Cycling is dangerous - quick responses?

Following on from Clive George's message. . .

Quoted message said:

Has anybody got a quick summary of evidence showing cycling is not
dangerous? Target audience is UK.

Quoted message said:

tfl.gov.ukPedal >Cyclist Casualties 04 05.pdfOpen ↗

Working from the data contained in this document I've worked out the
average distance between accidents.

Slight - 75,000 miles
Killed/Seriously injured - 460,000 miles
Any - 66,000 miles

This takes into account the known under-reporting at a constant 60%
which is more pessimistic than the best estimate also provided.

For somebody doing *5000* miles a year this is:

Slight - 15 years
Killed/Seriously injured - 92 years
Any - 13 years

These are just statistics. Some people seem to have more than their
fair share. Some must be bad luck but IMHO a lot is down to poor road
skills.

--
PETER FOX Not the same since the exam marking business failed
[email hidden]
www.eminent.demon.co.uk - Lots for cyclists

Peter Fox wrote on 25/07/2006 17:39 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Following on from Clive George's message. . .

Quoted message said:

Has anybody got a quick summary of evidence showing cycling is not
dangerous? Target audience is UK.

Quoted message said:

tfl.gov.ukPedal >Cyclist Casualties 04 05.pdfOpen ↗

Working from the data contained in this document I've worked out the
average distance between accidents.

Its worth marrying that with its counterpart for pedestrians
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/streets/downloads/pdf/LRSR/Topic_Factsheets/PedestriancasualtiesinGreaterLondonJun03.pdf

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

in message <[email hidden]>, Clive

George (') said:

Has anybody got a quick summary of evidence showing cycling is not
dangerous? Target audience is UK.

DfT stats would be my first guess, but if somebody's done this before,
which seems very likely, then it would be nice to save trawling :-)

Sure thing:
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/ssdataset.asp?vlnk=7250&Pos=&ColRank=1&Rank=272
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstats/documents/page/dft_transstats_611922.hcsp
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmhansrd/cm050316/text/50316w01.htm
(scroll down to 16 Mar 2005 : Column 252W : Cycling Accidents)

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; Let's have a moment of silence for all those Americans who are stuck
;; in traffic on their way to the gym to ride the stationary bicycle.
;; Rep. Earl Blumenauer (Dem, OR)

Peter Fox a écrit :

Quoted message said:

Slight - 75,000 miles
Killed/Seriously injured - 460,000 miles
Any - 66,000 miles

It may also be worth noting that being killed is 20 times less likely
than being seriously injured.

There are French statistics at the national level here (page 2):
http://www.securiteroutiere.equipement.gouv.fr/IMG/Synthese/Bicyclettes.pdf
and they give (with the 6 billions kilometers total -- page 1):
- slight: 1,600,000 km
- serious: 9,000,000 km
- killed: 36,000,000 km

That's a big difference...
I don't believe cycling in the UK is (so much) more dangerous than in
France.
The ratio between killed and seriously injured is also different;
perhaps than being "seriously injured" in France is more serious than in
the UK.

Quoted message said:

This takes into account the known under-reporting at a constant 60%

Is there an under-reporting even for the killed or seriously injured?

In article <[email hidden]>,

Clive George said:

Has anybody got a quick summary of evidence showing cycling is not
dangerous? Target audience is UK.

In the last three weeks of fantastic weather I would estimate that
the hiring cycles on the Bicycle Island have done about 2 x 21 x 10.5
x 600 miles. If you then add to this about 21 x 10.5 x 200 travelled
by private cyclists.

Lots of miles with thankfully no accidents and very few punctures.

--
A T (Sandy) Morton
on the Bicycle Island
In the Global Village
http://www.millport.net

Peter Fox said:

Following on from Clive George's message. . .

Quoted message said:

Has anybody got a quick summary of evidence showing cycling is not
dangerous? Target audience is UK.

Quoted message said:

tfl.gov.ukPedal >Cyclist Casualties 04 05.pdfOpen ↗

Working from the data contained in this document I've worked out the
average distance between accidents.

Slight - 75,000 miles
Killed/Seriously injured - 460,000 miles
Any - 66,000 miles

This takes into account the known under-reporting at a constant 60%
which is more pessimistic than the best estimate also provided.

For somebody doing *5000* miles a year this is:

Slight - 15 years
Killed/Seriously injured - 92 years
Any - 13 years

These are just statistics. Some people seem to have more than their
fair share. Some must be bad luck but IMHO a lot is down to poor road
skills.

