Manchester Evening News - Todays Front Page

[ABlipInContinuity]

This is todays main story

M.E.N

"Oxford Road had 22 accidents - the highest number per mile"
 
Oxford road is the most cycled route in Manchester. I would wager on it having the lowest number of cycle accidents per mile cycled.
 
This is appalling journalism. Fay Schlesinger quite clearly does not know how to calculate risk.

[ABlipInContinuity]

"Oxford Road had 22 accidents - the highest number per mile"

Oxford road is the most cycled route in Manchester. I would wager on it having the LOWEST number of cycle accidents PER MILE CYCLED, which means the risk to any individual bicycle user on these routes is low compared with other areas and even other modes of transport.

"Figures show that south Manchester is the riskiest area for cyclists"

Cyclists are far more common in South Manchester because it is flatter, more convenient for the universities and amenable. Again, the risk to an individual on a bicycle does not correlate to the number of accidents, as this figure will also inextricably linked to the time/distance travelled.

Roads, or in this case routes, are not dangerous. I've never been assaulted, threatened or abused by tarmacadum.

The safety of these routes is the responsibility of their users.

[.calm]

The funniest part about that story was the quote from the councillor: "schemes including raised and contraflow cycle paths would encourage cycling and reduce accidents".

The council must have spent a fortune putting in the raised cycle lane outside of Owens Park but made it just the right width to park a car on. As a result it's just another car park for all the takeaways there.

[spen666]

This is todays main story

M.E.N

"Oxford Road had 22 accidents - the highest number per mile"
 
Oxford road is the most cycled route in Manchester. I would wager on it having the lowest number of cycle accidents per mile cycled.
 
This is appalling journalism. Fay Schlesinger quite clearly does not know how to calculate risk.

I disagree- what is written is factually correct.

She uses one figure,  ie accidents per mile of road.
You use another figure accidents per mile cycled.

Both figures are correct.

It is a great example of the way you can spin a story by the use of figures. It is also a great example of the danger of seeing everything as having one cause/ one measurement

[RichMoss]

I'm with 'A Blip' on this one. The journalist quotes accidents per mile, but then wrongly extrapolates this to risk to cyclists. 22 reported accidents per mile in a year is probably quite low relative to the thousands of bike journeys per year along this road. Dan is correct in my view, that accidents per mile cycled is a more appropriate measure.

As an example I would imagine "accidents per mile" in Beijing is quite high, but accidents per mile cycled is probably very low.

I occasionally cycle this route - some of the cylepath designs are quite scary and counter-intuitive to me - increasing my perception of danger, but I would imagine that regular drivers along this section expect to encounter cyclists and thus take them/us into consideration (but how well they consider us is another matter).

Richard

[ABlipInContinuity]

This is todays main story

M.E.N

"Oxford Road had 22 accidents - the highest number per mile"
 
Oxford road is the most cycled route in Manchester. I would wager on it having the lowest number of cycle accidents per mile cycled.
 
This is appalling journalism. Fay Schlesinger quite clearly does not know how to calculate risk.

I disagree- what is written is factually correct.

She uses one figure,  ie accidents per mile of road.
You use another figure accidents per mile cycled.

Both figures are correct.

It is a great example of the way you can spin a story by the use of figures. It is also a great example of the danger of seeing everything as having one cause/ one measurement

With reference to the part of the quote that is emboldened, yes it is factual, but I don't think it is a measure of risk.

Risk is the severity of an event multiplied by the chance of it occuring.

Just to say an event occured x number of times is not an acceptable basis for determining risk.

What would be acceptable would be to say, in [y] journeys by bicycle, an event occured

• times. From that the likelyhood of an event occuring can be determined and then in turn by factoring the severity, so can the risk.

There is no measure given anywhere in that article from which the actual risks can be extrapolated.

