[Closed] Are we taking our lives in our hands every time we ride on the road?

No, we are placing our lives in the hands of those behind the wheel.

A bit. But the same when driving, walking, mtb riding too

The road is bloody scary these days you are right crazy drivers around.

No, we are placing our lives in the hands of those behind the wheel.

but we know the risks. don't we?

Yeah, to a degree. Still do it though, and don't see me stopping any time soon.

It's why I get away from roads asap , if I hurt myself off-road it's my own daft fault, not because somebody didn't see me wearing orange, or didn't know bikes can travel at more than 5mph towards junctions, or were just pissed off and we would do.

I know the risks, and this is why I use the canal tow path to get to work during the winter even though it's a shitty mess. I'd rather be a bit mucky than have to share the road with idiots in a mad rush whilst it's dark and wet.

No more so that doing many other things. The numbers of dead cyclists are very low. Its no more dangerous than dozens of other things we do without thinking.

but we know the risks. don’t we?

Anyone posting a question like this thread title may not.

Cycling is a safe activity, statistically.

I know the risks and they're pretty low so it doesn't really affect me. I obviously choose to avoid certain roads. I've had way more injuries through mountain biking - over less distance.

People die in all sorts of ways. Nothing is risk-free.

Are you taking your life in your hands if you decide not to cycle and instead decide to sit practically motionless inside a mobile carbon dioxide factory?

It's just that being hit by some bell end in a car makes for a more palpable mental image than your internal organs slowly grinding to a halt.

Must admit that I find the twice daily drive to work and back increasingly scary and am wondering if I will even survive to retirement in July without being wiped out by some idiot in a blinged up German sports saloon.

When taking into account the risk of accidents, cycling extends your life expectancy, driving reduces it.

Anyone posting a question like this thread title may not.

please explain why?

If you want to be melodramatic about it then yes, if you want to realistic about it then there’s a small risk.

As said above, the health benefits of cycling far outweigh the mortality risks of an accident. I often wince when I see someone riding a busy road, particularly if there's a country lane nearby

You have to manage it. Some roads are awful at certain times of day - avoid them. You can nearly always find a quiet route, especially if it's a recreational ride.

it was a question I was asked. i don't have a problem riding in traffic or at busy times. i don't enjoy it and if possible choose a quieter route, but it dint bother me. it is something i don't even think about.
if i thought i was gonna die every time i went out on my bike, i would take up darts.

No,

You've got about a 0.005% of being killed on the road as a cyclist in a year. About a 0.01% chance of being seriously injured and perhaps more scarily about a 1% chance of getting a minor injury.

You've got about as much chance of dying on the road as choking to death.

Happy thoughts.

We're putting our safety in the hands of others and in my opinion it's one of the most dangerous ways to travel due to the speed differences and the amount of vehicles will come into closer proximity with because of the speed differences.
I only cycle on road now for commuting and I'm selective as to which roads I'll use.

I just choose my time on the road carefully. As however I have just bought my first proper road bike in 50years and I’m moving back to Weymouth it will be interesting to see how much stress I get down there.

You’ve got about a 0.005% of being killed on the road as a cyclist in a year. About a 0.01% chance of being seriously injured and perhaps more scarily about a 1% chance of getting a minor injury.

Unless of course having deemed it a safe activity you then break rule #1...

I think the most poignant statement I saw was someone who got asked about riding a bike over a 1000' drop won a 1' wide bridge wall... and the reply was some people ride down the roads down a 1' wide gap with articulated trucks going past.

It is too scary to ride on the roads and I will avoid it as much as I can. I’ll happily ride on footpaths, I don’t care if this pisses some folk off, my life is more important. Luckily there are plenty of towpaths and a ncn route right near me so I can get out to the countryside without touching a road. ( I do ride country lanes but these are pretty much traffic free)
I lost a friend last year (Soulrider off this forum) who was killed by a car, I’ve had many friends who have had ‘minor’ incidents too, it’s all too close to home

Yes, taking being the operative word there. Roughly speaking you gain in life expectancy roughly the same number of hours you spend exercising. So you're taking hours of your life back from the grim reaper.

The idiom "god does not take back from your allotted time the hours spent on a bike" is actually true.

Doesn't bother me - maybe I have a safe commute. But even solo roadying feels pretty safe to me.

I don't enjoy group riding on the road to the same extent I must admit. Probably down to the psychology of not being used to two-abreast riding, but on the odd occasion I've been out for a club run I've seen crass over-taking manoeuvres from motorists every time.

