# Why does cycling have a 'high' risk rating? or does it?



## musa (24 Apr 2012)

As the title suggest, just wanted to shed light on why we seem to assoicate cycling as a whole (not including individual additions that can be mentioned) with being high risk? Most certainly everything, every action has some risks attached to it regardless. Reason why I ask because I've come across posts on CC where its like is that how bad it has got? Course, we want safety but are we over-doing it ? Are we too cautious? I read a post just today, where the OP had an accident and their OH as usual didn't want him to ride again, likewise I've read people in the workplace (colleagues) asking 'Are you still going to continue riding to work'? after an accident.

Now the media doesn't help as we can agree that it never gives the full pictures as that won't sell, are they more concern with profits or relaying the 'truth'? Study/Case studies will always habve its pros and cons, but aren't we, as individuals able to think for ourselves? We've all complained about how the media portrayed stuff, yet we continue to follow.

Now, as cyclists, we certainly don't have an agenda to go get ourselves hurt, and put our lives in danger. We have the majority of riders who do a b and c, but what really, has caused us as a society to obtain cycling as 'dangerous'?

Discuss not debate...hope I got all I wanted to say across bit sketchy.


----------



## slowmotion (24 Apr 2012)

Cycling is dangerous as you perceive it to be. I wouldn't try this in a million years..

[media]
]View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eTMDkbS0fc[/media]


I know a few people who wouldn't see that stunt as totally stupid, yet would see riding round Hammersmith Broadway as a certain death wish, an adventure that I quite enjoy. It's just personal, and totally irrational.


----------



## caimg (24 Apr 2012)

slowmotion said:


> Cycling is dangerous as you perceive it to be. I wouldn't try this in a million years..
> 
> [media]
> ]View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eTMDkbS0fc[/media]
> ...




I went round Hammersmith roundabout for the first time in Feb when I started riding again...despite being a confident rider, it scared the sh*t out of me and had so many close passes and honking that it actually made me pull over and walk on the pavement - still, each to his own


----------



## slowmotion (24 Apr 2012)

Hammersmith? Easy, like this... 

[media]
]View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2vkwy2vdP4[[media]


----------



## Red Light (24 Apr 2012)

Its one of those perception over reality things like fear of flying. Objectively cycling is very very safe - as safe as walking - yet many peoples perceptions are it is very very dangerous. Its not helped with all the focus on dubious safety equipment and its not helped by the cycling forums which tend to report every accident and injury. You don't find the motoring forums reporting every time something goes wrong and if they did there would be five to ten posts a day reporting motoring fatalities and if you did it would probably put you off driving if you were a forum member.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (24 Apr 2012)

On the basis of injuries sustained requiring a trip to A&E/NHS intervention since I returned to cycling in 1995 the lovely Helen, my OH, should be pleading with me to

stop taking showers (broken ankle)
stop using stairs (one broken ankle, one dislocated ankle)
stop cutting bread (knife wound to right hand)
stop refereeing rugby union (broken knee - I have since retired)
stop exploring castles (lacerated head)
etc.,
etc..

as in that time cycling on the road has only had me in A&E once, very recently, albeit I have accompanied a few MTB-ers to hospital in that time and have concussed myself and broken a couple of bones riding too fast off-road.

Real life is far more dangerous than cycling.


----------



## PK99 (24 Apr 2012)

Red Light said:


> . Objectively cycling is very very safe - *as safe as walking* -


 
I really don't think we as cyclist do ourselves any favours by parroting this idea. It is only the overall "total walking vs total cycling" stats that support the statement. Strip out the children, drunks and elderly and look at (say) the 25-50 age group and the picture looks rather different. Not that cycling is unsafe but that the risks are greater than for walking. I can run through quite a long list of people i know who have been hospitalised because of a transport accident over the last few years - all of them cyclists injured in cycling accidents on the road, none of them pedestrians.


----------



## Boris Bajic (24 Apr 2012)

I find this topic an interesting one. My children mountainboard, leap off cliffs from great heights into the sea and cycle just about anywhere. One of them plays rugby, which can be a brutal game. All have ridden horses; one still does. They shoot too.

But... the only time adults and other parents wince or offer 'safety advice' is when we mention cycling. It's water off a duck to me, but it is interesting that that's perceived as the dangerous one. Not cycling off-road.... Just cycling on blacktop. 

The safety advice, of course, is that they should be helmetted. When I confess that after the age of 12 I no longer ask them to wear one, some look at me as if I'm asking my kids to clean a chainsaw while it's running. It's not a debate I'd ever want to have with someone absolutely convinced that they're right.

The knee-jerk response by many to cycling on the roads does seem eccentric to me in many ways.

However... I do find that cycling can scare me. In my younger days I was relatively fearless, but not now. I still love to ride and I sometimes enjoy a little extra adrenalin when passing traffic becomes more intimate, but I am getting nervy in middle age.

I've decided to change a regular commute to avoid the descent from British Camp towards Great Malvern. I've been doing it in the wet lately and the way drivers sit on my rear wheel approaching big, sharp, fast downhill bends on broken Shellgrip scares me. It really scares me. It feels.... dangerous.

So... I'll happily sit at the dinner table and tell guests that cycling is simply not dangerous... and the next day I'll be scared out of my skin on a wet descent.

As to perception and media coverage, I am sometimes perplexed to see that 50 deaths in an aircrash in S E Asia make the headlines, but 20k+ SKI annually on British roads do not. It's not just cyclists in those data, but somehow cycling seems tarred with the 'danger' brush.

I don't think it's a perception that will ever be overturned. If my family and I all cycle 100 miles every day until dying natural deaths at the age of 103, there will be those who say "Oooh... Lucky not to have been killed out on the roads".


----------



## Red Light (24 Apr 2012)

PK99 said:


> I really don't think we as cyclist do ourselves any favours by parroting this idea. It is only the overall "total walking vs total cycling" stats that support the statement. Strip out the children, drunks and elderly and look at (say) the 25-50 age group and the picture looks rather different. Not that cycling is unsafe but that the risks are greater than for walking. I can run through quite a long list of people i know who have been hospitalised because of a transport accident over the last few years - all of them cyclists injured in cycling accidents on the road, none of them pedestrians.


