Is there a report anywhere that covers this? A friend of mine argues that cycling is inherently dangerous on the road and that riding regularly on the road is, therefore, like repeated rounds of Russian roulette with the same gun and eventually you're sure to be hit.
My logical mind sees his point but also raises the question of the influence of experience of riding on roads and how that impacts the rate of accidents and lessens it to a certain statistical minimum (not trending to zero obviously).
Does anyone know of a study into this? A light Googling turned up little of interest.
I doubt you'll turn up anything.
Accidents studies generally just identify the vehicle type involved and the age / sex of the victim.
A friend of mine argues that cycling is inherently dangerous on the road and that riding regularly on the road is, therefore, like repeated rounds of Russian roulette with the same gun and eventually you're sure to be hit.
Or to put it another way on a long enough timeline the likelyhood of death from any activity approaches 100%. Life is inherently risky and will only end one way!
I read a French report that broke down fatal cycling accidents into categories. I can't remember much detail apart from red light running being very high. My conclusion was you can protect yourself from the major causes of fatal accidents by riding within the law, not undertaking busses or trucks and being as visible as possible.
Try these figures on him:
2011 Fatality rate by billion vehicle/foot miles:
Car Occupants: 4
Pedal cyclists: 35
Pedestrians: 41
Motorcyclists: 125
-- source: [url= http://www.dft.gov.uk/statistics/releases/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-annual-report-2011/ ]DfT Road Casualties Annual Report 2011 (table RAS41001)[/url]
Safety using miles traveled as a factor is misleading. Using that data air travel is way safer than car travel. But judge apples to apples, and air travel is actually three times riskier than car travel, and cycling is riskiest of all.
The only data that makes any sense is comparing 'per journey' statistics.
[url= http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/risks_of_travel.htm ]Travel Risks[/url]
But a lot of those cyclist figures will be children. I remember reading cyclist deaths are skewed heavily that way.
Plus riders in the smoke who may or may not have a different number of chromosomes to us.
cycling is riskiest of all.
Yeah depends how you look at it. I'd argue that "per journey" is a lot more favourable to pedestrians as many pedestrian journeys will be very safe and go nowhere near an open road.
"Per mile" gives you a theoretical level where you can say "What's the safest way for me to travel the 3 miles from A to B" - but you're right that it is also skewed.
Whichever way you look though, Motorcycles are always the riskiest. There is a reason medics call them donorcycles. 😕
Car insurance cost depends on all sorts of things like age, gender, occupation, home address etc.
Presumably this is based on data collected by insurance companies.
Has nobody ever collected similar data for cyclists, or are 8 year olds riding 2 miles to school during rush hour and 50 year olds doing 100 miles on a Sunday morning all lumped together as the same risk per mile ?
But a lot of those cyclist figures will be children. I remember reading cyclist deaths are skewed heavily that way.
A lot of pedestrians will be children too though:
KSI Pedestrians: 1602 children of 5907 total (27%)
KSI Pedal Cyclists: 398 of 3192 (12%)
KSI Car users: 336 of 9225 (3%)
Source: RAS30062
Re RLJing and cyclists breaking the law:
In crashes where a cyclist over 25 sustained minor injuries (the vast proportion of collisions), the motorist was entirely at fault in between 67% and 75% of incidents, and the cyclist solely at fault in only 16% to 22% of cases (p33).When a cyclist over 25 sustained serious injuries, the motorist was entirely at fault in between 64% and 70% of the time, with the cyclist at fault in between 23% and 27% of incidents (p33).
In cases when a cyclist over 25 died in a crash, the motorist was deemed entirely at fault in between 48% and 66% of incidents (p33), and the cyclist in 33% to 43% (p33).
NOTE: The figures for faults in fatal and serious crashes are likely to underestimate the number attributable to drivers because the victim's ability to give evidence against the driver is strongly affected by the crash
Unlike off road where it's your own "watch this" bravado that'll cause problems, on the road you're more likely to be killed by someone else's stupidity than your own.
Between 2001 and 2005 in London there were 3 cyclists killed when a car RLJed, and 2 killed when they RLJed.
I seem to remember the % of cyclist deaths attributed to them jumping a red light was in the single figures.
Has nobody ever collected similar data for cyclists, or are 8 year olds riding 2 miles to school during rush hour and 50 year olds doing 100 miles on a Sunday morning all lumped together as the same risk per mile ?
