are specifically mentioned either on the graphs or in the
text. Tut, tut.

Why wasn’t Fig 4 redrawn as a log/linear curve in the manner of Fig 3?

Tut, tut.

> Safety in Numbers is not confined to the US. Cycling in
> Denmark is generally popular and very safe; fatalities per
> million km cycled are about a third of the UK rate. Yet when
> distances cycled are plotted against the injury rate per million
> km, as in the US, cities where people cycle more have lower
> injury rates per unit distance
>
> http://www.cycle-helmets.com/safety_in_numbers2.pdf

What’s missing from this account is any reference to
Box 1, which includes the statement that “if cycling doubles” (which is the
cycling world’s wet dream) “total accidents increase by 2^0.4”

This latter quantity works out at 1.32, which means that for an increase of
100% in the number of cyclists, their death rate goes up by 32%.

If there are 3m cyclists on the roads with 100 deaths a year, and that goes
up to 6m cyclists, the new death toll will be 132.

Coyly, this isn’t mentioned in the text.

It also means that ‘Vision Zero’ is a pipe dream.

Still, it’s only a handful, as cyclists say, and every movement needs its
martyrs.

--
Spike

In 2015, 102 pedal cyclists were killed, 3,397 seriously injured and 14,978 slightly injured in Great Britain.
Although car occupants account for the greatest number of casualties each year, this is unsurprising as cars
account for 80% of traffic on Britain’s roads. By looking at casualty rates in terms of the number of casualties
per mile travelled, pedal cyclists fall into the ‘vulnerable road users’ category, along with pedestrians and
motorcyclists, who have much higher casualty rates per mile travelled than other road users .
It might be assumed that if the number of pedal cyclists on the road rise, the number of cyclist casualties will
rise too. However, research has revealed a ‘safety in numbers’ argument that suggests that this may not be
the case.

The safety in numbers approach states that in a mixed traffic environment, the balance of different types of
road users can affect the relative risk of injury to individuals, suggesting that if more people cycle; the roads
will become less risky for cyclists.

The concept of safety in numbers is not new. It was first demonstrated by Smeed in 1949 with regard to motor
vehicles. Smeed argued that data from 62 countries indicated that the number of road fatalities per vehicle was
lower in countries with more driving4.

This concept is now also being applied to cycling. Research by Jacobsen (2003) suggests that when more cyclists
are on the road, there are fewer collisions, with data indicating that this is the case in The Netherlands, California
and Denmark.

The safety in numbers argument is based on the belief that if there are more cyclists on the road, drivers will
modify their behaviour by taking more notice of cyclists and anticipating their actions. However, it has been
noted that this does suggest that drivers are to blame. Other reasons for the reduced risk of injury to cyclists
when more people are cycling could include drivers being more likely to be a cyclist themselves, having a greater
awareness and understanding of how their driving could affect other road users and cyclists in particular and
that higher rates of cycling lead to a strong political emphasis on making the roads safer to cycle on 3.

The level of motor vehicle traffic is an underpinning cause of injury on the roads, with studies finding that traffic
volume is predictive of the number of cyclist injuries 6 7. Therefore, reducing traffic volume has the potential to
improve cycle safety and road safety in general