[fruitcake]

The popular understanding of risk is inadequate and the issues are fudged by the use of the meaningless word 'danger' (and the equally meaningless 'safety')

I think we can abbreviate Blip's equation:


      Risk = Threat x Vulnerability


This shines a light on issues that were hitherto murky.  Cycle helmets may reduce vulnerability in a low speed fall yet they increase vulnerability to other injuries, especially if the helmet is incorrectly fitted.  If one accepts research showing they alter driver behaviour, helmets encourage certain threats to increase, such as close passing.  Helmets is a debate that goes in circles when one or more party keeps using the simplistic terms 'danger' and 'safety'. 

You can make similar analyses of cycle lanes by assessing the various 'vulnerabilities' and 'threats'.  Get a grip on a concept and you can unravel the complexity.

I'd like to see cycle campaigners exclusively using these terms when discussing issues of cyclist vulnerability. 

Sadly though, there'll always be lazy journalists.

[iakobski]

Yes, Blip is right, the journalist is citing risk to "cyclists" as a whole group not risk to an individual. In a larger group an individual is safer, just as a herd of wildebeest is likely to attract the attention of tigers, from each wildebeest's point of view it is safer to stay in the group.

However, ignoring the facts  I remember commuting regularly on Oxford Rd a few years ago and it was a nightmare: arrogant bus drivers pulling hard left into the (mandatory) cycle lane without warning; many, many drivers forcing me into the kerb so they could shout at me about a cycle path; more left hooks than anywhere I've ridden, etc, etc. It felt much safer to use the back streets, even through Moss-Side.

[fruitcake]

It felt much safer to use the back streets, even through Moss-Side.

Well, the threat sure is different there.   

[Pingu]

Yes, Blip is right, the journalist is citing risk to "cyclists" as a whole group not risk to an individual. In a larger group an individual is safer, just as a herd of wildebeest is likely to attract the attention of tigers, from each wildebeest's point of view it is safer to stay in the group.

<pedant>

Wildebeest & tigers?

</pedant>

[fruitcake]

Tigers with guns.  In Moss side.
That's why it's dangerous.

The wildebeest are armed only with bicycles.

[clarion]

Don't be daft - the tigers are perfectly safe, cause their paws are too big for the triggers.

[fuzzy]

Yes, Blip is right, the journalist is citing risk to "cyclists" as a whole group not risk to an individual. In a larger group an individual is safer, just as a herd of wildebeest is likely to attract the attention of tigers, from each wildebeest's point of view it is safer to stay in the group.

<pedant>

Wildebeest & tigers?

</pedant>

This is A Random Ones' world, to be populated as he/ she sees fit

[iakobski]

Yes, Blip is right, the journalist is citing risk to "cyclists" as a whole group not risk to an individual. In a larger group an individual is safer, just as a herd of wildebeest is likely to attract the attention of tigers, from each wildebeest's point of view it is safer to stay in the group.

<pedant>

Wildebeest & tigers?

</pedant>

This is A Random Ones' world, to be populated as he/ she sees fit

Pingu's perfectly correct of course, slip of the keyboard, I did of course mean okapi...

[Pingu]

kenya - Weebl's Stuff

[teethgrinder]

Risk is the severity of an event multiplied by the chance of it occuring.

Just to say an event occured x number of times is not an acceptable basis for determining risk.

What would be acceptable would be to say, in [y] journeys by bicycle, an event occured

• times. From that the likelyhood of an event occuring can be determined and then in turn by factoring the severity, so can the risk.

There is no measure given anywhere in that article from which the actual risks can be extrapolated.

Cycling is a low risk activity.
To calculate the level of risk, you use two factors.

Probability and severity.

Then, you take the lesser of each of those. That is your level of risk.

So, the most severe outcome of an accident is death. But the probability of an accident is very low. The lesser factor is the level of risk, so cycling is low risk.

Or on the other hand, cycling through a swarm of flies* is low risk. The probability of hitting a fly is very high. But the severity is extremely low, making cycling through swarms of flies low risk. (But not very nice)

*Unless they are wasps** or any other stinging fly.

**I have cycled through a swarm of wasps, but never got stung. I didn't know they were wasps until I got out the other side and had a few of them attached to me. That was a bit of a surprise!