[Closed] Cycle deaths per mile ridden by experienced cyclists

Motorcycles definitely are dangerous.

The question is, what makes them dangerous?

And if they really were so dangerous surely the Police/Ambulance/etc wouldn't use them?

I think policing and ambulancing is pretty risky work - but with the risks being for a greater reward.

The most interesting comparison was motorcycling with soldiering. 200 miles on an M/C is apparently comparable in risk to a day on the front line in afganistan.

Its curious as to whether that makes m/c's seem more dangerous or soldiering seem safer than we assume.

Motorcycles definitely are dangerous.

The question is, what makes them dangerous?

in most instances its the nut that holds the handlebars

I tend to agree with that.

However, imagine being t-boned at 30mph by an inattentive driver. Pretty serious on a motorbike or pushbike, less so in a car, wouldn't you agree?

wouldn't you agree?

but motorcyclists themselves tend the be the main cause of motorcycle accidents

convert - Member
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....

It [i]was[/i] nice until you chipped in with that unnecessary and spiteful post. Well done.

GrahamS - Member

Agreed. dual carriageways are over represented in cycling deaths. I'd suggest that any cyclist braving that kind of road is probably fairly experienced.

Or just use that route because that's the way they drive to work. Seen some frightening stuff when I get a lift in, stupid thing is there's a very pleasent B-road route that takes you to exactly the same place (and is actually more direct!).

but motorcyclists themselves tend the be the main cause of motorcycle accidents

Yes but at the risk of labouring a point and derailing the thread... if you decide to be responsible and drive nice and safely, this means you are most likely to have an accident due to someone else's carelessness. And if that happens, the consequences are worse for you if you are on a bike.

if you decide to be responsible and drive nice and safely

lets not derail it but...... have you met any motorcyclists? 🙂 🙂

lets draw a line theres though because the interesting bit is about cycling and 'experience' in relation to risk - as perceived by the OP's colleague who presumably doesn't cycle. I think that guys issue is not finite risk but the kind of risk - hes more squeamish about being seriously hurt on a bike than just as seriously hurt in a car or being made just as critically ill (eventually) by his diet or the flame-retardant treatment in his sofa.

Humans can't assess risk. White bread is more dangerous on a population level than riding bikes, smack or nuclear bombs

Part of the risk of cycling is under the control of the cyclist, though. And in a way that is often not well understood by individual cyclists.

For example, some of us know to hang back and not undertake long vehicles turning left. And others apparently do not. Some of us take this a step further and don't undertake any moving vehicles.

I suspect that much of this is due to the lack of cyclist education. There are comprehensive rules and road markings instructing motorists, and they have rigorous training (for what that's worth). Cyclists have to make it up as we go along. There's some stuff in the Highway Code, but it's far from comprehensive or detailed, and you're not required to have ever read it to ride a bike. I think this is bonkers.

I would love to see a mandatory school-based training course that properly teaches cycling roadcraft.. but I think this would be difficult without having learned to drive a car - my familiarity with roads and traffic patterns does come in part from having been a driver. Simply because when I cycle I have a good idea of what the cars are going to do.

Then there could be an advanced cycling course to be given to adults, government backed but adminstered by say the CTC, conferring some kind of membership or insurance scheme maybe? An incentive at any rate.

I think a lot of people would cycle but are nervous about traffic, an accessible widely known training scheme would help.

There's some stuff in the Highway Code, but it's far from comprehensive or detailed, and you're not required to have ever read it to ride a bike. I think this is bonkers.

I don't think thats bonkers though - as much as I'd like cyclists to be more educated than they are (the lack of education or even just perception on this forum is often alarming) I wouldn't hope for a situation where cyclists have to learn or prove something in order to cycle, just as I wouldn't have such hopes for a pedestrian to instructed or licensed to be able to cross the road.

The duty of care is with the motorist - they're (we're) the ones who have earned a special entitlement. Its for them to mitigate for other road users, pedestrians, cyclists, children, senior citzens, escaped zebras, the mentally ill, wiley coyote, the visually impared, nuns on rollerskates, falling rocks or anything or anyones else they come across.

I think a lot of people would cycle but are nervous about traffic, an accessible widely known training scheme would help.

Training won't help. Proper infrastructure will help.