 
Nice try but it doesn't work. Per km walking is much more dangerous than cycling. Strip out the preponderance of the over 60s in the walking figures and the preponderance of under 16s in the cycling figures and the core 16-64 age group still has a far higher risk walking than cycling. Your anecdotal experience is just that, anecdotal. And you certainly do cycling no favours by parroting the mantra that it is very dangerous.


----------



## Red Light (24 Apr 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> I've decided to change a regular commute to avoid the descent from British Camp towards Great Malvern. I've been doing it in the wet lately and the way drivers sit on my rear wheel approaching big, sharp, fast downhill bends on broken Shellgrip scares me. It really scares me. It feels.... dangerous.


 
My feeling is that much of this is akin to a fear of flying. Rationally you know its not dangerous but you still feel scared by it. I don't think those fears are helped by the general promotion of cycling as unsafe either. People with a fear of flying get more nervous after news of a plane crash just as people became fearful of travelling on the tube after 7/7 or on the train after Hatfield. The fact that cycle forums continually report their accidents just exacerbates the problem further. Stopping scaring ourselves in that way would help but it won't cure the underlying fear.


----------



## PK99 (24 Apr 2012)

1820263 said:


> Are you comparing all cyclists with a selected group of pedestrians?


 
no. comparing like for like age groups and stripping out alcohol effects from both


----------



## Boris Bajic (24 Apr 2012)

Red Light said:


> My feeling is that much of this is akin to a fear of flying. Rationally you know its not dangerous but you still feel scared by it. I don't think those fears are helped by the general promotion of cycling as unsafe either. People with a fear of flying get more nervous after news of a plane crash just as people became fearful of travelling on the tube after 7/7 or on the train after Hatfield. The fact that cycle forums continually report their accidents just exacerbates the problem further. Stopping scaring ourselves in that way would help but it won't cure the underlying fear.


 
Much of the rational part of my mind finds that a convincing argument. I was on my 'kamikaze descent' yesterday with an M-B Vito right on my tail. It was wet in patches, dry in patches and had rivulets in places - because of patchy tree cover. I was seeking out drier, rougher tarmac; not easy at 25mph. I made a conscious decision to go easy on the front brake and kept pedalling to prevent a rear lock-up. I did allow (couldn't prevent) the worst-case scenarios to whizz through my brain. I accept that and that does bring the danger of 'building it up'. Nonetheless, I was in an extremely exposed position and the fear was based in part on the danger to which I was exposed and my realisation of same. Three times in the past couple of weeks I've left that descent in a state of some concern. I still have a real run at it in the dry or when there's no traffic. It's not 'fear of flying' (the novel or the notion). 

I agree with you that the 'negative painting' is a big issue. That was part of my point in my original post. I disagree with your notion that rationally I know it is not dangerous. My assessment is based on four decades of cycling and a good part of that time being spent hurtling into bushes, tarmac or both with less than complete control of speed or bearing. I'm not arguing against your broader point at all.


----------



## tyred (24 Apr 2012)

I do wonder where the perception comes from. It's something I've been pondering for the past week or so. I had emailed my sister a few photographs taken by a friend at a recent VCC ride on old road bikes, including 1 or 2 of me riding. She phoned me up to object that 4 of us (including me) weren't wearing helmets and how stupid we are, etc, etc, etc. I was wondering where that had sprung from. This was a purely social ride at relatively slow speeds of about 30 miles in the middle of nowhere, we hardly seen a car at all, we are all old enough and have been cycling long enough not to take any silly risks. It was, I would say, a safe and enjoyable way to spend a Sunday afternoon. Yet to talk to my sister, you would think we were jumping of cliffs.

I know it's easy to get wound up by close passes and impatient drivers, but how often are we really put in genuine danger? Not very often in my case at least. And what would half an inch of plastic do for me if I were hit by a car at 60mph?


----------



## totallyfixed (24 Apr 2012)

I think if you were new to cycling, joined CC and only read the commuting thread, you would be forgiven for thinking cycling was very dangerous.
My thoughts are that there are probably two broadly differing views regarding the perception as to whether cycling is dangerous or not - those that cycle and those that don't. In a world that is becoming increasingly sedentary and as a consequence obese, coupled with ever increasing stringent laws on health and safety, is it any wonder that non cyclists think we are all mad? We must all have had comments from non cyclists at some time expressing disbelief at our exploits.
One of the unfortunate [for me] results of the above is to make cyclists [some] believe that cycling is dangerous, the most obvious manifestation of this is the proliferation of helmet wearing, more especially in the younger generation.
My personal view is that if you are a cyclist and you believe it is dangerous, you probably shouldn't be cycling, because by your very actions and attire you are reinforcing the myth that ours is a dangerous sport / pastime.
If in doubt see rule 5 in the Velominati.


----------



## HLaB (24 Apr 2012)

As said a lot of is perceived risk not actual risk, I'd take time to dig out the stats that support that but I'm away out cycling as the risk of becoming fat, developing heart disease or or other weight related health problems is more of a risk. Oh and unfortunately I am going to contribute to this perceived risk by wearing a helmet. Chucks a grenade and runs cycles.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (24 Apr 2012)

it's a risk v outcome thing though isn't it?

The chances of getting hit when riding are tiny.

The consequences of doing so can be, and often are, huge.


----------



## Boris Bajic (24 Apr 2012)

How quickly the recent past becomes the distant past.

Last night I was watching footage of the heroic (but questionably fuelled) feats of M Pantani in the 90s.

Not a helmet in sight. I do sometimes think that many of the 'teamalike' full-carbon racer clones one sees in squillion-pound helmets are quite unaware that pro racers were largely helmetless into this century.

This may look like a grenade, but isn't meant as one.


----------



## dellzeqq (24 Apr 2012)

I think Ianrauk puts it well. Cycling has become a kind of moral test. Cycle and you become a 'good person' (and that, in itself, is a cause of resentment). For a lot of people 'it's dangerous' is cover for 'don't want to'.


