All the statistics you see for accident figures are misleading. As they
say: 53.7% of all statistics are made up.😉
Those who collect the statistics look closely at some variables, and not
at others. Also, the definitions used are open to question. For
example, does "miles walked" include on the road, on the pavement, on
public footpaths, or in the home, workplace and covered pedestrian
areas?
Is the distance covered the relevant one? Surely it should be time
exposed to risk. So, if a bicycle travels at ana verage of 12 mph on a
country road, and a car travels at 40 mph (these are both realistic
averages) then the bicycle is exposed to the risk of an accident with
another road user for more than 3 times as long.
Then look at the subscategories. It is obvious at first glance that the
risk to a sensible experienced mature cyclist on a well maintained
bicycle is less than the risk to an irresponsible young rider with no
road manners and poorly maintained brakes and gears. Either could be
involved in an accident that is or isn't their fault, but the
irresponsible rider on a badly maintained bike is at greater risk.
Insurers recognise this type of diffeence by group rating different
types of car and charging different premiums for different age groups.
The group rating of vehicles reflects the built in safety features (air
bags, ABS), the type of driver likely to buy it, and the likely cost of
an accident if one happens - including repair costs, and the severity of
any injuries. A VW Golf Turbo is not only more likely to have an
accident than a Skoda of similar pghysical size, but the accident is
likely to be at a higher speed and cause more damage.
Apply these principles to the figures quoted earlier on this thread: we
know that cyclists generally are at a higher risk of death, per mile
travelled, than car drivers/passengers. So, allow for the difference in
time exposed to risk, the fact that most motorists have at least had
some training and have passed a test, and that many cyclists treat the
law and road safety with complete contempt. We now no nothing at all
about the comparative risks of a sensible experienced mature and alert
cyclist on a safe machine, and a car driver meating similar criteria.
My guess, based on a hell of a lot of experience on the roads (I used to
drive 35 000 miles a year; I've ridden big and small motorcycles and
scooters, tandems, bicycles, unicycles and even vintage bicycles) is
that the "ideal" cyclist is at no greater risk of an accident than the
"ideal" motorist. However, the consequences of an accident are greater
for the cyclist because the cyclist is less protected.
Back to helmets: common sense says usually wear one, but don't think it
makes you safe. Your helmet is there to protect your most important
piece of safety equipment: your brain.
--
Mikefule - The first cuckoo of unicycling
Sumer is icomen in, loud sing Mikefule!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mikefule's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/879
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/42239