QUOTE

The safety in numbers argument is based on the belief

ENDQUOTE

So, ‘safety in numbers’ is a religion rather than a scientific fact.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> In 2015, 102 pedal cyclists were killed, 3,397 seriously injured and
> 14,978 slightly injured in Great Britain.
> Although car occupants account for the greatest number of casualties each
> year, this is unsurprising as cars
> account for 80% of traffic on Britain’s roads. By looking at casualty
> rates in terms of the number of casualties
> per mile travelled, pedal cyclists fall into the ‘vulnerable road users’
> category, along with pedestrians and
> motorcyclists, who have much higher casualty rates per mile travelled
> than other road users .
> It might be assumed that if the number of pedal cyclists on the road
> rise, the number of cyclist casualties will
> rise too. However, research has revealed a ‘safety in numbers’ argument
> that suggests that this may not be
> the case.
>
> The safety in numbers approach states that in a mixed traffic
> environment, the balance of different types of
> road users can affect the relative risk of injury to individuals,
> suggesting that if more people cycle; the roads
> will become less risky for cyclists.
>
> The concept of safety in numbers is not new. It was first demonstrated by
> Smeed in 1949 with regard to motor
> vehicles. Smeed argued that data from 62 countries indicated that the
> number of road fatalities per vehicle was
> lower in countries with more driving4.
>
> This concept is now also being applied to cycling. Research by Jacobsen
> (2003) suggests that when more cyclists
> are on the road, there are fewer collisions, with data indicating that
> this is the case in The Netherlands, California
> and Denmark.
>
> The safety in numbers argument is based on the belief that if there are
> more cyclists on the road, drivers will
> modify their behaviour by taking more notice of cyclists and anticipating
> their actions. However, it has been
> noted that this does suggest that drivers are to blame. Other reasons for
> the reduced risk of injury to cyclists
> when more people are cycling could include drivers being more likely to
> be a cyclist themselves, having a greater
> awareness and understanding of how their driving could affect other road
> users and cyclists in particular and
> that higher rates of cycling lead to a strong political emphasis on
> making the roads safer to cycle on 3.
>
> The level of motor vehicle traffic is an underpinning cause of injury on
> the roads, with studies finding that traffic
> volume is predictive of the number of cyclist injuries 6 7. Therefore,
> reducing traffic volume has the potential to
> improve cycle safety and road safety in general
>

--
Spike

Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
> swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The idea of ‘Safety in Numbers’ has been known for years.
>> Mike Hudson wrote in 1978: "the fact that cyclists’ rights are
>> more respected in towns where cycling is prevalent suggests
>> than an increase in the number of cyclists on all roads would
>> condition car drivers to expect and allow for them."
>
> "the fact that cyclists’ rights are more respected in towns”
>
> Is that a fact?
>
> If it is, why isn’t it referenced to the peer-reviewed paper that found
> that? Tut tut.
>
>> So what about bikes? Is the risk per cyclist also related to
>> the amount of cycling? Peter Jacobsen’s research,[1] the Injury
>> Prevention Editor’s Choice for Volume 9, Issue 3, shows the
>> answer is a resounding ‘yes!’
>>
>> Fig 4 compares the risks per cyclist and pedestrian with the
>> proportion cycling and walking to work in 68 Californian
>> cities. Risks were estimated by dividing the total number of
>> reported injuries by the number of people cycling (walking) to
>> work (used as a proxy for the total amount of cycling/walking).
>> A strong relationship (remarkably similar to Smeed’s law for
>> motor vehicles) is evident. Risks per cyclist or pedestrian are
>> substantially lower in cities where a higher proportion of the
>> population cycles or walks to work.
>
> Para 2 states:
>
> “In 1985, John Adams reviewed Smeed’s work and mar- velled at how well
> predictions from 1938 data (when the highest V/P was 0.23) fitted data with
> V/P of more than 0.5 vehicles per person (Fig 2, drawn on a log-log
> scale).[3] Adams argued that to represent real advances in road safety,
> measures must be shown to provide benefits over and above what would be
> predicted by Smeed’s law.”
>
> Unfortunately for this demonstration, neither the 1938 data or the year
> with the V/P >0.5 are specifically mentioned either on the graphs or in the
> text. Tut, tut.
>
> Why wasn’t Fig 4 redrawn as a log/linear curve in the manner of Fig 3?
>
> Tut, tut.
>
>> Safety in Numbers is not confined to the US. Cycling in
>> Denmark is generally popular and very safe; fatalities per
>> million km cycled are about a third of the UK rate. Yet when
>> distances cycled are plotted against the injury rate per million
>> km, as in the US, cities where people cycle more have lower
>> injury rates per unit distance
>>
>> http://www.cycle-helmets.com/safety_in_numbers2.pdf
>
> What’s missing from this account is any reference to
> Box 1, which includes the statement that “if cycling doubles” (which is the
> cycling world’s wet dream) “total accidents increase by 2^0.4”
>
> This latter quantity works out at 1.32, which means that for an increase of
> 100% in the number of cyclists, their death rate goes up by 32%.
>
> If there are 3m cyclists on the roads with 100 deaths a year, and that goes
> up to 6m cyclists, the new death toll will be 132.
>
> Coyly, this isn’t mentioned in the text.
>
> It also means that ‘Vision Zero’ is a pipe dream.
>
> Still, it’s only a handful, as cyclists say, and every movement needs its
> martyrs.