That's kind of what I was wondering. I went for a road ride with my old man recently and in the 2 miles or so from my place to the dual use road alongside a river (no motorised traffic, just pedestrians and bikes) he was pretty nervous as it's his first ride on a road bike for some time and was getting used to the gears and how it handled. Although we rode the same distance, I'd have said (in a not-at-all-scientific way) that he was at a greater risk of an accident/crash than me.
Of course, I suppose it's in nobody's best interest to produce a report that says when you start cycling you're 20 times more likely to die than after you've ridden 1000 miles on the road.
I'd like to see stats concerning different types of motorcyle accidents. That is, young hot head speedy gonzalez who was pushing it too hard on the A66 and clipped a lorry coming the other way, vs Sam Browne on a 125 taken out whilst waiting to turn right by an inattentive lorry driver.
Re cyclists - how do you measure experience? For a while, the more I cycled in London the MORE risks I took, it was a fun white knuckle ride. Only with a near miss did I re-consider.
So time spent as a cyclist is not a good indicator.
molgrips - got no answer how to measure experienced or skilled or whatever
Following on from that, I've read suggestions that one of the reasons that female cyclists are more likely to be killed on our roads is that they are more likely to follow the "rules" (e.g. staying in a cycle lane even when it places them in danger) and less likely to ride assertively (e.g. jumping a red light or taking the primary position in a lane).
Not sure how true that is, but it is an interesting theory. If following the rules means you are more likely to get killed then something is badly wrong.
other thing to bear in mind is that cyclists 'en masse' live longer so any adverse risk associated with the act of cycling is offset by the increase in life expectancy for cyclists.
(clearly any cyclist death is a tragedy for them and their families but statistics don't work like that)
[i]So time spent as a cyclist is not a good indicator.[/i]
I agree - knocked off once in 20odd years commuting. That was a couple of weeks ago. Complacency (& maybe overconfidence) counteract experience...
Safety using miles traveled as a factor is misleading. Using that data air travel is way safer than car travel. But judge apples to apples, and air travel is actually three times riskier than car travel, and cycling is riskiest of all.The only data that makes any sense is comparing 'per journey' statistics.
Travel Risks
I've been trying to find the original source for those numbers (they're on Wikipedia too) and it simply cites 'DETR study', as published in a magazine. Can anyone find anymore info on this?
[quote=TuckerUK ]and cycling is riskiest of all.
I thought that horse riding was riskiest?
time spent as a cyclist is not a good indicator.
Agreed. dual carriageways are over represented in cycling deaths. I'd suggest that any cyclist braving that kind of road is probably fairly experienced.
Can I just say what a nice little balanced debate you lot are having where everyone is chipping and not getting shot down without a certain (pseudo) Scottish twit drowning out all other opinion. Very refreshing.
As you were....
There needs to be some kind of 'nutter' measurement. For all road users.
If someone could quantify that there'd be a revolution in insurance premium calculations at least.
Safety using miles traveled as a factor is misleading. Using that data air travel is way safer than car travel. But judge apples to apples, and air travel is actually three times riskier than car travel, and cycling is riskiest of all.The only data that makes any sense is comparing 'per journey' statistics.
Assuming you want to show air travel is more risky, and cycling less. I personally can't see that either way is more or less valid than the other.
Very refreshing.
+1
ride assertively (e.g. jumping a red light
Is "assertively" the new word for "illegally"?
I hadn't realised. Must keep up.
😀
The other thing about the data from http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/risks_of_travel.htm is that it doesn't distinguish between leisure and non-leisure use of transport - I wouldn't be at all surprised if a large % of the motorbike deaths are weekend warriors out for a spin, while cycling deaths will be more skewed towards people on the way to work.
Is "assertively" the new word for "illegally"?
I hadn't realised. Must keep up.
It is when the other option is "get squashed by an HGV who can't see you legally stopped at the red light just below his cab".
Careful... lets not end up making this another RLJ discussion 🙂
Alcohol accounts for a large number of the KSI figures as well, i think its listed in the stats somewhere.
Should you take into account the positive health benefits of cycling too?
On average it lengthens your life expectancy.
I consider myself an 'experienced' cyclist and I ride my Brompton in London pretty much every working day. I'd estimate an average of 600 individual trips per year of various distances from 1 mile to 7 miles each.
