How to reduce the risk of cycling

[Fab Foodie]

Kilometres per Serious Injury?

Kiiled or Seriously Injured ....

 

[Fab Foodie]

Damn, TMN to Smeggers ....

 

[GrumpyGregry]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

...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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.