Just thinking about this…

QUOTE
What’s missing from this account is any reference to Box 1, which includes
the statement that “if cycling doubles” (which is the cycling world’s wet
dream) “total accidents increase by 2^0.4”

This latter quantity works out at 1.32, which means that for an increase of
100% in the number of cyclists, their death rate goes up by 32%.

If there are 3m cyclists on the roads with 100 deaths a year, and that goes
up to 6m cyclists, the new death toll will be 132.
ENDQUOTE

I took the phrase “if cycling doubles total accidents increase by 2^0.4” to
mean that accidents would go up by a factor of 2^0.4=1.32, and calculated
the numbers by an example.

But the wording is “total accidents increase by 2^0.4”, which can be taken
that the *increase* is given by 2^0.4=1.32.

So in my example, the *increase* is 100x2^0.4=132, which being an
*increase* means that one has to add on the original 100, to give a total
of 232 killed cyclists.

One gets the impression that this is not a well-thought-through article.

--
Spike

Devon and Cornwall’s annual resident cyclists casualty rate of 17.1 per 100,000 population is 44% lower than the national rate and 31% lower than the South West regional rate.

However, within Devon and Cornwall, Exeter has by far the highest rate of 37.3, which is 54% higher than the overall Peninsula rate. This risk is especially high among affluent middle-aged adult cyclists with families in popular neighborhoods.

Eastern Cornwall has the lowest rate of 11.0, which is 36% lower than the overall Peninsula rate.
RoSPA reports that nationally in 2016, 18,477 cyclists were injured in reported road accidents, including 3,499 who were killed or seriously injured. These figures only include cyclists killed or injured in road accidents that were reported to the police. Many cyclist casualties are not reported to the police, even when the cyclist is injured badly enough to be taken to hospital.

In 2018, 99 cyclists were killed and 4,106 were seriously injured in Great Britain. Although car occupants account for the greatest number of casualties each year, this is unsurprising as cars account for 80% of traffic on Britain’s roads.

Cyclists fall into the ‘vulnerable road users’ category, along with pedestrians and motorcyclists, who have much higher casualty rates per mile travelled than other road users.

It might be assumed that if the number of pedal cyclists on the road rise, the number of cyclist casualties will rise too. However, research has revealed a ‘safety in numbers’ argument that suggests that this may not be the case.

The safety in numbers approach states that in a mixed traffic environment, the balance of different types of road users can affect the relative risk of injury to individuals, suggesting that if more people cycle; the roads will become less risky for cyclists.

The concept of safety in numbers is not new. It was first demonstrated by Smeed in 1949 with regard to motor vehicles. Smeed argued that data from 62 countries indicated that the number of road fatalities per vehicle was lower in countries with more driving.

This concept is now also being applied to cycling. Research by Jacobsen (2003) suggests that when more cyclists are on the road, there are fewer collisions, with data indicating that this is the case in The Netherlands, California and Denmark.

“…RoSPA reports that nationally in 2016…”

“…In 2018…”

“…demonstrated by Smeed in 1949…”

“…Research by Jacobsen (2003) suggests…”

So, we can say that no recent data has been included; any conclusions are
therefore not well founded. It’s almost as if the cycling world is ignoring
last year’s ~15% fall in cyclist deaths. Well, every movement needs its
martyrs, even if they’ve been used before.

It’s a bit like ‘climate change’ - take a datum point to measure from, like
the depths of the Little Ice Age, and everything from there is up. Compared
to the start of this interglacial, we’re currently 2.5 or more degrees
lower…

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> Devon and Cornwall’s annual resident cyclists casualty rate of 17.1 per
> 100,000 population is 44% lower than the national rate and 31% lower than
> the South West regional rate.
>
> However, within Devon and Cornwall, Exeter has by far the highest rate of
> 37.3, which is 54% higher than the overall Peninsula rate. This risk is
> especially high among affluent middle-aged adult cyclists with families
> in popular neighborhoods.

