Journalism and cycling

mcgratheoin

tomasrojo wrote: »

The usual ways to compare risk between transport modes is Killed/Seriously Injured (KSI) persons per hours or kilometres of travel.

Yeah, you can also use KSI per journey. It's important to be aware of all the various metrics for any comparison - otherwise you end up cherry picking data to suit whatever argument you're trying to make.

Roadhawk

tomasrojo wrote: »

Incidentally, Roadhawk is probably doing his argument a disservice by incorporating motorcyclists into a "motorist" category. The KSIs for that transport mode are the worst of all the transport modes. Worse than cycling or walking.

You are right, as far as i can see there were a total of 36,573 motorcyclists in 2015 with 22 fatalities. That makes it 1 in every 1662 motorcyclists were killed that year. Definitely the most dangerous mode of transport.

Roadhawk

mcgratheoin wrote: »

Yeah, you can also use KSI per journey. It's important to be aware of all the various metrics for any comparison - otherwise you end up cherry picking data to suit whatever argument you're trying to make.

I agree, and you can further break down the stats into other areas like Age, Gender, time of day, etc. to suit particular demographics if you wish. Thats why i thought it would best to be looked at as a whole per year. Makes it far easier to understand.

Chuchote

And what kills the cyclists? Drivers - texting, squiffy, hurrying, blinded by sunlight, with bad night vision, reaching over to pick up the phone to answer a call, looking down to change the radio station or the CD, turning back to tell the kids in the back to shut up, stylishly sailing too fast out of one road into another because they've always done it and nothing went wrong, overtaking on a bend, racing to catch the ferry…

The sooner we get a separated network with proper barriers and policing so the drivers can't get at us, the safer.

tomasrojo

Roadhawk, what is the source for your road-user counts?

You have 65,000 cyclists and 36,573 motorcyclists. A ratio of 1.78 roughly. I think cyclists outnumber motorcyclists by way more than that. Depends on what you mean by "cyclist". People who say they commute by bike in the census maybe? Seems quite a bit off anyway.

tomasrojo

Chuchote wrote: »

The sooner we get a separated network with proper barriers and policing so the drivers can't get at us, the safer.

My position on Dutch-style infrastructure has changed a fair bit since I first started posting here, and I'm actually in favour of it, by and large, in combination with other things the Dutch have done to foster liveable cities. But I still don't think current road conditions(*) are all that dangerous.

(*)For adults anyway, and there are some roads I avoid like the plague though, and some roads are unduly irksome. I have some circuitous bits on my regular routes that make my journeys longer, but way quieter.

Corca Baiscinn

Oh dear , little did I realise when I posted last night re media coverage of helicopter crash v cyclist crash that we would wake up to news of another helicopter disaster involving those whom the rest of us rely on for rescue, evacuation and hospital transfer. Sympathy to all those involved whether families or coastguard colleagues.

Corca Baiscinn

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Ah here. You make it sound like the situation is getting worse. The fact of the matter is that cyclist numbers trending upwards (and exploding in Dublin) while fatalities were trending downwards. There were ten fatalities last year, nine the year before. In the context of a big increase in cycling numbers, if anything, cycling is getting safer, not more dangerous.

Given that the media already routinely reports on fatal and serious accidents and the already widespread misapprehension out there that cycling is more dangerous than it really is, I think even more coverage would only worsen the negative image cycling often has.

I probably didn't express myself properly as I certainly didn't mean sensationalist coverage, I meant something like Chuchote alluded to, a questioning of why ksi incident's happen to cyclists ie lack of proper infrastructure, downright dangerous mixing sometimes at junctions, drivers not paying attention etc. And while there has been an increase in cycling whatever about the statistical risks there is a perception that cycing is dangerous and many people are put off. In the last few days I met two people who were taken back to hear that I cycle to work, (very short journey) as tehy said "Is it not very dangerous?"

Chips Lovell

I'm strongly opposed to separated cycling infrastructure because I believe it does more harm than good. It fuels two erroneous perceptions: among non-cyclists that cycling is so dangerous that cyclists need to be segregated; and among some motorists that cyclists shouldn't be on the road.

If we want to promote cycling, we shouldn't be surprised if more people don't take it up because of the constant focus on danger.

What has worked in promoting cycling, in Dublin at least, have been measures that focus on the positives, making bikes cheaper and more available, i.e. Bike to Work and Dublin Bikes.

Anyway, if we are going to start building segregated infrastructure, surely the motorcyclists should have first dibs?

