Message from discussion safety in numbers

Path: g2news2.google.com!news2.google.com!news.glorb.com!news.kjsl.com!news.xcski.com!not-for-mail
From: Zebee Johnstone <zeb...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: aus.bicycle
Subject: safety in numbers
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 20:34:37 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Private news server
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <slrnh2qte7.295.zebeej@gmail.com>
Reply-To: zeb...@gmail.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 156.10.233.220.static.exetel.com.au
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: xen1.xcski.com 1244493277 24132 220.233.10.156 (8 Jun 2009 20:34:37 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@xcski.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 20:34:37 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.9p1 (Darwin)


http://www.howwedrive.com/2009/06/08/safety-in-numbers-a-few-more-numbers/

Yet more proof that the best way to make cycling safer is more
cyclists.

There are going to be some compounding factors as nothing in traffic
changes in isolation, but still looks like a good set of numbers.

Zebee

=========
On heels of some recent findings in NYC that the cycle
fatality rate has declined, I came across this report from CTC with a
few other interesting stats:

1. London has seen a 91% increase in cycling since 2000 and a 33% fall
in cycle casualties since 1994-98. This means that cycling in the city
is 2.9 times safer than it was previously.

2. The Netherlands has witnessed a 45% increase in cycling from
1980-2005 and a 58% decrease in cyclist fatalities.

3. Copenhagen, 1995-2006: 44% increase in cycling, 60% decrease in
KSIs, with cycle to work modal share rising from 31% to 36%.5.
========