If it's me thats dead I'd not be that bothered about how/why but for those left probably does matter.

Taking into account distance travelled, there are about 50 times more child cyclist deaths (0.55 deaths/10 million passenger miles; 0.32 to 0.89) and nearly 30 times more child pedestrian deaths (0.27 deaths; 0.20 to 0.35) than there are deaths to child car occupants (0.01 deaths; 0.007 to 0.014). In 2003, children from families without access to a vehicle walked twice the distance walked by children in families with access to two or more vehicles.

With current thinking, that above shows children as being high risk. Does that mean "they" might just bad children from highways altogether?

Horseback. Although it's probably safe given that most road users understand that horses are unpredictable so give them more room.

Diagonal prostrations.

Its quite difficult to have meaningful comparison - do you compare per journey? per vehicle mile? per hour of travel? How are you getting a worthwhile comparison between walking to the shops and driving on the motorway on a per-mile basis?

Some of the figures can be skewed as well -

every car related accident is recorded.

A cyclist wheeled into A&E may well be recorded as a road-related accident whether they were on a road or not -so a kid from the BMX track or skate park or a middle age trail centre warrior will be recorded as 'cyclist' and can go into the figures as if the incident was road/traffic related.

If you're on foot you only get included in the stats if you're in a accident that involves another vehicle. So if you walk to work and get run over by a bus you are included in the stats. If you trip over a broken paving stone and break your neck you're not. These are both hazards of the same journey but many of the risks you face as a pedestrian aren't accounted for.

many factors involving you and those around you. There's certain areas I know where the risk increases due to those around you regardless of your own actions. Thankfully we have the police, dvla etc, councils etc who assist in reducing risks. I guess alot still depends on the individual - cycle down lightly used roads, walk away from traffic through parks, etc

Rolling drunk. Has to be. Although relaxed bodies seem to take the hit with less damage*

*possible urban myth popularised by drunken types.

i'd guess cycling (away from traffic) walking (away from traffic) are prolly the safest.I was going to add public transport for roads as the safest but buses do not have seatbelts, so maybe car.

You are more likely to die of a heart attack or cancer so I'm voting for sat in your car eating chocolate bars while necking a fizzy drink.

I wonder what the statistics on getting knocked off on the roads are??
B roads safer? Do most get smashed off from behind (oooh errr) or turned into?

Motorcycling is probably the most dangerous - all the speed of a car, and the protection of a (push)bike. Add in the weekend riders pushing the limits in the curves and it gets even worse...

I wonder what the statistics on getting knocked off on the roads are??
B roads safer? Do most get smashed off from behind (oooh errr) or turned into?

Keeping you safe from rear end collisions, maybe:

www.dcrainmaker.com/2014/07/hands-on-backtracker-radar.html

Not sure how practical and/or useful it is, but I still want one 🙂

After extensive study of a subject group of one (me 😀 ) cycling to/from work is by far the most dangerous way for me to travel.

Regularly drive or ride (motorcycle and bicycle) to work and maybe one moment over the space of a month in the car or on the motorbike. Whereas on the bicycle I'm subjected to close passes, left hooks, cars turning across my path/out of junctions several times a week.

I have a nice route to work now, approx. 90% off road, only squirrels and rabbits to dodge.

On a unicycle, wearing a blind fold and juggling small angry crocodiles while smeared in honey would appear to be the most dangerous means of travelling that I can think of.

However you travel you take whatever deliberate actions you can to mitigate risk, anything else that happens is down to the big man and there's not a shit load you can do about it. Worrying about it is pointless.

That car radar is brilliant.. Bet it's expensive though

Pogo stick.

[i]What is the most dangerous was to travel on public highways?[/i]

I am the most dangerous was to travel on public highways.

That car radar is brilliant.. Bet it's expensive though

[url= http://www.dragoninnovation.com/projects/41-backtracker-by-ikubu ]$179 if you're an early backer[/url]

But, either per mile or per hour, are you more likely to die in a car, on a motorbike, cycling or walking?

The DfT publishes the Reported Road Casualties Great Britain (RRCGB) which is full of all kinds of stats like this. Latest full report id the 2012 one. Have a read it is fascinating stuff (if you like that sort of thing).

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-annual-report-2012

There's a useful summary of the fatality rates in table RAS53001.

For 2012 the Deaths Per Billion KM travelled are:

[code]Car:          1.3
Bus/Coach:    0.2
Van:          0.4
Pedal cycle: 24
Pedestrian:  23
Motorcycle:  67
Air:          0
Rail:         0
[/code]

It's pretty much always motorcycle is highest risk then car. Train and plane are generally safest. Pedestrian stats are often skewed by drunks / drunk drivers.

As most employers know if you are office type worker then the most dangerous part of your job will be any driving you do for it.

At a guess Public Transport will be safer than private transport; otherwise they'd be getting their ar5es sued off.

And probably motorcycle is the riskiest - based on +10 years of my own commuting into/around London on one.

bigG
On a unicycle, wearing a blind fold and juggling [s]small[/s] [b]LARGE[/b] angry crocodiles while smeared in honey would appear to be the most dangerous means of travelling that I can think of.

^^^ EFA 😉