# How dangerous is cycling?



## alp1950 (25 Sep 2008)

How dangerous is cycling? 

It seems that almost every day these forums contain details of another cycling fatality or near miss. Telling people I was returning to cycling elicited stories of experienced cyclists being knocked off their bikes. Then Cycling Plus magazine quoted the statistic that _"you'd have to pedal for 3,000 miles before suffering a head injury-threatening accident"_. Hang on- I've got a 30 mile round trip commute- that's only 100 journeys.

If cycling is really that dangerous we shouldn't just stop with the helmet, don't we need body armour as well?


----------



## Jaded (25 Sep 2008)

Isn't it something like 300,000 miles?

People rush to post about deaths on here, terrible as they are. However they don't rush to post "cyclist completed journey safely". If they did such a post for every cyclist that completed a journey safely you'd never see the death reporting threads - they'd be completely swamped.

Sadly there are around 140 people killed on a bike a year. If all of them were reported here you'd expect a death reported about once every 3 days. 


You are more likely to die of death than die whilst cycling.


----------



## Perry (25 Sep 2008)

Cycling is very safe, it's the other road traffic that's dangerous.


----------



## dondare (25 Sep 2008)

3000 miles is a misprint or some such. The probability of a fatal head injury is once every 3000 _years_ of cycling.


----------



## dondare (25 Sep 2008)

And another thing, cycling protects you from heart attacks, which are still Britain's biggest killer. It's much more dangerous _not_ to cycle.


----------



## mr_cellophane (25 Sep 2008)

dondare said:


> 3000 miles is a misprint or some such. The probability of a fatal head injury is once every 3000 _years_ of cycling.



Head injuries don't have to be fatal to ruin your life. A broken arm will mend, a broken head won't so easily.


----------



## dondare (25 Sep 2008)

It's still a case of heart attacks being a bigger danger to non-cyclists than road accidents are to cyclists. They don't have to be fatal to ruin your life, either.


----------



## Jaded (25 Sep 2008)

dondare said:


> 3000 miles is a misprint or some such. The probability of a fatal head injury is once every 3000 _years_ of cycling.



I knew there was some huge figure in there!


----------



## Jaded (25 Sep 2008)

dondare said:


> It's still a case of heart attacks being a bigger danger to non-cyclists than road accidents are to cyclists. They don't have to be fatal to ruin your life, either.



Indeed, but if you spread FUD you an sell more helmets!


----------



## dondare (25 Sep 2008)

Just checked this; it's not a fatal head injury every 3000 years, it's a fatal or serious accident every 20,000 years.
That 3000 figure might be 3000 million miles.


----------



## Riding in Circles (25 Sep 2008)

I have been cycling on two wheels and more recently (last 8 years), on three wheels for over 30 years, I do about 10,000 miles a year on all sorts of roads including busy city and A/B roads and to the best of my knowledge I have not been killed once, nor have I ever had anything worse than road rash and I rarely wear a helmet and I go very very fast at times.


----------



## Cab (25 Sep 2008)

alp1950 said:


> Then Cycling Plus magazine quoted the statistic that _"you'd have to _


_

Do me a favour, could you check that figure? Does Cycling Plus really say that? Wouldn't surprise me if they did (their editorial standards have just occasionally let down what is otherwise a good read), but if they have said that then it is important that they're informed so that they can correct this figure in the next issue, before it becomes widely quoted._


----------



## dondare (25 Sep 2008)

Yes, they really say that but it's obviously a mistake. But even if they meant 3000 million kilometres (which would be consistant with other estimates) then it'd be a case of misleading statistics, because the more miles you cycle the less likely you are to have an accident in future.


----------



## botchjob (25 Sep 2008)

The statistic that I remember is that a cyclist would have to cycle non-stop for something like 150 years before they were due a fatal accident. Can't remember where that stat came from but i'm more than happy to take those odds


----------



## papercorn2000 (25 Sep 2008)

Cycling is very dangerous if done properly!


----------



## Jake (25 Sep 2008)

no matter how careful you are, there is alwasy a nutter in a bigger tuffer faster viechle waiting/wanting to run you over.


----------



## Jaded (25 Sep 2008)

Jake said:


> no matter how careful you are, there is alwasy a nutter in a bigger tuffer faster viechle waiting/wanting to run you over.



I know.

Luckily that's only for pedestrians


----------



## magnatom (25 Sep 2008)

I think the risk from cycling falls somewhere between the risk from knitting and from base jumping. I know which one I'd rather do, so I'm not sure what that says about the risk of cycling......


----------



## Jake (25 Sep 2008)

and the glorious BBC says:

Road deaths fall to record lows
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7635345.stm


----------



## dondare (25 Sep 2008)

The risks for cyclists lie somewhere between the risks for pedestrians and the risks for motorists.


----------



## palinurus (25 Sep 2008)

Wardlaw, Cycling & Risk

I've posted this link before when this subject comes up. It's worth Googling the author and looking up some of his other papers too.


----------



## dondare (25 Sep 2008)

Jake said:


> and the glorious BBC says:
> 
> Road deaths fall to record lows
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7635345.stm




They are, in spite of what's just happened the roads are getting safer. Last year the number of deaths was less than 3000 for the first time since records were started 40 years ago.

As far as cyclists in London are concerned the trend is the same, here's another quote: 
"In 2005, 20 cyclists were killed and 338 injured on London's roads. In 2006, 18 were killed and 349 injured and last year 14 died and 253 were injured."

At this rate it'll be none at all in 7 to 10 years time.


----------



## Jake (25 Sep 2008)

none left you mean? ;o)


----------



## Shady (25 Sep 2008)

If you want to get the specifics here's a good website link for the stats for 2007 :

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistic...ns/accidents/casualtiesmr/rcgbmainresults2007

But the important bit for us cyclists is :

"The number of pedal cyclists killed fell by 7 per cent from 146 in 2006 to 136 in 2007. The number of seriously injured rose by 6 per cent to 2,428. The total casualties among pedal cyclists remained at the same level as 2006."

