Go to content Go to navigation Go to search

'Psychiatrist' says bicycles kill more people than 'terrorism'
3.09.09 by Buffalo Bill

As was reported in Moving Target1, there was a significant increase (21%) in the numbers of London cyclists killed and seriously injured during the 12 months to June 2006. In an article published this morning in the Daily Telegraph, a study ‘suggests that there was a secondary casualty toll from the 2005 London bombings. The reduced underground travel, higher levels of cycling and increased number of casualties of cyclists on London’s roads suggests that some people switched from the underground to cycling’, implying that there is a causal relation, as opposed to a simple correlation, between the bombings and the increase in road casualties.

The researcher who led the study is also reported2 to have made this fairly extraordinary statement:

if you asked which killed more people ion [sic] the last 10 years in London, international terrorism, or bicycles, the answer would definitely be bicycles.

This is utter nonsense – the casualties were not killed or injured by bicycles – they were the result of collisions with motor-vehicles.

1 In this article.

2 Given that the Telegraph has described Professor Peter Ayton as a ‘psychiatrist’ when he is, in fact, a psychologist, it’s possible that he did not say any such thing. Thanks to Adam (and others) who pointed out this error in article by the ‘Medical Correspondent’ of the Telegraph. And people say that blogging is killing ‘proper’ news…

Guardian piece on Sheppard's death and trial by media
Guardian story on lorry deaths makes serious error
Department of Transport study exonerates 'lycra louts'
8th female London cyclist killed by lorry?
Police appeal for witnesses to fatal collision, 11th London cyclist killed
Risk compensation
Collisions stats need careful interpretation, not banner headlines
Appeal for witnesses to fatal collision, 29th June 0820, Kennington
7th London cyclist killed by lorry, 29th June
Safety in numbers, says Cyclists Touring Club

  1. Certain newspapers are particularly prone to manufacturing non-stories to sell newspapers. Any actual facts that survive the passage through to the printed page are purely accidental. The electronic media are just as bad.

    Misquoting sources, mangling the truth and just inventing ‘facts’ seem to be par for the course.

    I do not know whether that happened in this case, but its attention-grabbing title has a strong aroma of Rattus rattus!

    — Amoeba    1 November 2009, 11:27    #
  2. No, this wasn’t an example of Flat Earth News. See bit.ly/39jSC0

    — Bill    1 November 2009, 13:09    #
  Textile help

<  ·  >