How common are cycle deaths?

[davefb]

Risk per km is the appropriate measure for comparing the safety of making a journey by different modes. So for example you typically are deciding whether to walk or cycle to the shops. You are generally not thinking of walking to the local shops or cycling to shops the other side of town that are the same travel time away. On that basis, even just taking accidents involving a vehicle, the fatality risk per km is about 30% higher for a pedestrian than a cyclist. Taking all accidents in the roadway the risk for pedestrians is about four times higher per km for serious injuries.

So the figures for serious injuries per bn km for 2009 are:

Pedestrian: 2,001
Cycling: 517

or just under 4x higher for pedestrians. If you factor in the higher head injury rate for pedestrians, the risk of a head injury is 4.8 times higher for a pedestrian than a cyclist per km

so , basically, if i travel the same distance by foot, then its 4* more dangerous than cycling.. even with my wimpy amount of cycling, that still makes it more likely i will have an accident on the bike than walking... whats more useful is risk per journey surely ?

After all, otherwise I'd travel to the shops via the motorway or via a plane, which is patently ludicrous!

I could accept the comparison of journey types and rates, except the data we quote isn't setup like that ( well the link I had wasn't). it would have to only count journeys where it was okay to do either type..

Some spooky info on the web about rate analysis though, you made the point about 'whats an accident if its just one bike is it an RTA?' but even then, theres concern the police dont report all accidents correctly and try to compare with hospital admission data. I mean, you'd think this info was kinda accurate, but it seems far from it!
http://www2.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/research/rsrr/theme5/roadaccidentscasualtiescomp.pdf
we sometimes worry about more and more cyclists dying on the road... but the motorbike rates are depressing reading in comparison...

 

[400bhp]

As relates to air crashes, this is not (surprisingly) true. In the US alone, between 1983 and 2000, there were 568 plane crashes. Out of the collective 53,487 people onboard, 51,207 survived.

The misconception arises because you only read about plane crashes where people die.

How to survive a plane crash

I was waiting for someone to nitpick.

Lets not look at recreational flights.


A 2 min google search.

Survival rate of passengers on
aircraft involved in fatal accidents
carrying 10+ passengers​

Decade % surviving 1930s 21 1940s 20 1950s 24 1960s 19 1970s 25 1980s 34 1990s 35 2000s 24

 

[Red Light]

so , basically, if i travel the same distance by foot, then its 4* more dangerous than cycling.. even with my wimpy amount of cycling, that still makes it more likely i will have an accident on the bike than walking... whats more useful is risk per journey surely ?

Comparative risk per journey surely? If you are going to the shops then are you safer walking or cycling?

Most people would think walking there is perfect safe and would look at you as if you had gone mad if you strapped a walking helmet on for the journey. Yet cycling there is 4-5x safer but people look at you as if you are mad if you don't strap a helmet on. Lots of otherwise perfectly sensible people on here will tell you you are mentally deficient if you cycle there without a helmet. So what is it about helmets that engender this warped view of the world and departure from rational behaviour?

After all, otherwise I'd travel to the shops via the motorway or via a plane, which is patently ludicrous!

The extra distance and other modes you'd have to do to use those modes will more than make up for it.

Some spooky info on the web about rate analysis though, you made the point about 'whats an accident if its just one bike is it an RTA?' but even then, theres concern the police dont report all accidents correctly and try to compare with hospital admission data. I mean, you'd think this info was kinda accurate, but it seems far from it!

Traffic fatalities are generally believed to be very accurate, serious injuries slightly less so with some under-reporting and minor injuries are heavily under-reported. Which is why I stick to fatality and serious injury data while BHIT and Headway like to use the big numbers associated with minor injuries.

You have to be wary of hospital admissions data for cyclists. Studies that attempted to tie up police records and hospital admissions data have found some serious confusion in the hospital data between cyclists and motor cyclists with up to half the cyclists miscoded. There is not a problem with other modes.

There has been a suggestion in some studies that for cyclists the recent gains in road safety are illusory. In the old days the police would follow up with a phone call to the hospital to determine the outcome and from that conversation, the police and hospital records would be amended/corrected. With the pressure on police time that no longer happens

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

Suicidees are already dead!

When it comes to perceptions - why do I feel safer on a bike than in a car?

I suspect it's the sensation of being boxed in in a car, but I've never been able to pin it down.

I was thinking about this a couple of days ago. I don't own a car but my elderly mother has just broken a bone in her foot (pavement accident...) and can't drive or walk any reasonable distance so I've been doing a lot of chauffeuring for her. I'm fairly sure that the feeling of safety on a bike comes from the fact that you get so much feedback from the road and the wind that you are constantly aware of risks and constantly adapting to them. You're managing risk. And the flexibility of a bike gives you more opportunities to manage that risk.

Behind the driving wheel, however, that feedback is severely limited. In being insulated from the bumps in the road, the sound of the revving engine, road noise and the wind, etc, that awareness of just being there on the road is being managed for you. But in fact it's only being managed until the critical moment comes along when the driver has to respond urgently. I don't think the comfort of cars actually encourages drivers to respond to those adrenaline moments. Actually, the number of drivers I see texting in traffic jams, or adding the final touches to the morning's make up in stop-start queues, or navigating junctions in manual geared cars with a phone clasped to one ear, convinces me that many so-called drivers are simply passengers at the wheel. They're already in another place in a contraption that's conceived to get them to yet another place.