Moral: don’t live in slums, and stop virtue signalling.

> Eastern Cornwall has the lowest rate of 11.0, which is 36% lower than the
> overall Peninsula rate.

Now tell us what the figures are on a mileage base. Using population
numbers puts the Dutch at 8x the UK rate! And Holland is held up as a safe
place to cycle ROFL!

> RoSPA reports that nationally in 2016, 18,477 cyclists were injured in
> reported road accidents, including 3,499 who were killed or seriously
> injured. These figures only include cyclists killed or injured in road
> accidents that were reported to the police. Many cyclist casualties are
> not reported to the police, even when the cyclist is injured badly enough
> to be taken to hospital.

Presumably this number would include those embarrassing cyclist
single-vehicle accidents.

> In 2018, 99 cyclists were killed and 4,106 were seriously injured in
> Great Britain. Although car occupants account for the greatest number of
> casualties each year, this is unsurprising as cars account for 80% of
> traffic on Britain’s roads.

Official figures are 100 and 4200.

> Cyclists fall into the ‘vulnerable road users’ category, along with
> pedestrians and motorcyclists, who have much higher casualty rates per
> mile travelled than other road users.
>
> It might be assumed that if the number of pedal cyclists on the road
> rise, the number of cyclist casualties will rise too. However, research
> has revealed a ‘safety in numbers’ argument that suggests that this may not be the case.

Only on a rate basis. The recent pdf you posted demonstrates, nay
calculates, the increase in death

> The safety in numbers approach states that in a mixed traffic
> environment, the balance of different types of road users can affect the
> relative risk of injury to individuals, suggesting that if more people
> cycle; the roads will become less risky for cyclists.
>
> The concept of safety in numbers is not new. It was first demonstrated by
> Smeed in 1949 with regard to motor vehicles. Smeed argued that data from
> 62 countries indicated that the number of road fatalities per vehicle was
> lower in countries with more driving.
>
> This concept is now also being applied to cycling. Research by Jacobsen
> (2003) suggests that when more cyclists are on the road, there are fewer
> collisions, with data indicating that this is the case in The
> Netherlands, California and Denmark.

There’s the Netherlands again! Same per-km rate as the UK, 8x worse on a
population basis. Quite why people use the country as an exemplar is
inexplicable on a factual basis.

HTH

--
Spike

'Safety in Numbers' is the theory that there is a correlation between cycling levels in an area, or country, and the relative safety of cycling - that higher cycling levels correlate with higher safety levels.

A strong form of this theory is that simply increasing cycling levels will increase (relative) safety. Weaker forms simply point out the correlation, without making any strong causal connections.

It is more likely, for instance, that safer environments lead to higher cycling levels, or that higher level policy creates attractive and safe conditions that boost both the numbers of people and their relative safety. Fred Wegman of the Dutch Institute for Road Safety Research(link is external) -

If there is much cycling in a country, the risk for cyclists is indeed lower. Comparison of statistics of different countries offers conclusive evidence. The risks in countries that have a lot of cycling like the Netherlands and Denmark are (much) lower than in countries where cycling is a less important mode of transport. The explanation may be twofold. Firstly, there are the expectations of the other road user. If a driver does indeed expect a cyclist on the road, as is the case in the Netherlands and Denmark, the risk is lower. But a second explanation is conceivable: if there are more cyclists, more safe cycling facilities will be constructed (which in turn make cycling more pleasant). We have sufficient evidence that cycling facilities (like bicycle tracks) reduce the risks of cycling. Not only do the Nether- lands and Denmark have many cyclists, there are also many cycling facilities.

I do not expect that just a greater number of cyclists will on its own result in a risk reduction for the cyclist. On the other hand, I do expect that more cycling facilities will lead to lower risks. Policy that only focuses on an increase in cycling and at the same time ignores the construction of more cycling facilities, will not have a positive effect on road safety. Unless, of course this policy also takes care of cyclists only cycling close to one another: in a swarm, school, flock, or pack of cyclists.