If you take the reports of the IBSR there, it is not surprising that the media communicate these co

Heads that turn the world upside down. "Cycling is dangerous transport for children." This morning was the main title in many Flemish newspapers (eg. Nieuwsblad, Knack). The morning went even further with 'Bike 63 times more dangerous to ride in the car of parents. "
The figures are merely interpreted from the role of the victim and it creates the illusion that only the victim responsibility in an accident. The underlying message is actually "Parents, bring your children to school by car, which is much safer than letting them cycle."
Why messages traditional media these figures in such a stigmatizing way for cyclists? The suggestion to crawl all quickly now safe car, just seems hugely counterproductive for road safety. We go into three posts (Part 2 Part 3) looking for answers and clarification. BIVV reports
If you take the reports of the IBSR there, it is not surprising that the media communicate these conclusions. Often there are reports in the two central video nada nada nada issues: the circumstances of the accident (weather, time of day, week or weekend, month, ...) and the victims (who are they, what means of transportation they used and why they were there?). To illustrate this, we take the latest report video nada nada nada of the Belgian Road Safety Institute (2012) video nada nada nada it:
The figures of the counterparty, or the 'opponent / collision-partner (issue of the word responsibility to avoid), video nada nada nada on the other hand can be found almost anywhere. There is only one collision matrix, video nada nada nada which maps who was involved in the accident (without distinction victim / perpetrator). The analysis here is one subsection devoted to. The passage is as follows:
The vast majority (83%) of the accidents involved a car. At 26%, the collision between two cars (...) and in 12% to collisions between a car and a cyclist. In total, at nearly 1 in 5 collisions involved a cyclist and almost 1 in 10 a moped (10.6%) or pedestrians (10.1%).
These figures give no indication how dangerous you are yourself as a driver, cyclist or pedestrian for others in traffic. Just that it might be in that car still has not linger as fun as you want newspapers fool. Yes, cyclists, motorcyclists and pedestrians video nada nada nada are often involved in accidents, but probably more as a victim than counterparty. But who caused that accident?
The pedestrian report is one table that tells the story from the other side and indicates the counterparty. Pedestrian cars are the biggest video nada nada nada danger. As many as 65% of accidents are caused by cars. If you add all the motorized transport together, they are together involved in 85% of pedestrian accidents.
For the rest this report in the same crib is sick and general video nada nada nada reports. video nada nada nada The victim is key. So you can be easy to find the number of victims within video nada nada nada and outside video nada nada nada urban areas, the age, location, ... with conclusions like these:
The risk to pedestrians in severe or fatal injuries is 8.7 times higher than car drivers. Regarding age, the relative risk to pedestrians greatest in the youngest age from 6 till 14 years and the elders, the over-75s. Their risk is respectively 2 and 3 times greater than the average risk for pedestrians (IBSR, 2013).
Nowhere a detailed overview of the effects of the mentioned pedestrian accidents. Although 11% of cyclists cause pedestrian accidents, it is hard to imagine that 11% of fatal accidents are caused by them. But those numbers are not listed, so it is a rational assumption. What about cyclists? video nada nada nada
After a long search we felt other figures. In a 2009 report cyclists (!) Are disaggregated figures. Under "Risk cycling 'also sets the tone. This title is here actually already done framing.
The way in which statistics are poured into graphs is very confusing. It is often used as a measure of mileage. This is obviously very unclear because a car puts many times more mileage than cyclists or pedestrians. This example shows this weird graphics:
You could almost get the impression video nada nada nada that you have to be completely mad to come out as a pedestrian. Your risk is apparently almost 10x higher ... A later statistics and graphics clarify the figures happy. Just as a motorcyclist you walk in Belgium actually an outside-proportional risk.
Nevertheless, the report remains further handle the bizarre 'traveled travelers km. Fortunately, there is one statistic that shows the raw figures. In 2007 caused namely two cyclists ee