----------



## sidevalve (24 Apr 2012)

I've come back to cycling and yes it is dangerous but so is walking, mountaineering, motorcycling, horse riding, driving, using ladders etc etc [even breathing, you will note that 100% of people who breath die]. I take precautions to reduce the risk same as when doing anything else [pain hurts], I do wear a helmet but that's just my choice, each to his/her own. The main point however seems to be this the media and our elected leaders assume that we must all be cosseted like small children and will trumpet any accident/injury to prove their case for as many knee jerk "safety" ideas as they can instead of telling people the hard truth that they need to take responsibility for their actions. If you fall off and no one else is involved who's fault is it ? Cars do not simply "go out of control" because they feel like it, however instead of reporting "another numpty lost it going too fast" we get the headlines "this bend must be made safer" "cyclists Must wear helmets" and so on.


----------



## tyred (24 Apr 2012)

A further thing which annoys me is the so called Road Safety Authority of Ireland who message to cyclists seems to consist entirely of "wear a helmet and wear high-vis and you'll be fine" without actually looking at the things (mostly sleepy, unobservant or impatient drivers) that are responsible for the huge majority of injuries to cyclists, pedestrians, motorcyclists and other car drivers/passengers alike.


----------



## Boris Bajic (24 Apr 2012)

There is also an extent to which one might argue that we cyclists raise the perception of our passion as a 'dangerous pursuit' when some among us lose control over a rough surface and slap in a claim for compensation.

As far as I can tell, life itself is a rough surface and any stretch of this mortal coil coated in metaphorical smooth tarmac is a bonus. 

I just threw that in to be troublesome... I think.


----------



## Red Light (24 Apr 2012)

PK99 said:


> no. comparing like for like age groups and stripping out alcohol effects from both


 
And what data set are you using to do that analysis? I am especially interested in the data set on alcohol effects on cyclists and pedestrians that you are using.


----------



## Red Light (24 Apr 2012)

tyred said:


> I know it's easy to get wound up by close passes and impatient drivers, but how often are we really put in genuine danger? Not very often in my case at least. And what would half an inch of plastic do for me if I were hit by a car at 60mph?


 
I suspect there is also a control issue in there - a bit like being a passenger in a plane - in that when a car close passes we get worried even though from the drivers point of view it was a perfectly safe pass, yet we happily pass stationary cars at not dissimilar distances in traffic without thinking twice about it. I was pondering this recently when I was passing two lines of queued traffic motorbike style down the middle and quite happily flew through quite small gaps without feeling concerned at all. If a car had passed me at that distance and speed I would not have been pleased.


----------



## Red Light (24 Apr 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> Much of the rational part of my mind finds that a convincing argument. I was on my 'kamikaze descent' yesterday with an M-B Vito right on my tail. It was wet in patches, dry in patches and had rivulets in places - because of patchy tree cover. I was seeking out drier, rougher tarmac; not easy at 25mph. I made a conscious decision to go easy on the front brake and kept pedalling to prevent a rear lock-up. I did allow (couldn't prevent) the worst-case scenarios to whizz through my brain. I accept that and that does bring the danger of 'building it up'. Nonetheless, I was in an extremely exposed position and the fear was based in part on the danger to which I was exposed and my realisation of same. Three times in the past couple of weeks I've left that descent in a state of some concern. I still have a real run at it in the dry or when there's no traffic. It's not 'fear of flying' (the novel or the notion).
> 
> I agree with you that the 'negative painting' is a big issue. That was part of my point in my original post. I disagree with your notion that rationally I know it is not dangerous. My assessment is based on four decades of cycling and a good part of that time being spent hurtling into bushes, tarmac or both with less than complete control of speed or bearing. I'm not arguing against your broader point at all.


 
I suspect that if you had come off your stopping distance would have been a lot longer than the Vito's. But there is always the option to descend more slowly than you appear to have been doing but then that removes a bit of the adrenalin rush of descending near the limit. And you could practice the Sheldon Brown advice on braking on the front wheel as rear wheel braking is not really an effective way to stop anyway, especially downhill.


----------



## musa (24 Apr 2012)

But to be fair using statistics is manipulation. Does stats agree with what we say is, reality? It's mainly health and safety but you can be here forever drawing tables, I've just completed a module on damn thing it's cause and effect and could-be's.


----------



## Boris Bajic (24 Apr 2012)

Red Light said:


> I suspect that if you had come off your stopping distance would have been a lot longer than the Vito's. But there is always the option to descend more slowly than you appear to have been doing but then that removes a bit of the adrenalin rush of descending near the limit. And you could practice the Sheldon Brown advice on braking on the front wheel as *rear wheel braking is not really an effective way to stop* anyway, especially downhill.


 
All fair points, although the one about relative stopping distance is more easily made by someone whose rear wheel was a little further away from the van's front bumper than mine was. There is also the issue (on that descent) of oncoming traffic round bends. 

Descending more slowly... Yes... And no. Normally this is a 35+mph descent. I was doing about 25. I could have done 15, but similarly I could have driven or stayed at home. 

As to Sheldon, I've read his stuff great in places (when building my fixopholous) and dull or massively obvious in others. I wasn't braking to stop; I was braking to keep my speed down. I was also whipping round some fairly horrid bends, as mentioned. I wasn't staying off the front brake I _"made a decision to go easy on the front brake". _I've raced motorcycles and have cycled for many adecade, so I'm OK with how to use front and rear brakes. I was on a section of road as described by Sheldon below, offering advice on why the front brake may not always be a good idea:

_*"Slippery surfaces. On good, dry pavement, unless leaning in a turn, it is impossible to skid the front wheel by braking. On slippery surfaces, however, it is possible. A front wheel skid almost always leads to a fall, so if there is a high risk of skidding, you're better off controlling your speed with the rear brake."*_

It seems that you and I agree that cycling is unhelpfully labelled as dangerous. I'm not sure where your issue is with my having been scared on a section of road that is scary in the wet in traffic.


----------



## Boris Bajic (24 Apr 2012)

1820472 said:


> I would suggest that you have possibly said enough on that subject.


 
Well that's going to stop me.... :troll:


----------



## musa (24 Apr 2012)

Oh yeah and another thing, the assumption can be made that majority are 'experience' riders, having said that why can't experience supersede the fear factor for some?

Why can't our experience talk for us?