For that reason, global statistics are not that useful when you
consider the differing skill levels of cyclists. They range from the
suicidal, novice and incompetent to advanced practitioners who know how
to avoid accident situations and when they occur how to ameliorate
them.

John Forester estimated that American club cyclists were five to six
times less likely to get into an accident than children and
inexperienced adult cyclists.

No activity is risk free, but competent cycling is likely no riskier
than any other daily activity involving motion, for example walking.
Unfortunately, helmet zealots, bike path/lane advocates, and anti-car
activists have to exaggerate cycling's risks in order to pursue their
own agendas that usually have little to do with safety.

Cycling is a healthy, fun and safe activity for those who acquire bike
handling skills and follow traffic rules. Those that don't ow won't
shouldn't blame motorists for their misfortune. They need to learn how
to co-exist with them.

Cycling is not dangerous, providing you don't fall off badly or run
into things.

What makes cycling dangerous is NOT cycling - it's the boy-racers,
half-wits, and arrogant motorists that treat us with utter contempt
and inconsideration.

nobody760 said:

Cycling is not dangerous, providing you don't fall off badly or run
into things.

What makes cycling dangerous is NOT cycling - it's the boy-racers,
half-wits, and arrogant motorists that treat us with utter contempt
and inconsideration.

Cycling isn't dangerous, it is hazardous. Motoring is both dangerous
and hazardous (but more dangerous than hazardous one feels).

The major hazards are motor vehicles, especially big ones.

(This is predicated on dangerous being a property where it poses risk
to third parties, wheras hazardous infers a risk to the participant.)

...d

nobody760 wrote on 26/07/2006 10:46 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Cycling is not dangerous, providing you don't fall off badly or run
into things.

Is that like saying flying isn't dangerous, its the hitting the ground
that is dangerous?

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

"Eric B" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Peter Fox a écrit :

Quoted message said:

Slight - 75,000 miles
Killed/Seriously injured - 460,000 miles
Any - 66,000 miles

It may also be worth noting that being killed is 20 times less likely
than being seriously injured.

Ok, let's get all the numbers in the same units...

Let's assume that the killed/seriously injured is one of either per 460,000
miles. With killed:seriously injured at 1:20 then that's one killed per
9660000 miles. If average cycling speed is 12 mi/hr (possibly high, but
probably not far off) then that's one killed per 80500 hours.

Quoted message said:

There are French statistics at the national level here (page 2):

http://www.securiteroutiere.equipement.gouv.fr/IMG/Synthese/Bicyclettes.pdf

Quoted message said:

and they give (with the 6 billions kilometers total -- page 1):
- slight: 1,600,000 km
- serious: 9,000,000 km
- killed: 36,000,000 km

Well, assuming an average cycling speed of 18km/hr (roughly equal to 12
mi/hr) that's one death per 2 million hours.

These figures, though higher, are the same order of magnitude as the FAA
figure of .28 per million hours; to put all this in rough numbers that the
ordinary person can understand, in the UK there is one death for every 100
years of cycling 24 hours a day non-stop, in France one per 225 years, and
the FAA number gives one per 450 years.

Hardy anything to worry about; cycling is _not_ dangerous.

David Martin wrote:
.... snip

Quoted message said:

Cycling isn't dangerous, it is hazardous. Motoring is both dangerous
and hazardous (but more dangerous than hazardous one feels).

The major hazards are motor vehicles, especially big ones.

(This is predicated on dangerous being a property where it poses risk
to third parties, wheras hazardous infers a risk to the participant.)

I think you are letting your anti-car biases show.

Motor vehicles big or otherwise are not inherently dangerous or
hazardous. They are harmless while parked. They are not necessarily
dangerous when driven. They are dangerous when driven by the
incompetent, the impaired or the deliberately malicious. But on this
basis cycling can be dangerous too. Third parties can be put at risk
when sharing the road with incompetent or law-breaking cyclists.

We should respect skilled operation of a vehicle regardless of whether
it is driven or ridden.

Quoted message said:

David Martin wrote:
... snip

Quoted message said:

Cycling isn't dangerous, it is hazardous. Motoring is both dangerous
and hazardous (but more dangerous than hazardous one feels).

The major hazards are motor vehicles, especially big ones.

(This is predicated on dangerous being a property where it poses risk
to third parties, wheras hazardous infers a risk to the participant.)

I think you are letting your anti-car biases show.