Yesterday a mate and I were planning a road ride. Bloody foggy round our way and when I got to his house we were both thinking it was too scary so we grabbed a couple of his mountain bikes and went over Cannock Chase.
Also a bonus for me as I found that riding his Transition Scout Carbon with Eagle XX1 and Enve wheels was no better then my off-the-shelf £2,000 Giant Trance 29er.

It is a concern. I’ve been hit by a car while cycling on the road twice. I think your chance of getting hit goes up the more you cycle. I also think it goes up the faster you travel in built up areas.

The issue then becomes what can you do to reduce the risk. There are many ways to reduce the risk but you will never eliminate it if you are sharing the road with fast moving heavy vehicles.

in my opinion it’s one of the most dangerous ways to travel due to the speed differences

There's a sort of truth in that, but the factor of speed difference is primarily one of consequence rather than probability. So if you get hit by a fast-moving vehicle then it's most probably going to go badly, but that's not the same thing as the chances of that happening.

It's a bit like being shot/stabbed/suicide-bombed/etc in the street: if it happens, you're almost certainly screwed, but it's almost certainly not going to happen. A serious cycling collision is a less mathematically extreme risk, but it's still well into high-consequence/low-probability.

Obviously everyone (understandably and rightly, in the context of their own experience and behaviour) has their own way of balancing high-consequence/low-probability risks against lower-consequence and higher-probability ones. And everyone also (again understandably and rightly, in the context of their own experience and behaviour) has their own perceptions as to how high or low the probability of any given risk is.

It's like we all know with roads: some naturally invite worse driver behaviour than others, so many of us avoid those and find different, more benign routes. If someone's only ever experienced one or the other then they'll have a very different view as to how "dangerous" cycling on the road is. And that's only one factor.

The issues only really come when people start projecting their own experiences and behaviours onto others, rather than trying to abstract both/all of their viewpoints into an objective and rational approach.

No, we are placing our lives in the hands of those behind the wheel.

I'm bloody not. Wouldn't trust any of those morons as far as I could throw them.

Seriously though, there are a lot of factors in place to keep us safe. Even if the road infrastructure isn't there, there are rules and laws that most people abide to when on the road. Apart from that, you do have to have your wits about you and predict what is going on around you.
Very few cyclists get plowed into by someone completely not looking and if that happens there ain't anything you can do - but the number of times it happens compared to the number of cars and cyclists out there is minute. Funnily enough, I always have to empty my bladder before riding home and I think there's that bit of nervousness every ride, but hey, I've made it this far. (Good job I don't believe in tempting fate)

I think your chance of getting hit goes up the more you cycle. I also think it goes up the faster you travel in built up areas.

The former is inevitably true because of simple exposure, but (because of, as above, different experience and behaviour) I find the latter to be the exact opposite of my experience: I feel very safe if I can keep up with the flow of urban traffic; whereas I'm much more nervous if I can't, because people try to squeeze past with relatively small speed differentials in what tend to be small and rapidly closing gaps.

Oh FFS - no much more than when we walk along a pavement.

We really are our own worst enemy in terms of increasing the number of people who use bikes to get around by using clickbait headlines like the OP.

In a not very scientific summary, 2 people I've known have died whilst cycling, 1 whilst walking, 1 whilst driving.

I think your chance of getting hit goes up the more you cycle.

But then again, the more experienced you are, the more you're aware of hazards and can recognise potential danger.

I commute in that London, which people seem to think is some sort of death wish.

I've been hit by a car (probably 80% my fault, v low speed) and taken a heavy tumble (pedestrian jumping in road). Both of these happened in the first year of me commuting regularly.

I'd like to hope my risk mitigation is a bit better these days.

I have front and back cameras now so if I do get on the wrong side of an artic at least there will be footage for prosecutors.

and in my opinion it’s one of the most dangerous ways to travel

Which is wrong. An objective look at the risks will tell you this. Walking is more dangerous per miile, driving more dangerous per hour, motorcycling many times more dangerous in al ways.

Cycling is so safe and so good for your health that cyclists live longer than non cyclists.

Yes its sensible to mitigate risk - road choice, road positioning, awareness, good brakes etc. However overall risk is very low

Bearing in mind mist cyclists who ride on the road tend to be younger fitter people, general safety statistics are misleading.

You’ve got about as much chance of dying on the road as choking to death.

Who choke to death ? Old people and young children mostly, not the cyling demographic.

Oh FFS – no much more than when we walk along a pavement.

