All these fatalities

[MartinC]

Completely off topic but illuminating. Congrats to Matty and Humpty.

 

[HJ]

I sometimes dread looking on here, finding another two people killed whilst out on there bikes is very saddening, and also worrying, I have no desire to be dead just yet, plus I want my kids to start cycling more.

With all these terrible accidents, are there any stats collected to try and find out how and why it happened, I am sure the Police do a thorough job collecting evidence but do the contributory factors get published, I was thinking that we all go round doing our best to be safe but could do with actual data and guidelines of what causes these terrible incidents, down even to the equipment being used, lights, clothing, actual location, time of day and details of the individual, anonymous of course. Also, it needs to be honest, just because someone has died doesnt mean they werent doign something wrong.

I might get a flaming for this as it may sound insensitive or obtrusive, that isnt the intention and neither do I want to pigeonhole victims into groups and assume it wont happen to me but I want to know if there is anything I am doing wrong or could do better ? A lot of cycling is obvious and common sense but I do wonder whether there are more subtle things that could be drawn, Cyclecraft is great but I am not sure its everything you need to know.

Hope you see what I am getting at here, not trying to be ghoulish or anything.

The thing to remember is, per mile traveled you are more at risk in a car than on a bicycle! The risk level is about the same as being a pedestrian and we are all pedestrians at some point in the day. Another thing to understand is that it is getting safer, the rates of fatality among cyclist and pedestrians has dropped dramatically since the 1970's, which were the high point, it is now 60% safer than when I first learnt to ride...

 

[humptygocart]

The thing to remember is, per mile traveled you are more at risk in a car than on a bicycle! The risk level is about the same as being a pedestrian and we are all pedestrians at some point in the day. Another thing to understand is that it is getting safer, the rates of fatality among cyclist and pedestrians has dropped dramatically since the 1970's, which were the high point, it is now 60% safer than when I first learnt to ride...

Quite right.

I think it's terribly important too to remember this.

Cycling makes the roads safer.

The more cyclists there are, the safer the roads become.

It's a noted phenomenon, referred to as "The Virtuous Cycle"- counter-intuitively, more cyclists mean fewer accidents.

Drivers get used to cyclists and may even cycle themselves so are more aware of the potential hazards.

Cycling's up 83% in London. In the same period casualties have halved.

 

[Davidc]

Quite right.

I think it's terribly important too to remember this.

Cycling makes the roads safer.

The more cyclists there are, the safer the roads become.

It's a noted phenomenon, referred to as "The Virtuous Cycle"- counter-intuitively, more cyclists mean fewer accidents.

Drivers get used to cyclists and may even cycle themselves so are more aware of the potential hazards.

Cycling's up 83% in London. In the same period casualties have halved.

I got onto this earlier in the thread. It's not just the numbers. You have some context which is unusual, but none of that helps with perception.

The basis of the OP is fine - we should be aiming to reduce the horrendous injury and death toll on the roads. Its implication is however that things are getting worse. They aren't.

I had an interesting discussion with a friend at the start of the present school term.

His daughter wanted to cycle to school two days a week so that she can get to a sports club in time for a practice in the afternoon.

He had said "No" on the basis that it was "far too dangerous on the roads nowadays compared to when he and mum had cycled to school in the '80s"

I (politely I hope) suggested that he ought to find another reason, as the number of cyclists killed and injured was about double in the 80s compared to now, and that in addition walking, the alternative in this case, is statistically much more dangerous.

Independently his daughter had web searched the same information when he got home, and he gave in.

His first question to me next time we met was "If cycling's safer now than 25 years ago why do the kids have to wear helmets?" to which I don't have an answer.

The perception, not the reality, is what informs people's decisions and views, and that virtuous circle is hampered by the general perception being false.

 

[ComedyPilot]

His first question to me next time we met was "If cycling's safer now than 25 years ago why do the kids have to wear helmets?" to which I don't have an answer.

Answer, they don't.

They can if they/their parents want them too, but it's not compulsary.





Oh no, I've just started another helmet argument....sorry.

 

[HJ]

Whilst internet advice is good, I think there's nothing to beat training from an experienced instructor in real life.

+1








oh and by the way I am a qualified instructor, if anyone would like some training...

 

[Davidc]

Answer, they don't.

They can if they/their parents want them too, but it's not compulsary.





Oh no, I've just started another helmet argument....sorry.

Sorry. Should have made clear - it's a school rule not the law!

 

[humptygocart]

I'd ask the school if they insist on staff wearing helmets when they visit pubs.

Head injuries being more common among pub-goers than cyclists.

 

[ComedyPilot]

Sorry. Should have made clear - it's a school rule not the law!

I am just aching for the first 'nanny-state', H&S-orientated risk-assessment obsessed idiot to tell me and my daughter how we must cycle to school, and they will be left in no doubt as to my thoughts on their opinions and rules.

 

[ComedyPilot]

I'd ask the school if they insist on staff wearing helmets when they visit pubs.

Head injuries being more common among pub-goers than cyclists.

Wayhaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyy


Yes, lord, there is hope, one of your disciples has seen the light, praise be.

My Man!!!!

 

[garrilla]

His first question to me next time we met was "If cycling's safer now than 25 years ago why do the kids have to wear helmets?" to which I don't have an answer.

This is simple, we understand more about safety.

This best way to understand this, ironically, is with cars. Think about the different risks that are dealt with by Seat Belts, Air Bags, SIPS, ABS, Roll-bars and so on.

The tough nut to crack is the human mind. And so many of them too.

 

[Davidc]

I am just aching for the first 'nanny-state', H&S-orientated risk-assessment obsessed idiot to tell me and my daughter how we must cycle to school, and they will be left in no doubt as to my thoughts on their opinions and rules.

Fortunately for the school I'm not involved!

Edit: but I don't dare argue with Mrs DC when she insists I use a helmet

 

[HJ]

Although, I wonder how many of those cyclist involved in serious acc…collisions are not holders of a drivers license.

It would be interesting to understand that, it may have great bearing on this point.

I can't remember the exact figures, but I do remember looking at the official "road accident" statistics for the UK and the group with the highest fatality rate was males the aged 11-16...

 

[BentMikey]

Respect to you matty, most impressed!

 

[atbman]

This is simple, we understand more about safety.

This best way to understand this, ironically, is with cars. Think about the different risks that are dealt with by Seat Belts, Air Bags, SIPS, ABS, Roll-bars and so on.

The tough nut to crack is the human mind. And so many of them too.

Not quite relevant, I'm afraid. Seatbelts stop you going thro' the windscreen or out of side of car or stop you slamming into the front seats and bursting the driver's or the passenger's aorta. As long as they're wearing seatbelts that is - ironic, or what?

Helmets provide relatively little protection (12mph collision with a flat surface) in the case of being hit by a motor vehicle. Dr. Mayer Hilman published a study a few years ago (which I had, but lost) which showed that approx 92% of all the riders he'd studied who had fatal head injuries would have died from other fatal injuries if their heads had been ok.

If wearing safety gear were truly about safety, then pedestrians would be forced to wear helmets and body armour, since that might save more lives and serious injuries - more of them are involved in serious collisions with m/vs that are cyclists.

It seems unlikely to me that the government's "WEAR A HELMET OR YOU WILL DIE!" campaign to encourage people to take up cycling as a healthy and safe activity is going to succeed