PeterE wrote:
MrGrumpyCyclist wrote:
Toltec wrote:
There is going to be some skew as most cycling miles are probably done in urban areas, still I suspect cars are going to do more than 100 times as much total mileage as cycles.
I quoted my sources. Where are the sources for this gross assumption of yours?
(BTW, any such information would, of course, need to exclude motorway miles.)
The Dft transport stats suggest that the ratio of passenger-miles of cars and motor vehicles versus pedal cycles is of the ratio of about 86:1.
(see:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/modal/ table TSGB0101)
Assuming the oft-quoted figure of an average car load factor of 1.6, this makes the mileage ratio about 54:1. Therefore 4 plays 433 suggests that pedal cycles are about half as likely to cause a pedestrian fatality, per mile travelled, than cars. Twice as good, yes, but still broadly in the same ballpark.
No idea about mileage on motorways or similar roads.
Yes, it seems hard to find that figure, but a reasonable assumption is that urban miles versus motorway and rural miles will be less than 50% (probably a lot less, but lets go with it), so your "half as likely" becomes a quarter as likely.
So now that is dispensed with, I should point out that this point is, anyway, irrelevant when considering the costs versus benefits of introducing cycle registration; it is the absolute values that matter for that purpose.
And yes, Malcolm, given limited resources it is indeed ALL about costs versus benefits. (BTW, there is no such thing as a "cost benefit"; cost/benefit analysis looks at costs versus benefits.) You may argue about what the benefits actually are, but the decision should be based on whether the benefits outweigh the costs.