Driving is five times more dangerous than cycling for young men
- Thread starter User
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
oldfatfool
Guru
The phrase 'there are lies, damned lies, and statistics' spring to mind reading that.
gavroche
Getting old but not past it
- Location
- North Wales
using different criterias will also give different results, so statistics are to be taken with a pinch of salt!
oldfatfool
Guru
'middle class heaven' or cuckoo land?
Its a completely non-sensical article that probably completely misrepresents the original report.
It quotes cycling is safer than walking per km traveled, I would bet good money that there are fewer fatalities walking per hour of activity then cycling per hour.
It fails to mention the measure it uses to say driving is more dangerous than cycling, I would also guess that road fataities per km travelled would be less driving than cycling.
It is easy to say that someone cycling for 14,600 hours will travel 180,000km and will have a lesser chance of dying (incidently that gives an average speed of just 12 kph, 7mph) in order to walk 180,000 km to make a comparison over distance you would walk for 36,000 hrs (even at an optomistic 5kph, 3mph.) On the other side of the coin driving for 14,600 hours you would probably travel 730,000km (average of 50 kph, 30mph)
SHOCK Driving 730,000 km is more dangerous than cycling 180,000km
SHOCK walking for 36,000 hours is more dangerous than cycling 14,600 hours
Nor does it mention the age group of pedestrians, wether any where intoxicated, the cause of death etc etc
Like I said the article is fluff
srw
It's a bit more complicated than that...
None of the conclusions that CoG summarises are in any way surprising. All three modes of transport are very safe - to the extent that you've got to be very unlucky to be killed in a transport accident. Young drivers, especially young men, are notoriously dreadful drivers, which is why you'll be lucky to find insurance for less than several thousand pounds for a young driver. By some way, RTAs are the most common causes of death in young men.
The conclusions that CoG doesn't summarise are also unsurprising. If you're a cyclist you're a fair bit more likely to be taken to hospital than if you're in a car (but the possibility is still extremely remote) - unsurprising because car occupants are protected better in minor shunts than cyclists. Old men are much more likely to be killed or injured on a bike than younger people (but still very unlikely) - unsurprising because the old tend to react more slowly.
And using different criteria - time-based or distance-based - doesn't alter the conclusions all that much.
I'm sure that @oldfatfool and @gavroche are very well-placed to offer a reasoned statistical rejoinder to the paper, given their confidence that it's wrong...
The conclusions that CoG doesn't summarise are also unsurprising. If you're a cyclist you're a fair bit more likely to be taken to hospital than if you're in a car (but the possibility is still extremely remote) - unsurprising because car occupants are protected better in minor shunts than cyclists. Old men are much more likely to be killed or injured on a bike than younger people (but still very unlikely) - unsurprising because the old tend to react more slowly.
And using different criteria - time-based or distance-based - doesn't alter the conclusions all that much.
I'm sure that @oldfatfool and @gavroche are very well-placed to offer a reasoned statistical rejoinder to the paper, given their confidence that it's wrong...
oldfatfool
Guru
[QUOTE 2193287, member: 1314"]Link to the research itself below:
Researchers from UCL have found that cycling is safer than driving for young males, with 17 to 20 year old drivers facing almost five times greater risk per hour than cyclists of the same age.
The researchers looked at hospital admissions and deaths in England between 2007 and 2009 for pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers. These were studied by age-group and sex. The research is published in the journal PLOS ONE - here is the data:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0050606
“What we found is that risks were similar for men aged between 21 and 49 for all three modes of transport [walking, cycling, driving] and for female pedestrians and drivers aged 21 and 69 years,” said lead author Dr Jennifer Mindell (UCL Epidemiology & Public Health). “However, we found that for young male cyclists between 17 and 20 years of age, cycling was markedly safer than travelling by car."[/quote]
Like I said the article originally linked was crap reporting.
Conclusions
When all relevant ICD-10 codes are used, fatalities by time spent travelling vary within similar ranges for walking, cycling and driving. Risks for drivers were highest in youth and fell with age, while for pedestrians and cyclists, risks increased with age. For the young, especially males, cycling is safer than driving.
@srw Dr Mindell in the OP is obviously trying to warp the truth using statistics unless he is suggesting that between 17-20 the average cyclist and pedestrian crams in 40 years worth of activity into 3 years!!
@srw, I never said the paper was wrong, I said the statistics where being warped to make a point, and that the same statistics could easily be warped to show the exact opposite. lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Researchers from UCL have found that cycling is safer than driving for young males, with 17 to 20 year old drivers facing almost five times greater risk per hour than cyclists of the same age.
The researchers looked at hospital admissions and deaths in England between 2007 and 2009 for pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers. These were studied by age-group and sex. The research is published in the journal PLOS ONE - here is the data:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0050606
“What we found is that risks were similar for men aged between 21 and 49 for all three modes of transport [walking, cycling, driving] and for female pedestrians and drivers aged 21 and 69 years,” said lead author Dr Jennifer Mindell (UCL Epidemiology & Public Health). “However, we found that for young male cyclists between 17 and 20 years of age, cycling was markedly safer than travelling by car."[/quote]
Like I said the article originally linked was crap reporting.
Conclusions
When all relevant ICD-10 codes are used, fatalities by time spent travelling vary within similar ranges for walking, cycling and driving. Risks for drivers were highest in youth and fell with age, while for pedestrians and cyclists, risks increased with age. For the young, especially males, cycling is safer than driving.
@srw Dr Mindell in the OP is obviously trying to warp the truth using statistics unless he is suggesting that between 17-20 the average cyclist and pedestrian crams in 40 years worth of activity into 3 years!!
@srw, I never said the paper was wrong, I said the statistics where being warped to make a point, and that the same statistics could easily be warped to show the exact opposite. lies, damned lies, and statistics.
oldfatfool
Guru
[QUOTE 2193368, member: 1314"]she[/quote]
My god there are women Drs. now? What next? Women vicars??
My god there are women Drs. now? What next? Women vicars??
srw
It's a bit more complicated than that...
What on earth are you on about? I'm sure you can produce the appropriate p-test to prove Dr Mindell wrong.
The one thing that statistics can't do is lie. By applying the same statistical measures to different populations you can very clearly demonstrate that one activity is more dangerous than another. The best advice you can possibly give to a teenage girl is never to get into a car driven by a teenage boy. This data is a great illustration as to why.