[i]lets draw a line theres though because the interesting bit is about cycling and 'experience' in relation to risk [/i]

But its the same, the more experienced you are the less likely you are to have an accident, as you are less likely to get yourself into a position to have one. 30 years of m/c has taught me that, plus following those less experienced.

Also did you know that Police motorcyclists are at a higher risk than the average motorcyclists, when on their personal m/c - as they forget that other road users ignore normal m/c's...

But its the same, the more experienced you are the less likely you are to have an accident, as you are less likely to get yourself into a position to have one

I don't think it is the same - I don't think being more experienced puts you are less risk. On a M/C you are in the same roads and same traffic situations as a teenager or a middle-aged novice power ranger as the most experienced timeserved riders. Inexperienced cyclists will avoid traffic as much as they can - take traffic free routes, ride on the pavement, get off and push at difficult junctions. Experienced riders will ride the road. They might do it with more awareness of positioning and all sorts of other things - but they are one the road instead on beside it, or in the park, or wheeling it across the pedestrian crossing to make a right turn.

I assume we are also going faster as well which might be a factor.

It is a swings and roundabouts as you gain from experience making some things less likely but you will commute in rush hour which is clearly more risky.

there are too many variables,allied with insufficient data to make an objective assessment, so we are left with our own subjective experiences to try and answer the OP. Experience is certainly going to help offset some risk factors, but the biggest factor is out of our control-- the people in 'charge' of motorised vehicles-- it is rightly their responsibility to take due care and attention . This is though a very variable notion, but the culture engendered by Clarkson and his ilk is inappropriate for public safety.

There is a long way to go in treating driving for what it is-- a highly responsible activity that requires maximum attention and minimum distraction .

so we are left with our own subjective experiences

But can we be objective - measure by our own experiences

Take B-Rs assertion

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.

In TuckerUK's link you see that motorcycling - no matter how you measure it- is by a spectacular degree the riskiest form of transport. But even then - the risks are calculated in units of per billion: per billion miles, per billion journeys, per billion hours. Homeopathically diluted risk. B-R would need to know thousands of millions of motorcyclists to expect to have known one who died. But in the OP's post - his friend's contention that cycling is like russian roulette and a serious or accident is a "when" not "if" scenario....... By anyones own experience (rather than perception and perceived wisdom) - who do you actually know (would at least be on nodding aquaintances with, be recognised at their funeral for instance)..... who do you actually know who has died in any sort of accident - travel and transport related, work related, sheer bad luck related, threshing machine related or otherwise.

Thinking back over my 40 odd years...... for me - two pedestrians in RTAs. I can think of two people who have been in car crashes that really could have killed them, but thankfully didn't. One person who's been in a car crash in which someone else died.
I've known more people who've committed suicide. One person who died of an overdose. And thats all the instances across all the people I've known over a 41 3/4 year sample period. I personally don't even know anyone who's had a trip to A&E for anything cycle related. I only know one who's had lasting, serious injuries from a motorcycle incident. But then I only know a very small number of motorcyclists.

That said - I'm not a social cyclist, I have friends who might also cycle, but I don't make seek or meet people through cycling - not in a club or someone who rides in groups or someone who attends cycling events really - I've never met another forum member for instance - so I have a lower connected-to-cyclists-ness factor than many on this forum - their experience though would over-report the risk.

Trouble with subjectivity is it can be really skewed by certain incidents, i know three motorcyclists who have been killed,a cyclist who lived across the road was wiped out by a motorist fiddling with his heater- two other mates spent four months in traction for m/cycle incidents.I know three riders who have been hospitalise with injuries, two were on the road, one on a cycle path!

None of these things will stop me cycling, like many experienced riders,i do not feel 'unsafe' whilst on the roads, but am on guard with traffic.

I think a lot of people would cycle but are nervous about traffic, an accessible widely known training scheme would help.

Bindun.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/bikeability/what-is-bikeability/

And most local authorities offer something similar for adults.

Regarding experienced/inexperienced, most serious accidents involving cyclists are the fault of a third party. In those incidents, experience wouldn't help.

Actually it would. Riding far enough away from parked cars that you don't get doored avoids a third party risk.

