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

[PK99]

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!

false dichotomy.

 

[Smokin Joe]

[QUOTE 3768454, member: 9609"]at a wild geuss 30million drivers, retest once every 5 years = 23,000 tests per day (assume 5 day week)[/QUOTE]
Plus a massive increase in the number of test centres. And that figure assumes a 100% pass rate, retests would add considerably to that.

And the most dangerous drivers are often the ones with the best driving skills who use them to push the envelope. They'd pass on the day no trouble, Mr and Mrs Ordinary with their nerves in shreds would have the problems. Some of the safest drivers I taught took more than one attempt to pass because they went to pieces on test day - including a cycling clubmate who was one of the best pupils I ever had, he went through on test number five.

 

[ColinJ]

false dichotomy.

Smartarse reply.

 

[ColinJ]

Ok then ... you can reduce your risk of a heart attack enormously by doing regular exercise. One form of regular exercise is to cycle. There is a small risk of death or serious injury due to cycling but that is tiny compared to the risks of inactivity. If you are still bothered by the risks of cycling, do something else instead!

I saw some research somewhere that on average, cycling regularly can add a couple of years to life expectancy compared to not exercising. That takes into account the risk of being killed. If you got your exercise even more safely, perhaps you'd increase your life expectancy by (say) 2 years and 23 minutes. I'll take my chances and cycle ...

 

[srw]

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.

Time to repost this?
http://www.gicentre.net/blog/2013/11/24/risk-cycling-and-denominator-neglect

 

[DEFENDER01]

Time to repost this?
http://www.gicentre.net/blog/2013/11/24/risk-cycling-and-denominator-neglect

That made my eyes go all funny better not go out on the bike now for a while.

 

[DEFENDER01]

Plus a massive increase in the number of test centres. And that figure assumes a 100% pass rate, retests would add considerably to that.

And the most dangerous drivers are often the ones with the best driving skills who use them to push the envelope. They'd pass on the day no trouble, Mr and Mrs Ordinary with their nerves in shreds would have the problems. Some of the safest drivers I taught took more than one attempt to pass because they went to pieces on test day - including a cycling clubmate who was one of the best pupils I ever had, he went through on test number five.

They do say the best drivers out there didn't pass first time.
But i do know a lot off bad ones that didn't either.

 

[Brandane]

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!

I saw some research somewhere that on average, cycling regularly can add a couple of years to life expectancy compared to not exercising. That takes into account the risk of being killed. If you got your exercise even more safely, perhaps you'd increase your life expectancy by (say) 2 years and 23 minutes. I'll take my chances and cycle ...

By your own admission then, by cycling you are only postponing the inevitable (if you are unfortunate enough to have heart disease in the first place) by about 2 years. So you are still going to become a "death from heart disease" statistic, but a couple of years down the line.
My family on my paternal side have pretty much all died through heart disease in their 60s/70s. My guess is that it could well lead to my demise too, although I am hoping that by cycling I might get another couple of years out of it (although that is NOT my #1 motivation for cycling).
Being brutally honest though - we all need to go at some time; and sudden heart failure is not the worst way to go, assuming you have reached a decent age (my father died from a massive heart attack while out playing his regular round of golf with his friends). Rather that than what I have seen other family members go through as a result of some of the extremely nasty diseases that are around, giving a prolonged and unpleasant end.

 

[xxDarkRiderxx]

Are there any stats for cyclist killed or injured in London in 1980's ?

 

[Smokin Joe]

Being brutally honest though - we all need to go at some time; and sudden heart failure is not the worst way to go,

It is for the passengers on your bus.

 

[Tin Pot]

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.

Retesting would be a preventative measure, more coppers just means we catch more after they've caused harm, no?

How many people take the speed awareness courses each day?

 

[Drago]

They do say the best drivers out there didn't pass first time.

"They" are usually the ones who didn't pass first time themselves. Its the driving equivalent of "the bigger they are, the harder they fall."

 

[Smokin Joe]

Retesting would be a preventative measure, more coppers just means we catch more after they've caused harm, no?

How many people take the speed awareness courses each day?

Retesting would mean people behave while there's an examiner in the car and revert to type afterwards. I have done enough driver improvement course (People who have committed traffic violations, minor accidents etc) to know their effect is only short term.

Nothing makes people behave like a police car or the likelihood of seeing one.

 

[sidevalve]

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).

So that would be exactly one more than any cyclist has to pass then ?
Retesting - OK but cyclists are a minority unless you want some sort of testing for cyclists be carefull of what you wish for.
As for more traffic police good idea - but can anyone explain why the police like to use unmarked cars for traffic work ? A marked car slows everyone down and makes drivers wake up - ie IT MAKES THE ROAD SAFER, an unmarked car does not do this but it catches a few idiots while the rest drive on by - but it does make more money. Oops - seem to have answered my own question.

 

[Drago]

There is very little evidence that visible police present reduces unlawful activity. The most notable effect is one of reassurance to law abiding folk, not any sudden reduction in naughtiness.