Also if you are interested :

"Very few, if any, fatal accidents do not become known to the police. However, research conducted on behalf of the Department in the 1990's has shown that a significant proportion of non-fatal injury accidents are not reported to the police. In addition, some casualties reported to the police are not recorded and the severity of injury tends to be underestimated."

The highest number of deaths on the road are car drivers/passengers but that is due to the massive amounts of them on the road - if you are basing it on amount of deaths compared to amount on/near the road then one specific group, stands out as a clear winner, which is ...

...

...

...

...

...

Pedestrians! - so if you are worried about cycling on the road, then be more worried about walking near any roads again!!

There are roughly 5 times as many pedestrian deaths a year compared to cyclists, but remember the old phrase which relates to all road users - "You could get hit by a bus tomorrow".

Life's too short to worry about risks otherwise you would never leave the house, but then again there are a staggering number of deaths from accidents in the home as well - better live in a concrete bunker away from the world, but then again.....


----------



## byegad (25 Sep 2008)

dondare said:


> Just checked this; it's not a fatal head injury every 3000 years, it's a fatal or serious accident every 20,000 years.
> That 3000 figure might be 3000 million miles.



I better start worrying, the way I came over the last bank today I feel 19,999 years old today!


----------



## pinkkaz (25 Sep 2008)

Shady said:


> There are roughly 5 times as many pedestrian deaths a year compared to cyclists, but remember the old phrase which relates to all road users - "You could get hit by a bus tomorrow".



Although there are presumably more than 5 times as many cyclists full stop compared to pedestrians!


----------



## Trillian (25 Sep 2008)

alp1950 said:


> How dangerous is cycling?
> 
> If cycling is really that dangerous we shouldn't just stop with the helmet, don't we need body armour as well?




"its a car problem, why try to solve it with a styrofoam hat?"

ps, i do choose to wear a helmet


----------



## alp1950 (25 Sep 2008)

Shady said:


> If you want to get the specifics here's a good website link for the stats for 2007 :
> 
> http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistic...ns/accidents/casualtiesmr/rcgbmainresults2007





palinurus said:


> Wardlaw, Cycling & Risk
> 
> I've posted this link before when this subject comes up. It's worth Googling the author and looking up some of his other papers too.



Thanks Palinurus and Shady, I guessed that someone would link to the appropriate papers. Not sure I believe this stuff about it being more dangerous to be a pedestrian..sure there are more casualties but what's the denominator? (I bet there are at least 100 pedestrians for each cyclist). What is striking is how much more dangerous it is to ride motor bikes: roughly same number of overall incidents as cyclists, but motor cyclists much more likely to be killed or seriously injured.



dondare said:


> 3000 miles is a misprint or some such. The probability of a fatal head injury is once every 3000 _years_ of cycling.


This figure had to be wrong, nice to have it confirmed.


----------



## hackbike 6 (25 Sep 2008)

Saw another pedestrian lying on the pavement this time...Incident down the Romford Road @ Forest Gate going towards Ilford approx 6:45pm guess she had been hit by the car that had stopped...Saw an ambulance car thingy proceeding from Ilford direction to attend the scene...Hope she was alright.

Had an incident of my own...Was absolutely haring down from Whipps Cross on my return from Ilford...Yes I know I overtook a car on the inside (shock horror) as I was under the impression the car driver wasn't concentrating then one of BM's mates with no lights or anything reflective drove right off of the pavement onto the ped crossing onto the road in the same direction I was travelling (POB).I saw him very late due to a dark bit of pavement though managed to blow the horn as I passed him while also shouting 'Twat'....neither provoked any reaction but that was one hell of an instinctive reaction considering I didn't know how close that car was behind me.


----------



## hackbike 6 (25 Sep 2008)

Yes but I absolutely didn't see this POB till I was 10/20 yards off of him plus the fact of the movement off of the pavement onto the road.I missed him and saved myself but people can't ride like that surely?


----------



## BentMikey (26 Sep 2008)

User3143 said:


> In addition I think the problem now is that more and more people are commuting by bike, and are completly new to it or have not rode a bike since passing their driving test twenty years. They have not got the necessary skills or competence to commute in rush hour trafffic. I remember reading somewhere that this is this is one of the reasons why deaths from cycling in London have risen in the last couple of years



I thought deaths had gone down in actual numbers, and had gone down quite significantly as a rate given the huge increase in cycling? Skills and competence have some effect on overall cycling safety, but a much bigger one comes from the "safety in numbers" effect.


----------



## Shady (26 Sep 2008)

Here's some brief stats for 2007 :

Pedestrians : 30,191 casualties with 646 killed - 2.14 %

Cyclists : 16,195 casualties with 136 killed - 0.84%

Motorcyclists : 23,459 with 588 killed - 2.51 %

Cars : 161,433 casualties with 1,432 killed - 0.89 %

Buses / Coaches : 7,079 casualties with 12 killed - 0.17 %

Goods Vehicles : 7,816 casualties with 110 killed - 1.41 %

So the highest number of vulnerable road users killed was pedestrians with over 2% of casualties being deaths compared with 0.84% of cycling casualties being killed.

Without having the exact numbers of cyclists/motorists/motorcyclists on the road its hard to get an approximate estimation of the risk.

However there are stats to calculate number of deaths per 100 million kilometres travelled :

Cyclists : 3.5 deaths

Motorcyclists : 13 deaths

Cars : 0.9 deaths

Buses / Coaches : 2.2 deaths

Goods Vehicles : 1.6 deaths

Based on those stats, in theory you would have to cycle 28,571,428.5 kms or 17,857,142.9 miles to hit the statistical number to possibly die in a fatal accident.

As an aside there is also a breakdown of injuries per area for cyclists, of all pedal cycling injuries - 39% head/face, 2% neck, upper back 5%, arms/shoulders 43%, lower back 8%, legs/hips 24%. I tend to wear a helmet!! But looking at that breakdown I may start wearing body armour!