Choosing to ride the 6 mile zero traffic B road rather than the 5 mile 70mph dual carriageway direct route avoids risk.

Using a mirror to see overtakes coming means near misses can be turned into comfortable passes by moving slightly left. I've once had to ride off the road to avoid being hit.

Riding far enough away from the pavement to avoid peds stepping out in front of you.

Anticipating other road users actions often means hazards can be avoided. The ability to do this increases with experience.

As for the motorcycle casualty rate. IMO it's basic physics. The number of sole cycle fatal accidents is close to zero. Maybe a dozen a year in the UK. Because cyclist crash mainly at 10-25mph speeds the body can cope with. Come off a bike a 75mph and the body has to cope with crash energy nine times greater than a 25mph crash. It can't.

at the end of the day, you shouldn't use statistics as a reason to, or not to do something.
statistics are useful for governments, organisations and bodies responsible for setting policy, practice, regulations, etc. - not to individuals.
you should be able to use your own assessment of risk, common sense and judgement to work out whether you should be riding a bike or not.

[i]I don't think it is the same - I don't think being more experienced puts you are less risk. On a M/C you are in the same roads and same traffic situations as a teenager or a middle-aged novice power ranger as the most experienced timeserved riders.[/i]

You may not 'think it is the same', but it is. As an experienced rider I can 'see' a problem, because I am looking for it. I position myself on the road diffently for almost every yard of it, and for every time I ride it - because the risks change, due to other vehicles/weather/time-of-day etc.

sorry - think you misunderstood me (or I confused things) I was saying [i]I don't think being more experienced puts you are less risk[/i] [b]as a cyclist [/b] . I think you're quite right that is does as motorcyclist.

Training won't help.

I think it would. Most people aren't malicious or utterly careless, they just don't know anything. Bringing the issues to people's attention would really help I think. And making people realise that we are not all weirdos or RLJing scum might also help perceptions.

you should be able to use your own assessment of risk

Well that's not really possible or effective without stats. Accidents don't happen often enough for us to build up a body of evidence from our own experience. Unless we look at stats we do not know how likely something is. I've never been knocked off, for instance. So how on earth would I know how likely it is? Knowing other people's stories from this forum certainly informs my decisions when out riding. These are statistics, although not rigorous ones.

I'd have to disagree, especially in this situation where statistics show minimal risk.
I'd sooner rely on common sense, judgement and experience.
And anecdotes on a forum are just that, not statistics in any shape or form.

I'd sooner rely on common sense, judgement and experience.

Common sense is meaningless, it's simply what everyone else does. Judgement is often wildly inappropriate, and experience of infrequent events is not sufficient.

For example, 30 years ago people used their judgement and thought it was perfectly ok to sit their kids on the back seat of their car without any protection or restraint. 😯

Another example - people used to think smoking was good for you because it makes you feel good. Common sense, innit?

Most of my peers from that age did not die. So common sense and experience should say it's ok, right?

The thing about motorcycles, is that it is possible that you might be able to ride them safely, but it wouldn't be as quick.

And you're talking about a vehicle who's only real purpose for most people is that it lets you go really quick. If you didn't want to go quick, you'd be more comfortable in a car.

How it lets you go quicker than a car is:
1)By filtering through traffic jams.
2)By going round corners on bendy roads faster than you could in a car
3)By overtaking really fast in situations where you probably wouldn't in a car.

All of those things seem to make it way more likely that you'll make an error of judgement (miss seeing someone coming in from the side when filtering, overtake without good enough visibility, overdo it on a bend etc.). That's before you even consider the fact that if someone else messes up you're way less well protected.

So it seems pretty obvious that motorbikes are going to be more dangerous than anything else to me?

Common sense is meaningless, it's simply what everyone else does. Judgement is often wildly inappropriate, and experience of infrequent events is not sufficient.

I beg to differ, and I'm going to leave it at that.

If you look at many other situations in the 21st century, actions with potentially fatal consequences aren't left to judgement, "common sense" or training. Safe systems of use are designed into them. This isn't yet done on UK roads. Have a read of the obituaries at the start of a CTC or Audax magazine and you'll see many examples of vastly experienced cyclists meeting a premature demise.

