# How to reduce the risk of cycling



## srw (12 Aug 2014)

Simple. Ban mass cycling events. Especially, ban closed-roads sportives.

Here's my working. On Sunday at RideLondon there were at least 4 KSI incidents. (Source: 1 observation of an ambulance blocking the road in Richmond Park; 2 observations of people out cold by the side of the road; 1 online report of a major crash on Whitehall. I'm not counting the online report of the poor guy who died apparently of natural causes - although I suspect (@User?) he will show up in the stats as a cyclist KSI.)

20,000 cyclists rode 86 miles each. That's a total of 1.72 million miles, and gives a KSI rate of at least 2,326 per billion miles. For comparison the typical KSI rate on the roads is about 1000.

So RideLondon 2014 was about 2.3 times riskier than ordinary riding.

As it happens, I suspect I'm under-reporting KSIs on Sunday. My best guess based on online half-reports and hints, especially about crashes among the quick groups, is about 10, in which case the risk factor goes up to nearly 6. Simple observation of online reports of all mass cycling events suggest that people seriously under-estimate the risk of getting loads of cyclists all going in the same direction, and seriously over-estimate the risk of riding normally on the roads. I couldn't find the stats in a quick trawl of the internet, but I believe that London on open roads is considerably safer than the average - making the RideLondon risk even starker. Aggregating all the sportives that happen, I'd be gobsmacked if they didn't have a noticeable impact on overall KSI rates.

For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not seriously suggesting that we _do_ ban mass cycling events - it was a blast, and without risk there is no reward. But it puts into perspective things like this, from Peter Walker's Guardian write-up of his day:


> I spent four and a half hours surrounded by sometimes skittish cyclists in the pouring rain, and felt for the most part that all would be fine as long as I was careful. Then I spent half an hour cycling home from the event in usual London traffic, and was immediately reminded that my destiny, and safety, was very much in the hands of other people.


Actually, Peter, your destiny was safer in the hands of those London drivers than it was in the hands of your fellow-cyclists!


----------



## srw (12 Aug 2014)

I've posted a comment on the site. I'll email tonight if there's no reply.

(And if anyone feels like checking my work - feel free. The results are plausible, but in a sense I was trying to check a positive hypothesis, which isn't great practice. There's probably a PhD in it for someone if you can get hold of more stats and draw some sensible conclusions.)


----------



## PK99 (12 Aug 2014)

http://www.forbes.com/2008/05/29/health-hazardous-sports-forbeslife-cx_avd_0529health_slide.html

yep. ban all sport cycling.

infact ban all sport.


----------



## jazzkat (12 Aug 2014)

I've only done two sportives and both times was more scared by the numpties  my fellow cyclists than any body else on the road.


----------



## Rooster1 (12 Aug 2014)

Hi @srw, thats impressive analysis, however there is one area to your research and findings I would like to explore more.

In extreme bad weather the majority of cyclists would actually not ride - I know this from experience. Yes, a bit of rain - fine, the prospect of rain -fine, even going out in rain - fine.
For a forecast of a major storm, less likely. 

I know people who pulled out from other rides around the UK, albeit reluctantly.
The conditions on Sunday were atrocious and have to have a massive bearing on the accident rates. 

So I think we are comparing apples and pears. I think we are comparing the cycling that takes place in Good to bad weather, with cycling that took place in exceptional weather.

What do you think ? Is it a fair comparison.

However, I would say that on the whole, participants of the Ride 100 probably push themselves harder than they would normally go. You get carried along by the groups of riders and you find your speeds are a few percent higher than your normal riding pace. It is quite a weird phenomenon and ultimately the amount of risk taking increases.

Personally, in the hard stinging rain, with pools of standing water and gusts of wind, my brakes were about 50% worse, and my skinny tyres were fairly useless on the corners.

I myself had a mechanical, and was up at Newlands Corner and saw a lot of injured and upset people. We all unfortunately saw the scene of the tragic death on our way out. We did not know it at the time.

Having completed the Ride100 last year, but not this year, I've decided not to consider another charity ride or sportive or any mass cycling event - however, I almost feel like signing up in despite of the bad and sad events that have taken place.

My thoughts and prayers go out to the family of Kris Cook at this time.

And finally, I feel extremely sorry for the organisers of the Ride100, I hope they can overcome this tragedy.


