Sorry about this, but I can't find the stats I've seen about the relative risks of various modes of transport, but I know someone out there will be able to put their hands on them, please.
If you have or can point me at stats comparing the risks of cycling compared to other modes, in distance, time, and trip, I would be very grateful. My organisation's H&S dept have just produced a guidance note for cycling on business, and anyone reading it wouldn't ever cycle again, as it's just a collection of the dangers, without putting them into context. Strangely enough, they don't feel compelled to do a similar note for driving, motorcycling or walking!
Sorry about this, but I can't find the stats I've seen about the relative risks of various modes of transport, but I know someone out there will be able to put their hands on them, please.
Sorry about this, but I can't find the stats I've seen about the relative risks of various modes of transport, but I know someone out there will be able to put their hands on them, please.
I'm sure there are plenty of other stats available.
Of course the raw stats only tell half the picture. Typically cyclists tend to be young and male - high risk groups whatever mode of transport they use. Also cyclists are banned from using the safest roads (more than half car mileage is on Motorways). If you compare like with like (ie similar aged drivers and cyclists using mainly urban roads) then the risk per mile is not all that different - And that is before you start looking into the risks imposed on other road users.
In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Of course the raw stats only tell half the picture. Typically cyclists tend to be young and male - high risk groups whatever mode of transport they use. Also cyclists are banned from using the safest roads (more than half car mileage is on Motorways). If you compare like with like (ie similar aged drivers and cyclists using mainly urban roads) then the risk per mile is not all that different - And that is before you start looking into the risks imposed on other road users.
Just as a matter of interest, how do they calculate mileages? Men in suits don't come round to my house every January to inspect my odometers, who's odometers are they inspecting?
In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Of course the raw stats only tell half the picture. Typically cyclists tend to be young and male - high risk groups whatever mode of transport they use. Also cyclists are banned from using the safest roads (more than half car mileage is on Motorways). If you compare like with like (ie similar aged drivers and cyclists using mainly urban roads) then the risk per mile is not all that different - And that is before you start looking into the risks imposed on other road users.
Just as a matter of interest, how do they calculate mileages? Men in suits don't come round to my house every January to inspect my odometers, who's odometers are they inspecting?
My family was in the national food survey once. My brother was persuaded by his girlfriend in the week that it was on that she wanted to eat trifle sponges, so they went out to the corner shop to get them and ate them on the way back. He was most embarassed when the surveyor came round to check the diary, and the entry was checked up on.
"So, did you make a special journey to get the trifle sponges?"
In message <[email hidden]>, Rich <[email hidden]> writes
Quoted message said:
My organisation's H&S dept have just produced a guidance note for cycling on business, and anyone reading it wouldn't ever cycle again, as it's just a collection of the dangers, without putting them into context. Strangely enough, they don't feel compelled to do a similar note for driving, motorcycling or walking!
That's because there's nothing drivers (m/c's included) can do to reduce the risks, since their accidents are always someone else's fault.
In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Of course the raw stats only tell half the picture. Typically cyclists tend to be young and male - high risk groups whatever mode of transport they use. Also cyclists are banned from using the safest roads (more than half car mileage is on Motorways). If you compare like with like (ie similar aged drivers and cyclists using mainly urban roads) then the risk per mile is not all that different - And that is before you start looking into the risks imposed on other road users.
Just as a matter of interest, how do they calculate mileages? Men in suits don't come round to my house every January to inspect my odometers, who's odometers are they inspecting?
Juliette --
Yes - those non-existent odometer readings (guessed, I'd hazard to guess - if you'll pardon the pun) that form the denominator in the determination of relative risk...ballpark estimation perhaps? How big is a ballpark - is it comparable to how long a piece of string is?
"Peter Owens" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Of course the raw stats only tell half the picture. Typically cyclists tend to be young and male - high risk groups whatever mode of transport they use.
I'm not arguing but find that surprising, based on my observations they appear to be across the age spectrum but females are heavily outnumbered. However, it appears to me to be generally youngish males who expose themselves to most risk in traffic by bad roadcraft and of course it's nearly all young males who engage in stunt type riding, downhillling and the like, if their injuries are included in the total. Which is a point, if a lad injures himself pratting about on a bike in the park or say an off-road ride are their injuries included in the stats? These activities are hardly likely to be engaged in by a cycle commuter.