Corca Baiscinn

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

I'm strongly opposed to separated cycling infrastructure because I believe it does more harm than good. It fuels two erroneous perceptions: among non-cyclists that cycling is so dangerous that cyclists need to be segregated; and among some motorists that cyclists shouldn't be on the road.

If we want to promote cycling, we shouldn't be surprised if more people don't take it up because of the constant focus on danger.

What has worked in promoting cycling, in Dublin at least, have been measures that focus on the positives, making bikes cheaper and more available, i.e. Bike to Work and Dublin Bikes.

We'll have to agree to differ so, though I do see your point in a way since motorists already rant re cyclists not using the "lovely" cycle lanes so kindly vouchsafed to us. And obviously the whole country isn't going to be covered in segregated facilities in any case. However, because of the sheer size, number and speed of modern cars I believe in segregated facilities in urban areas where possible. I imagine factors other than Bike to Work and Dublin Bikes also played a part in the increase in numbers; congestion and cost/difficulty of parking, high cost of public transport, interest in health/fitness, canal route, etc, etc but I don't live in Dublin so will defer to more knowledgeable posters.

HivemindXX

I can see both sides to this.

I think the segregationists do damage when they imply that cycling on the road is inherently unsafe. There will always be some roads that do not have segregated cycling infrastructure and I don't want people to not cycle because they think (incorrectly) that is they can't have a segregated cycle lane it is simply too dangerous.

On the other hand there is certainly a place for segregated cycle lanes. Some roads are very hostile to cycling and segregated cycle lanes would help a huge amount. Segregated cycle routes like the one out to Howth are a good leisure resource as well as useful for transport cyclists.

There is a risk that certain motorists will decide the presence of these facilities implies that they own the roads and cyclists should keep out. These people will be assholes regardless though, that's just what they are. Not building any cycle lanes is not a good solution, or really any sort of solution, to them.

Chuchote

I want separated cycleways because they're more efficient; I'd feel safer on them; parents who now won't let their children cycle would let them; they work well already in the most cycle-friendly countries.

CramCycle

HivemindXX wrote: »

On the other hand there is certainly a place for segregated cycle lanes. Some roads are very hostile to cycling and segregated cycle lanes would help a huge amount. Segregated cycle routes like the one out to Howth are a good leisure resource as well as useful for transport cyclists.

I would sooner a change in culture and perception. That won't happen by sheer will of wanting it so until it happens, severe, widely publicised crackdowns on dangerous driving. Including naming and shaming, higher penalty points, financial burdens etc. In this I would include the acceptance of helmet camera and dash cam usage by the AGS in the aid of their prosecutions, even a small civil contingent to process all of this. Followed by ANPR red light cameras, all garda vehicles to be connected to tax/insurance data bases, as well as all red light cameras and toll cameras.

Segregation to me is nothing but diverting the problem and is something I expect a politician to come out with. If people feel in danger on the roads, it is not because of the roads, it is either their perception, or their behaviour or the behaviour of others. Perception is not helped by segregation, their behaviour is not improved by segregation and the behaviour of other vehicles interacting with them will not be helped by segregation.

Chuchote wrote: »

I want separated cycleways because they're more efficient; I'd feel safer on them; parents who now won't let their children cycle would let them; they work well already in the most cycle-friendly countries.

I can't see them being more efficient, i am certainly faster when I do not use seperated cycle tracks, I find most of them to be sub standard and that motorists forget about me completely which keeps me on edge all the time I use them. There are several segregated paths on my commute that I now avoid for my own safety, and the near misses every morning are just a ticking time bomb in relation to the lives of many commuters. Cars have actually improved alot in the last few years in their actions but I still see actions that come about by my segregation that if I stuck to my guns, would see me under a van or car every morning.

tomasrojo

Yeah, my experience of segregated infrastructure (or protected infrastructure in what I think is the preferred nomenclature now) is that it is often more circuitous, with more stops and some of it is actually more hazardous. But that's not universally the case. And sometimes I don't mind a more circuitous route. It really depends on what I'm trying to do on that ride. I think using a cargo bike or trailer, I really don't care about speed so long as I'm not really held back, but I do like a bit of extra space.

My thinking was altered by this graph.

I think it's important to note that the Netherlands did considerably more than segregate cyclists.

MediaMan

Deedsie wrote: »

Separated Cycling infrastructure seems to work pretty well in Copenhagen and London.

I would kill for the infrastructure they have over there. Obviously its not suitable to all routes.

That's kinda ironic, since people are getting killed here due in part to the lack of suitable infrastructure...

Anyway, the point I really wanted to make is this: It's all very well to talk about the comparative safety of cycling, and indeed that is well backed up by stats. However, the problem is that when it goes wrong, in traffic, it goes very badly wrong indeed.