----------



## Markymark (12 Aug 2014)

I know the faster I ride, the greater the risk. Sportives (despite what they say) are often an event for people to cycle faster than they would normally do.

People take part knowing the risks of cycling faster. That's their choice. There are always risks in organised events as the dynamics are different.

Make it safe with marshals etc, then let people do things.


----------



## Globalti (12 Aug 2014)

Surely if 23,000 people went and sat in Hyde Park for a day at least one of them would become dangerously ill or even die?

Add vigorous exercise and serious illness or death become far more likely.


----------



## Dogtrousers (12 Aug 2014)

Totally pointless gut-feel anecdata: My cycling pal was on ride 100. I was relieved to see that he'd got round safely: ie I was mildly worried about him. Do I normally worry when he's out on a ride or when I'm out with him? No.

According to my pointless gut-feel it's almost certainly going to be more dangerous when lots of cyclists of mixed abilities (both in terms of speed and road-skills) are let off the leash and are trying to push the pace, than when doing "normal" riding when people will be riding within their abilities and being more defensive. That's _before_ factoring in the dodgy weather conditions.

Seems like a no-brainer to me. (Yes I know that kind of "stands to reason" logic can be treacherous).

Edit. I was visiting my mum up North and had to make a slightly inconvenient detour on my journey home, due to the closure of the Blackwall tunnel. On these grounds, it should be banned.


----------



## w00hoo_kent (12 Aug 2014)

Be interesting to see if there are also stats for the Freecycle on Saturday (although again, good weather) I think I heard 60,000 participants. I know St Johns kept stats as I had to be recorded to get a 'plaster' for my biopsy wound from a week previous (riding in mountain bike shorts with a heavy rucksack rubbed it raw) and the guitar playing one was checked over and had a number of grazes covered up after a heavy bail on the street velodrome (decided to try and race the current champion and tried too hard). I don't know if they had a tick box for 'actual on the road incidents' though. I think we saw one.

On the sportive, my speed went up, but I'm not sure my risk taking did. It was just a mix of riding with others and not having to stop for anything unless I wanted to. I can see what the journalist was on about, the ride to the Olympic Park and the bit where we attempted to find the ferry and ended up in heavy traffic south of the river felt significantly more dangerous than any of the closed road stuff had. Then again my brakes didn't cause me worry (disks) and I was happy to back off if things looked a bit iffy, my only issue was glasses misting/getting waterlogged and on a leisure ride I'd probably have stopped and tried to clean them more often (although I'm not sure what with as I had nothing dry anywhere.)

I can imagine the organisers are a bit perturbed by it all, the injuries and fatality should cause them to check what they are doing (not necessarily change anything, but review it just in case) and I expect a number of things they planned to happen, huge spectator numbers in Dorking and Denbies for instance, weren't a thing. I think they are in for some involved meetings over the next few weeks and there will be less back patting than after the first one.


----------



## Tim Hall (12 Aug 2014)

Globalti said:


> Surely if 23,000 people went and sat in Hyde Park for a day at least one of them would become dangerously ill or even die?
> 
> Add vigorous exercise and serious illness or death become far more likely.


I think the point that srw is making is that the death/serious injury rate is over and above that to be expected for 23000 people sitting in Hyde Park.


User13710 said:


> Almost every year someone dies during the London Marathon, and often during the BHF London to Brighton ride too.


Almost every year may be putting it a bit strongly. According to Wikipedia, 11 people have died during the London marathon, over 34 years. But I doubt that in a marathon there is much danger from the actions of other participants, unlike Ride London or the BHF L-B.


----------



## w00hoo_kent (12 Aug 2014)

Tim Hall said:


> I think the point that srw is making is that the death/serious injury rate is over and above that to be expected for 23000 people sitting in Hyde Park.



I think more over and above that of 23,000 people individually cycling around Hyde Park in a completely unorganised way. If 23,000 cyclists just go for a bike ride, less get injured than if they all get together and someone times them is the hypothesis.



Tim Hall said:


> Almost every year may be putting it a bit strongly. According to Wikipedia, 11 people have died during the London marathon, over 34 years. But I doubt that in a marathon there is much danger from the actions of other participants, unlike Ride London or the BHF L-B.