If you compare it with other forms forms of transport, cycling (and to a lesser extent driving) is positively Victorian in attitude. Killed or maimed for life? Them's the breaks.

http://waronthemotorist.wordpress.com/2012/10/16/the-telling-death-of-a-railwayman/

actions with potentially fatal consequences aren't left to judgement, "common sense" or training. Safe systems of use are designed into them

that's my point. statistics are useful for those people designing the safe systems of use, but not to the individual riding the bike.

judgement is often wildly inappropriate, and experience of infrequent events is not sufficient.

So why then does the accident rate for young and new drivers decrease as they gain experience?

Crashes are infrequent. Near misses less so. Practice makes people better at any other skill. Why would riding a bike in traffic be any different?

Just to chip in with my experiance.
I ride with a road club a couple of times most weeks, say 60-70 times per year. We usually cover 70-80 miles at 20ish mph, riding in a tight group, 2by2, usually a dozen of us so say 6 rows of 2.
In the 9 years I have been with them we have had one car/bike accident, and that was very much the biker's fault.
.
Contrast: I recently got roped in to a 100 mile charity ride with a bunch of complete novices. None had ever ridden in a group before and the average speed, excluding the many stops, was about 12mph, significantly slower on anything that looked even slightly like a hill. The drivers on this route scared the **** out of me!
It's not the road, I ride that one all the time (we were doing laps)
A group of novices riding very slowly, hugging the kerb and really spread out appears to inspire drivers to attempt to get passed at any cost, even on blind corners and regardless of traffic coming the other way. A group riding tight together at a reasonable pace seems to get a lot more respect from drivers.
So in my experience, the more experienced riders are much less likely to be involved in a car/bike accident as the [i]driver's[/i] behaviour was different.
.
On a related subject, why do foreign drivers leave more space? Is it that they are more used to bikes on the continent or is it simply that a LHD car provides a better view of us bikers?
.
Finally FWIW I have only once used a proper cycle lane and I hit a van which put me off somewhat.

why then does the accident rate for young and new drivers decrease as they gain experience?

It starts going up again once you get to a certain age though.

Why would riding a bike in traffic be any different?

Because other road users, whose behaviour you can't always compensate for, are involved.

Because other road users, whose behaviour you can't always compensate for, are involved.

I'd be really wary of self-assessing my ability to cycle safely in a given situation. As a species we're crap at it. From [url= http://waronthemotorist.wordpress.com/2012/10/09/unskilled-and-unaware-of-it-re-post/ ]this post on the same blog[/url]:

In Traffic, Tom Vanderbilt documents the details of the phenomenon of drivers unable to recognise their own lack of skill. A large part of it he puts down to a lack of feedback. For example, in the Monash helmetcam study, there were a mere 2 collisions, but there were 6 near-collisions and 46 “other incidents” (the classic Heinrich triangle). These “other incidents” correspond to those situations where we notice people driving badly. They occur because the driver failed to spot a hazard or failed to recognise as a hazard something that they did see. By definition, if they did not see or did not recognise, the driver will never have been aware of the situation. They will reach their destination assuming that they had done a great job, oblivious to the bad driving that had been recorded. That’s probably what happened in 52 out of the Monash group’s 54 “events”.

And when the driver does finally notice that they have just been in a near collision, they can congratulate themselves for having the skill to have avoided an actual collision.

Thus reassured of their own driving skills, on the few occasions when they do get some feedback, they find ways to dismiss it. That horn honk wasn’t aimed at me, or if it was, it must be because the other driver is an impatient egotistical bad driver who wouldn’t recognise good driving like mine. The police pulled me over because they have a quota to fill, or because they’re anti-Motorist, not because I was driving dangerously. After all, I already know that I am not a dangerous driver.

And then they crash, and it was an accident, bad luck, a momentary loss of concentration, beyond one’s control. They couldn’t have caused it, because they already know from their experience and their long record of not causing accidents that they must be a good driver.

Replace "driver" with "cyclist" and we've got you. And me. And pretty much everyone else who does any activity which isn't objectively measured by impartial observers.

Practice makes people better at any other skill. Why would riding a bike in traffic be any different?

Because as others said, experience will increase your confidence which may mean you ride in places that a less experienced rider would avoid completely (big roundabouts, busy roads, dual carriageways etc).