----------



## VamP (24 Apr 2012)

tyred said:


> I do wonder where the perception comes from. It's something I've been pondering for the past week or so. I had emailed my sister a few photographs taken by a friend at a recent VCC ride on old road bikes, including 1 or 2 of me riding. She phoned me up to object that 4 of us (including me) weren't wearing helmets and how stupid we are, etc, etc, etc. I was wondering where that had sprung from. This was a purely social ride at relatively slow speeds of about 30 miles in the middle of nowhere, we hardly seen a car at all, we are all old enough and have been cycling long enough not to take any silly risks. It was, I would say, a safe and enjoyable way to spend a Sunday afternoon. Yet to talk to my sister, you would think we were jumping of cliffs.
> 
> I know it's easy to get wound up by close passes and impatient drivers, but how often are we really put in genuine danger? Not very often in my case at least. And what would half an inch of plastic do for me if I were hit by a car at 60mph?


 

How much of it is just that irrational fear of losing a loved one? I never give a second's thought to my safety when cycling, but frequently worry when my beloved is out on a bike, including demands for frequent updates on progress. Can't justify it, but I still worry...

Oh and points deducted for trying to to turn this into a helmet thread


----------



## VamP (24 Apr 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> How quickly the recent past becomes the distant past.
> 
> Last night I was watching footage of the heroic (but questionably fuelled) feats of M Pantani in the 90s.
> 
> ...


 

There's another aspect to this, which is that a helmet is required for competition. If you have to wear it in races, you might as well train in it.


----------



## musa (24 Apr 2012)

VamP said:


> Oh and points deducted for trying to to turn this into a helmet thread



We are avoiding the politics of cycling we would never get anywhere. Each to their own.


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (24 Apr 2012)

Perhaps the fear factor is related to our ability to be in control of the situation. Or maybe due to the control that others think we don't have?
When my beloved talks to me about road riding, it's the 'other people'- drivers etc that she fears. She's ridden with me enough to know I'm not just gonna fall off the thing.


----------



## VamP (24 Apr 2012)

musa said:


> We are avoiding the politics of cycling we would never get anywhere. Each to their own.


 
You might want to rephrase that. As it stands I am failing to comprehend...


----------



## musa (24 Apr 2012)

VamP said:


> You might want to rephrase that. As it stands I am failing to comprehend...



Lol. No helmet debate or hi viz for that matter

Comprende?


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (24 Apr 2012)

musa said:


> We are avoiding the politics of cycling we would never get anywhere. Each to their own.


 
I think the helmet thing is just a focal point for those who want us to be wrapped in cotton wool, but realise there ain't much else you can attach to us or a bike to make much difference.


----------



## VamP (24 Apr 2012)

musa said:


> Lol. No helmet debate or hi viz for that matter
> 
> Comprende?


 

Hey I wasn't starting a helmet debate!

Are you trying to start a helmet debate?


----------



## musa (24 Apr 2012)

VamP said:


> Hey I wasn't starting a helmet debate! *I Know  *
> 
> Are you trying to start a helmet debate?
> *Nooo far from it,*


----------



## GrumpyGregry (24 Apr 2012)

Fear and something being dangerous are not connected as directly as we might think though.

One may experience the adrenaline rush of fear in almost complete safety. Which is why I, in the main, hate Disneyland et al. Synthetic fear in a situation of near perfect safety. MTB'ing in the Alps. Real danger, real consequences if it goes pear shaped, real fear, huge fun.

I am happy to put myself into fearful/dangerous situations through my making a(n informed) choice. I am not happy to find myself in a fearful/dangerous situation of another's creation (e.g. close pass).

It is rather like the mums, and others, who campaign against mobile phone masts, on the school playing fields and elsewhere, who mobilise their campaign by having conversations on mobile phones held right against their heads.

All about autonomy.


----------



## smutchin (24 Apr 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> How quickly the recent past becomes the distant past.
> 
> Last night I was watching footage of the heroic (but questionably fuelled) feats of M Pantani in the 90s.
> 
> Not a helmet in sight. I do sometimes think that many of the 'teamalike' full-carbon racer clones one sees in squillion-pound helmets are quite unaware that pro racers were largely helmetless into this century.


 
The irony is that most of the headline-grabbing deaths in pro cycling, eg Casartelli, Weylandt, tend to happen in circumstances where the significant factors are well outside the parameters for which helmets are designed to offer protection. Mauricio Soler was wearing a helmet when he crashed but again, the circumstances were well outside those for which a helmet is designed. Which is not to say that it definitely didn't help, just that it wasn't designed to help in those circumstances.

Even in the case of Kivilev, which was the main trigger for the introduction of compulsory helmet-wearing in the pro peloton, he was clearly travelling in excess of the 12.5mph* for which helmets are rated at the time of his accident. It would be impossible to prove either way whether or not a helmet would have made a difference.

Anyway, it would be ridiculous to argue that cycling generally isn't safe based on deaths in the pro peloton. They're high performance athletes pushing the limits of possibility. Of course they're going to have the occasional serious accident. But it's a big leap of the imagination from that to "cycling is dangerous [and helmets should be compulsory]". No one ever claimed that we should wear helmets in cars after Ayrton Senna's death.

To my mind, the real driving force in the rise of helmet wearing has been the fact that bike helmets are so much cheaper and lighter than they used to be. The safety argument, whether it has any merit or not, is somewhat post hoc. Maybe if the manufacturers started to produce (and heavily promote) lightweight "driving helmets", we'd see a similar uptake among car drivers.

d.

*Is that the right figure? Can't remember and can't be bothered to look it up.


----------



## Boris Bajic (24 Apr 2012)

1820565 said:


> I should hope so to. I wasn't actually accusing you of being a troll though.


 
Sorry, I didn't think you were. 

It was a Stalin-era self-accusation from me. My original mention of compensation was shameless trollery. 

I realise that wasn't clear from my response.


----------



## smutchin (24 Apr 2012)

Nigel-YZ1 said:


> I think the helmet thing is just a focal point for those who want us to be wrapped in cotton wool, but realise there ain't much else you can attach to us or a bike to make much difference.