 

[ferret fur]

Actually, the number of drivers I see texting in traffic jams, or adding the final touches to the morning's make up in stop-start queues, or navigating junctions in manual geared cars with a phone clasped to one ear, convinces me that many so-called drivers are simply passengers at the wheel.

& when you are cycling you share the road with them.....seems safe to me.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

& when you are cycling you share the road with them.....seems safe to me.

I'll take that as irony.

I think the ''safe'' part comes because you're more aware of the danger and have more chances to respond to that danger. Imagine cycling in stop-start traffic and becoming aware that the driver behind you is texting or playing angry birds instead of paying attention. You'll move to the left, you'll move to the right, whichever best gets you out of their way. Now imagine driving in stop-start traffic and realising the same thing. Your options for taking evasive action will be much more limited. You won't even be able to turn around give the texter that withering look (with optional vocals) that your years on a bike have taught you to develop.

In such a situation the cyclist has a greater ability to manage that danger than the car driver does.

 

[VamP]

Odd. I always think of motorways as being safer than country lanes. No blind bends, no narrow lanes, more room to overtake and in some places only 10MPH faster.

And everybody travelling in the same direction! Totally agree, I would always assume motorways are much safer.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

And everybody travelling in the same direction! Totally agree, I would always assume motorways are much safer.

Thanks.

 

[jonny jeez]

Yes, but you're a cyclist (and a motorcyclist, or am I confusing you with someone else?) and as such probably more in touch with actual reality than the average driver

I think you are mixing that up with me, I ride a pushbike , a hack motorcycle, a larger touring motorcycle, a small scooter, a car, a family Mpv and occasionally a big white van.

I figure all I need is a bus licence and I'll get a free set of glasses.

 

[Arsen Gere]

Apologies for resurecting an old thread but I thought you might find this animation interesting.

http://understandinguncertainty.org/files/animations/Micromorts/Micromorts.html

Click on each mode of transport to see the results.

 

[benb]

I guess any figures are going to only give part of the picture. Fatalities on either a bicycle or walking with no vehicle involved (ie falling off / tripping up) I would imagine aren't huge, but injuries and probably serious injuries would make a difference.

Anyway taking the numbers as a very rough guide, I would say that walking and cycling are roughly equal in risk, motorcycling is much more dangerous, car journeys are quite a bit safer. But this is only part of the story as I have become much fitter and healthier since cycling regularly and consider it outweighs the risk on balance. Also cycling is far quicker much of the time and more pleasant than sitting in traffic, so another win which cannot be easily quantified.

I am not surprised that cars are safer since untold money has gone into safety features in cars, and the fact that roads generally are completely geared towards the car. All the money that has gone into design of motorways, armaco, slip lanes and so on is for the benefit of car users. Put as much money into cycle safety and infrastructure and we would probably reap the same rewards.

Only safer for the people inside the car.

 

[biking_fox]

Risk per km is the appropriate measure for comparing the safety of making a journey by different modes

hahahahaha

It is certainly a way. there is no single measure. You are comparing plums and cherries (not quite apples and oranges) but different transport modes have different risks and hazards. There is no easy way of comparing risks.

Other options include per participant/hour

But it all biases in "favour" of one form or another. Risk is really really tricky to deal with.



In the end the simplist measure is as quoted on the first page. Cycle deaths run at 1 per 30million miles.
If you think this is too risky for you; travel another way - that way may or maynot be more risky for that journey. But for me, that's a risk I'm prepared to take whilst enjoying the speed, fresh air, fun, cheapness and exercise that is cycling.

 

[albion]

I did a quick calculation the other week, possibly on an average 3,000 miles a year over 50 years.Chance of dying from a bike accident - 1 in 300.

 

[stowie]

You may have missed the point. With a bicycle there is always a vehicle involved - the bicycle - so all accidents go onto the database. If you are walking, only those with a vehicle involved go on and a whole range of pedestrian accidents not involving a vehicle are not featured. So you are looking at the totality of cycling road accidents but only a tiny proportion (about 15%*) of pedestrian road accidents in those figures.

* About 5,500 pedestrians p.a. seriously injured in collisions with a vehicle, a further 28,500 seriously injured in trips and falls on the highway with no vehicle involved making 34,000 seriously injured pedestrians a year, not the 5,500 used in the datasets the OP presented from. Pedestrians are also more likely to suffer a head injury (48% of admissions) than a cyclist (38%). But nobody thinks being a pedestrian is dangerous even though its higher risk than being a cyclist.

I had missed the point - didn't think that falling off a bicycle without any other vehicle involved would be classed differently to a pedestrian tripping or falling by themselves.

 

[rowan 46]

On a personal note I have been cycling for over 40 years and haven't died once. The only accidents I have ever had on a bike are when I was a kid and my bike control wasn't as good. I may die tomorrow on the road but I probably won't. cycling isn't dangerous if you are careful, crashing can be so I try and avoid them.