swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

> '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.

“…is a theory…”

> 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.

So, at best, the issue is not settled.

> 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) -

What is “…more likely…”? Compared to what?

> If there is much cycling in a country, the risk for cyclists is indeed lower.

It is only lower on a per-person basis; the number of actual deaths will
increase (see Jacobsen’s Growth Rule).

> Comparison of statistics of different countries offers conclusive evidence.

It is not conclusive. It is merely a correlation, not a causation.

> 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.

Claptrap. The UK and the oft-touted Netherlands have the same death-rate
on a per-km basis, but us 8x worse on a per-head basis. Actual deaths are
double those of the UK.

> 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.

That needs to be quantified, otherwise it’s just a claim aka hot air.

> 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.

Claptrap. The UK and the oft-touted Netherlands have the same death-rate
on a per-km basis, but us 8x worse on a per-head basis. Actual deaths are
double those of the UK.

> 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.

Uninteresting speculation.

--
Spike

In 1949 R. J. Smeed reported that per capita road fatality rates tended to be lower in countries with higher rates of motor vehicle ownership.[6] This observation led to Smeed's Law.

In 2003 P. L. Jacobsen[7] compared rates of walking and cycling, in a range of countries, with rates of collisions between motorists and cyclists or walkers. He found an inverse relationship that was hypothesised to be explained by a concept described as 'behavioural adaptation', whereby drivers who are exposed to greater numbers of cyclists on the road begin to drive more safely around them. Other combined modelling[8][9] and empirical evidence suggests that while changes in driver behaviour might still be one way that collision risk per cyclist declines with greater numbers,[10] the effect can be easily produced through simple spatial processes akin to the biological herding processes described above.[11]

Without considering hypotheses 1 or 3, Jacobsen concluded that "A motorist is less likely to collide with a person walking and bicycling if more people walk or bicycle." He described this theory as "safety in numbers."[7]

Safety in numbers is also used to describe the evidence that the number of pedestrians or cyclists correlates inversely with the risk of a motorist colliding with a pedestrian or cyclist. This non-linear relationship was first shown at intersections.[12][13] It has been confirmed by ecologic data from cities in California and Denmark, and European countries, and time-series data for the United Kingdom and the Netherlands.[7] The number of pedestrians or bicyclists injured increases at a slower rate than would be expected based on their numbers. That is, more people walk or cycle where the risk to the individual pedestrian or bicyclist is lower.[14][15] A 2002 study into whether pedestrian risk decreased with pedestrian flow, using 1983-86 data from signalized intersections in a town in Canada, found that in some circumstances pedestrian flow increased where the risk per pedestrian decreased.[16]

After cycling was promoted in Finland, there was a 75% drop in cyclists deaths and the number of trips increased by 72%.[17]

In England, between 2000 and 2008, serious bicycle injuries declined by 12%.. Over the same period, the number of bicycle trips made in London doubled.[18][19][20] Motor vehicle traffic decreased by 16%, bicycle use increased by 28% and cyclist injuries had decreased by 20% in the first year of operation of the London Congestion Charge.[21] In January 2008, the number of cyclists in London being treated in hospitals for serious injuries had increased by 100% in six years. Over the same time, they report, the number of cyclists had increased by 84%.[22] In York, comparing the periods 1991-93 and 1996–98, the number of bicyclists killed and seriously injured fell by 59%. The share of trips made by bicycle rose from 15% to 18%.[23]

In Germany, between 1975 and 2001, the total number of bicycle trips made in Berlin almost quadrupled. Between 1990 and 2007, the share of trips made by bicycle increased from 5% to 10%. Between 1992 and 2006, the number of serious bicycle injuries declined by 38%.[24][25] In Germany as a whole, between 1975 and 1998, cyclist fatalities fell by 66% and the percent of trips made by bicycle rose from 8% to 12%.[26]

In America, during the period 1999-2007, the absolute number of cyclists killed or seriously injured decreased by 29% and the amount of cycling in New York city increased by 98%.[27][28][29] In Portland, Oregon, between 1990 and 2000, the percentage of workers who commuted to work by bicycle rose from 1.1% to 1.8%. By 2008, the proportion has risen to 6.0%; while the number of workers increased by only 36% between 1990 and 2008, the number of workers commuting by bicycle increased 608%. Between 1992 and 2008, the number of bicyclists crossing four bridges into downtown was measured to have increased 369% between 1992 and 2008. During that same period, the number of reported crashes increased by only 14%.[30][31][32]

