More (bi)cyclists means fewer accidents, says report

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/may/07/cycling-safety-york-calderdale

More cyclists means fewer accidents, says report

York is safest place to ride your bike in Britain, while Calderdale, West Yorkshire is the most dangerous, research finds

Peter Walker
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 7 May 2009 00.05 BST

A study of the most and least safe places to cycle in Britain, released today, shows that where there are more riders on the roads there is generally a lower accident rate, while in areas less popular for bikes, cycling can be notably more risky.

Contradicting the notion that a mass of inexperienced riders taking to the streets brings a spike in injuries and deaths, the research by the Cyclists Touring Club (CTC), the UK's main cycling organisation, rates local authority areas in England on a scale of A to E according to how safe they are.

The trend is clear, with areas popular for cyclists tending to be safer on average, with the differences sometimes significant. Top of the list is traditionally bike-friendly York, where around one in eight commuters cycle to work and 0.1% are badly hurt in accidents each year. Not far down the road, Calderdale, West Yorkshire, a district centred around Halifax, is at the other end of the scale. Here, fewer than 1 in 120 commuters use bikes, and those that do face a danger level 15 times higher than in York.

Other areas awarded the A grade and near the top of the safety league include Hull, Lincolnshire and Cambridgeshire, while others given an E rating include Bradford, Blackburn and Kirklees.

…

[DS1]

1. My town is so good for cycling, we're everywhere.

The correlation makes perfect sense.

[OKIsItJustMe]

6. I think that in an area where bicycles are more common

Drivers are more aware of them.

[phantom power]

2. I bet there is a threshold where the safety starts to go up rapidly.

I guess we now know that threshold is somewhere between 1/120 and 1/8.

[Democrats_win]

3. Doesn't that lower the GDP?

Yeah, it's a little fuddy duddy to say that about this positive news, but we know it's true.

Bottom line: when you do worse, the economy does better?

It's good that people are doing better.

[OKIsItJustMe]

4. Why would it lower GDP?

Because people are spending less on transportation and hospital visits you mean?

[Democrats_win]

5. Exactly.

[Fovea]

8. Think of it this way

Our great downfall in the last half century has been the loss of institutional memory.

As our citizens live longer and healthier lives, they not only contribute more generational wisdom (and boy a few more folks who went through the depression without a silver spoon up their asses in power would have been a help here in bubble land) but would be more engaged with the world around them, a thing you really do as a cyclist.

And as this, and., I believe a Dutch study shows, as low impact transportation modeshare increases, safety of the *whole system* goes up. It even becomes safer to drive.
Less capital needs spending on insurance, for example.
Less catastrophic medical intervention (which does far more economic damage than stimulus, generally)
Win win win.

[jobycom]

7. Or, people cycle more where it's safer to do so.

[OKIsItJustMe]

9. Why or?

I believe it's a feedback loop.

Safer cycling ⇒ More cyclists ⇒ Safer cycling

[jobycom]

10. Because I don't believe it's a loop.

People who live in areas where it's safer to cycle cycle more. There are streets here I won't ride on because they aren't safe, and others I will ride on even if it makes my ride longer. There are more accidents on the unsafe roads because they are unsafe--bad shoulders, cars on the curbs, debris, etc.--and more bikes on the safe roads because they are safer--wide bike lanes, no cars on the curbs, etc.

There may be some reciprocation. If there are a lot of bikes, motorists watch for them more, or even take other routes. But even so, if a route suddenly developed a reputation for accidents, cyclists would take other routes. And of course, the more cyclists, the more the city will build bike lanes and separate bridges and such. But I think that's secondary.

I guess I'm saying that if you want more cyclists on the road, the best way to get them is to make the roads safer. If people don't think the roads are safe to start with, they won't ride. In a city, fewer bike-safe roads means fewer practical routes for people to get to work or school on their bikes, thus fewer bikes on the road. I ride a lot more in Austin than I did when I lived in Dallas, for instance, even though I was more broke, and younger, in Dallas, and wanted to ride more there. I didn't, because it wasn't safe.

I don't think the study in the OP says otherwise, so I'm not challenging it.

[OKIsItJustMe]

12. OK, so how about a practical example

If there are more cyclists in town, then the local government is more likely to make bicycle lanes (to satisfy their constituents.) If there are good bicycle lanes, people will be inspired to take advantage of them.

[tinrobot]

11. Perhaps Critical Mass is on to something...

I'm not a fan of their tactics, but this study seems to align with their core motives.

[OKIsItJustMe]

13. Yeah, I'm with you

I may not agree with all of their tactics, but I'm certainly sympathetic to their cause.

How many people do you know who (at least claim they) would ride a bicycle, if they felt they could do so safely?