Morbid reading in a morning but if you wanted the exact facts or statistics...!!


----------



## Jaded (26 Sep 2008)

> However there are stats to calculate number of deaths per 100 million kilometres travelled :
> 
> Cyclists : 3.5 deaths
> 
> ...



Given the perceived vulnerability of cyclists over all other forms of transport, those are figures that should be printed at the bottom of every scare story about danger.

When you take out all those deaths caused by poor cycling and all those deaths that occurred off-road (as opposed to a lack of "safety" equipment) you'd probably see an even cycling as an even more 'safe' activity.

Surely the emphasis must be on educating cyclists not to ride up the inside of a lorry, etc., rather than preaching at them to wear "protective" clothing.


----------



## hackbike 6 (26 Sep 2008)

What about Peds again?
I saw one lying on the pavement after an `incident`yesterday (check earlier post) and that must be the third time in less than 10 years.There are a lot out there who are reckless and it's got worse but that POB last night really took the biscuit.


----------



## Andy Pandy (26 Sep 2008)

Shady said:


> Cyclists : 3.5 deaths
> 
> Motorcyclists : 13 deaths
> 
> ...



Can't help but feel that a comparison based on the rate per kilometer traveled is a bit unfair for bikes. It takes a bit much more time to complete a set distance on a bike than any of the other forms of transport quoted. Has anyone seen the figures quoted per hour travel time?


----------



## marinyork (26 Sep 2008)

I don't really regard cycling as a very dangerous activity, you only need to look at the stats above to see that.

What I do think is that with cyclists who haven't ever commuted and non-cyclists or those considering taking it up or are much more occasional users there is wild variation in opinions of how "dangerous" particular roads/paths/times/helmets/other factor is.


----------



## col (26 Sep 2008)

Im not a great fan of stats,as it can be misleading in some ways.For example,a platoon of say 30 soldiers goes to war,now one in ten will get killed going on the stats,but unfortunately 25 get killed,and only five return,where are the stats on that?Do you see what im trying to say?


----------



## Cab (26 Sep 2008)

col said:


> Do you see what im trying to say?



No. Sorry.


----------



## Cab (26 Sep 2008)

Shady said:


> Morbid reading in a morning but if you wanted the exact facts or statistics...!!



Awesome post Shady. Thank you!

The only thing to ask would be whether accident rate per unit distance travelled is the best measure; with the best will in the world the average cycling journey won't be as long as the average car or coach journey, I suspect that the short average distance of our journeys (concentrating our trips into those parts of a trip that are dangerous for all road users, from and to busy destinations) makes cycling look rather more dangerous per unit distance than it really is.


----------



## yello (26 Sep 2008)

Stats are no comfort if you happen to be that 1 in a million. 

There is no 'one size fits all' agreement on what is dangerous and what isn't so whether cycling is or isn't dangerous is a matter of personal opinion.

But I do think it wise to think of cycling as having risk (if you want to call that dangerous then that's up to you) and to mitigate wherever possible for that risk. Again, how you do that is your own call.

'bout as much use as something that's no sodding use aren't I?


----------



## col (26 Sep 2008)

Cab said:


> No. Sorry.



No need to apologise.What im saying is these stats are an average i think,but sometimes nothing can happen and sometimes lots can happen all at once.So in reality its very unlikely we are going to get killed or injured on the road,so its not as dangerous as some believe?


----------



## Cab (26 Sep 2008)

yello said:


> Stats are no comfort if you happen to be that 1 in a million.
> 
> There is no 'one size fits all' agreement on what is dangerous and what isn't so whether cycling is or isn't dangerous is a matter of personal opinion.



I'm sorry, but you're simply wrong. To argue that something is dangerous in the face of overwhelming evidence that this is not so is to demonstrate that your personal opinion is incorrect. Contrary to what modern educationalists insist on teaching, there _is_ such a thing as being wrong 



> But I do think it wise to think of cycling as having risk (if you want to call that dangerous then that's up to you) and to mitigate wherever possible for that risk. Again, how you do that is your own call.
> 
> 'bout as much use as something that's no sodding use aren't I?



It is certainly true that even a small risk is worth making even smaller if you can do so; and thats what safe cycling is all about.


----------



## Cab (26 Sep 2008)

col said:


> No need to apologise.What im saying is these stats are an average i think,but sometimes nothing can happen and sometimes lots can happen all at once.So in reality its very unlikely we are going to get killed or injured on the road,so its not as dangerous as some believe?



True enough... But however you try to weigh up the stats on cycling accidents, its hard to show that it is actually dangerous.


----------



## col (26 Sep 2008)

I agree on paper it is hard to show going on those stats.But its a dangerous thing in some situations,but we can minimise that risk by our cycling ways,I suppose its a common sense thing,but i wouldnt try to claim for one second that cycling on roads where cars busses and lorries are is generally a 100%safe thing to do.


----------



## dondare (26 Sep 2008)

Cab said:


> Awesome post Shady. Thank you!
> 
> The only thing to ask would be whether accident rate per unit distance travelled is the best measure; with the best will in the world the average cycling journey won't be as long as the average car or coach journey, I suspect that the short average distance of our journeys (concentrating our trips into those parts of a trip that are dangerous for all road users, from and to busy destinations) makes cycling look rather more dangerous per unit distance than it really is.



I wonder how long the average car journey is? I'm sure that my 11 mile each way commute is longer than the kind of trips made by most car commuters and school-runners, but their average is bumped up enormously by very long journeys at week-ends and holidays when they use motorways - roads with all the hazards designed out of them and consequently a relatively low accident rate.


----------



## snorri (26 Sep 2008)

dondare said:


> They are, in spite of what's just happened the roads are getting safer.



I think your analysis of the statistics is faulty.