 
Oh, I don't know - maybe add an extra couple of wheels for stability, maybe an airbag or two in your handlebars, and perhaps a steel frame to surround you. Of course, all this would add lots of extra weight to your bike, so you'd need some kind of motorised assistance if you wanted to get anywhere fast. And if you're doing that, you might as well add in a couple of extra seats for passengers to make more efficient use of space, and rather than panniers, you could have a special protected compartment at the rear for your stuff...

d.


----------



## VamP (24 Apr 2012)

smutchin said:


> Anyway, it would be ridiculous to argue that cycling generally isn't safe based on deaths in the pro peloton. They're high performance athletes pushing the limits of possibility.


 
And very skilled riders, every single last one of them. The amateur peloton is a whole different ballgame - 3rd and 4th cat races sometimes resemble A&E waiting rooms. I expect that amateur racing has a far higher injury rate than any other element of cycling - although I have no data to back this up


----------



## smutchin (24 Apr 2012)

VamP said:


> And very skilled riders, every single last one of them.


 
Absolutely. Phenomenally skilful bike handlers, just as Senna was a phenomenally skilful car handler. I suppose the difference is that any of us could (in theory, if we had the money) ride exactly the same machines and wear exactly the same kit that the top pro cyclists use, which certainly isn't the case with F1 cars.

Accordingly, the perception (among non-cyclists) is that the gap between the pros riding the Tour de France and the "amateurs" cycling to work is much smaller than it actually is. And from that, the perception of the relative level of danger is bound to be skewed.

d.


----------



## Boris Bajic (24 Apr 2012)

smutchin said:


> Oh, I don't know - maybe add an extra couple of wheels for stability, maybe an airbag or two in your handlebars, and perhaps a steel frame to surround you. Of course, all this would add lots of extra weight to your bike, so you'd need some kind of motorised assistance if you wanted to get anywhere fast. And if you're doing that, you might as well add in a couple of extra seats for passengers to make more efficient use of space, and rather than panniers, you could have a special protected compartment at the rear for your stuff...
> 
> d.


 
I like your thinking, but it simply wouldn't catch on. People don't like to be enclosed like that - and if we allowed such vehicles to predominate we would also be encouraging a level of material snobbery that mankind simply doesn't go in for.

With that in mind, I've adapted your design proposal:

Reduce the number of wheels to two. Do away with the passengers and the luggage compartment. Chain drive to the rear wheel, powered by pedals.

Put the operator of this vehicle in a helmet and I think you'd find it was a perfectly safe way to get around.

Also completely free of snobbery... assuming nobody was foolish enough to ride the WRONG KIND of two-wheeled, pedal-powered vehicle.


----------



## tyred (24 Apr 2012)

VamP said:


> Oh and points deducted for trying to to turn this into a helmet thread



Wasn't my intention at all, honest


----------



## dellzeqq (24 Apr 2012)

I don't know how it is in other parts of the country, but cycling organisations in London, backed by the Times newspaper, are squeaking like stuck pigs about safety. According the LCC, the CEGBeebies and the Times, cycling is the next worst thing to Russian roulette. Which is odd, given the hundreds of thousands cycling to work every day in London.


----------



## dellzeqq (24 Apr 2012)

1820691 said:


> Only today I've had it suggested to me that my probability of being hit by a car is 35% and that is every day.


who by?


----------



## albion (24 Apr 2012)

Cycling can be very high risk.
I have one route I regularly avoid considering both the risk and the stress too high.

Evaluating and controlling risks is a learned skill so newer cyclists, especially in London get it tough.


----------



## dellzeqq (24 Apr 2012)

albion said:


> Cycling can be very high risk.
> I have one route I regularly avoid considering both the risk and the stress too high.
> 
> Evaluating and controlling risks is a learned skill so newer cyclists, *especially in London* get it tough.


Quoi?!


----------



## Hebe (24 Apr 2012)

GregCollins said:


> ...
> It is rather like the mums, and others, who campaign against mobile phone masts, on the school playing fields and elsewhere, who mobilise their campaign by having conversations on mobile phones held right against their heads.


 
Yet they never perceive a traffic jam of large cars/4x4s, parked right up by the school gates and on the pavement, with the engines running as potentially hazardous at all. Amazing.

Personally, I was nervous about cycling but some bikeability training really helped. I don't think non-cyclists always understand that the road can actually feel (and be) safer than obstructed pavements and poorly designed junctions where you either can't see the traffic (and it can't see you) or where the traffic streams never stop for long enough to let you cross safely.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (24 Apr 2012)

1820691 said:


> Only today I've had it suggested to me that my probability of being hit by a car is 35% and that is every day.


is there a contract out on you?


----------



## VamP (24 Apr 2012)

1820691 said:


> Only today I've had it suggested to me that my probability of being hit by a car is 35% and that is every day.


 
He must be continually dumbfounded by your ability to defy such odds!


----------



## smutchin (24 Apr 2012)

Imagine being knocked off once every three days... It would probably put me off cycling.

Fortunately, I haven't even been knocked off as often as once every three years (my wife has had more car crashes than I've had cycling accidents, yet she still worries about me cycling more than I worry about her driving).

d.


----------



## fossyant (24 Apr 2012)

GregCollins said:


> On the basis of injuries sustained requiring a trip to A&E/NHS intervention since I returned to cycling in 1995 the lovely Helen, my OH, should be pleading with me to
> 
> stop taking showers (broken ankle)
> stop using stairs (one broken ankle, one dislocated ankle)
> ...


 
Blimey ! Clumsy ?


----------



## steveindenmark (24 Apr 2012)

It also depends on what country you are in and what type of cycling you are talking about.

Commuting in Denmark is a pretty safe activity.

Extreme mountainbiking anywhere is pretty dodgy 

You need some type of perameters before you get some accurate feedback.

Steve


----------



## GrumpyGregry (24 Apr 2012)

fossyant said:


> Blimey ! Clumsy ?


Clumsy? Abso-bleedin'-lutely. Always have been, always will be.

and my ankles "go" at the drop of a hat and I was told last time they were x-rayed I have the ankles of an 80-year-old


----------



## fossyant (24 Apr 2012)

GregCollins said:


> Clumsy? Abso-bleedin'-lutely. Always have been, always will be.
> 
> and my ankles "go" at the drop of a hat and I was told last time they were x-rayed I have the ankles of an 80-year-old


 
So riding a bike anywhere near you is dangerous, especially fixed 

Back to the OP.