But the physical exertion is a lot greater by the look of it. At the finish point for the Ride London people were standing around, chatting, eating and sorting themselves out for the ride home. From what I've seen at the finish point to the marathon people are lying around in space blankets wondering when the pain will end. I work with someone whose 30 year old and fairly athletic son did the London Marathon and he could barely walk for three days. I'm 44 & flabby and have no worries about the FNRttC this weekend. They are different beasts on that front, although I admit if you'd watched people at the top of the hills (especially if the big two had been in them) then you'd have seen more of the pain.


----------



## EltonFrog (12 Aug 2014)

What is KSI? I've googled nothing comes up on the first page other than a rapper.


----------



## michaelcycle (12 Aug 2014)

I think you're right.

Cycling on open roads is generally safer than riding on closed road sportives because participants attitudes to risk change. That said I think the reward (the sense of accomplishment and fun) justified the increased risk of injury for me at least. That's pretty much the same for any sporting challenge.


----------



## w00hoo_kent (12 Aug 2014)

CarlP said:


> What is KSI? I've googled nothing comes up on the first page other than a rapper.


Kilometres per Serious Injury?


----------



## w00hoo_kent (12 Aug 2014)

Knickers Somewhat Inconvenienced?

Agreed, kilometres would seem unlikely when all the rest of the figures are in miles.


----------



## Fab Foodie (12 Aug 2014)

w00hoo_kent said:


> Kilometres per Serious Injury?


Kiiled or Seriously Injured ....


----------



## Fab Foodie (12 Aug 2014)

Damn, TMN to Smeggers ....


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 Aug 2014)

fwiw Audax UK post some pretty comprehensive accident stats in their annual report.

Sportives = thousands racing with everything from "Cat 5" to Cat 1 (or above) in the same race = folk are bound to get hurt.


----------



## srw (12 Aug 2014)

Globalti said:


> Surely if 23,000 people went and sat in Hyde Park for a day at least one of them would become dangerously ill or even die?
> 
> Add vigorous exercise and serious illness or death become far more likely.


No. About 500,000 people die per year. That's about 10,000 per week, or about 1,400 per day, or about 350 per 6 hours. I don't know the number becoming dangerously ill, but it will only be 3 or 4 times higher.


----------



## Markymark (12 Aug 2014)

But sportives are an integral part of many cyclists' cycling. The health benefits overall outweigh the risks.

Lucky they were all wearing helmets else there would have been lots more killed


----------



## srw (12 Aug 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> fwiw Audax UK post some pretty comprehensive accident stats in their annual report



Link?

@Rooster1 - yes, of course you're right. But if you work backwards, there would have to have been just over 1 incident to get to the same risk level as the open roads. On last year's smaller field (remember, on a very clear, dry day) the number would have been more-or-less 1 too. I know of at least one widely reported KSI last year - someone breaking his arm very close to Admiralty Arch - and I suspect a reasonably structured search of forums would throw up several more.

Taking my thoughts in a slightly different direction, British Cyling lists about 550 sportives during 2014. With a _total_ KSI number of about 3,000 cyclists per year, even a rate of as little as one per 5 sportives (feels low - most sportive reports I read mention a serious crash) will result in a noticeable blip in the statistics.

@michaelcycle - of course, that goes to the heart of risk reduction techniques (including the one I won't mention on this board, but will open on a different board). What I find really interesting is the difference between _perceived_ risk ("closed roads are safe") and _actual_ risk ("as a result, people behave with monumental stupidity").


----------



## srw (12 Aug 2014)

0-markymark-0 said:


> But sportives are an integral part of many cyclists' cycling. The health benefits overall outweigh the risks.


Oh yes, when related to cycling as a whole. I'm less sure about sportive riding, because I'm not sure exactly what risk reduction cycling per se gives.


> Lucky they were all wearing helmets else there would have been lots more killed


Behave.


----------



## Markymark (12 Aug 2014)

srw said:


> Oh yes, when related to cycling as a whole. I'm less sure about sportive riding, because I'm not sure exactly what risk reduction cycling per se gives.
> 
> Behave.


What I mean is that it's all tied in and you can;t have one without the other. If you get people cycling on any scale, at one end of the spectrum you'll get those wanting to push themselves on events like this. It's inevitable there would be sportives given the popularity of cycling amongst such a broad spectrum of the population.

One has to look at the overall picture and accept the rough with the smooth somewhat. If sportives were banned, the sanitisation (is that a word?) would put off many cyclists and the overall health benefits would drop as many got back into cars.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 Aug 2014)

srw said:


> Link?