In Copenhagen, Denmark, between 1995 and 2006, the number of cyclists killed or seriously injured fell by 60%. During the same period, cycling increased by 44% and the percent of people cycling to work increased from 31% to 36%.[33]

In the Netherlands, between 1980 and 2005, and cyclist fatalities decreased by 58% and cycling increased by 45%.[34]

During 7 years of the 1980s, admissions to hospital of cyclists declined by 5% and cycling in Western Australia increased by 82%

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

> In 1949 R. J. Smeed reported that per capita road fatality rates tended
> to be lower in countries with higher rates of motor vehicle ownership.[6]
> This observation led to Smeed's Law.

> In 2003 P. L. Jacobsen[7] compared rates of walking and cycling, in a
> range of countries, with rates of collisions between motorists and
> cyclists or walkers. He found an inverse relationship that was
> hypothesised to be explained by a concept described as 'behavioural
> adaptation', whereby drivers who are exposed to greater numbers of
> cyclists on the road begin to drive more safely around them. Other
> combined modelling[8][9] and empirical evidence suggests that while
> changes in driver behaviour might still be one way that collision risk
> per cyclist declines with greater numbers,[10] the effect can be easily
> produced through simple spatial processes akin to the biological herding
> processes described above.[11]

> Without considering hypotheses 1 or 3

What hypotheses? You haven’t mentioned any.

> Jacobsen concluded that "A motorist is less likely to collide with a
> person walking and bicycling if more people walk or bicycle." He
> described this theory as "safety in numbers."[7]

Note that the discussion of ‘collision risk per cyclist’ has now morphed
into ‘collisions per motorist’.

> Safety in numbers is also used to describe the evidence that the number
> of pedestrians or cyclists correlates inversely with the risk of a
> motorist colliding with a pedestrian or cyclist. This non-linear
> relationship was first shown at intersections.[12][13] It has been
> confirmed by ecologic data from cities in California and Denmark, and
> European countries, and time-series data for the United Kingdom and the
> Netherlands.[7] The number of pedestrians or bicyclists injured increases
> at a slower rate than would be expected based on their numbers. That is,
> more people walk or cycle where the risk to the individual pedestrian or
> bicyclist is lower.[14][15] A 2002 study into whether pedestrian risk
> decreased with pedestrian flow, using 1983-86 data from signalized
> intersections in a town in Canada, found that in some circumstances
> pedestrian flow increased where the risk per pedestrian decreased.[16]

Bingo! At last a frank admission that as the number of cyclists increases,
so does the death toll:

“The number of pedestrians or bicyclists injured increases at a slower rate
than would be expected based on their numbers”

It’s Jacobsen’s Growth Rule.

> After cycling was promoted in Finland, there was a 75% drop in cyclists
> deaths and the number of trips increased by 72%.[17]

Unsurprising.

> In England, between 2000 and 2008, serious bicycle injuries declined by
> 12%. Over the same period, the number of bicycle trips made in London doubled.[18][19][20]

Someone is telling porkies…

From official figures:

2000…serious injuries…2643

2008…serious injuries…2450

Decline…9%

> Motor vehicle traffic decreased by 16%, bicycle use increased by 28% and
> cyclist injuries had decreased by 20% in the first year of operation of
> the London Congestion Charge.[21] In January 2008, the number of cyclists
> in London being treated in hospitals for serious injuries had increased
> by 100% in six years. Over the same time, they report, the number of
> cyclists had increased by 84%.[22]

This is merely bandying numbers about. You need to explain what they mean
in terms of whatever point it is that you’re trying to make. Somehow you
are conflating country-wide numbers with those in London. You need to
explain why.

> In York, comparing the periods 1991-93 and 1996–98, the number of
> bicyclists killed and seriously injured fell by 59%. The share of trips
> made by bicycle rose from 15% to 18%.[23]

This is merely bandying numbers about. You need to explain what they mean
in terms of whatever point it is that you’re trying to make.