Sure walking on the pavement has its hazards, but again thats, old people, young children, ill people, drunks ect, ect. Younger fit sober people don't generally hurt themselves walking on the pavement.

 

That really depends...

I for one am done with my short commute ,five T-junctions feels a bit like Russian roulette at each one, throw in poor weather, dark mornings and drivers on their phones I would say the odds are stacking up against me .The icing on the cake was an old chap who properly hit from behind the police did eyesight test on him ! he just didn't see me . I limped away from that one but after 40 odd years cycling I used up my nine lives so I am out .

Ah statistics, fantastic things until you are one...

5 years commuting here no incidents worth talking about at all.

Until May 2nd last year, now I can just about walk.

I was one of the unlucky ones, hit completely out of the blue by someone not looking on a 20mph road.

I had rode around 29,000 miles on the road, so I was probably due

**** statistics!

There’s a sort of truth in that, but the factor of speed difference is primarily one of consequence rather than probability. So if you get hit by a fast-moving vehicle then it’s most probably going to go badly, but that’s not the same thing as the chances of that happening.

It's not the speed differences itself I meant really, it's the number of vehicles passing you for a given distance compared to any other form of transport.

Yep.

Close thread.

Walking is more dangerous per miile, driving more dangerous per hour

See, this is where "more dangerous" is shown up as the massively over-simplistic phrase that it is.

I'm fairly sure as to which figures you have in mind (or perhaps rather the figures on which the statements you have in mind were based), and there's a half-decent appraisal of them here.

The figures showed that per mile, walking had a higher fatality rate in road collisions than cycling.

But this overlooks a few things.

Firstly that cycling had higher significant injury and KSI rates, so does "dangerous" mean chance of a collision, chance of being injured, chance of being seriously injured, chance of being killed, or what? Because walking is only "more dangerous" if you look at the fatality rate.

Secondly, figures for the distances walked or cycled in the UK are going to have massive error bars. (Figures for driving will be more accurate, because most vehicles have their mileage noted every year at their MOT.) Even if you've defined what "dangerous" means, how confident can you be in stating the relative danger of two activities per mile when you can't be terribly confident about the number of miles?

I think it's perfectly reasonable to say something like "figures suggest that the chance of being killed by a motor vehicle while you're walking isn't dissimilar to that for cycling", which I personally think is a sound basis for questioning things like why people think someone on a bike should be required to wear a helmet "because it might save their life" when they inevitably don't wear one themselves for walking; but it's not a sound basis for saying that one is unequivocally more or less dangerous than the other.

From distant memory I'm fairly sure that "driving is more dangerous per hour than cycling" is bobbins, but I'll confess to not being arsed to go and check 😉

It’s not the speed differences itself I meant really, it’s the number of vehicles passing you for a given distance compared to any other form of transport.

Which counter-intuitively kind of proves how low the probability of an event is: the fatality rate is similar to that for walking (which is overwhelmingly done away from the carriageway) despite mostly being in the carriageway so many vehicles passing you.

It's really a perception vs outcomes thing: close passes are viscerally noticeable, whereas data aren't. Which isn't to say it's a problem: it really is, and a big one. That perception of risk/fear is why people who really want to cycle end up having to take less convenient routes, and it's a major reason why people who moderately want to cycle simply don't.

as sensible grown up people, we know what is good or bad for us. we know what is right and wrong.
we know when something is dangerous or not also.

I have to question this initial premise... People are idiots (I know I am) very few of us assess "right and wrong" or indeed levels of risk in an unbiased, dispassionate, evidence based way...

so every time we wheel our bikes out onto a road, are we ourselves taking out lives in our own hands?

Well... Yeah. But so what?

Every activity you undertake in life comes with inherent risks, which you need to assess for yourself.
Only the individual can decide if it's better to accept some personal risks (or indeed the responsibility for risks they might pose to others) in order to receive some rewards for a given activity...

Or you could follow the counter argument to it's logical conclusion, see unacceptable danger everywhere, and cower in your house fearing everything and everyone in the outside world (assuming your house isn't potentially unsafe and about to collapse on you)...

Most people die in bed. ban beds! protective nightware! Stop the madness!

Personally I never leave my chair. ~Seems safest

There are risks. They can be minimised with some thought, but not eliminated.