Better to burn out than to fade away !


----------



## albion (24 Apr 2012)

Is there any hope for policy change when even our road safety minister Mike Penning is using trickery to deflect/ignore the reality of risk?

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3393902.ece


----------



## musa (24 Apr 2012)

Typical MP, a change needs to be done but where they fail is they only sample ideas on either rounded figures or small numbers.

extract from article


> Mr Penning closed on a statement that caused an outcry among cyclists, when he claimed that the Netherlands – a country seen as a beacon worldwide on cycle safety – could learn from Britain about cycle safety, due to a lower death toll for cyclists in Britain.
> 
> Mr Penning said: “For instance, *on the European table I have here*, the Netherlands is fourth from the bottom, with 0.84 [deaths] per 100,000 population. Where we are, *I think*, seventh, with 0.71 [deaths per 100,000 population].”


_But you said you had it here with you? Conflicting..But thats alright being in the top ten and having a figure slightly lower by 0.17. Ignorance at the loudest cry or what?_


> This disparity is due to a far greater number of cyclists in the Netherlands. On Dutch streets, there are around eight deaths for every 100 million km cycled. In Britain, the figure is more than three times higher, at around 25 deaths per 100 million km cycled.


----------



## Hip Priest (24 Apr 2012)

I don't find cycling 'high risk' at all. But then I'm scared of flying, which is an equally irrational fear.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (24 Apr 2012)

fossyant said:


> So riding a bike anywhere near you is dangerous, especially fixed
> 
> Back to the OP.
> 
> Better to burn out than to fade away !


In all my days, I've never off'ed anyone else. Misdirected them off a small cliff, yes, run over them, including #1 son, after they've fallen off, yes, but off'ed, never. (so far)


----------



## Boris Bajic (24 Apr 2012)

GregCollins said:


> In all my days, I've never off'ed anyone else. Misdirected them off a small cliff, yes, run over them, including #1 son, after they've fallen off, yes, but off'ed, never. (so far)


 
I once took a massive pothole at speed, causing my son to be catapaulted out of the saddle of the tag-along.

In the couple of seconds it took me to realise what had happened, he refused to let go, hung onto the bars and ran himself over.

I look after my kids.


----------



## VamP (24 Apr 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> I once took a massive pothole at speed, causing my son to be catapaulted out of the saddle of the tag-along.
> 
> In the couple of seconds it took me to realise what had happened, he refused to let go, hung onto the bars and ran himself over.
> 
> I look after my kids.


 



I have done the very self same thing! It's kinda a tag-along rite of passage. As is the subtly altered re-telling when explaining the bruises and cuts to the lad's mother


----------



## Boris Bajic (24 Apr 2012)

VamP said:


> I have done the very self same thing! It's kinda a tag-along rite of passage. As is the subtly altered re-telling when explaining the bruises and cuts to the lad's mother


 
She was riding behind us, yelling "He's fallen off!"

A couple of years later, when the victim was self-powered, we went on a family ride with his younger bro' on the Tag-Along.

After a short break by the roadside, I pedalled off without him.

I look after my kids....


----------



## lukesdad (24 Apr 2012)

Now you ve got me concerned ! This loved ones perception of cycling that is. Lukesmum has always smiled and waved me off with " have a good ride " Ive never thought to ask her if she thought cycling was risky


----------



## Boris Bajic (24 Apr 2012)

1820691 said:


> Only today I've had it suggested to me that my probability of being hit by a car is 35% and that is every day.


 
That figure is probably right and you're probably lucky to still be here.

I hope you wear a helmet!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## smutchin (24 Apr 2012)

Does the loin-cloth of righteousness protect your helmet?

d.


----------



## Red Light (24 Apr 2012)

albion said:


> Evaluating and controlling risks is a learned skill so newer cyclists, especially in London get it tough.


 
They seem to do it much better than experienced cyclists in London. Boris Bikes: no serious injuries in 9 million journeys. London bikes in total: ~14 serious injuries per 9 million journeys.


----------



## slowmotion (24 Apr 2012)

Red Light said:


> They seem to do it much better than experienced cyclists in London. Boris Bikes: no serious injuries in 9 million journeys. London bikes in total: ~14 serious injuries per 9 million journeys.


 I wonder what the figures would be if they were expressed as serious injuries per thousand miles. I'm guessing that the average Boris trip is a whole lot shorter than the average non-Boris one.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (24 Apr 2012)

Red Light said:


> They seem to do it much better than experienced cyclists in London. Boris Bikes: no serious injuries in 9 million journeys. London bikes in total: ~14 serious injuries per 9 million journeys.


You mention London's Boris bikes statistics a lot. We don't have anything similar here in Glasgow, could I compare the Boris bike trips to a ride in town here? Lots of traffic lights, some cycling lanes, busy but slow motion. Yes, of course, even an off should not cause serious injuries, unless it's just your bad luck.
I live on the outskirts of town: on exiting my cul de sac I have to enter a dual carriage road, speed cameras on it, they are going fast!
Are my chances of a fatal accident not higher on that road?
Self preservation makes me go a roundabout way, unless it's 6am on a Sunday morning 
Everything in life is risky, some people/cyclists/drivers like to take their chances, some like to play it safe. On assessing a risk, I really prefer to use my brain rather than rely on statistics. If disaster still strikes, oh well, at least I tried my best to avoid it.


----------



## Boris Bajic (24 Apr 2012)

slowmotion said:


> I wonder what the figures would be if they were expressed as serious injuries per thousand miles. I'm guessing that the average Boris trip is a whole lot shorter than the average non-Boris one.


 
Every time I get on my bike it's a Boris trip, so I think I can answer that one for you and for M. Lanterne Rouge.

You are, of course, both wrong. As Boris, I have several injuries per thousand miles and my good (non-Boris) friends have quite a few injuries every several hundred miles.

We also made a comparison using kilometres. The ratio was the same, but none of us quite made it to the office.

The correlation is clear.