> In Germany, between 1975 and 2001, the total number of bicycle trips made
> in Berlin almost quadrupled. Between 1990 and 2007, the share of trips
> made by bicycle increased from 5% to 10%. Between 1992 and 2006, the
> number of serious bicycle injuries declined by 38%.[24][25] In Germany as
> a whole, between 1975 and 1998, cyclist fatalities fell by 66% and the
> percent of trips made by bicycle rose from 8% to 12%.[26]

This is merely bandying numbers about. You need to explain what they mean
in terms of whatever point it is that you’re trying to make.

> In America, during the period 1999-2007, the absolute number of cyclists
> killed or seriously injured decreased by 29% and the amount of cycling in
> New York city increased by 98%.[27][28][29] In Portland, Oregon, between
> 1990 and 2000, the percentage of workers who commuted to work by bicycle
> rose from 1.1% to 1.8%. By 2008, the proportion has risen to 6.0%; while
> the number of workers increased by only 36% between 1990 and 2008, the
> number of workers commuting by bicycle increased 608%. Between 1992 and
> 2008, the number of bicyclists crossing four bridges into downtown was
> measured to have increased 369% between 1992 and 2008. During that same
> period, the number of reported crashes increased by only 14%.[30][31][32]

This is merely bandying numbers about. You need to explain what they mean
in terms of whatever point it is that you’re trying to make.

> In Copenhagen, Denmark, between 1995 and 2006, the number of cyclists
> killed or seriously injured fell by 60%. During the same period, cycling
> increased by 44% and the percent of people cycling to work increased from 31% to 36%.[33]

This is merely bandying numbers about. You need to explain what they mean
in terms of whatever point it is that you’re trying to make.

Further, it’s Jacobsen’s Growth Rule broken.

> In the Netherlands, between 1980 and 2005, and cyclist fatalities
> decreased by 58% and cycling increased by 45%.[34]

It’s Jacobsen’s Growth Rule…broken.

> During 7 years of the 1980s, admissions to hospital of cyclists declined
> by 5% and cycling in Western Australia increased by 82%

It’s Jacobsen’s Growth Rule…broken.

Seriously, you (Mason) don’t have a clue about what you’re posting, do you.
[That’s not a question]

--
Spike

There are many myths about cycling and in particular about the safety of cycling. Cycle helmet promotion builds strongly on the fear that cycling is unsafe, but there is clear evidence that people who cycle regularly live longer than those who do not cycle, with less ill health (BHRF, 1185). How can an activity that enhances health and longevity more than any other be unsafe?

Moreover, there is good evidence that the most important factor in enhancing safety for an individual when cycling in traffic is the number of other people who cycle. When cycle use doubles, the risk of a motorist hitting a cyclist goes down by about a third. This is the most likely explanation why it is in countries with large cycling populations, such as the Netherlands and Denmark, that risk is lowest.

The benefits of 'Safety in numbers' have now been shown to be valid within and across countries and continents. They are also consistent across time. The studies below are some of the evidence. They demonstrate not only that risk when cycling decreases the more people who cycle, but also the converse, that anything which leads to fewer people cycling increases risk for those who continue. This could be one reason why cycle helmet promotion and laws have not led to a detectable decrease in risk, for the most significant outcome has been to discourage cycling.

Road safety professionals concerned about reducing the likelihood of crashes between motorists and cyclists should consider measures that increase cycling.

Nswldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

> There are many myths about cycling and in particular about the safety of
> cycling. Cycle helmet promotion builds strongly on the fear that cycling
> is unsafe, but there is clear evidence that people who cycle regularly
> live longer than those who do not cycle, with less ill health (BHRF,
> 1185). How can an activity that enhances health and longevity more than
> any other be unsafe?

We’ve heard so many claims for bicycling and health benefits, let’s check
out the comparison between NL (a cycling paradise) and the hellhole of the
unhealthy UK.

Here’s my main point: I am opposed to public health campaigns that focus on
cycling, thereby implanting in people’s minds the claimed health benefits
of cycling. What are the facts?

The Dutch cycle more than the UK, 9bn miles to 3.9bn miles per annum, and
have done so for far longer. Note that the population of Holland is only
one-fourth of that of the UK (or in the modern vernacular, ‘four times
smaller’).

