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

[classic33]

The national speed limit that applies today would have been irrelevant in 1934 as few cars were capable of achieving 60mph or anywhere near it. Although we moan about the amount of cars on the road one factor is probably that very few vehicles means the drivers would not be as used to dealing with hazards as they are today and were less aware. The number of cyclists hit by vehicles in London is tiny compared to the amount of vehicles on the roads.

http://www.ukmotorists.com/speed_history.asp
In 1934 a general 30mph speed limit was imposed on roads in built up areas (effectively roads with street lighting) which remains to this day.

Other roads had no speed limits at all. It was not until 1965 that a national upper limit of 70mph was introduced for all roads, including motorways.

 

[biking_fox]

Cycling is safer than walking, per journey mile. Its safer than gardening, according to the CTC. Presumably that's measured by the cabbage.

Comparing statistics is very very difficult. As mentioned upthread with the differences in populations over time, lifestyles etc.

The key figure I think is that the death rate (or even KSI) is very very low. Cycling is SAFE. Transport is SAFE. It could be safer, sure. But no-one should be concerned about their life when contemplating cycling.

RE: health - the Australian studies showed quite clearly - when they introduced the helmet requirement law, the number of cyclists went down, and the deaths from HA went up! That's how safe cycling is in Aus, a not terribly cycle friendly country. Remember though that comparing stats (even before and after a law introduction) is very tricky.