There has been a dramatic decrease in the numbers of vulnerable road users on our UK roads (London possibly excepted) in the last 50 years. Many people now consider the roads to dangerous to walk or cycle on, horse riders on the road are now as scarce as hens teeth. Our roads are more dangerous than they have ever been, but the reduction in vulnerable users has led to a decrease in the KSI figures leading some to conclude the roads have become safer.


----------



## ferret fur (26 Sep 2008)

I'm sorry, but I am really suspicious of a lot of the stats produced about cycling. For example in the Wardlaw paper quoted above he says things which don't make sense:

'The average cyclist has a death risk of 0.0083%' but 136 cyclists are killed in a year. Which if my calculations are correct means that there should be around 17million cyclists in this country. Yet he also says that only 7% of the population cycle regularly which adds up to 4.2million. Based on the latter figure the risk becomes 0.032%: not high I grant you but 4 times greater than Wardlaw implies

You can kick around these figures as much as you like, & I have no idea how accurate the various methodologies are but ultimately I know that in my 5000 miles a year I cycle I am exposed to far more risk than when I drive or walk. It doesn't stop me riding a bike, but it makes me think that a lot of the attempts to quantify the risk are deeply suspect.


----------



## yello (26 Sep 2008)

Cab said:


> I'm sorry, but you're simply wrong.



No, YOU'RE wrong and my dad's a fireman!



> To argue that something is dangerous in the face of overwhelming evidence that this is not so is to demonstrate that your personal opinion is incorrect.



Well I didn't actually say whether I considered cycling dangerous or not but, that aside, danger is a personal assessment based on your own experience and abilities. For instance, I'd consider sky diving to be dangerous but a trained and practised sky diver wouldn't necessarily agree. Opinion can never be incorrect; you are fully entitled to disagree with it but it cannot be wrong. I suggest you look up the word "subjective" in the dictionary!


----------



## Cab (26 Sep 2008)

col said:


> I agree on paper it is hard to show going on those stats.But its a dangerous thing in some situations,but we can minimise that risk by our cycling ways,I suppose its a common sense thing,but i wouldnt try to claim for one second that cycling on roads where cars busses and lorries are is generally a 100%safe thing to do.



Go look at the numbers again. Cycling is generally a 100% safe thing to do. Thats as clear as getting on the bus being generally a 100% safe thing to do.


----------



## Cab (26 Sep 2008)

dondare said:


> I wonder how long the average car journey is? I'm sure that my 11 mile each way commute is longer than the kind of trips made by most car commuters and school-runners, but their average is bumped up enormously by very long journeys at week-ends and holidays when they use motorways - roads with all the hazards designed out of them and consequently a relatively low accident rate.



Precisely so; we simply don't use the roads that are specifically designed with great visibility for fast, long distance travel. Not just the motorways, but many of the dual carriageway A-roads are also as near as dammit off limits. I'll wager that if you could take those out of the equation and actually do a like for like comparison on the same roads, there would be _very_ little difference in risk.


----------



## Cab (26 Sep 2008)

yello said:


> No, YOU'RE wrong and my dad's a fireman!



Is he? My dads more stubborn than your dad though.



> Well I didn't actually say whether I considered cycling dangerous or not but, that aside, danger is a personal assessment based on your own experience and abilities. For instance, I'd consider sky diving to be dangerous but a trained and practised sky diver wouldn't necessarily agree. Opinion can never be incorrect; you are fully entitled to disagree with it but it cannot be wrong. I suggest you look up the word "subjective" in the dictionary!



Risk is not a subjective judgement though, its a measruable phenomenon. Perception of risk is very variable. I think perhaps we mean the same thing but are using different terminology.


----------



## marinyork (26 Sep 2008)

Opinion can never be incorrect? Surely disagreements are minor, we're more talking perceptions.

I live near two junctions both that have had ped, motorist and cycling fatalities over the years. The stats aren't that wrong but of course there are particular places that are dangerous but it's important to say why they are dangerous and which ones are more/less applicable to cyclists. The place is dangerous because you get RLJing of motorists and the centre of the road is raised leading to a partial blind view of oncoming traffic. Couple with incredibly aggression it's been the scene of many a near miss over the years.


----------



## col (26 Sep 2008)

Cab said:


> Go look at the numbers again. Cycling is generally a 100% safe thing to do. Thats as clear as getting on the bus being generally a 100% safe thing to do.



Thats just it,according to the stats.But the reality is we move around and amongst large heavy and sometimes it seems blind vehicles,so what percentage would you give to being safe with all these around you?


----------



## hackbike 6 (26 Sep 2008)

*Go look at the numbers again. Cycling is generally a 100% safe thing to do. Thats as clear as getting on the bus being generally a 100% safe thing to do.*

eh?


----------



## col (26 Sep 2008)

> How do you want the numbers presented? Deaths per bike, per rider, per mile travelled, per journey, per mile on-road?



None thanks,ill just use common sense.


----------



## yello (26 Sep 2008)

Cab said:


> Perception of risk is very variable. I think perhaps we mean the same thing but are using different terminology.



Yep, agreed. On both counts.


----------



## col (26 Sep 2008)

> I don't understand. If you want a measure, then common sense isn't enough.




i dont want a measure,ill just be as carefull as i can on the road,you can have a measure of x number killed in x number of miles,and still claim its safe,but that is misleading.


----------



## yello (26 Sep 2008)

marinyork said:


> Opinion can never be incorrect? *Surely disagreements are minor*, we're more talking perceptions..



I don't really understand the bit I put in bold but, yes, I'm talking perceptions. Perceptions and, to a degree, semantics.

Apologies, I have an interest in language use and I sometimes see disagreements as fundamentally about a difference in the understanding of the terminology rather than a substantive difference of opinion (which is, I suspect, what you've just said marinyork but in much fewer words!). So, if one considers opinions as based on a personal understanding of the language and personal perception then, yes, opinions cannot be incorrect. 

Conversely, if you think opinion is fact based and you can find universal agreement on both the facts and the terminology used to describe those facts then opinions can be false.