In my house, we all cycle, parents and children. I am starting to wonder if I am being way too complacent about the danger of injury or worse as a cyclist on the roads.

In a nutshell, every day, without fail I see or am involved in an interaction between bike and car that could result in someone dying if a couple of unfortunate things happened at the same time. The odds are very low, and that's why I still cycle. But, without being too dramatic, there is opportunity to get killed every day on the roads if you are cycling. That is simply not the case to anything like the same extent if you are driving.

And that is why I am also coming around to the view that high-quality separated infrastructure for cycling is needed in urban areas.

Pinch Flat

Deedsie wrote: »

Separated Cycling infrastructure seems to work pretty well in Copenhagen and London.

I would kill for the infrastructure they have over there. Obviously its not suitable to all routes.

In fairness, Copenhagen and London are chalk and cheese - granted the cycle super highways have improved some routes into London, but on the whole it's still a very cycling hostile environment. The number of cyclists killed there by HGVs in particular year is pretty shocking.

tomasrojo

The only data I saw on KSI/billion km for various European cities (was about five years ago) showed Dublin with a lower KSI rate than London (about 60% of the London rate, I think). Amsterdam and Copenhagen were lower again. I wish I'd bookmarked it, but I presume it's substantially out of date now anyway.

CramCycle

Roadhawk wrote: »

From what I can see, in 2015 there were 9 fatalities and roughly 65,000 cyclists...that means for every 7,222 cyclists 1 was killed.

I think there are more than 65,000 cyclists in Ireland, hard to know though as not everyone identifies themselves as a cyclist. Same with car drivers, are passengers included in the KSI stats or is it one car, one fatality reasoning?

Roadhawk

CramCycle wrote: »

I think there are more than 65,000 cyclists in Ireland, hard to know though as not everyone identifies themselves as a cyclist. Same with car drivers, are passengers included in the KSI stats or is it one car, one fatality reasoning?

I would say you are right. I think the stats i saw rounded off at 65,000 included regular cyclists such as commuters, teams, leisure and that sort of thing. Im sure its not an accurate indication of exactly the number of cyclists (i dont remember anyone officially asking me if i was a cyclist). It would be a near impossible to confirm an exact figure for the total number of cyclists in ireland, however, even if you double the number to have a total of 130,000 cyclists with 9 fatalities (as per 2015 stats) it shows 1 in every 14,444 are killed. So driving still appears to be safer.

There is so many way to display and interpret the data to suit perception or context. The reason behind my numbering to one relationship makes it easier (for me at least) to understand the risk it terms of odds.

tomasrojo

I'm not sure it's a good way to assess risk, apart from the figures appearing to be way off. For a start, you're double- or triple-counting loads of people, since drivers, pedestrians, cyclists and public-transport users are nothing like exclusive categories. In fact, I appear in all those categories, though I only drive a dozen times a year. If I were to get a lift from a neighbour on their motorbike once in a while, I could be counted in five categories.

Fighting Tao

Roadhawk wrote: »

I would say you are right. I think the stats i saw rounded off at 65,000 included regular cyclists such as commuters, teams, leisure and that sort of thing. Im sure its not an accurate indication of exactly the number of cyclists (i dont remember anyone officially asking me if i was a cyclist). It would be a near impossible to confirm an exact figure for the total number of cyclists in ireland, however, even if you double the number to have a total of 130,000 cyclists with 9 fatalities (as per 2015 stats) it shows 1 in every 14,444 are killed. So driving still appears to be safer.

There is so many way to display and interpret the data to suit perception or context. The reason behind my numbering to one relationship makes it easier (for me at least) to understand the risk it terms of odds.

Why stop at doubling it? Think of all the kids that are also cyclists. Maybe another 300-400k onto the figure with them alone.

AndrewJRenko

Roadhawk wrote: »

I would say you are right. I think the stats i saw rounded off at 65,000 included regular cyclists such as commuters, teams, leisure and that sort of thing. Im sure its not an accurate indication of exactly the number of cyclists (i dont remember anyone officially asking me if i was a cyclist). It would be a near impossible to confirm an exact figure for the total number of cyclists in ireland, however, even if you double the number to have a total of 130,000 cyclists with 9 fatalities (as per 2015 stats) it shows 1 in every 14,444 are killed. So driving still appears to be safer.

There is so many way to display and interpret the data to suit perception or context. The reason behind my numbering to one relationship makes it easier (for me at least) to understand the risk it terms of odds.

What's your source for the 65k figure please?

Chuchote

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

What's your source for the 65k figure please?