Is this a spoof? The photo of Blair and Mandleson is fake.
A casual study of this group indicates that the greatest risk to cyclists is caused by clipless pedals, followed by fishing line. How long before both are banned?
Yes - those non-existent odometer readings (guessed, I'd hazard to guess - if you'll pardon the pun) that form the denominator in the determination of relative risk...ballpark estimation perhaps? How big is a ballpark - is it comparable to how long a piece of string is?
Roger
There was an article in the New Scientist a few years ago that compared the sizes and relative abundance of string from cosmic string down to DNA and came to the conclusion that the length of a piece of string is about a meter. -- Mark
In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...
Quoted message said:
RogerDodger said:
Yes - those non-existent odometer readings (guessed, I'd hazard to guess - if you'll pardon the pun) that form the denominator in the determination of relative risk...ballpark estimation perhaps? How big is a ballpark - is it comparable to how long a piece of string is?
There was an article in the New Scientist a few years ago that compared the sizes and relative abundance of string from cosmic string down to DNA and came to the conclusion that the length of a piece of string is about a meter.
Right, so the men in suits issue pieces of string to randomly selected cyclists and the cyclists have to say how many pieces of string are need to cover the distance between them and the off- licence? I wonder if the pieces of string are issued joined together or if they're precut to the length of a piece of string.
Indeed so - but it makes a serious point. Logic follows: 1. Nobody goes round suggesting that walking is dangerous or that protective headgear is required for pedestrians. 2. Indeed anybody who did so would instantly be identified as a complete idiot - to such an extent that we even recognise it as an obvious fake when it is suggested that even someone with so liitle respect as a polititian might be advocating such a thing. 3. Cycling a mile is safer than walking a mile. 4. Therefore anybody who suggests cycling is dangerous or requires protective headger is ...
"Rich" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
Quoted message said:
Sorry about this, but I can't find the stats I've seen about the relative risks of various modes of transport, but I know someone out there will be able to put their hands on them, please.
If you have or can point me at stats comparing the risks of cycling compared to other modes, in distance, time, and trip, I would be very grateful. My organisation's H&S dept have just produced a guidance note for cycling on business, and anyone reading it wouldn't ever cycle again, as it's just a collection of the dangers, without putting them into context. Strangely enough, they don't feel compelled to do a similar note for driving, motorcycling or walking!
Cycling is 100% safe. Nobody EVER gets hurt.
So long as they don't wear a helmet. Apparently even looking at one in a shop can be fatal.
Certain studies have indicated that merely holding the helmet in one's hands can give a false sense of indestuctability such as attempting to walk out of the shop without opening the door. Of course, if one is still holding the said helmet, the increased mass may be enough to exacerbate a mild bump on the head into the equivilent of being hit by a medium sized asteroid travelling at 18000MPH.
In news:[email hidden], Peter Headland <[email hidden]> typed:
Quoted message said:
Ambrose Nankivell said:
"So, did you make a special journey to get the trifle sponges?"
"And where did you eat them?"
"On the way home" (eyebrows raise)
Munchies?
No, just 16/17 year old experimentation with convention breaking. Embarassing for my brother as he wasn't the one who thought that envelope needed to be pushed, but he was the one who had to account for it. And anyway, anything's embarassing for a teenager.
In message <[email hidden]>, RogerDodger <[email hidden]> writes
Quoted message said:
How big is a ballpark - is it comparable to how long a piece of string is?
A Google search produced this:
"Then there's the outfield. In an effort to create more excitement for sparsely attended Puerto Rican league games, the fences were moved in 15 feet several years ago. The dimensions are just 315 feet down the lines, 360 to the power alleys and 398 to center. At least that's what it says on the walls."
So the ballpark is roughly equivalent to a square 90 pieces of string on a side. However, the ballpark is foreign and probably not to be trusted.
-- Sue ];(🙂
What goes down must come up again - Confucius' Law of Mountain Biking
