Southwark consultation on Peckham gyratory

[Rockets]

Earl, for the benefit of everyone else I don't want to get drawn into one of the cycles that bore the pants off everyone else and yes you are right this has nothing to do with Peckham, but:

• STATS Under-reporting is an issue that the government is trying to address because the police reports that form STATS have not necessarily correlated to other forms of reporting (hospital, insurance claims etc)
• In fact the latest review (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/reported-road-casualty-statistics-background-quality-report/reported-road-casualty-statistics-background-quality-report) the government cites this very example in bold:
  • For example the STATS19 definition of a collision will include single-vehicle pedal cycle collisions, if the rider (or a pedestrian in collision with the cycle) is injured. In practice, only a small proportion of these types of collision are reported to the police.
  • This is a serious issue concerning the quality of the road casualty data. If under-reporting remains unrecognised, then the true magnitude of any road safety problems cannot be known, or could be underestimated. This could in turn lead to incorrect prioritising of policy measures to improve road safety, or could lead to less efficient or inappropriate countermeasures. These issues also affect the ‘coherence’ strand of quality.
• STATS is slow to adapt to new transport usage types it only started monitoring for Powered Personal Transporters (e-scooters) from November 2024 and I very much suspect PPTs were added to the data collection mechanism because other sources (hospitals maybe) were seeing an increase in issues that were not being reflected in STATS. 

So, what I was saying remains true that STATS data should not be used for comparisons of road user type X vs road user type Y in terms of numbers of injury inducing accidents - any database to which you refer that uses STATS as the basis for their data needs to be approached with that mindset.

 

 

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

I'm not going to discuss this here, because it's irrelevant to the thread as I've said several times now. Suffice to say that you've done exactly what you always do. Gone looking for information you can cherry pick to 'prove' something you've already concluded, rather than seeking to genuinely understand.

Edited March 25 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

Whereas some posters are pure as the driven snow 😉