I think I've had the Brompton about 5 years, so I'll use that as an figure for my supremely unscientific study.
Based on 3000 trips with an conservatively estimated overall distance of 6000 miles, I've only ever been hit by a car (it was an Addison Lee car that jumped the lights and drove into me whilst I was waiting for the lights to change in the ASL!) once. In that incident I was not injured in any way (apart from being flippin' angry!)
So that's a 0.03 recuring % chance on being hit per journey, or one incident per 6000 miles.
I therefore declare that cycling is really very safe, OR I am just awesome riding around the city*
I think that's all that needs to be said
*this sentance may not be factually accurate
Alcohol accounts for a large number of the KSI figures as well
It's a well known fact that alcohol has no affect on an individuals ability to ride safely when astride a 'Boris Bike'
If you look back through the 'More or Less' podcasts on radio 4 they did a useful item on it - firstly dealing as above with whether look at risk per mile, per hour, per journey or per.....per what? - whats a measure that actually matters if you are a cyclist. The other they highlighted was that cycle injuries and deaths are assumed to be transport related so injuries in trail centres or skate parks might get grouped with road collisions leading to cycle risks on the road to possibly be overstated/over reported. However pedestian injuries and deaths are only treated as journey related if they involve an accident with vehicle. So if you trip and break your neck on your walk to work it isn't entered in the stats but if you get knocked over crossing the road to the office it is - and yet both are part of the risk of that journey so pedestrian risks/injuries/deaths are under reported.
Even keen cyclists will spend more time behind the wheel and /or on foot so they spend more of their time exposed to those risks that cycling.
What you can't do easily is separate out 'experienced' cyclist form the stats. There was a suggestion in an experiment that cars pass lycra-clad/helmet-wearing cyclist closer than non-experienced looking cyclists - hence Graham Obree's advice to ride wobbly - look clumsy and people will make more room for you. Women are passed closer than men too. But also do experienced cyclists ride more boldly, make more assumptions - have they got their race face on and gurning through their strava segment slip-streaming a bus. Who knows.
Even keen cyclists will spend more time behind the wheel and /or on foot so they spend more of their time exposed to those risks that cycling.
I do more miles by bike than by car in a year.
I also travel at a slower speed, which means I spend a lot more time cycling than driving.
I reckon I probably spend more time cycling than walking, assuming you only count outdoor walking from one place to another.
Overall risk, taking into account health benefits, etc. show that cycling is a net benefit to health.
Regarding experienced/inexperienced, most serious accidents involving cyclists are the fault of a third party. In those incidents, experience wouldn't help.
There have been two cyclists killed in Darlington recently, the most recent was on Friday last week.
[url= http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/local/darlington/9986821.Tributes_paid_by_family_of_cyclist_killed_in_Darlington/ ]He was an experienced cyclist, who was wearing a helmet and hi-viz and using cycle infrastructure[/url]. I ride past this junction twice a day and he lived round the corner from my mam and dad.
The other recent one, in 2008, was also [url= http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/4588040.Diabetic_driver_had_no_memory_of_crash/ ]a very experienced cyclist, who was essentially driven through by an elderly lady driver[/url], who didn't stop until something like 400 metres later.
A very emotive and sad piece in Teh Grauniad about road casualties, particularly pedestrians:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/13/road-deaths-rise-uk-safety
The central point that struck me:
Former transport secretary Justine Greening blamed variations in the weather for 2011's figures, with increased use of mobile devices highlighted as another cause of worsening safety...On his first day in the job as transport secretary in May 2010, Philip Hammond made a speech in which he said, "We will end the war on motorists. Motoring has got to get greener, but the car is not going to go away."
Funding for speed cameras – famously loathed by David Cameron's Cotswolds neighbour and Top Gear presenter Jeremy Clarkson – was withdrawn. A clampdown on "cowboy clampers" was announced. National casualty-reduction targets were dropped. An 80mph speed limit on motorways was proposed.
And, oh look, deaths have gone up.
I do more miles by bike than by car in a year.
I also travel at a slower speed, which means I spend a lot more time cycling than driving.
I reckon I probably spend more time cycling than walking, assuming you only count outdoor walking from one place to another.
thats something more than keen though 🙂
Most people die from heart disease, diabetes, etc. Cycling rather than driving should help beat those odds.