So you would think that all this health-benefit would show up in the
statistics. Let’s see…

Keep in mind that the Dutch population at 17.2 million is almost exactly
one-quarter of that of the UK at 68 million.

To compare cases per year on a per-head basis, the NL figures have been
multiplied by 4.

CVD:
UK…324446
NL…347880
Result: UK healthier for CVD.

IHD:
UK…178985
NL…167020
Result: NL slightly healthier for IHD

Stroke:
UK…20326
NL…26072
Result: UK far healthier for stroke.

Diabetes:
NL…5.4% of adults
UK…3.9% of adults
Result: UK healthier for diabetes

COPD:
NL and UK ~200 deaths per million
Result: indistinguishable

Comment: any health benefits from the amount of cycling by the Dutch over
the Brits seem to be based more on dogma, tropes, and wishful thinking
than fact.

Some data taken from the extensive tabulated data at ehnheart.org; COPD
from statistics.blf.org.uk

> Moreover, there is good evidence that the most important factor in
> enhancing safety for an individual when cycling in traffic is the number
> of other people who cycle. When cycle use doubles, the risk of a motorist
> hitting a cyclist goes down by about a third.

In real life, the risk of a motorist hitting a cyclist goes up, as there
are more cyclists to hit. What does go down, and is heavily but
misleadingly touted by the cycling media, is that the *individual* risk to
any one cyclist goes down. Data suggests that a doubling in the numbers
cycling results in 60 to 70% *more* deaths and injuries.

> This is the most likely explanation why it is in countries with large
> cycling populations, such as the Netherlands and Denmark, that risk is lowest.

But on a per-mile basis, the Dutch are no safer that the Brits. On a per
head of population basis, they are 8x worse.

> The benefits of 'Safety in numbers' have now been shown to be valid
> within and across countries and continents. They are also consistent
> across time. The studies below are some of the evidence. They demonstrate
> not only that risk when cycling decreases the more people who cycle, but
> also the converse, that anything which leads to fewer people cycling
> increases risk for those who continue. This could be one reason why cycle
> helmet promotion and laws have not led to a detectable decrease in risk,
> for the most significant outcome has been to discourage cycling.

Laughable. An article recently posted by Mason had graphical and tabulated
data of before-and-after KSI data when the helmet law was brought in in
Australia, which *clearly* shows a significant fall in numbers in the
category of Deaths and Serious Head Injuries of 40%!

(Safety in Numbers: more walkers and bicyclists, safer walking and
bicycling[1]
Review of the Injury Prevention Editor’s Choice article and new examples
from Australian data)

> Road safety professionals concerned about reducing the likelihood of
> crashes between motorists and cyclists should consider measures that increase cycling.

Road safety professionals concerned about reducing the likelihood of
crashes between motorists and cyclists should consider all the evidence
while simultaneously discounting political correctness and the sort of
wishful thinking that seems so prevalent in the cycling world.

--
Spike

Likewise, in response to this question from Assembly Member James Cleverley –

Mr Mayor…. would you concede that a significant but often undervalued element of cycle safety is the herd immunity: the idea that, as increasing numbers of people cycle, the other road users become more used to cyclists, become aware of cyclists in their day-to-day driving habits and adapt their driving styles to accommodate cyclists?

Boris had this to say –

we need to hear some voices also making the key point that… that cycling is a good thing to do and it is becoming safer. The idea that there is safety in numbers and that you can create a culture of cycling is certainly right.

On 21/07/2023 09:26 am, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> There are many myths about cycling and in particular about the safety of cycling.

One of them is that it is not necessary for chavs on bikes to watch
where they're going, on the basis that they can just blame someone else
(even the stone wall or the parked vehicle they run into).

On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 1:04:19 PM UTC+1, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> Likewise, in response to this question from Assembly Member James Cleverley –
>
> Mr Mayor…. would you concede that a significant but often undervalued element of cycle safety is the herd immunity: the idea that, as increasing numbers of people cycle, the other road users become more used to cyclists, become aware of cyclists in their day-to-day driving habits and adapt their driving styles to accommodate cyclists?
>
> Boris had this to say –
>
> we need to hear some voices also making the key point that… that cycling is a good thing to do and it is becoming safer. The idea that there is safety in numbers and that you can create a culture of cycling is certainly right.

