For Anyone Who Tells You Cycling is Too Dangerous in Today's Traffic

[Smokin Joe]

Department of Transport figures;

Number of cyclist deaths in Britain last year - 113

Number in 1934 - 1,536.

 

[Dayvo]

And there were FAR fewer vehicles in those days.

Does it say what are the deaths were contributed to, as that's a hell of a lot of mishaps?

 

[yello]

Yebbut, they didn't have helmets in the olden days

 

[Yellow Saddle]

That's interesting. 113 is a pretty low number if you compare it to the total cycling mileage done in the same period. I think cycling deaths are like aeroplane deaths and get proportionally more publicity than car accident deaths.

I wonder, if experimentally one day, we could for just one day, report all deaths by heart attack ( or any other single cause of death) on social media and the press. That would put cycle deaths in perspective.

 

[Smokin Joe]

This year so far the figure is 53, which if it continues at the same rate will be the lowest ever recorded.

 

[DEFENDER01]

I guess you are going to find most of those fatalities will be in the major cities.
London in particular i have noticed many times picking up the paper and seeing another cyclist being seriously injured or worse.

 

[bigjim]

I would imagine there were a hell of a lot more people cycling in 1934, on bikes with less efficient brakes and rims, which would distort figures a tad.

 

[Debade]

I do not know if this is the best report/NGO but it looks like they did a good job of reporting http://www.rospa.com/road-safety/advice/pedal-cyclists/facts-figures/ Only refers to 2013. Here is a quick summary chart. Sorry, this is how it copied from the link.

Cyclist Casualties, 2013 1
Child Adult All
Killed 6 103 109
Seriously Injured 276 2,867 3,143
Slightly Injured 1,676 14,510 16,186
Total 1,958 17,480 19,438

 

[Rickshaw Phil]

I would imagine there were a hell of a lot more people cycling in 1934, on bikes with less efficient brakes and rims, which would distort figures a tad.

A few other considerations:

• There was no Ministry of Transport test in 1934
• All cars would have been using drum brakes
  
• A large number of those would be using the notoriously difficult to set up cable brakes
• Many older cars would still only have two wheel brakes
• Almost all drivers on the road at that time had not had to pass a test to get their licence (I believe 1934 was the year the driving test was introduced).

 

[Rickshaw Phil]

I am not overly convinced that the driving test I took quite some years ago counts for much now, other than in the obvious sense that it remains valid.

That'll depend on how seriously you take your driving I suppose. If you still drive in the safe manner you were taught in order to pass the test it's still good. If you've picked up loads of bad habits in the mean time, perhaps not.

Periodic retesting gets suggested from time to time. I wonder if any politician is brave enough to introduce it?

 

[Smokin Joe]

Periodic retesting gets suggested from time to time. I wonder if any politician is brave enough to introduce it?

As a former ADI I've posted on this when it was raised some years back, but it would be logistically impossible and serve no useful benefit. It would be much cheaper and more effective to increase the number of traffic police on the roads.

 

[Rickshaw Phil]

As a former ADI I've posted on this when it was raised some years back, but it would be logistically impossible and serve no useful benefit. It would be much cheaper and more effective to increase the number of traffic police on the roads.

Definitely with you on that.

 

[MontyVeda]

As a former ADI I've posted on this when it was raised some years back, but it would be logistically impossible and serve no useful benefit. It would be much cheaper and more effective to increase the number of traffic police on the roads.

I agree with more traffic police, but why would periodic retesting be logistically impossible?

 

[totallyfixed]

To add a little perspective, when we look at statistics regarding cycling deaths it is impossible to draw any meaningful data from them unless the cause of death is stated. I know for a fact that many deaths are due to heart attacks / illness with no one else involved.

 

[ColinJ]

That's interesting. 113 is a pretty low number if you compare it to the total cycling mileage done in the same period. I think cycling deaths are like aeroplane deaths and get proportionally more publicity than car accident deaths.

I wonder, if experimentally one day, we could for just one day, report all deaths by heart attack ( or any other single cause of death) on social media and the press. That would put cycle deaths in perspective.

According to the Office for National Statistics [LINK], over 64,000 people died in England and Wales from heart disease in 2012, or 175+ a day! Ok, some of those would have been cyclists, but you can be sure that a very large percentage of those who died were not doing any form of regular exercise. So, to risk being one of 100-odd per year by cycling, or nearly double that per day by being a couch potato - hmm, tough call!