"When I use the word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I chose it to mean – neither more nor less."


----------



## ferret fur (26 Sep 2008)

> If you were told that one car driver is killed for every commuting 10,000 miles driven, and one cyclist is killed for every commuting 3,000 miles driven, would you accept that one is more dangerous than the other, or just go off what you think?



Yes but... If your personal experience is really at odds with the _facts_, there are one of two options. Either you are wrong or the facts are. 

The people coming out with the stats are clearly not unbiased. I applaud their commitment to cycling but what they are saying about relative safety is hugely different from my subjective experience as a cyclist. I just don't accept that their risk statistics are accurate.
Here's an example of how the figures seem unreliable:

Wardlaws figures say the average person cycles 36 miles a year but that 'active' cyclists travel 800-1000 miles per year (at an average speed of 8 miles an hour!). Pedestrian figures are given as 190 per year , but no figure is given for 'active' pedestrians. I accept that the ratio between active and average miles is likely to be greater when considering cycling, but you are still not comparing like with like. Even if you only double the figure for active pedestrians (as opposed to multiplying by 22 for cycling) you still considerably reduce the effective risk to an active pedestrian. (halve it in fact)

Until the figures are shown to be reliable I don't think it is irrational to prefer personal experience on the road to dodgy stats.


----------



## col (26 Sep 2008)

> But how careful are you planning on being, if you don't know how dangerous it is?
> 
> If you were told that one car driver is killed for every commuting 10,000 miles driven, and one cyclist is killed for every commuting 3,000 miles driven, would you accept that one is more dangerous than the other, or just go off what you think?



The problem with being on the roads is it is unpradictable,you just dont know if someone is going to be looking or not at the right time,this is why some get rear ended,a figure cant tell you how dangerous it is,it just records something that happened,but there are lots more times when it was just blind luck or the skill /awareness of the cyclist that stopped anything happening.None of us can say how dangerous it is,but it gets that way in different ways,just keep your wits about you and cycle in the safest way you can.
Is there stats for bruises,or broken bones,or if knocked off but got on again to cycle away?These are things that it doesnt say on the number of deaths yearly ,but ill bet a good few could have been pretty close to it,or just lucky in not being killed.


----------



## col (26 Sep 2008)

> Stats can work for comparison if done properly.



I agree,but saying x number were killed in x time or miles isnt,it takes nothing else into account,and the possible numbers of nearly killed or injured.


----------



## hackbike 6 (26 Sep 2008)

You've got a weird signature.


----------



## fossyant (26 Sep 2008)

Bank on a nasty incident, own fault or other road user, every 3-4 years...you'll be fine !!

Nasty as being a broken bone, bad road rash etc.... nothing major though - quick trip to casualty....

That seems to be my average.


----------



## hackbike 6 (26 Sep 2008)

Had one last night,that was a nasty one.


----------



## col (26 Sep 2008)

hackbike 6 said:


> You've got a weird signature.




Who me?


----------



## atbman (26 Sep 2008)

Cycling isn't dangerous, it's being brought to a sudden and violent halt by a motor vehcle that's dangerous


----------



## col (26 Sep 2008)

atbman said:


> Cycling isn't dangerous, it's being brought to a sudden and violent halt by a motor vehcle that's dangerous



Thats the point,we could be the best cyclist ever,but we still rely on the driver looking right when pulling out,and looking left when turning ect,the car full of teenagers laughing and joking listening to music,the family car where the driver is distracted by the kids or pets,the driver checking the map ,the list is endless. It seems to me that there is a lot of luck involved in our safety out there?doesnt sound so safe now does it?


----------



## hackbike 6 (26 Sep 2008)

atbman said:


> Cycling isn't dangerous, it's being brought to a sudden and violent halt by a motor vehcle that's dangerous




Or a ped.


----------



## Cab (26 Sep 2008)

col said:


> Thats just it,according to the stats.But the reality is we move around and amongst large heavy and sometimes it seems blind vehicles,so what percentage would you give to being safe with all these around you?



Approaching 100%


----------



## Jaded (26 Sep 2008)

col said:


> Thats the point,we could be the best cyclist ever,but we still rely on the driver looking right when pulling out,and looking left when turning ect,the car full of teenagers laughing and joking listening to music,the family car where the driver is distracted by the kids or pets,the driver checking the map ,the list is endless. It seems to me that there is a lot of luck involved in our safety out there?doesnt sound so safe now does it?



If it was as bad as you think it is you'd be dead now.


----------



## Jaded (26 Sep 2008)

> How do you want the numbers presented? Deaths per bike, per rider, per mile travelled, per journey, per mile on-road?



I think we should report it as number of deaths each dead cyclist has. If it is one per dead cyclist then that puts all the other nonsense stats to bed. 

We'd know cycling kills.


----------



## col (26 Sep 2008)

Jaded said:


> If it was as bad as you think it is you'd be dead now.



All im saying is its not totaly safe,and those stats dont tell the whole story.


----------



## Cab (26 Sep 2008)

col said:


> All im saying is its not totaly safe,and those stats dont tell the whole story.



Of course they tell the whole story. They just do so with incredible brevity. They show that cycling is, as near as dammit, entirely safe. They also show that motoring is, as near as dammit, entirely safe. You can make arguments that sometimes _any_ activity is more risky than at other times... What of it?


----------



## Jaded (26 Sep 2008)

col said:


> All im saying is its not totaly safe,and those stats dont tell the whole story.



They tell the facts. 

They don't tell a story, that appears to be your job.


----------



## alp1950 (27 Sep 2008)

Shady said:


> Here's some brief stats for 2007 :
> 
> Pedestrians : 30,191 casualties with 646 killed - 2.14 %
> 
> ...



I'm being lazy as I've not examined the source material to determine the methodology used to derive these statistics. However I would guess it must be well nigh impossible to derive an accurate figure for risk of dying on a bike (whether by journey length, duration or whatever) because the denominator is unknown (ie presumably there cannot be accurate figures for the number of cycling journeys, length of commute etc). So the statistics that give the risk of death per journey length are probably based on nothing more than an educated guess.