Motor vehicles big or otherwise are not inherently dangerous or
hazardous. They are harmless while parked.

Ever ridden into one? Ever had one roll away into you?

Quoted message said:

They are not necessarily
dangerous when driven. They are dangerous when driven by the
incompetent, the impaired or the deliberately malicious.

Given the amount of energy in a moving motor vehicle I think classing
motoring as dangerous is fair.

Quoted message said:

But on this
basis cycling can be dangerous too. Third parties can be put at risk
when sharing the road with incompetent or law-breaking cyclists.

It is a relative risk that one should be concerned with.

Quoted message said:

We should respect skilled operation of a vehicle regardless of whether
it is driven or ridden.

Actually, we should expect (ie aspire to) such operation.

...d

in message <[email hidden]>, David

Martin (') said:

Quoted message said:

Motor vehicles big or otherwise are not inherently dangerous or
hazardous. They are harmless while parked.

Ever ridden into one? Ever had one roll away into you?

I am one of the few people on the planet who can honestly claim to have
run over myself.

'Twas a dark and stormy night, and I had driven down to the top of the
beach to check my boat on the mooring. I leapt out of the car and ran
round in front of it to look at the boat... unfortunately I had
neglected to set the handbrake.

No bicycles were injured in the making of this post.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

---===***<<< This space to let! >>>***===---
Yes! You, too, can SPAM in the Famous Brooke Rotating .sig!
---===***<<< Only $300 per line >>>***===---

Clive George said:

Has anybody got a quick summary of evidence showing cycling is not
dangerous? Target audience is UK.

It IS dangerous, or rather it is not without it's hazards, but to me,
the health and ecological benefits outweigh the possible consequences,
and I do what I can to minimise my risk in terms of paying attention,
speed, lane discipline, indication, helmet use, lights, reflectives,
well maintained bike and a million other things...

Cycling's great... 🙂

Simon Brooke said:

I am one of the few people on the planet who can honestly claim to have
run over myself.

Can one nominate someone who's alive and well for a Darwin?

--
not me guv

nobody760 said:

What makes cycling dangerous is NOT cycling - it's the boy-racers,
half-wits, and arrogant motorists that treat us with utter contempt
and inconsideration.

That's true for competent cyclists.

For many cyclists, cycling is dangerous - because they don't
understand about using the correct road position, observing traffic
and pedestrians, safe and unsafe routes, how to use roundabouts, down
to things like balance, hand signals and a correctly set-up bike. And
there are plenty who are totally blasé about any suggestion of the law
and their own personal safety.

--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

Stevie D wrote on 26/07/2006 20:47 +0100:

Quoted message said:

nobody760 said:

What makes cycling dangerous is NOT cycling - it's the boy-racers,
half-wits, and arrogant motorists that treat us with utter contempt
and inconsideration.

That's true for competent cyclists.

For many cyclists, cycling is dangerous - because they don't
understand about using the correct road position, observing traffic
and pedestrians, safe and unsafe routes, how to use roundabouts, down
to things like balance, hand signals and a correctly set-up bike. And
there are plenty who are totally blasé about any suggestion of the law
and their own personal safety.

Even then its not dangerous compared to the many other risks we accept
without thinking in our daily lives and its a lot less risky than just
living.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

Stevie D twisted the electrons to say:

Quoted message said:

That's true for competent cyclists.

If you're not competent at $THING, then it's not much a conclusion to
realise it would probably/possibly be dangerous to do $THING. It doesn't
(necessarily) follow from that that $THING is dangerous in and of itself.
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

Alistair Gunn said:

If you're not competent at $THING, then it's not much a conclusion to
realise it would probably/possibly be dangerous to do $THING.

It is quite a leap for a lot of $THINGs.

I am not particularly proficient at using a high-tech camera - but I
can't see how I would be a danger when using one, I would just take
shoddy pictures.

My aunt is not competent at using a computer - but as far as I'm
aware, she has never come close to damaging herself as a result, she
just spends ages wondering why her spreadsheet is in such a mess.

One of my colleagues is utterly inept at making tea. We haven't had
any tea-related injuries as a result - I simply don't ask for tea when
it's her turn to make the drinks.

Quoted message said:

It doesn't (necessarily) follow from that that $THING is dangerous in
and of itself.

There are dangers inherent to cycling that are far more severe than
for the great majority of other activities we undertake. Yes, with
practice, knowledge and experience we can avoid most of those dangers,
but they _are_ inherent to the activity.

--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________