Let's have a look at absolute numbers first. As with any study, that's the raw data to you and I. Absolute numbers are the totally unmitigated figures, not adjusted for context of traffic volume or distance travelled. Using absolute numbers without considering the surrounding circumstances can lead to hilarities like this one. Remember this? Once upon a time there was Norman Baker who had a 'cycle' chum Mike Penning who proudly pronounced that "The Netherlands could learn from UK on cycle safety" covered by bikebiz, roadcc and guardian.
Little Mikey was looking at total cycle deaths (UK 100 vs NL 300) rather than contextualising it with the number of people on bikes and/or the distance cycled. This silly man was actually saying "Cycling in the UK is safe (there aren't any cyclists)" or "UK is a very safe country for bear attacks and mosquito bites".
Absolute figures are important for before-after comparisons as total collisions numbers may actually go up due to increase in ridership and journeys.
Anyways, back to Denmark.
The absolute figures from Jensen study are as follows ref. Tables 3
|Property damage only||1,674||2,036||-22%|
|Pedestrians, all injuries||Total||469||315||33%|
|Bicyclists and moped riders, all injuries||Total||574||406||29%|
|Motorists, all injuries||Total||433||216||50%|
The numbers of slight concern would be the negative reductions (ie increases) in the right-hand column. I say 'slight' because injuries are down and only property got damaged. Now... this is where we should not forget that these absolute terms haven't even been adjusted for the increase in cycling which was a respectable
- "20% increase in bicycle & moped traffic and a 10% decrease in motor traffic" on tracks
- "5% increase in bicycle & moped traffic and a 1% decrease in motor traffic" on lanes
My advice, be skeptical when someone quotes yet another study that "proves" that cycle facilities are dangerous. First look at totals, then check whether adjustments for increase in bike traffic, distinction between collision or injury categories (such as fatalities, major, minor, near-hits) have been made.
And yes, it's important to get the design of cycle tracks and lanes right too. Remember: existence of real cycleways in the UK is few and far between. What the Jensen study is talking about are proper pedal routes, not the substandard sh*te that cyclists - condemned to second-class citizenship by the UK authorities - get here.