Hmm

http://irishcycle.com/2012/12/16/cycling-today-in-ireland-highlights-from-census-2011/

Between 2006 and 2011 [nationally] there was a 9.6 per cent jump in the number of persons cycling, rising from 36,306 to 39,803. [This figure is just for workers, another 21,374 cycle to school or college]

However, close to 20,000 fewer persons cycled to work in 2011 compared with 1986, when the number of cyclists was at its peak. The share of commuters cycling to work was 2.4 per cent at the last census, as opposed to 7.2 per cent recorded in 1986.

Also, Cycling in Dublin by Area:

http://irishcycle.com/2012/08/10/cyclists-in-dublin-by-area-mapped/

CramCycle

As far as I know DB users are over 50,000 in number. Hence my skepticism for the figure.

Corca Baiscinn

I think the numbers of people who cycle aren't officially counted anywhere apart form the census question re how one travels to work or study and local counts such as canal cordon etc. Lots of retired people cycle, lots of other people not currently in the workforce cycle, lots of club cyclists dont commute so aren't counted. From the point of view of planning for climate mitigation as announced by Department of Communication, Climate Change etc it would be good to know the numbers as how can you have a plan to increase Active Travel if you don't know where your starting point is?

However, for the purpose currently under discussion here, ie safety and segregation re vehicular approach, I think another nugget from the 2011 census, (also mentioned in the irish Cycle piece quoted by Chuchote) is the ratio of women v men who cycle.

"The CSO says men accounted for the majority of those cycling with 29,075 out of the total 39,803."

The balance was better in Dublin and has probably improved since 2011 since there has been a big jump in the % of women registered with Cycling Ireland. However, going back to "statistically dangerous or a matter of perception" I think it's a reasonable assumption that more women would cycle if they perceived it as safer. I'm not at all suggesting that this is the only reason for the lower take-up but it's one worth considering imo.

CramCycle

Taken from Lumen on another thread

Lumen wrote: »

QNHS Sport and Physical Exercise Quarter 2 2013
http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/q-sp/qsp2013q02/

"Nearly 4 in 10 (37.8%) persons participate in sport and/or other physical activity (excluding walking). See table 1a and headline table. The top three sports are individual sports, rather than team sports - aerobics/keep fit/gym (the main sport of 19.2% of persons), followed by swimming (14.2%) and then cycling (13.6%)."

So I make that 13.6% of 37.8% = 5.14% of the persons aged 15 years and over (3.6m people in 2013).

Or about 184k cyclists in 2013, probably 187k now.

Which fits in closer with observations and extrapolations

Chuchote

Pity the census authorities don't ask people beforehand for suggestions on questions that would give a useful portrait of the population. "How many bicycles are owned by your home tonight" would be a useful one.

HivemindXX

Chuchote wrote: »

Pity the census authorities don't ask people beforehand for suggestions on questions that would give a useful portrait of the population. "How many bicycles are owned by your home tonight" would be a useful one.

I don't really think so. Lots and lots of people own bicycles they never use so the only real use for total amount of bicycles including flat tired shed dwellers would be to compare it to the number of people who actually use their bikes. We still need to get that figure.

The 65k figure seems ludicrously low to me, but I guess it depends on what you mean when you say cyclist. It seems that for this figure a person only counts as a cyclist if they always, or at least mostly, use a bicycle to get to work. However we know that when it comes to complaining anyone that is seen sitting on a bike counts as a cyclist. Downplaying the number of cyclists is an important building block in any argument against any measure to make life better for cyclists.

It is obvious to anyone with an ounce of intelligence that a person can be both a cyclist and a motorist, as well as a public transport user and a pedestrian. Setting up a false choice where someone has to pick one is either foolish or deliberately misleading. The question for me is what measure should be used to identify a person as a 'cyclist'. You cycle at least once a week (ie: 50 times a year). You make more journeys by bike than by other forms of transport. You own a bicycle. You are willing to cycle instead of use other methods if conditions are favourable.

tomasrojo

Incidentally, and fairly on-topic, I was reading an article at the New York Times, and up came an ad for life insurance, looking for people who do 50+ miles a week by bike. Unless they're actively seeking out high-risk groups, I think that's another sign that habitual cyclists have a low risk of premature death (on average, obviously).

tomasrojo

CramCycle wrote: »

As far as I know DB users are over 50,000 in number. Hence my skepticism for the figure.

Yeah, 42000 annual subscribers. Of course, not all are frequent users, but that's Dublin alone. Galway, Cork and Limerick combined might make up another 10000.

Not sure about the others, but there are plenty of trips made by tourists on Dublin Bikes, and they wouldn't be subscribers.