You might be safer than an inexperienced rider on the same road, but you're not safer than the inexperienced rider who avoided the road altogether and stuck to a traffic-free route.

A simple analogy is skiing.

Very few inexperienced skiers are killed in avalanches - because inexperienced skiers don't generally venture off-piste into potential avalanche zones.

Remember to factor in the health risks of not cycling everywhere and not being very fit 😉

Remember to factor in the health risks of not cycling everywhere and not being very fit

This is very true - in [i]overall[/i] public health terms the benefits from cycling massively outweigh the individual injuries or deaths.

That's one reason the BMA was originally against helmet compulsion*, the decrease in the number of people cycling it was supposedly cause would be a far greater loss to public health than the slight win of less head injuries.

.

*(before politics forced them to change their position).

On a related subject, why do foreign drivers leave more space? Is it that they are more used to bikes on the continent or is it simply that a LHD car provides a better view of us bikers?

Errrr... surely if you drive on the opposite side of the road to the UK you're in the same relative position?

I've noticed that cycling in France and Spain can be a lot more pleasant too. Both those countries have very low levels of people cycling for transport, so it's not the safety in numbers thing.

It could be that both countries have a long and illustrious history of being good at road racing, which fosters a culture of respect... in which case, expect the "Wiggins Effect" to kick in about 50 years from now. 🙄

Because as others said, experience will increase your confidence which may mean you ride in places that a less experienced rider would avoid completely (big roundabouts, busy roads, dual carriageways etc).

You might be safer than an inexperienced rider on the same road, but you're not safer than the inexperienced rider who avoided the road altogether and stuck to a traffic-free route.

Well of course avoiding accidents takes both experience and judgement. I'd say judging the safest route is part of gaining experience. I still choose traffic free options where appropriate and avoid 70mph dual carriageways despite being experienced. Over confidence is just another pitfall to be avoided.
Anyway traffic free routes aren't risk free. Most routes have frequent junctions with roads or driveways which is where many accidents happen. Routes like well surfaced canal towpaths or former railways can be good because they are flat and have good sightlines and few intercections. Other farcilities less so.

In Milton Keynes over the past decade, there have been six deaths to off-road cyclists against just one (a child) on the alternative road network, where main roads largely have a 70mph speed limit and there are large roundabouts at all major junctions. Even when account is taken of relative distance cycled, the death rate for the cycle paths is significantly greater than for the roads.

http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/sustrans1.html

Before anyone invokes Cyclecraft in support of their argument, [url= http://departmentfortransport.wordpress.com/2012/06/28/****-you-john-franklin/ ]please, please read this[/url].

The MK stats quoted are skewed by the fact that cycle use here must be ten times what it is in the rest of the country. The provision of cycleways is so good that large numbers cycle every day.
Also, the letter is from 1998. I've lived in MK for the last 10 years and know of no deaths during that period on the cycle ways, but do know of at least 3 on the dual carriageways, one of whom was an experienced time-trialler.

The idea that you pass a 'test' and then there are no further capability tests involving a potentially lethal process is at odds with most other forms of hazard.

As a cyclist i like to think that my 'driving' awareness and manners are good.
At my previous employ, we went on a one day police driving course, after six hours with the instructor, i can say that my driving has altered somewhat.

The main issue for me seems to be the 'culture' of motoring that has developed on this island, it has taken many years for speeding to be at least recognised as a problem.
The legal system sends out a very strange message regarding driving, the paltry 'fines' for bad driving that may entail death or serious injury, it is surely time to be a lot stricter with poor driving, the minimum demand is that people pay attention whilst behind a wheel, but a rolling 'testing' programme would do no harm-- would increase employment, reduce incidents, and hopefully change a laissez fair culture.

Lol. MrAgreeable's link doesn't work due to the forum swear filter 😀

Go here and you will see the post: http://departmentfortransport.wordpress.com/2012/06/28/

that is some 'blog' -- franklin the enemy eh ? responsible for deaths !

The anonymous blogger has high opinions of himself, he wants segregation, apartheid, -- i cannot believe the guy has thought much beyond the end of his nose !

The sooner that driver behaviour is modified to accommodate all road users then the better for all. Mr cat seeks to blame the victim-- wonder what he has done to promote road safety in the last thirty years ?