srw
It's a bit more complicated than that...
That's the trouble. You don't think. Try doing some reading.
bike events. helmets compulsary
- Thread starter oilyormo
- Start date
- Status
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
If you accidentally parachuted onto a busy motorway, you could die in both at the same time.
That's interesting, as most of the lifelong club cyclists I know and ride with can relate a list of accidents they have had on the bike where they were injured but very few drivers I know have had anything but minor bumps with no injuries.
Like most cyclists, I also have a list of mostly minor injuries, but none of them would have been prevented by the wearing of a helmet.
(By the way, I think it's great that we are not being muzzled by the moderators for discussing a controversial subject. This wouldn't be allowed on the Australian forum that I occasionally visit).
(By the way, I think it's great that we are not being muzzled by the moderators for discussing a controversial subject. This wouldn't be allowed on the Australian forum that I occasionally visit).
I have argued elsewhere that KSI/milion kms is not an appropriate comparison between transport modes unless you are really comparing like for like (like your commute to work).
Yesterday I drove to Poole and back. This was about 220 miles and took 5 hours. I could instead have gone on a 5 hour bicycle ride and covered just 60 miles. Equating the risk to my life is, in this case, is time on the road and not distance. The extreme example is flying where the rate is low because you fly enormous distances. 98% (estimate) is very safe (between airports). Its the 2% (around airports) is where nearly all crashes occur. In this case comparative risk may be better equated to a 'per trip' basis too that is a 5 hour flight against a 5 hour drive or a 5 hour ride.
srw
It's a bit more complicated than that...
http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/dr...an-cycling-for-young-men.119318/#post-2193287
User, I look forward to your full re-analysis of the data.
And an explanation as to how once in a blue moon is really much better than 10 times in a blue moon - even if you accept your favoured (but less politically favourable) definition of the Exposed to Risk.
User, I look forward to your full re-analysis of the data.
And an explanation as to how once in a blue moon is really much better than 10 times in a blue moon - even if you accept your favoured (but less politically favourable) definition of the Exposed to Risk.
Nope. If you have to choose a career say between professional cyclist, driver, airline pilot and shuttle astronaut - which is proven to be most dangerous and yet probably has the lowest deaths per billion miles?
In this case I would suggest distance is of no interest whatsover. Instinct, in this case, is a better guide. Dying is a remote possibility when you swing your leg over the crossbar. Whereas brown trews are well in order as countdown commences.
Going back to the more realistic comparison with flying. A five hour return flight is almost twice as dangerous as a five hour single flight. Indeed if you did, say, a 5 mile return commute by plane instead of car you may find the chances of dying reversed than if you took a qoted deaths per distance rate.
This is a case where simplistic stats cannot be equated with risk to life.
Wise words. Ryanair pilots are at much greater risk than Virgin Atlantic yet not a single one has died so far. And making it compulsory for Ryanair pilots to wear helmets would not change things greatly (even with all those knobs and switches above your head). Risk is often a very localised variable. For cyclists, like drivers, age and experience predominate. Which is why training is the most useful prevention mechanism that you can throw at it.
Returning to Bike Events (or have I drifted threads?) exactly how many people have died on organised charity rides? I don't know but I bet most were due to a medical condition. Perhaps Bike Events should trade in their compulsory helmet requirement for a medical certificate. Or indeed a Bikeability certificate.
Too difficult? That's the problem. Making a show of safety is far more dangerous than tackling root causes.
a good question, and one that you won't get an answer to. My guess is........a lot.
Fab Foodie
hanging-on in quiet desperation ...
- Location
- Kirton, Devon.
That's my understanding too.
- how about doing some thinking , because everything you have come up with so far is utter - tosh-
you say cycling is no more dangerouse than driving - though you have already been proved wrong by regulator, - so not so f-in smart are we then.
next you fail to say where you are driving or cycling , your big general statement is utter bollocks , try cycling in vietnam or india and see which is more dangerous , car or bike? - and would you say the chances of being killed are minute there?
If the odds are so minute (I do wonder what you define minute as 1 in 1000 , 1 in 100 000?) how come last year in Britain alone over 1000 people died in cars alone, we had what 200 deaths on bikes - If so minute , how come?
I just love you so so smart people who just love to be so rude - tosser
srw
It's a bit more complicated than that...
I haven't the foggiest - but I'm not over there, I'm here.
About 100 deaths out of 2 million or so regular cyclists. That's what I call minute.
What you and regulator are both missing (in regulator's case probably through obtuseness) is that transport is so safe that a risk difference of 10 times makes no practical difference. The best illustration I know of is here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/data...rtality-rates-cause-death-2011#zoomed-picture
Dying through riding a bike is 1000 times less likely than dying of cancer or heart disease. It's 10 times less likely than dying of a hernia.
For the impeccably pedantic, yes I know you've got to take risk factors into account. I'm simplifying to make a point without losing the essential thrust of the argument.
- Status