Lets start with people are terrible at assessing risk. We tend to base our opinions on our own experiences which is a very small sample size and so can be very different to the real risk. So looking at the statistics instead*
From https://www.rospa.com/road-safety/advice/pedal-cyclists/facts-figures/ and https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/ras30-reported-casualties-in-road-accidents#casualty-rates-and-risk

Casualty rate per billion vehicle miles 2018
Killed:
Car driver 2
Pedal cyclist 29
Pedestrian 34
Motorcycle rider 126
Killed or seriously injured
Car driver 27
Pedal cyclist 1139
Pedestrian 461
Motor cycle rider 2039

So your a lot more likely to be seriously injured on a bike than driving a car but a lot less than riding a motor cycle. This also doesn't take into account all the health benefits of regular exercise that cycling gives.

The first document I linked gives a good breakdown of where accidents occur i.e. 75% at or near a road junction, 80% in daylight. Interestingly ice causing a non collision incident is the second highest reason for hospital admission for cyclists after collision with cars.

So basically keep cycling, it'll probably be ok and the health benefits are great. Just maybe watch out for ice and around junctions at rush hour.

*yes I know there are lots of ways to interpret them and they can be skewed to support your own opinion

Statistically, no we are not. Anecdotally, it won't bring my clubmate back from that pothole impact (five seconds earlier it would have been me), nor will it undo the plate in my wrist from a hit and run.

I trust the statistics.

So your a lot more likely to be seriously injured on a bike than driving a car but a lot less than riding a motor cycle

The unpalatable truth for motorcycles is that, sadly, they are most often the victims of their own misfortune (corners if I recall correctly). For cyclists it's very unusual for it not to be the result of a third party.

Yes, but ride with this in mind and you'll manage a lot of the risk. There's plenty that you, as a cyclist, can do to make yourself less likely to be one of the statistics, especially when it comes to visibility and road-position.

I do most of my road miles riding (which I'm afraid is most of my riding these days) in experienced groups, mostly with an assorted selection of kids in tow, and while I may have experienced more than a few grumpy motorists, indignant about the 12 seconds that we've added to their journey, I've got a pretty good track record at getting back alive. It's pretty rare that I ever feel unsafe on a bike (except when chasing friends off Fleet Moss, when they are better descenders than me!)

I think your chance of getting hit goes up the more you cycle. I also think it goes up the faster you travel in built up areas.

...I find the latter to be the exact opposite of my experience: I feel very safe if I can keep up with the flow of urban traffic...

There's more to it than that. Yes, keeping up with the flow of traffic is safer. On the other hand, bombing down a hill in an urban area without cars around you but with loads of side streets is dangerous as hell (Victoria St, Newport)

Casualty rate per billion vehicle miles 2018
Killed:
Car driver 2
Pedal cyclist 29
Pedestrian 34

Hang on. That statistic needs unpicking a bit due to quoting likelihood in miles, and not accounting for the vast difference in the number of miles people do.

A typical driver does 15k miles a year so has a 0.003% chance of being killed per year.

A keen cyclist might do 3,000 miles per year so the chance is 0.009%. So three times more likely per year IF you are a keen roadie or regular commuter.

If you walked an hour every work day, which is a decent schlep to and from work or a train station, you might do 1,000 miles a year so your chance would be 0.003%, same as driving.

But then again, the amount of control you have over your destiny is pretty different for each of those modes...

Have to confess I’m not a big fan of riding on the road, and try to avoid it whenever I can.

Slightly bizarrely I rode motorbikes for years and never felt as unsafe as I do on a pushbike... maybe it’s an age thing...

As a motorcycle riding cyclist I’m pretty much at the pinnacle of those statistics and so far my experience bears that out with several RTCs to date. The most recent was the most serious with a car driver looking straight through me as I rode around a roundabout. She then didn’t stop and drive into me at around 20mph. Back broken in 2 places, other minor injuries.
I take the view that looking, being aware and being able to react to situations are the best possible ways of keeping going.
I cycle, motorcycle and drive about the same amount (5000 miles) equally per year.
If someone isn’t looking, they ain’t looking.
I still ride on the road, and plan to continue.

Clued up people I respect like Bez can spout facts all day long about how safe cycling on the road is compared to going to the toilet or whatever but it really isn't true.

Cycling on UK roads is incredibly dangerous.

I've done tons of stuff in my life which may be considered dangerous and<span style="font-size: 0.8rem;"> there is nothing, nothing that has had me closer to death or serious injury than road cycling. </span>

Maybe I'm more likely to die from choking but hey, I've eaten 3 meals a day for 50 years and have never come close to choking.

However I have come close to death on the road on literally hundreds of occasions. When I say this, I mean close passes, cars pulling out, actually being knocked off, oncoming cars overtaking into my carriageway and many other incidents.