The stats for number of deaths are likely to be reasonably accurate (presumably these come from death certificates or police reports) but the figures for non-fatal injuries are unlikely to be accurate as doctors & hospitals have no statutory obligation to report these, and if these are derived from police reports then these are almost certain to be underestimated.

Again I'm being lazy as I haven't reviewed the literature and what I'm about to suggest might have been done already, but perhaps the only way to advance the debate on whether cycling is dangerous would be to undertake a proper study. A prospective design would be a good starting place: ie take ~1000 commuting cyclists, obtain basic demographic data (age, sex, number & length of cycle journeys per week etc) and follow them for a defined period eg 10 years (or maybe 10,000 cyclists for 1 year) and record cycling related mortality and morbidity (injuries). 

I want to know how likely I am to be injured or killed when I'm cycling and I'm not particularly interested in comparing the risks of cycling with the risks of being a pedestrian or a car driver so study of cyclists alone would suffice. For those of you want to have the bike v car v ped debate this would be much more difficult to study as groups of age & sex matched pedestrians & motorists travelling the same routes as the cyclists would also need to be studied.

Anyone interested in signing up for the study?


----------



## PBancroft (27 Sep 2008)

Jaded said:


> They tell the facts.
> 
> They don't tell a story, that appears to be your job.



Err... they tell one view of the facts. They're giving an approximation for the number of miles, which is utter b0ll0cks as I seriously doubt most people killed on the road had cycled 18,000 miles previously. 

The numbers are also slightly out of context. How did these cyclists die, and where - not to be too morbid, but more information is needed. Were they themselves acting dangerously, or were they the victim of dangerous driving? Was it at night, and was the cyclist clearly visible? Was it in the daytime and was the driver (assuming that the cyclist was killed by a driver) following the rules of the road?

The thing is, a cyclist wearing black at night, cycling across a busy road without giving way (I've seen it happen) and is killed, is just as much dead and part of those statistics as one who is visible but rear-ended by a car doing 60 on a clear open road when the driver isn't paying attention.


----------



## yello (27 Sep 2008)

I know this might be deeply unfashionable but I can see what col is saying.


----------



## dondare (27 Sep 2008)

Cab said:


> Go look at the numbers again. Cycling is generally a 100% safe thing to do. Thats as clear as getting on the bus being generally a 100% safe thing to do.



Cyclists live longer than non-cyclists so it must be more than 100% safe.

err...


----------



## wafflycat (27 Sep 2008)

Life is dangerous. It has a 100% mortality rate. Better not live then...

No activity in life is risk-free. All activities carry a level of danger. The problem with cycling is that the perception of the level of danger cycling has, when viewed by non-cyclists in particular, is way over the top compared to the reality. Common sense is all very well, but common sense used to tell us that the earth is flat. 

Also - remember this is a cycling forum. There's a higher level of cyclists here than in the general population. Add into this that this is a place where we can have a moan about the level of stupidity we face on the roads every day and know we're in a place where others understand and will sympathise. So the reporting of the bad stuff is 'concentrated' here, if you see what I mean. 

In the great scheme of things, cycling is a remarkably safe thing to do. Yes, there are risks attached to it, but the risks are, in reality, quite low.


----------



## ComedyPilot (27 Sep 2008)

wafflycat said:


> Life is dangerous. It has a 100% mortality rate. Better not live then...
> 
> No activity in life is risk-free. All activities carry a level of danger. The problem with cycling is that the perception of the level of danger cycling has, when viewed by non-cyclists in particular, is way over the top compared to the reality. Common sense is all very well, but common sense used to tell us that the earth is flat.
> 
> ...


+1

Life is one big risk. You can deal with it in a number of ways. Get out there, be active, do sports/activities etc, get trained and minimise the risk. Get out there with no training or experience and the risk increases, something happens and you become a statistic. Or listen to the 'nanny-state' media hype that is designed to keep you in a perpetual state of fear and do nothing. The choice is yours. Accept the percieved risk for your chosen path and get on with it. I don't know if that makes any sense to anyone else?


----------



## Riding in Circles (27 Sep 2008)

wafflycat said:


> Life is dangerous. It has a 100% mortality rate.
> In the great scheme of things, cycling is a remarkably safe thing to do. Yes, there are risks attached to it, but the risks are, in reality, quite low.



Exactly what I was thinking, everything is dangerous including cycling, the question should not be "is it dangerous?" rather than "how dangerous is it?", there are various indicators to how dangerous it is within these boards, with some saying they have never had so much as a scratch, some with one fall in 18 years some say an accident every 4 years, some seem to have some incident every other week.

In that, perhaps the indicator to relative danger is not the activity but the participant.


----------



## col (27 Sep 2008)

Jaded said:


> They tell the facts.
> 
> They don't tell a story, that appears to be your job.




Explain? noddy


----------



## beanzontoast (27 Sep 2008)

I have to smile. This subject has been debated before. It will be debated again, no doubt. I guess some people just like debating - I'm not one of them.

There is no empirical answer possible to a question where the resolution depends on individual perceptions of risk. Given that everyone's perception of risk and experience of cycling is unique - in particular coloured by the fact that some will have experienced accidents, others not - there will never be a conclusive answer. Thus the debate goes around in circles and runs the risk of descending into pointless argument.

Bottom line - the question cannot be 'answered' conclusively. Each person just has to make their own mind up about how dangerous or otherwise cycling is.


----------



## Jaded (27 Sep 2008)

col said:


> Explain? noddy





> All im saying is its not totaly safe,and those stats dont tell the whole story.




There.

FUD.

Who said the stats DID say it was totally safe?

Just because it isn't totally safe doesn't mean that it is dangerous! Cycling isn't at all dangerous and you can make it even less dangerous by taking a few simple behaviour and maintenance steps.

