Re: Met Police crackdown on law breaking cyclists



Colin McKenzie wrote:
>
> Not least because opinions differ on what counts as serious.
>

Indeed. A study for the DfT in 2006 found that pedestrians turning up at A&E after a road accident "are the most likely to be admitted" while cyclists "are rather unlikely to be admitted"

>
> Which is why you can't rely on hospital stats, because they have no
> concept of a pedestrian injury, whereas they do record when a cycle is
> involved in an injury. And you still aren't counting injuries treated
> elsewhere.
>

Actually the RCGB data has nothing to do with hospital stats. Its the severity of injury as recorded by the (non-medically qualified) police officer attending the accident. It used to be that the police would subsequently contact the hospital and amend their records accordingly but that is no longer done.

Gill's study in the BMJ comparing hospital and DfT stats found:

"According to police statistics, rates of people killed or
seriously injured on the roads fell consistently from 85.9 per
100 000 in 1996 to 59.4 per 100 000 in 2004. Over the same
time, however, hospital admission rates for traffic injuries were
almost unchanged at 90.0 in 1996 and 91.1 in 2004.
<....>
The overall fall seen in police statistics for
non-fatal road traffic injuries probably represents a fall in
completeness of reporting of these injuries."
Changes in safety on England's roads: analysis of hospital statistics
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/rapidpdf/bmj.38883.593831.4Fv1.pdf

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell
.