Incidentally, almost all of these situations have occurred on country roads and areas with less traffic than normal. roads deemed so safe as to have stupid little blue signs designating them as 'national cycle routes' for instance.

I commuted in London for 8 years and only had one near death experience (chain snapped and caught in the wheel of my folding bike right in front of a double decker). My fault but still a brush with the reaper which wouldn't have happened if I'd been taking the tube.

People bang on about walking as dangerous but who walks 3000 km a year alongside fast moving traffic?

I think commuting by bike during the mad couple of hours from 7-9am and 5-7 pm is far more dangerous than a Sunday pootle as well. Only tonight on my way home I got shouted at by a van driver to stop blocking the road at rush hour. Thats happened several times over the last year and is a new development so I'm not sure whats going on but whatever.

Every few months after a particular bad incident I always say 'right thats it' but I always go back because nothing, literally nothing is better than getting somewhere you need to be by bike.

Yep, pretty much as above. Now find riding on the road very scary. 1/4 of my spine now being bolted together does that. I wonder why I still do it, but the fear of not doing it and having a heart attack in front of the One Show is even more unpalatable.

Just as long as nobody says, just in case those statistics really take a dump on me, "he died doing what he loved" at my funeral. As being hit by a car is definitely not on my list of "likes"

The stats tell the truth. The estimate of cycling mileage above is way too high for the average. I bet the average cyclist does 1/10th of that. so the average cyclist compared to the average car driver - the car driver has a higher chance of dying in any one year.

Its absolutely true that your chances of dying on a bike are low.

Again as above - we are in general very bad at assessing risk

No TJ,

What we are bad at is assessing statistics.

NOpe - you are saying its dangerous in your subjective opinion. The objective facts show it is not.

Objective facts trump subjective opinion every time.

For me, it doesn't matter what the stats say it's more about how I feel on some roads. Whilst on one hand I know that I might not actually get hit, I find it stressful and unenjoyable with a relentless stream of vehicles overtaking. There's some local roads I'd only ride at certain times of day or avoid altogether.

Lol - Thats poor even for you TJ

An objective fact is that I'm sitting on a chair typing this on a laptop.

A statistic is a loose collection of data collated in 10000 different ways, often used out of context and in parallel with another collection of data collated in another 10000 different ways and all fed through a group think filter and multiplied by a bias constant before being passed back through a media prism.

In other words - mainly bollox.

It's 2020. We don't need experts now, it's all about the feels.

Yes
But the sensible folk do all they can to mitigate the risks by being pro active and assesing th danger and responding accoordingly

Wearing bright coloured clothing to stand out from the background clutter
Flashing bright lights front and rear
Is the sun causing me to squint ? Ok so I will take the long way home rather than be rammed by a blinded driver
Pro viz jackets are ace , but a Red / WHite / Red strped mud guard in 3m Scotlight would be as useful, as opposed to flat black
By not riding in the gutter , and trying to stay alert to the traffic around them

Again it's how statistics are interpreted. Cyclist are generally younger and healthy so are not in a group likely to die walking on the pavement, but they do die on the roads. Pedestrian accident statistics include everyone.
To give you an example. I once went through the screening process to see if I was suitable to donate a kidney. The statistics say live kidney donors have a longer life expectancy than average. But to donate a kidney you have to be fit and healthy, a great deal of those who make up the "average" aren't.
For me a fit and healthy person per hour spent, it's going to be walking, driving then cycling in that order of safety.

The objective facts show it is not.

Well, they actually don't. You always want to see everything in black and white, when it's just not that simple. You want to be right, so you want to believe the stats back you up.

There are FAR too many questions for anyone to conclusively prove one way or the other. We have a number for cycling deaths - but who are the cyclists who die? Drunk people riding with no lights? Keen roadies? Kids shooting out into traffic without looking? How much does experience affect your accident probability? Are non-fatal accidents distributed evenly across the cycling population - in other words, are some people just safer riders or do they just live in less dangerous areas?

Just to be clear - I don't think it's that dangerous, I wouldn't do it if I did - but your arguments are shite TJ.

However I have come close to death on the road on literally hundreds of occasions.

Yup, and that's the problem with focusing solely on statistics:

For me, it doesn’t matter what the stats say it’s more about how I feel on some roads.