----------



## Red Light (24 Apr 2012)

Pat "5mph" said:


> You mention London's Boris bikes statistics a lot. We don't have anything similar here in Glasgow, could I compare the Boris bike trips to a ride in town here? Lots of traffic lights, some cycling lanes, busy but slow motion. Yes, of course, even an off should not cause serious injuries, unless it's just your bad luck.
> I live on the outskirts of town: on exiting my cul de sac I have to enter a dual carriage road, speed cameras on it, they are going fast!
> Are my chances of a fatal accident not higher on that road?
> Self preservation makes me go a roundabout way, unless it's 6am on a Sunday morning
> Everything in life is risky, some people/cyclists/drivers like to take their chances, some like to play it safe. On assessing a risk, I really prefer to use my brain rather than rely on statistics. If disaster still strikes, oh well, at least I tried my best to avoid it.


 
Maybe not in Glasgow but the experience of Dublinbikes is similar - 3 million journeys to date and no serious injuries there either.

London has fast and slow roads too. There are plenty of dual carriageway stretches in central London with fast (for urban) speeds. I certainly don't think Glasgow has the monopoly on them. Where I think London does have an advantage though is bikes are now so common on the roads that drivers are starting to expect them to be there - even on the high speed roads - rather than being surprised when coming across one.

The problem with using your brain, often referred to as common sense, is that often in cycling common sense gives the wrong answer. So for example common sense is to get out of the way of cars in the gutter, not to ride in the middle of the lane.


----------



## Red Light (24 Apr 2012)

slowmotion said:


> I wonder what the figures would be if they were expressed as serious injuries per thousand miles. I'm guessing that the average Boris trip is a whole lot shorter than the average non-Boris one.


 
Not much shorter. The average Boris Bike (BoJo Boris not BaJic Boris) is 4km according to TfL so getting on for 40m km so far without a fatality or serious injury. The figures for London cycling in general are close to the national average of one fatality per 50m km and one serious injury per 2m km making Boris Bikes at least 20 times safer on a per km basis.


----------



## slowmotion (24 Apr 2012)

Hmmmm. Could they be safer because very few Boris bikers wear helmets?


----------



## Pat "5mph" (24 Apr 2012)

Red Light said:


> The problem with using your brain, often referred to as common sense, is that often in cycling common sense gives the wrong answer. So for example common sense is to get out of the way of cars in the gutter, not to ride in the middle of the lane.


 
Yeah, you said that before: I followed your tips, posted the resulting experiences in the "fear of road riding" thread .... go, have a read and a laugh.


----------



## Red Light (24 Apr 2012)

slowmotion said:


> Hmmmm. Could they be safer because very few Boris bikers wear helmets?


 
From my observation they are safer because they are unpredictable - you can see drivers being more cautious around them and giving them more room in a "not sure what are they going to do" sort of way.


----------



## lukesdad (24 Apr 2012)

slowmotion said:


> Hmmmm. Could they be safer because very few Boris bikers wear helmets?


 no its cos most of them are ridden round the london parks


----------



## Red Light (24 Apr 2012)

Pat "5mph" said:


> Yeah, you said that before: I followed your tips, posted the resulting experiences in the "fear of road riding" thread .... go, have a read and a laugh.


 
Yes you did but three things stand out from that thread. You have only been riding on the roads for a month which is not long. When you first posted two and a half weeks ago you had feelings of dread riding on the roads but by ten days ago by sticking with it you were starting to feel comfortable at non-peak times. That rate of progress is good. Probably the only difference between you and me is I have been doing it a lot longer so am much further up the comfort curve in traffic than you are at present. But it will come with time.


----------



## lukesdad (24 Apr 2012)

1821342 said:


> Do you have a source for that?


 A ha ! Adrian as it happens I do... Me.


----------



## lukesdad (24 Apr 2012)

...and funnily enough most of them seemed to be lying on the grass in said parks, whilst their pilots endulged in all sorts of weird and wonderful activitys near by.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (24 Apr 2012)

lukesdad said:


> ...and funnily enough most of them seemed to be lying on the grass in said parks, whilst their pilots endulged in all sorts of weird and wonderful activitys near by.


What a marvel! Here, lying in the park next to their owners, you will find vast quantities of alcoholic beverages ....


----------



## lukesdad (24 Apr 2012)

Wish we had parks to lie in.


----------



## smutchin (24 Apr 2012)

Red Light said:


> Maybe not in Glasgow but the experience of Dublinbikes is similar - 3 million journeys to date and no serious injuries there either.



I was in Dublin last week and I was struck by what a cycling-friendly city it is compared to London - there seems to be a lot more proper cycling infrastructure, for a start (ie properly separate bike lanes). And junctions seem to be much better designed from the point of view of cyclists and pedestrians than in London. 

Of course, Dublin also has the advantage of big wide roads (in the Georgian bits anyway) and much lower traffic density.

The Dublinbikes look good too - not quite the behemoths we have in London. 

d.


----------



## Red Light (24 Apr 2012)

smutchin said:


> I was in Dublin last week and I was struck by what a cycling-friendly city it is compared to London - there seems to be a lot more proper cycling infrastructure, for a start (ie properly separate bike lanes). And junctions seem to be much better designed from the point of view of cyclists and pedestrians than in London.
> 
> Of course, Dublin also has the advantage of big wide roads (in the Georgian bits anyway) and much lower traffic density.
> 
> ...


 
They also have the advantage of banning lorries from the city.


----------



## ufkacbln (25 Apr 2012)

smutchin said:


> I was in Dublin last week and I was struck by what a cycling-friendly city it is compared to London - there seems to be a lot more proper cycling infrastructure, for a start *(ie properly separate bike lanes).*
> 
> d.


 
I have a big problem with this. Cycle lanes are not in any way part of the road infrastructure, they are ghettos where those of a car-centric society want to place those they are excluding from the road user's society.

They are an all too easy sticking plaster to remove the victims rather than deal with the issues of sharing the road.......and unfortunately exacerbates the already poor situation by reinforcing the concept that cyclists don't "belong on the roads"


----------



## Red Light (25 Apr 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> I have a big problem with this. Cycle lanes are not in any way part of the road infrastructure, they are ghettos where those of a car-centric society want to place those they are excluding from the road user's society.
> 
> They are an all too easy sticking plaster to remove the victims rather than deal with the issues of sharing the road.......and unfortunately exacerbates the already poor situation by reinforcing the concept that cyclists don't "belong on the roads"


 
Also if you look at the construction of the cycle lane network in Dublin it led to a fall in cycling. The introduction of the Dublinbikes led to a big increase in cycling in contrast.