Regarding experienced/inexperienced, most serious accidents involving cyclists are the fault of a third party. In those incidents, experience wouldn't help.
other than experience might lead to choices that put you in a position of risk. Inexperenced riders would get off and push at busy roundabouts, right turns in traffic etc. Experienced ones probably wouldn't, they might also choose traffic heavy routes rather than cycle paths and back roads. And they might ride in work day rush hour rather than sunday afternoons around the park.
Most people die from heart disease, diabetes, etc
nobody cares about that though 😕
I saw five club guys out last Saturday morning mostly mature (40-50s), on a very busy but slow road lined with shops and parking spots. A car ahead was waiting to turn right because a car was stopped in the road it was trying to turn into. Behind that was a bus wanting to pull out of a bus stop, then another car, then me in my car. This is entirely normal for that road, and everyone's expecting it.
The car in front of me stopped early to let the bus out, it came half way out and then waited. As it was doing this the group of cyclists came up behind me. Some went around on the outside, where they could get through; some came up the inside of me where they'd been riding and then had to come around the bus as it was starting to move, they then had to slalom back inside the right turning car whilst being heard to say 'ooo eck' or similar. It looked like they felt compelled to get through because their mates had So basically, cyclists everywhere in all our fields of view, hazards all over the place and they are diving both sides of vehicles. A good opportunity for an accident, and they looked like at least relatively experienced cyclists. Mature and lycra clad.
Of course, time on the bike doesn't make you intelligent. They should've stopped behind me en masse and waited for the road to clear. No point in taking risks.
most serious accidents involving cyclists are the fault of a third party. In those incidents, experience wouldn't help
I definitely beg to differ here. Most of the experience I've accrued whilst riding bikes is dedicated to mitigating other people's mistakes. It's all about managing the situation and reading what drivers are going to do.
Inexperienced cyclists I think are more likely to adhere to the rules of the road, which is not always in their best interests. For instance, you may have right of way, but you still have to stop if someone's going to pull out without looking.
It looked like they felt compelled to get through because their mates had
I bet none of them would have done the same thing if they'd been on their own.
Crowd theory: The IQ of a group is always less than the average of its members.
Where I come from, I see very, very few inexperienced cyclists using the road at all, with the vast majority favouring off-road cycle networks and pavements.
It's funny, I was thinking about this yesterday as I watched someone riding down the pavement next to a perfectly decent on-road cycle lane. (I know we have this argument all the time about 'perfectly decent cycle lanes', but that's just how people roll round these parts - I'm sure it's a very different contrast to some of the major cities).
Which leaves only the hardcore cyclists left on the road. And it's certainly those guys spending the most time on the road. Logic would dictate that they are the most likely to be involved in a serious incident. I have no real data to substantiate that. But as a fairly experienced cyclist, that reflects my own feelings, and in a way I agree with your friend and limit my time in traffic to a minimum.
In my direct experience, you can have as many close calls in one week of cycling as you would in a whole year of driving. And that's too many for me.
This is from a report put out by ROSPA:
About one fifth of the cyclists killed and injured are children. Cycling accidents increase as children grow older, with 10 to 15 year old riders being more at risk than other age groups, including adults until about the age of 60 years. To some extent, this reflects increased cycling as children grow older followed by a switch to motorised transport from the late teens onwards. It also co-incides with the age when children attend Secondary school, and may
indicate riskier behaviour by this age group.Males are far more likely to be involved in cycling accidents than females; four out of five cyclist casualties are male.
I don't know how much you can infer from this though, given that as Butcher says, adult cyclists in the UK are pretty much a self-selecting group.
This is dubious too:
Males are far more likely to be involved in cycling accidents than females; four out of five cyclist casualties are male.
Given that four out of five cyclists I see on the road are male.
In my direct experience, you can have as many close calls in one week of cycling as you would in a whole year of driving.
That's interesting. I don't share this experience at all. Very few close calls for me. For the record, I cycle in Cardiff and I through work I enjoy various congested locations in the South East and London.
[i]Whichever way you look though, Motorcycles are always the riskiest. There is a reason medics call them donorcycles.
[/i]
And according to the stats, every motorcyclist I've never known must have died based on my 30 years of riding a m/c (including 20k last year alone) - and also never knowing anyone who died either.
And if they really were so dangerous surely the Police/Ambulance/etc wouldn't use them?
[i]In my direct experience, you can have as many close calls in one week of cycling as you would in a whole year of driving.[/i]
+1 for M/C too.
