Cycling not very risky at all
Discussion
"An hour of cycling is equivalent to about two hours walking, about five hours in a car (in terms of the overall risk of being killed...) or about five minutes on a motorbike"
Section starts at around 21:25, that quote is from around 24:55
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03b2zbk
Also includes an analysis of just how risky F1 used to be.
Section starts at around 21:25, that quote is from around 24:55
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03b2zbk
Also includes an analysis of just how risky F1 used to be.
Interestingly, cycling is actually less dangerous than walking when measured by mile rather than per hour. If you cycle to the shops you are less likely to be killed than if you walk there!
It's also safer than being in a car with a 17yr old male driver. Even if you're a 17yr old male cyclist.
Doesn't mean I don't want more infrastructure though. It might be safe enough for me but I'd like my daughter to be able to do more than pedal around the local park.
It's also safer than being in a car with a 17yr old male driver. Even if you're a 17yr old male cyclist.
Doesn't mean I don't want more infrastructure though. It might be safe enough for me but I'd like my daughter to be able to do more than pedal around the local park.
Mr Will said:
Interestingly, cycling is actually less dangerous than walking when measured by mile rather than per hour. If you cycle to the shops you are less likely to be killed than if you walk there!
It's also safer than being in a car with a 17yr old male driver. Even if you're a 17yr old male cyclist.
Doesn't mean I don't want more infrastructure though. It might be safe enough for me but I'd like my daughter to be able to do more than pedal around the local park.
This. It's also safer than being in a car with a 17yr old male driver. Even if you're a 17yr old male cyclist.
Doesn't mean I don't want more infrastructure though. It might be safe enough for me but I'd like my daughter to be able to do more than pedal around the local park.
SuperHangOn said:
tigger1 said:
Cycling twice as risky per hour as walking!?
Where the f
k are these people walking - down the hard shoulder of the M1?
.
Home from pub. Where the f
k are these people walking - down the hard shoulder of the M1?.
http://xkcd.com/1252/
Is cycling really that dangerous though?
Obviously, if you come off or get hit, you are more likely to get a serious injury than if you were in a car doing the same, but then how often do you come off your bike or get hit by a car?
Never, is my answer to that, at the age of 28 with a lifetimes worth of cycling for leisure and the last 3/4 years commuting.
Obviously, if you come off or get hit, you are more likely to get a serious injury than if you were in a car doing the same, but then how often do you come off your bike or get hit by a car?
Never, is my answer to that, at the age of 28 with a lifetimes worth of cycling for leisure and the last 3/4 years commuting.
Mr Will said:
Interestingly, cycling is actually less dangerous than walking when measured by mile rather than per hour. CORRECT If you cycle to the shops you are less likely to be killed than if you walk there! NOT NECESSARILY SO
I'm not sure my ability to put words on paper is good enough to explain the above, but I'll try.The measurement of risk per mile is made over the total distance travelled per method of transport. And the distance travelled per method is almost always related to the speed of the transport. Hence cycling safer than walking, driving safer than cycling, flying safer than driving etc - as a proportion of the distance covered.
However, risk per journey is also relevant as the choice of transport for a given journey is usually made on the basis of distance (you wouldn't do a daily return commute of 120 miles by bicycle).
So coming back to your example of walking vs cycling to the shops. Let's say the risk per km is calculated from stats that show the average walk journey is 1 mile and the average bicycle journey is 5 miles. And the journey to the shops is 1 mile. It would be perfectly acceptable to use the walk risks for such a journey, but it wouldn't be accurate to use the bicycle risks as average bicycle risks are not necessarily applied across such a short journey.
Here's an extreme example:
Space Shuttle travel had a fatality rate of 1 death per 39 million miles. In 2011 in the UK there was 1 motorbike death per 8 million miles. So the space shuttle looks 5 times safer.
BUT, space shuttle journeys are long and fast.
So when you compare death rates per journey, there was an average of 1 death for every 9.6 journeys on the shuttle. Imagine if motorbike deaths occured on average after less than 10 rides!
oyster said:
Mr Will said:
Interestingly, cycling is actually less dangerous than walking when measured by mile rather than per hour. CORRECT If you cycle to the shops you are less likely to be killed than if you walk there! NOT NECESSARILY SO
I'm not sure my ability to put words on paper is good enough to explain the above, but I'll try.The measurement of risk per mile is made over the total distance travelled per method of transport. And the distance travelled per method is almost always related to the speed of the transport. Hence cycling safer than walking, driving safer than cycling, flying safer than driving etc - as a proportion of the distance covered.
However, risk per journey is also relevant as the choice of transport for a given journey is usually made on the basis of distance (you wouldn't do a daily return commute of 120 miles by bicycle).