There. big ears.


----------



## col (27 Sep 2008)

Jaded said:


> There.
> 
> FUD.
> 
> ...




So why is it my job to tell stories?Or are you going to qoute again noddy


----------



## Bollo (27 Sep 2008)

wafflycat said:


> In the great scheme of things, cycling is a remarkably safe thing to do. Yes, there are risks attached to it, but the risks are, in reality, quite low.


Yeah waff!

The risks and our perceptions of risk are often two totally different things. Take this one from the independent - 

_Each year, 250,000 people are injured, and 70 people die in DIY-related accidents. Ladders are the biggest killers, accounting for 50 of those deaths.
_
How many of us announce at work that we've been 'laddering' at the weekend, to be met with gasps and wide-eyed stares.

I'd watched Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine again recently (much better than F 9/11) and one of the points he makes is that an exaggerated perception of risk leads to a fear can end up crippling a nation.

I've had low-level grief from a few people about riding into the centre of town with my six year old on our tandem. Sure, I've weighed up those risks and I ride ultra-conservatively, but the benefits are obvious. My little girl is fit as a fiddle, knows that she isn't going to be ferried around everywhere in a car and has better road-sense than the average teenager (ok not a good comparison!), all of which reduces the risks of obesity and a road accident in later life.


----------



## Jaded (27 Sep 2008)

col said:


> So why is it my job to tell stories?Or are you going to qoute again noddy



You are telling a story. You've done it several times on this thread. You can qualify the stats, but you can't argue with them or make out that they are wrong - as you have done.


----------



## Jaded (27 Sep 2008)

around 650,000 people die each year. 130 of them are cyclists.

It is far safer to be a cyclist than be a person.


----------



## col (27 Sep 2008)

Jaded said:


> You are telling a story. You've done it several times on this thread. You can qualify the stats, but you can't argue with them or make out that they are wrong - as you have done.



Iv never said they are wrong,show me where i have,they just dont tell the whole story noddy


----------



## Jaded (27 Sep 2008)

I didn't say you said they were wrong, I said that you made out they were wrong. 

There's a difference. Keep up.


----------



## col (27 Sep 2008)

Jaded said:


> I didn't say you said they were wrong, I said that you made out they were wrong.
> 
> There's a difference. Keep up.




Ok noddy show me where i made out they were wrong.


----------



## Jaded (27 Sep 2008)

col said:


> Ok noddy show me where i made out they were wrong.



I already did that.


----------



## Jaded (27 Sep 2008)

User76 said:


> Well thats wrong for a start. Are you saying that only 130 of every 650,000 people are cyclists? Rubbish, there are many more cyclists in each 650,000 of the population, but that an additional 130 get killed through some cycling related event. Therefore those 130 people have effectively doubled their chance of dying. So the headline is "Cyclists risk of death is doubled!"
> 
> You'd never catch me doing it



Ah yes. So the cyclists are actually dying twice. I see!


----------



## col (27 Sep 2008)

Jaded said:


> I already did that.




No you didnt noddy where?


----------



## yenrod (27 Sep 2008)

Jaded said:


> Isn't it something like 300,000 miles?
> 
> People rush to post about deaths on here, terrible as they are. However they don't rush to post "cyclist completed journey safely*". If they did such a post for every cyclist that completed a journey safely you'd never see the death reporting threads - they'd be completely swamped.*
> 
> ...



I do mostly post about my rides and they are largely ignored...

http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=17914

http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=17801

http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=17821

http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=16603

http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=17745

http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=17041

http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=16292

http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=16290

http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=16290

http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=16212

http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=16052

Just thought I'd spell it out there


----------



## Jaded (27 Sep 2008)

yenrod said:


> I do mostly post about my rides and they are largely ignored...
> 
> 
> Just thought I'd spell it out there



That's redressed the balance!


----------



## col (27 Sep 2008)

Still waiting ?


----------



## yenrod (27 Sep 2008)

Col & Jaded - chill-out lads: its a nice day pretty much everywhere:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/uk/radar/index.html

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/uk/uk_forecast_radar.html

So get on out there and stop having a barny !


----------



## col (27 Sep 2008)

yenrod said:


> Col & Jaded - chill-out lads: its a nice day pretty much everywhere:
> 
> http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/uk/radar/index.html
> 
> ...




Your right yenners,just wanting him to show me why he said what he said,if he cant he could at least have the deceny to admit it.


----------



## dodgy (27 Sep 2008)

Shady said:


> "The number of pedal cyclists killed fell by 7 per cent from 146 in 2006 to 136 in 2007. The number of seriously injured rose by 6 per cent to 2,428. The total casualties among pedal cyclists remained at the same level as 2006."



I've seen those figures before, but don't forget the awful tragedy of the 4 riders from Rhyl Cycling Club who were killed in a *single incident* in January 2006 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_west/4592412.stm

If it wasn't for that one incident, the figures wouldn't look quite as impressive, but still there seems to be a downward trend which is good.

Dave.


----------



## Nick G (27 Sep 2008)

magnatom said:


> I think the risk from cycling falls somewhere between the risk from knitting and from base jumping.



I had a friend who died doing that. The parachute opened fine but on landing one of his knitting needles went up his nose and skewered his brain.


----------



## need2 (27 Sep 2008)

Cycling is safe numb nuts drivers are the problem,
Nearly got taken out again last nite coming up2 a t junction the driver stopped so me and just pulled out,,a few hand signals quickly followed...
I think everyone who drives should be made to ride a bicycle for a few months as well so they can see for themselves how dangerous it is when they drive to close..


----------



## hackbike 6 (27 Sep 2008)

Depends who it is cycling out there,it isn't always down to the drivers.

I've seen some shocking cycling out there recently.


----------



## Jaded (27 Sep 2008)

User76 said:


> Not dying twice, doubling their risk of dying. You can't really be that thick can you? Or do you get up especially early to practice



I'm winding you up, silly! <rollseyes>


----------



## Jaded (27 Sep 2008)

col said:


> It seems to me that there is a lot of luck involved in our safety out there?doesnt sound so safe now does it?