Fnarr. This Audax UK we are talking about. They publish them in the magainze but I don't think the stats are on line.

On page 15 of this edition of Arrivée are the 2012/13 stats

"In the 2012/13 season, 49 riders sustained slight injuries, 8 riders sustained serious injuries and 3 riders sustained severe injuries, whilst cycling
approximately 4,053,421km (validation report). A severe injury for every 1, 351,140 km ridden"


----------



## srw (12 Aug 2014)

...which in round numbers is broadly in line with the rate of 1000 per billion miles in the national stats. Which is itself interesting, as it suggests that sleep deprivation and riding stupidly large distances aren't necessarily the risk factors you'd expect them to be.

Anyway, I ought to head back to the office.


----------



## benb (12 Aug 2014)

I'd completely agree that having an off, and therefore an injury, was more likely on this kind of event than "normal" riding, but the two are completely incomparable.

Nevertheless, riding a closed road sportive is certainly a lot more fun and pleasant than riding in motorised traffic.


----------



## fossyant (12 Aug 2014)

A sportive isn't a race. Thats what some thick idiots need to get into their head. Yes ride as fast as you like, but be considerate.


----------



## fossyant (12 Aug 2014)

And the national press called it a race. Shame 90% of them riding like this haven't actually raced, nor indeed ridden close in a group, and it shows.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 Aug 2014)

fossyant said:


> A sportive isn't a race. Thats what some thick idiots need to get into their head. Yes ride as fast as you like, but be considerate.


It has a massed start and is timed. QED.

I'd suggest that it would be easier for everyone if the ludicrous pretence were dropped and the Ride London (and other closed road event) organisers were upfront and said "This is a race, ride like a knob and you'll be disqualified by the stewards, won;t get a finish time, and will banned from entering again next year." but they won't because £££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££ talks and bs walks.


----------



## GrasB (12 Aug 2014)

Not having read the entire thread my 2p on the OP's post

I know of two riders who did the Ride London 100 in conditions that normally they would never have ridden in. Why did they ride? Because they think it'll be a once in a life time chance to get to ride the course in a mass ride on closed roads. Both of the riders are now suffering because of their decision to ride. Never having really dealt with those conditions they were badly prepared physically, mentally & equipment wise, thus one is off ill the other one is felling very weak & under the weather.


----------



## Fab Foodie (12 Aug 2014)

User13710 said:


> To be fair, that could have happened if they'd just gone out for a ride with a friend. It's not really a function of the event itself?


Oh I dunno, it's like riding a FNRttC when I turn up ....

I think I get where GrasB is coming from, if you've gone to the effort of applying, and this event is 'special', you get psyched-up (especially with mates), you're more likely to carry-on regardless of the conditions. I was the same with my first Oxford to London night ride, I too was poorly equipped but swept-up with enthusiasm and nearly froze to death by half way. It's called a learning experience. The L2B can be much the same when the weather turns part way. Big events tend to be a triumph of enthsiasm over capability. Twas ever thus.


----------



## srw (12 Aug 2014)

benb said:


> I'd completely agree that having an off, and therefore an injury, was more likely on this kind of event than "normal" riding, but the two are completely incomparable.



Not _completely_ incomparable - both are riding a bike on roads, just in different circumstances. And Peter Walker's Guardian quote, referenced in the OP, was doing exactly that.

Whoever said that riding on closed roads was a fantastic experience - oh yes!


----------



## theclaud (12 Aug 2014)

Where's our risk-reduction expert @MacB when you need him? He's managed to achieve a state where there's almost no risk of cycling whatever.


----------



## cyberknight (12 Aug 2014)

theclaud said:


> Where's our risk-reduction expert @MacB when you need him? He's managed to achieve a state where there's almost no risk of cycling whatever.


Sounds like my saying at work when the tannoy says " To help reduce the risk of accidents at work " i comment " Dont do any work "


----------



## Shut Up Legs (12 Aug 2014)

My 2 cents (pence?): perhaps sportives are a bit more risky than other cycling activities, but I think the benefits outweigh the risks. These sportives help encourage non-cyclists or beginner cyclists to ride, thus helping improve the overall health of the population.


----------



## srw (12 Aug 2014)

Curiously enough, in tourist class there was relatively little testosterone and not a little progesterone.


----------

