...per mile travelled, according to research by Brake, a charity for slowing down on rural roads.
Quite scary really!
Too right it is ..and one of the major reasons I avoid riding on the road wherever possible
Yeah one reason I want to do more MTB from now on. Where I live in Cheshire the roads are very busy and always get at least one idiot per ride.
I'll still ride on the roads, albeit its not too bad here.
The chances are still extremely low and riding defensively can help. And the more.of us out there, the better. The tide will turn....
I’ll still ride a few thousand kilometres per year but it makes me feel a bit more vulnerable 🙂
Funny selective stats at odds with previous stats on this?
I don’t care for the roads but you just get used to it. I only ride on them when there is no off-road alternative.
Ive seen my mate nearly get wiped out by a truck as it didn’t see him till last minute It nearly tippled over with swerving to miss him .
I know that sometimes we are hard to see but there are drivers that genuinly hate cyclists and don’t give a **** about them.
I thought it would be more tbh for equal miles. Surprised in a way my motorbike is worse, but then seeing how some ride them maybe I'm not.
Only 46?
Confirms my gut feeling - living in Devon and the roads are narrow, poorly maintained and with hedges now not being cut (environmental stuff) - it means you end up riding busier roads and most drivers down here see cyclists as a pain, so have no sympathy. On a recent JOGLE ride we noted that Devon and Cornwall were by far the worst counties for drivers vs cyclists
That doesn't seem right to me.
I do around 40000 miles a year in a car and thankfully haven't had a serious incident for a long time.
I do maybe around 3000 miles a year of which around 300 would be on the road and have close calls all the time*.
* close calls offroad don't count
Slightly sceptical about the results. Accidents/deaths per mile requires the stats gather to have an accurate idea of the miles covered by all cyclists nationally. Whilst I can imagine using mot mileage readings you could have a fair idea of miles covered by cars and motorbikes I'd be very dubious of their ability to do the same for cyclists. I know there will be some strava deviants who measure every time they go for a pint of milk but they are not atypical cyclists. Just estimating everyone in the nation that rides a bike would be a huge undertaking.
Also, it would be interesting to know what they thought were the differences when you started looking at journey types. I would assume (might be wrong) that most car deaths are in higher speed incidents and a disproportionate number of cycles deaths are in city centre scenarios. So if you had a 5 mile urban commute to work it could be thousands of times riskier to take a bike than a car. Mitigated of course by the fact that the risk is still tiny and the cycle choice is still more likely to extend your life because of the health benefits than reduce it by getting squished.
I'm not sure that urban environments are necessarily more dangerous. I seem to remember Scottish road stats showing that rural A roads were the most hazardous (can't remember if that was per mile travelled or some other measure).
I'm not sure what this news is meant to tell us, itsounds scary, but lacks context.
I mean 46 times more likely than... what?
How many miles do I have to drive before my death becomes a statistical certainty? I assume I divide multiply that by 0.46 to get my bicycle death mileage?
And is it actually likelihood of cyclist death/injury Vs 'Driver' or car occupant? I'd have thought that makes a difference too...
Another lovely headline to make cycling seem dangerous but almost bugger all detail or context...
Cookeaa, not saying that article is right but you definitely need to read it again and take a crash course in maths / stats!
I would say it seems to have got worse in the last week or so. Has everyone started rushing around in the build up to Xmas?! One guy was in a huge rush to pull out in front of me only to pull over 300 hundred yards up the road to play on his telephone!
previous research I have seen shows the risk per hour is similar. Cars do not go 46 times as fast more like 4 times at a guess. I think this is just badly flawed stats.
Funny selective stats at odds with previous stats on this?
This.
Read the Book of Norm for insight into micromort statistics and how wappy they can be.
Most dangerous thing I do as an over 40 year old is the first 20mins of my half hour run....! It's more dangerous apparently than sitting in front of television for two hours...
As Vic Reeves said, 83.4% of statistics are made up on the spot....
Been injured, and badly, too many times commuting to work on the bike - I've given up road riding. 3 rather nice road bikes getting dusty, and only riding two MTB's now (OK on road bike on the turbo). Getting my spine badly broken was the last straw.
I’m not sure that urban environments are necessarily more dangerous. I seem to remember Scottish road stats showing that rural A roads were the most hazardous (can’t remember if that was per mile travelled or some other measure).
Cars are typically going slower in urban environments than on A roads (many A roads are 60mph limit after all). I think the difference in driving is that in the towns people are just not driving carefully and don't look, can't deal with all the moving cars, pedestrians, bikes etc,. whereas on A and B roads the drivers just don't seem to care and make deliberate choices to overtake into oncoming cars, around blind corners etc,.
I have to ride on B roads to get to off road but I would never ride on a 60mph limit A road.
+1 This isn't a statistical comment but I stay away fro A roads, and indeed roads in general these days.
I still commute every day, and have done for 8 years, but I'm very selective of the roads/offroads I use now. Some roads are just moron-runs (moruns?)
This.
Read the Book of Norm for insight into micromort statistics and how wappy they can be.
Most dangerous thing I do as an over 40 year old is the first 20mins of my half hour run….! It’s more dangerous apparently than sitting in front of television for two hours…
As Vic Reeves said, 83.4% of statistics are made up on the spot….
It's generally understood that a fall from 4 stories (48 feet) give you a 50% survival rate.
Obviously you don't recognize this so feel free to jump out of a 4th floor window and post the video 😀
Cookeaa, not saying that article is right but you definitely need to read it again and take a crash course in maths / stats!
Half past midnight posting aside, go on then, explain how that piece clarifies the likelihood of a ksi for a cyclist?
The thing is what exactly is the motivation for "Brake" in publishing this partial factoid? As a road safety charity I cannot really remember them doing much of note...
So called statistical analysis generally seems to be used where the "researcher" has a point to selectively "demonstrate" (and publish) rather than a hypothesis to dispassionately test...
Not read that article, but I recall seeing on Twitter that they were using bicycle and motorcycle stats combined? So the figure is for road users on two wheels vs road users on four wheels?
IIRC, the KSI stats for driving/cycling are roughly the same per hour and the KSI stats for cycling/walking are roughly the same per km? Added to which, the health benefits of cycling outweigh the slight increases risk over driving.
Perceived safety is key, which is why we need high-quality physically-separated cycling infrastructure on every main road in every town/city, coupled with "anti-car" measures like filtered permeability and reduced numbers of car parking spaces.
Don't get too comfortable cycling on rural roads ..
Having recently been on a speed awareness course it's where most fatalities occur in a car ..as mentioned earlier ..I only use roads to link up off-road sections of a ride and hate every second I'm on them ..
That the concern about the rural roads near me. Very busy, narrow and lots of blind bends. Too many idiots. I feel much safer riding in build up areas.