I forgot that Bozo was a keen cyclist before he sold his soul to the far right swivel-eyed loony brigade.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> Likewise, in response to this question from Assembly Member James Cleverley –
>
> Mr Mayor…. would you concede that a significant but often undervalued
> element of cycle safety is the herd immunity: the idea that, as
> increasing numbers of people cycle, the other road users become more used
> to cyclists, become aware of cyclists in their day-to-day driving habits
> and adapt their driving styles to accommodate cyclists?
>
> Boris had this to say –
>
> we need to hear some voices also making the key point that… that
> cycling is a good thing to do and it is becoming safer. The idea that
> there is safety in numbers and that you can create a culture of cycling is certainly right.

Truly a Saul-into-Paul moment, as Simon Mason uses Boris Johnson for
support for his own views.

--
Spike

On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 1:31:38 PM UTC+1, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> I forgot that Bozo was a keen cyclist before he sold his soul to the far right swivel-eyed loony brigade.

QUOTE: The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, today (Thursday 26 March) confirmed the introduction of the world’s first Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ), and welcomed an increased fund of £65 million to help support London taxi drivers’ transition to zero emission capable taxis.

Following a positive consultation process, the Ultra Low Emission Zone will launch in central London on 7 September 2020, significantly improving air quality and helping to protect the health of Londoners. It will require vehicles travelling in the Congestion Charge Zone of central London to meet new emission standards 24 hours a day, seven days a week or pay a daily charge.ENDS

Well now - I think Khan is owed a massive apology by the anti clean air thugs and LTN vandals.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 1:31:38 PM UTC+1, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> I forgot that Bozo was a keen cyclist before he sold his soul to the far
>> right swivel-eyed loony brigade.
>
> QUOTE: The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, today (Thursday 26 March)
> confirmed the introduction of the world’s first Ultra Low Emission Zone
> (ULEZ), and welcomed an increased fund of £65 million to help support
> London taxi drivers’ transition to zero emission capable taxis.
>
> Following a positive consultation process, the Ultra Low Emission Zone
> will launch in central London on 7 September 2020, significantly
> improving air quality and helping to protect the health of Londoners. It
> will require vehicles travelling in the Congestion Charge Zone of central
> London to meet new emission standards 24 hours a day, seven days a week
> or pay a daily charge.ENDS
>
> Well now - I think Khan is owed a massive apology by the anti clean air
> thugs and LTN vandals.

One of the claimed main reasons for the ULEZ was to bring clean air to
London, as 4000 Londoners died from asthma each year.

The ULEZ is claimed to have significantly improved air quality.
Unfortunately, there doesn’t seem to be any mention of lowered numbers of
deaths. Why might that be?

That ULEZ has brought in barrowloads of cash doesn’t seem to be mentioned
either. Why might that be?

Was there an ulterior motive for bringing in ULEZ? What could that be?

--
Spike

Boris Johnson has been mocked after criticising the expansion of a green road scheme he launched when he was London mayor.

The former prime minister the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) was “an essential measure to help improve air quality” when the capital became the first city in the world to introduce it in 2015.

Under the scheme, drivers with cars which have high carbon emissions have to pay a special charge to continue using their vehicles.

But in his weekly Daily Mail column, Johnson savaged current London mayor Sadiq Khan’s plan to expand it to cover the whole of the city from next month.

The move has come in for severe criticism taxi drivers and other small business owners, as well as those with diesel cars.

Publicising his column on Twitter, Johnson described the ULEZ expansion as “an odious, unjustified tax on driving”.

He said it was “nothing to do with air quality, everything to do with Labour mayor Khan’s bankrupt finances”.

It is all a far cry from what he said eight years ago when ULEZ was initially set up on his watch.

Launching the scheme, Johnson said: “The world’s first Ultra Low Emission Zone is an essential measure to help improve air quality in our city, protect the health of Londoners, and lengthen our lead as the greatest city on earth.

“Together we can ensure everyone who lives, works in, or visits our city has the cleanest possible air to breathe.”

Johnson’s embarrassing U-turn was quickly picked up on Twitter.

Can this @BorisJohnson
be the same Boris Johnson who, er, launched ULEZ?