I always liken it to a variation of Russian Roulette. You're surrounded by thousands and thousands of revolvers, and only one of them has one bullet in one chamber. Statistically you're in practically no danger, but the problem is that whenever someone comes near to you they pick up one of the revolvers, point it at your head, and pull the trigger. Sometimes you're philosophical about it, but sometimes you just find it utterly harrowing, and at the end of the day you have one simple wish: that people would just leave the ****ing revolvers alone.

The answer to the original question can be reasonably objective: the chances of going out for a ride and something serious happening are actually very slim. But the chances of going out for a ride and feeling like you just had a brush with that event are huge.

In the meantime, I'm off to paint the word "Bez" on my car bonnet 😉

Molgrips - the arguement is perfectly valid. An objective fact is just that. None of those things you mention alter the fact that cycling is not dangerous.

Its nothing to do with having to prove I am right. Its about understanding the stats.

come on - you have a scientific training do you not? In what way does a subjective opinion invalidate a objective fact?

However I have come close to death on the road on literally hundreds of occasions.

A close pass doesn't mean you nearly died. It means that someone doesn't think you need as much space as you think you do.

Cyclist are generally younger and healthy so are not in a group likely to die walking on the pavement, but they do die on the roads. Pedestrian accident statistics include everyone.

Assuming we're talking transport statistics, and not lobbing in some odd datasets, they only include deaths by collision involving vehicles. Not medical deaths, or even single-party accidents such as falling down some stairs (which is arguably a little perverse, because they do include single-party casualties for vehicle users).

If someone dies on the pavement then the only way they'll end up in the DfT data is if they've died as a direct result of being hit by a vehicle of some sort, most commonly a car or lorry. Even then, they only qualify as a fatality if they die within 30 days and a post mortem doesn't decide it was natural causes (here's an example).

An objective fact is just that.

We don't have enough information for objective facts in any useful context.

Again - I don't think it's dangerous, but it's just a hunch.

I've been involved in three crashes in the 16 years and 40,000 miles I've been back riding.

None of them were on the road, none of them involved another vehicle.

Absolutely agree that you need to mitigate the risks with clothing, lights, route planning, road craft, but this whole "regular brush with death" just does not reflect my experience of riding.

Good post Bez and quite correct.

This is the problem about assessing risk.

Tomorrow it will be icy and so I'll be deciding whether it too slippery to be safe to ride in based on how cold it actually got v the weather forecast and maybe if its borderline for my road bike switching to a mtb which will cope better and be able to take a more offroad route with less slippery tarmac etc etc.

What I can't assess is whether Gaz from sales is tired from being up all night playing fortnite, is now late for his photocopier convention and is texting his colleague whilst doing twice the limit on a blind bend

I’ve done tonnes of stuff in my life that’s considered dangerous, nothing more than playing in abandoned buildings. I fell through a granary fracturing my skull. I only just survived.

Ban granaries.

Tomorrow it will be icy and so I’ll be deciding whether it too slippery to be safe to ride

Buy some studded tyres, then whenever it's icy or snowy you get super excited about being able to put them on and use them 😀

Absolutely agree that you need to mitigate the risks with clothing, lights, route planning, road craft, but this whole “regular brush with death” just does not reflect my experience of riding.

Same.

The problem with the stats is firstly the figures for walking/cycling distances are guesses.
Secondly, I suspect a large proprtion of those figuring in the pedestrian figures include kids/the elderly/phone zombies/the pissed/generally not looking before stepping into the road.. If I avoid being those I suggest my risk factors diminish greatly. There is a limit to what I can do to mitigate the risk factors when on a bike. So for me personally I suspect the stats are meaningless. I can't remember the last time I had a near miss on foot. On a bike I don't have to tax my memory.

"Ban granaries."

No, just ban idiots from playing in them.

@bez - I've decided on the fatbike which I'm also super excited about  #anyexcuse

You could always go for double the tyre excitement by googling for "fat studs"…?

Its a work laptop...

If someone dies on the pavement then the only way they’ll end up in the DfT data is if they’ve died as a direct result of being hit by a vehicle of some sort, 

Your probably right, but I doubt any statistics relate to pedestrians being killed on the "pavement". Most would be pedestrians stepping into the road. That'll be children, old people and those incapacitated by drink or drugs. Most of those things don't apply to cyclists in general.
When I look at statistics I try and see how they relate to myself. After 55yrs if cycling I'm still alive and have never been hit by a vehicle, but I've had loads of near misses, and on several occasions it's been my own actions that have avoided a collision.

No, just ban idiots from playing in them.

Ban idiots riding bikes I’m sure there’s more die riding them then there is playing in abandoned buildings.