The City of London Police meeting in the Barbican area in October saw one resident claim some statistics showing that 1,000 pedestrians had been injured in the City in the past nine years, 28% of whom were injured by pedal cyclists.
I've no idea where the statistic came from. I don't know how genuine it is. The numbers are very rounded up too. Exactly a thousand injuries.
What's more, the report doesn't note that the majority of pedestrians injured were by something else. Because it doesn't say what that 'other' is.
I quote from here.
"A member of the meeting gave the following statistics:
One thousand pedestrians had been injured within the city of London in the past nine years.
6% were injured by motorised cycles
Taxis injured 11%
Pedal cyclists injured 28%"
I wonder if the missing 55% might be, err, other motor vehicles? Quite likely. Slightly disingenuous of the Chairman of the meeting to ignore that number perhaps? But equally very disingenuous of the Police to seemingly, if the minutes are accurate, let that statement go unchallenged. You'd almost think there was a conspiracy to make people feel that cyclists are the bad guys.
It's funny then, that the London Assembly Member John Biggs asked just this question of the Mayor recently.
Answer from the Mayor
TfL receives details of all road traffic collisions reported to the police in the Greater London area that occurred on the public highway and resulted in injury to one or more persons. In the latest 12 months to 31 August 2010 (the latest data available from the Police), there were 138 collisions in which a pedestrian was injured by a pedal cyclist – these collisions resulted in 139 pedestrian casualties (1 fatal, 30 serious and 108 slight injuries).
During this period, the total number of reported casualties in which a pedestrian was injured by a pedal cyclist represented less than 0.3% of the total number of pedestrian casualties within Greater London. Due to relatively small numbers, there is not sufficient statistical significance to identify particular hot spots. Please be aware that all 2010 data is provisional and may be subject to change prior to the year being finalised and closed."
28% or 0.3%? I think I trust the latter more myself.