Luck vs statistics, no contest.


----------



## col (27 Sep 2008)

Jaded said:


> I'm winding you up, silly! <rollseyes>




Well dodged there



Jaded said:


> Luck vs statistics, no contest.




I can see where your coming from,telling us that x number have been killed really informs you in depth doesnt it


----------



## need2 (27 Sep 2008)

hackbike 6 said:


> Depends who it is cycling out there,it isn't always down to the drivers.
> 
> I've seen some shocking cycling out there recently.




maybe so,,but when you have boy racers banging down little country lanes as if their doing the f1 you have 2 get out of the way quickly or you aint going to make it how


----------



## hackbike 6 (27 Sep 2008)

Yeah have that down the Mile End Road as well.


----------



## BentMikey (27 Sep 2008)

When regular cyclists live on average 2 years longer than the rest of the population, that would really make cycling dangerous, wouldn't it? *rolls eyes* at the pro danger crowd on here.


----------



## hackbike 6 (27 Sep 2008)

I don't think our fallen colleagues would agree.


----------



## wafflycat (27 Sep 2008)

Whatever you do... do not ever go to sleep in a bed. People die in their sleep in a bed. It's a bloody dangerous thing to do this sleeping lark.


----------



## Shady (27 Sep 2008)

Well I've lived on the Isle of Man for over 30 years apart from a few years at uni and down near that London, and so far there has only been one cycling death that I can recall which unfortunately was a young lad killed by a wheel coming off an HGV.

There are only about 80000 people on the island and there are a hell of a lot of cyclists so I like those odds.

Motorcycling deaths are a whole different kettle of fish however, especially around TT time.


----------



## hackbike 6 (27 Sep 2008)

I think the odds can be increased in our favour with more info on how to do it well.

Do they still do cycling proficiency tests?

*Whatever you do... do not ever go to sleep in a bed. People die in their sleep in a bed. It's a bloody dangerous thing to do this sleeping lark.*

Hmmm a bit off track here.

They don't die due to accidents unless it's got something to do with smoking or a car drives though your front room.Generally it's natural causes.


----------



## jonesy (27 Sep 2008)

dondare said:


> I wonder how long the average car journey is? I'm sure that my 11 mile each way commute is longer than the kind of trips made by most car commuters and school-runners, but their average is bumped up enormously by very long journeys at week-ends and holidays when they use motorways - roads with all the hazards designed out of them and consequently a relatively low accident rate.



I agree.

Look at DfT transport statistics, National Travel Survey 2006
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/personal/mainresults/nts2006/


Table 3.2 Trips and average trip length by main mode: 1995/1997 to 2006

Average trip length by bicycle is 2.4 miles, by car 8.5 miles.


Also see:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/roadstraffic/traffic/
Table 7.4 Road traffic: by type of vehicle and class of road: 2006

It is pretty obvious that a simple comparison of casualties per billion km travelled between cars and bicycles is pretty meaningless; cycle trips are mostly short trips on local roads whereas over 60% of car mileage is undertaken as longer trips on major roads. A risk rate for cars that is heavily weighted towards motorway driving is not a meaningful risk comparator for cycle trips. 

It is a great pity that DfT, having provided all these data that demonstrate the great difference between cycling and car trips, then go and present tables of casualty rate per billion km as well...


----------



## wafflycat (27 Sep 2008)

hackbike 6 said:


> I think the odds can be increased in our favour with more info on how to do it well.
> 
> Do they still do cycling proficiency tests?
> 
> ...



I suspect many a cyclist dies from something other than cycling, even quite a few from natural causes.


----------



## Baggy (28 Sep 2008)

wafflycat said:


> I suspect many a cyclist dies from something other than cycling, even quite a few from natural causes.


If you look through the obituaries in the CTC magazine the majority of cyclists mentioned therein seem to die of natural causes, aged on average 85.

One chap rode over 7,000 miles in his 90th year


----------



## Noodley (28 Sep 2008)

Baggy said:


> One chap rode over 7,000 miles in his 90th year



No wonder he died then is it? Foolish behaviour at that age.


----------



## Jaded (28 Sep 2008)

col said:


> I can see where your coming from,telling us that x number have been killed really informs you in depth doesnt it



If I had the remotest idea of where you were coming from, or of what point you were trying to put across in this post, I'd try to disagree or agree.


----------



## Noodley (28 Sep 2008)

Cycling is not dangerous.

There you go.


----------



## Jaded (28 Sep 2008)

How dangerous is cycling?

Not a lot.


----------



## dondare (28 Sep 2008)

User76 said:


> Well thats wrong for a start. Are you saying that only 130 of every 650,000 people are cyclists? Rubbish, there are many more cyclists in each 650,000 of the population, but that an additional 130 get killed through some cycling related event. Therefore those 130 people have effectively doubled their chance of dying. So the headline is "Cyclists risk of death is doubled!"
> 
> You'd never catch me doing it



Cyclists are reducing their risk of dying from other causes (heart attacks, for example, which are still Britain's biggest killer) more than they're increasing their risk of dying in a road accident. So cycling is less dangerous than not-cycling. 

You'd never catch me not-cycling.


----------



## dondare (28 Sep 2008)

wafflycat said:


> Life is dangerous. It has a 100% mortality rate. Better not live then...
> 
> No activity in life is risk-free. All activities carry a level of danger. The problem with cycling is that the perception of the level of danger cycling has, when viewed by non-cyclists in particular, is way over the top compared to the reality. Common sense is all very well, but common sense used to tell us that the earth is flat.
> 
> ...



Don't get me started about the level of stupidity we face on the roads every day....


----------



## Notsoblue (29 Sep 2008)

Its pretty safe. Most people just have an issue getting used to sharing the road with cars, once you get used to it you realise its not as dangerous as it initially might seem.


----------

