Cycling campaigners welcome 'close pass' ruling

I suspect the sheer numbers of cyclists in the various areas will affect the statistics.


I suspect your utter bias towards the EU will affect your reading of the statistics.



Here are all road users' figures, again from an EU report.

upload_2021-2-1_11-47-38.png


https://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/sites/roadsafety/files/pdf/statistics/dacota/asr2018.pdf

Let's face it: the UK is among the very safest places in the EU, in which to be a road user.
 
Sponsored Links
I suspect your utter bias towards the EU will affect your reading of the statistics.


Let's face it: the UK is among the very safest places in the EU, in which to be a road user.

Cyclists killed per cyclist miles travelled?

Compared to Netherlands, Germany and France?

The number of cyclists killed in a country with few cyclists (such as Britain) is not a good comparator.
 
I suspect your utter bias towards the EU will affect your reading of the statistics.



Here are all road users' figures, again from an EU report.

View attachment 221126

https://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/sites/roadsafety/files/pdf/statistics/dacota/asr2018.pdf

Let's face it: the UK is among the very safest places in the EU, in which to be a road user.
I'm halfway through so far, and there's no mention, nor comparison, so far, of accidents per number of users.
This is pertinent to my point.
Is there any such data in that report?



I've now been through that report, and there is no comparison of number of accidents/fatalities by the number of users, nor distances travelled by cyclists.
Therefore, my point stands.
 
Last edited:
Sponsored Links
I'm halfway through so far, and there's no mention, nor comparison, so far, of accidents per number of users.
This is pertinent to my point.
Is there any such data in that report?



I've now been through that report, and there is no comparison of number of accidents/fatalities by the number of users, nor distances travelled by cyclists.
Therefore, my point stands.


Perhaps you should suggest that the EU start collecting such data.

Meanwhile, as the published data does not support your bias, you choose to ignore it.
Like I said, bias.
 
So, you assert that the EU's own report is not reliable.
Oh dear. A classic example of a strawman argument.
I was quite clearly not referring to the EU's report.
We've already established that the report that you presented to support your proposition does not, and is irrelevant.
 
I was quite clearly not referring to the EU's report.


I'm halfway through so far, and there's no mention, nor comparison, so far, of accidents per number of users.
This is pertinent to my point.
Is there any such data in that report?



I've now been through that report, and there is no comparison of number of accidents/fatalities by the number of users, nor distances travelled by cyclists.
Therefore, my point stands.

Certainly, when it is reliably refuted.
It would appear this is not one of those occasions.

So, you assert that the EU's own report is not reliable.

I was quite clearly not referring to the EU's report.



:whistle:
 
Good God!
I was saying that my mind is changed, my argument is refuted when it occurs through the presentation of reliable data.
The presentation of the EU report, by you, was not relevant to the discussion.
That does not mean the report is not reliable in its own right, and on the occasions that it is relevant. This was just not one of those occasions that it was relevant.
Therefore its reliability is not being questioned, because the report is irrelevant to the discussion.

I've now been through that report, and there is no comparison of number of accidents/fatalities by the number of users, nor distances travelled by cyclists.
Therefore, my point stands.
 
It's a report on cycling safety in the EU.
It can hardly be more relevant.
It was a report on traffic accidents in the EU, in general.
It did not contain the relevant information to refute my argument.
Therefore it was irrelevant.
But you drew a false conclusion from it to present your argument.
 
I suspect your utter bias towards the EU will affect your reading of the statistics.



Here are all road users' figures, again from an EU report.

View attachment 221126

https://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/sites/roadsafety/files/pdf/statistics/dacota/asr2018.pdf

Let's face it: the UK is among the very safest places in the EU, in which to be a road user.
So the Netherlands is the safest place to cycle, as there are far more bikes per head, far more miles travelled per head by bike, and they don't even bother with cycle helmets. Why? becasue they have cycle lanes, and cycling is normalised. Hardly any lycra is worn, and they don't even consider themselves cyclists.

Their infrastructure is designed to slow cars down, and/or seperate cars from bikes.

Other places that you should look into Olou in Finland:

Even Copenhagen, which is catching up:

I dream of the day we have cycle lanes to these standards, so I don't need a helmet.
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top