----------



## smutchin (25 Apr 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> I have a big problem with this. Cycle lanes are not in any way part of the road infrastructure, they are ghettos where those of a car-centric society want to place those they are excluding from the road user's society.


 
Yes and no... I take your point about ghettoisation of cyclists, but if you look at somewhere like Blackfriars Bridge, the introduction of cycle lanes (segregated by a foot-high kerb) has reduced the amount of roadspace available to other traffic, which hopefully discourages motorists from using that route. (Of course, the Blackfriars cycle lanes were a side effect of traffic reduction measures for other reasons rather than the result of pro-cycling policy, but the net result is the same and shows what could be done if the will were there.)

Even as a fearless Lycra-clad Urban Road Warrior who doesn't bat an eyelid at negotiating Elephant & Castle by bike, I would favour routes free of motor transport if I had the option.

However, I've taken note of Red Light's interesting point about the reduction of cycling in Dublin. The argument in favour of segregated lanes tends to be that more people would cycle if they had that protection. Maybe it's more complex than that...



> They are an all too easy sticking plaster to remove the victims rather than deal with the issues of sharing the road.......and unfortunately exacerbates the already poor situation by reinforcing the concept that cyclists don't "belong on the roads"


 
...and this is why. Building proper infrastructure shouldn't be a standalone measure - it should be carried out in tandem with a campaign of education to improve the behaviour of motorists towards more vulnerable road users (pedestrians as well as cyclists), as well as further restrictions on motorists to make driving an even less attractive option in cities (and much stricter enforcement of traffic infringements by motorists).

So despite your valid concerns, I would be strongly in favour of more cycling infrastructure in London - as long as it were implemented in a way that genuinely promoted cycling and discouraged driving.

d.


----------



## tyred (25 Apr 2012)

The thing you need to remember about Irish cycle lanes is that their use is generally compulsory.


----------



## smutchin (25 Apr 2012)

tyred said:


> The thing you need to remember about Irish cycle lanes is that their use is generally compulsory.


 
That's not a hardship when the facilities provided are so good, surely? It's not the same as if we were forced to cycle on the token bits of blue paint we have in London.

(Also, it's only compulsory to use them where they exist - I saw plenty of cyclists using the main carriageway on roads without cycle lanes, and even cyclists on the main road parallel to the cycle lane that runs along by the canal.)

d.


----------



## tyred (25 Apr 2012)

smutchin said:


> That's not a hardship when the facilities provided are so good, surely? It's not the same as if we were forced to cycle on the token bits of blue paint we have in London.
> 
> d.



I know a lot of people seem to complain about them, the same reasons I read about in the UK - broken bottles, poor surfaces, etc. I live a long way away from Dublin and have never used any of these facilities so won't comment myself. I agree, if they are well designed and go to places people want to travel to, then it's fine, I would be happy to use cycle paths myself but I don't believe it should be compulsory in towns. Alongside busy highspeed routes, maybe, but not in a normal urban environment.


----------



## smutchin (25 Apr 2012)

tyred said:


> I know a lot of people seem to complain about them, the same reasons I read about in the UK - broken bottles, poor surfaces, etc.


 
The ones I saw looked great but admittedly I didn't go outside a fairly limited area.

d.


----------



## HLaB (25 Apr 2012)

[QUOTE 1821875, member: 45"]Interesting. Where did you read this? The only info I can get is that the number of cyclists riding into the city has increased (this obviously doesn't include Dublinbikes) over the last 10 years, but I can't see anything about any decrease as a result of cycling infrastructure.[/quote]
I've not read thing so it was in hear say that I heard it from a friend (Member of the Dublin Cycling Campaign) when I was living in Dublin. Dublin had large numbers of cyclists back in the 60,70 & 80's but the introduction of farcilities coincided with numbers falling during the late 90's early 00s. I guess the DCC might have figure on it but how unbiased


----------



## Red Light (25 Apr 2012)

[QUOTE 1821875, member: 45"]Interesting. Where did you read this? The only info I can get is that the number of cyclists riding into the city has increased (this obviously doesn't include Dublinbikes) over the last 10 years, but I can't see anything about any decrease as a result of cycling infrastructure.[/quote]

There are cordon counts with the data available on-line covering the period before, during and after construction which show a 15% decrease in cycling. You'll need to dig them out yourself though as its some time since I did that and I don't have the links now.


----------



## Red Light (25 Apr 2012)

smutchin said:


> However, I've taken note of Red Light's interesting point about the reduction of cycling in Dublin. The argument in favour of segregated lanes tends to be that more people would cycle if they had that protection. Maybe it's more complex than that...


 
A study of cycle routes in 7 UK towns found they didn't encourage people to cycle: 

_"Constructing safe routes did not of itself encourage those who own cycles - but do not currently use them - to start cycling"_​(DfT Traffic Advisory Leaflet 3/95)​


----------



## ufkacbln (26 Apr 2012)

tyred said:


> I know a lot of people seem to complain about them, the same reasons I read about in the UK - broken bottles, poor surfaces, etc. I live a long way away from Dublin and have never used any of these facilities so won't comment myself. I agree, if they are well designed and go to places people want to travel to, then it's fine, I would be happy to use cycle paths myself but I don't believe it should be compulsory in towns. Alongside busy highspeed routes, maybe, but not in a normal urban environment.


 
We have an interesting case in Gosport at the moment.

There is a new "Bus Rapid Transport" route that is being touted as an answer to congestion on the A32. It is open to busses and cyclist and is at the moment seeing more cyclists than bus passengers!

Access is restricted to two or three points and it serves the West of Fareham, but has no links for those travelling East.

We already have the "why are cyclists still using the A32?" comments.

Now the route is technically better for cyclists as it is pedestrian free, no dogs and other "Hazards" and the next stage will take over a present cycle path. However what is missing so far are the children, the "pootlers" and the oler riders that can be found in abundance on the present cycle track despite it's "limitations"


----------