So coming back to your example of walking vs cycling to the shops. Let's say the risk per km is calculated from stats that show the average walk journey is 1 mile and the average bicycle journey is 5 miles. And the journey to the shops is 1 mile. It would be perfectly acceptable to use the walk risks for such a journey, but it wouldn't be accurate to use the bicycle risks as average bicycle risks are not necessarily applied across such a short journey.
Here's an extreme example:
Space Shuttle travel had a fatality rate of 1 death per 39 million miles. In 2011 in the UK there was 1 motorbike death per 8 million miles. So the space shuttle looks 5 times safer.
BUT, space shuttle journeys are long and fast.
So when you compare death rates per journey, there was an average of 1 death for every 9.6 journeys on the shuttle. Imagine if motorbike deaths occured on average after less than 10 rides!
(I do follow your working and understand. As with all these things it's a matter of choosing the appropriate measure for that which you wish to compare)
Mr Will said:
oyster said:
Mr Will said:
Interestingly, cycling is actually less dangerous than walking when measured by mile rather than per hour. CORRECT If you cycle to the shops you are less likely to be killed than if you walk there! NOT NECESSARILY SO
I'm not sure my ability to put words on paper is good enough to explain the above, but I'll try.The measurement of risk per mile is made over the total distance travelled per method of transport. And the distance travelled per method is almost always related to the speed of the transport. Hence cycling safer than walking, driving safer than cycling, flying safer than driving etc - as a proportion of the distance covered.
However, risk per journey is also relevant as the choice of transport for a given journey is usually made on the basis of distance (you wouldn't do a daily return commute of 120 miles by bicycle).
So coming back to your example of walking vs cycling to the shops. Let's say the risk per km is calculated from stats that show the average walk journey is 1 mile and the average bicycle journey is 5 miles. And the journey to the shops is 1 mile. It would be perfectly acceptable to use the walk risks for such a journey, but it wouldn't be accurate to use the bicycle risks as average bicycle risks are not necessarily applied across such a short journey.
Here's an extreme example:
Space Shuttle travel had a fatality rate of 1 death per 39 million miles. In 2011 in the UK there was 1 motorbike death per 8 million miles. So the space shuttle looks 5 times safer.
BUT, space shuttle journeys are long and fast.
So when you compare death rates per journey, there was an average of 1 death for every 9.6 journeys on the shuttle. Imagine if motorbike deaths occured on average after less than 10 rides!
(I do follow your working and understand. As with all these things it's a matter of choosing the appropriate measure for that which you wish to compare)
And of course what all these stats ignore is that you can massively decrease your risks of death/injury by riding/driving defensively. The accident rates are skewed very heavily by the minority of idiots on the roads.
MysteryLemon said:
Is cycling really that dangerous though?
Obviously, if you come off or get hit, you are more likely to get a serious injury than if you were in a car doing the same, but then how often do you come off your bike or get hit by a car?
Never, is my answer to that, at the age of 28 with a lifetimes worth of cycling for leisure and the last 3/4 years commuting.
Once in my life (now 33). Obviously, if you come off or get hit, you are more likely to get a serious injury than if you were in a car doing the same, but then how often do you come off your bike or get hit by a car?
Never, is my answer to that, at the age of 28 with a lifetimes worth of cycling for leisure and the last 3/4 years commuting.
Four months later I can hold a pint again
but can't use mountain bike style gear shifters. oyster said:
And of course what all these stats ignore is that you can massively decrease your risks of death/injury by riding/driving defensively. The accident rates are skewed very heavily by the minority of idiots on the roads.
You can, but the stats include those who are riding defensively as well as those who aren't. The thing about averages is that most people tend towards them. On average otolith said:
oyster said:
And of course what all these stats ignore is that you can massively decrease your risks of death/injury by riding/driving defensively. The accident rates are skewed very heavily by the minority of idiots on the roads.
You can, but the stats include those who are riding defensively as well as those who aren't. The thing about averages is that most people tend towards them. On average 25% wear headphones
50% wear low viz clothing
25% don't wear helmets
10% take big risks with large vehicles
50% jump red lights
50% ride in secondary position
Even allowing for overlaps of the above groups, it's not difficult to be better than average.
otolith said:
I would suggest that "not living in London" would be more effective still.
Having 5 minutes ago seen the results of a lorry hit in London I'd be inclined to agree. Lower Thames street under the Cannon St Bridge another cyclist under a tipper lorry 
Many years spent hurtling down hills and racing on roads and I never suffered more than a scratch until one day, showing off in front of a group of girls I overcooked a jump and broke my upper back... All fine now but scared the bejeesus out of me at the time!
Gassing Station | Pedal Powered | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff