How dangerous is cycling?

[BentMikey]

In addition I think the problem now is that more and more people are commuting by bike, and are completly new to it or have not rode a bike since passing their driving test twenty years. They have not got the necessary skills or competence to commute in rush hour trafffic. I remember reading somewhere that this is this is one of the reasons why deaths from cycling in London have risen in the last couple of years

I thought deaths had gone down in actual numbers, and had gone down quite significantly as a rate given the huge increase in cycling? Skills and competence have some effect on overall cycling safety, but a much bigger one comes from the "safety in numbers" effect.

 

[Shady]

Here's some brief stats for 2007 :

Pedestrians : 30,191 casualties with 646 killed - 2.14 %

Cyclists : 16,195 casualties with 136 killed - 0.84%

Motorcyclists : 23,459 with 588 killed - 2.51 %

Cars : 161,433 casualties with 1,432 killed - 0.89 %

Buses / Coaches : 7,079 casualties with 12 killed - 0.17 %

Goods Vehicles : 7,816 casualties with 110 killed - 1.41 %

So the highest number of vulnerable road users killed was pedestrians with over 2% of casualties being deaths compared with 0.84% of cycling casualties being killed.

Without having the exact numbers of cyclists/motorists/motorcyclists on the road its hard to get an approximate estimation of the risk.

However there are stats to calculate number of deaths per 100 million kilometres travelled :

Cyclists : 3.5 deaths

Motorcyclists : 13 deaths

Cars : 0.9 deaths

Buses / Coaches : 2.2 deaths

Goods Vehicles : 1.6 deaths

Based on those stats, in theory you would have to cycle 28,571,428.5 kms or 17,857,142.9 miles to hit the statistical number to possibly die in a fatal accident.

As an aside there is also a breakdown of injuries per area for cyclists, of all pedal cycling injuries - 39% head/face, 2% neck, upper back 5%, arms/shoulders 43%, lower back 8%, legs/hips 24%. I tend to wear a helmet!! But looking at that breakdown I may start wearing body armour!

Morbid reading in a morning but if you wanted the exact facts or statistics...!!

 

[Jaded]

However there are stats to calculate number of deaths per 100 million kilometres travelled :

Cyclists : 3.5 deaths

Motorcyclists : 13 deaths

Cars : 0.9 deaths

Buses / Coaches : 2.2 deaths

Goods Vehicles : 1.6 deaths

Given the perceived vulnerability of cyclists over all other forms of transport, those are figures that should be printed at the bottom of every scare story about danger.

When you take out all those deaths caused by poor cycling and all those deaths that occurred off-road (as opposed to a lack of "safety" equipment) you'd probably see an even cycling as an even more 'safe' activity.

Surely the emphasis must be on educating cyclists not to ride up the inside of a lorry, etc., rather than preaching at them to wear "protective" clothing.

 

[hackbike 6]

What about Peds again?
I saw one lying on the pavement after an `incident`yesterday (check earlier post) and that must be the third time in less than 10 years.There are a lot out there who are reckless and it's got worse but that POB last night really took the biscuit.

 

[Andy Pandy]

Cyclists : 3.5 deaths

Motorcyclists : 13 deaths

Cars : 0.9 deaths

Buses / Coaches : 2.2 deaths

Goods Vehicles : 1.6 deaths

Can't help but feel that a comparison based on the rate per kilometer traveled is a bit unfair for bikes. It takes a bit much more time to complete a set distance on a bike than any of the other forms of transport quoted. Has anyone seen the figures quoted per hour travel time?

 

[marinyork]

I don't really regard cycling as a very dangerous activity, you only need to look at the stats above to see that.

What I do think is that with cyclists who haven't ever commuted and non-cyclists or those considering taking it up or are much more occasional users there is wild variation in opinions of how "dangerous" particular roads/paths/times/helmets/other factor is.

 

[col]

Im not a great fan of stats,as it can be misleading in some ways.For example,a platoon of say 30 soldiers goes to war,now one in ten will get killed going on the stats,but unfortunately 25 get killed,and only five return,where are the stats on that?Do you see what im trying to say?

 

[Cab]

Do you see what im trying to say?

No. Sorry.

 

[Cab]

Morbid reading in a morning but if you wanted the exact facts or statistics...!!

Awesome post Shady. Thank you!

The only thing to ask would be whether accident rate per unit distance travelled is the best measure; with the best will in the world the average cycling journey won't be as long as the average car or coach journey, I suspect that the short average distance of our journeys (concentrating our trips into those parts of a trip that are dangerous for all road users, from and to busy destinations) makes cycling look rather more dangerous per unit distance than it really is.

 

[yello]

Stats are no comfort if you happen to be that 1 in a million.

There is no 'one size fits all' agreement on what is dangerous and what isn't so whether cycling is or isn't dangerous is a matter of personal opinion.

But I do think it wise to think of cycling as having risk (if you want to call that dangerous then that's up to you) and to mitigate wherever possible for that risk. Again, how you do that is your own call.

'bout as much use as something that's no sodding use aren't I?

 

[col]

No. Sorry.

No need to apologise.What im saying is these stats are an average i think,but sometimes nothing can happen and sometimes lots can happen all at once.So in reality its very unlikely we are going to get killed or injured on the road,so its not as dangerous as some believe?

 

[Cab]

Stats are no comfort if you happen to be that 1 in a million.

There is no 'one size fits all' agreement on what is dangerous and what isn't so whether cycling is or isn't dangerous is a matter of personal opinion.

I'm sorry, but you're simply wrong. To argue that something is dangerous in the face of overwhelming evidence that this is not so is to demonstrate that your personal opinion is incorrect. Contrary to what modern educationalists insist on teaching, there is such a thing as being wrong

But I do think it wise to think of cycling as having risk (if you want to call that dangerous then that's up to you) and to mitigate wherever possible for that risk. Again, how you do that is your own call.

'bout as much use as something that's no sodding use aren't I?

It is certainly true that even a small risk is worth making even smaller if you can do so; and thats what safe cycling is all about.

 

[Cab]

No need to apologise.What im saying is these stats are an average i think,but sometimes nothing can happen and sometimes lots can happen all at once.So in reality its very unlikely we are going to get killed or injured on the road,so its not as dangerous as some believe?

True enough... But however you try to weigh up the stats on cycling accidents, its hard to show that it is actually dangerous.

 

[col]

I agree on paper it is hard to show going on those stats.But its a dangerous thing in some situations,but we can minimise that risk by our cycling ways,I suppose its a common sense thing,but i wouldnt try to claim for one second that cycling on roads where cars busses and lorries are is generally a 100%safe thing to do.

 

[dondare]

Awesome post Shady. Thank you!

The only thing to ask would be whether accident rate per unit distance travelled is the best measure; with the best will in the world the average cycling journey won't be as long as the average car or coach journey, I suspect that the short average distance of our journeys (concentrating our trips into those parts of a trip that are dangerous for all road users, from and to busy destinations) makes cycling look rather more dangerous per unit distance than it really is.

I wonder how long the average car journey is? I'm sure that my 11 mile each way commute is longer than the kind of trips made by most car commuters and school-runners, but their average is bumped up enormously by very long journeys at week-ends and holidays when they use motorways - roads with all the hazards designed out of them and consequently a relatively low accident rate.