How dangerous is cycling?

[col]

Stats can work for comparison if done properly.

I agree,but saying x number were killed in x time or miles isnt,it takes nothing else into account,and the possible numbers of nearly killed or injured.

 

[hackbike 6]

You've got a weird signature.

 

[fossyant]

Bank on a nasty incident, own fault or other road user, every 3-4 years...you'll be fine !!

Nasty as being a broken bone, bad road rash etc.... nothing major though - quick trip to casualty....

That seems to be my average.

 

[hackbike 6]

Had one last night,that was a nasty one.

 

[col]

You've got a weird signature.

Who me?

 

[atbman]

Cycling isn't dangerous, it's being brought to a sudden and violent halt by a motor vehcle that's dangerous

 

[col]

Cycling isn't dangerous, it's being brought to a sudden and violent halt by a motor vehcle that's dangerous

Thats the point,we could be the best cyclist ever,but we still rely on the driver looking right when pulling out,and looking left when turning ect,the car full of teenagers laughing and joking listening to music,the family car where the driver is distracted by the kids or pets,the driver checking the map ,the list is endless. It seems to me that there is a lot of luck involved in our safety out there?doesnt sound so safe now does it?

 

[hackbike 6]

Cycling isn't dangerous, it's being brought to a sudden and violent halt by a motor vehcle that's dangerous

Or a ped.

 

[Cab]

Thats just it,according to the stats.But the reality is we move around and amongst large heavy and sometimes it seems blind vehicles,so what percentage would you give to being safe with all these around you?

Approaching 100%

 

[Jaded]

Thats the point,we could be the best cyclist ever,but we still rely on the driver looking right when pulling out,and looking left when turning ect,the car full of teenagers laughing and joking listening to music,the family car where the driver is distracted by the kids or pets,the driver checking the map ,the list is endless. It seems to me that there is a lot of luck involved in our safety out there?doesnt sound so safe now does it?

If it was as bad as you think it is you'd be dead now.

 

[Jaded]

How do you want the numbers presented? Deaths per bike, per rider, per mile travelled, per journey, per mile on-road?

I think we should report it as number of deaths each dead cyclist has. If it is one per dead cyclist then that puts all the other nonsense stats to bed.

We'd know cycling kills.

 

[col]

If it was as bad as you think it is you'd be dead now.

All im saying is its not totaly safe,and those stats dont tell the whole story.

 

[Cab]

All im saying is its not totaly safe,and those stats dont tell the whole story.

Of course they tell the whole story. They just do so with incredible brevity. They show that cycling is, as near as dammit, entirely safe. They also show that motoring is, as near as dammit, entirely safe. You can make arguments that sometimes any activity is more risky than at other times... What of it?

 

[Jaded]

All im saying is its not totaly safe,and those stats dont tell the whole story.

They tell the facts.

They don't tell a story, that appears to be your job.

 

[alp1950]

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%..........


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

Cyclists : 3.5 deaths

Motorcyclists : 13 deaths

Cars : 0.9 deaths.......


......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.

I'm being lazy as I've not examined the source material to determine the methodology used to derive these statistics. However I would guess it must be well nigh impossible to derive an accurate figure for risk of dying on a bike (whether by journey length, duration or whatever) because the denominator is unknown (ie presumably there cannot be accurate figures for the number of cycling journeys, length of commute etc). So the statistics that give the risk of death per journey length are probably based on nothing more than an educated guess.

The stats for number of deaths are likely to be reasonably accurate (presumably these come from death certificates or police reports) but the figures for non-fatal injuries are unlikely to be accurate as doctors & hospitals have no statutory obligation to report these, and if these are derived from police reports then these are almost certain to be underestimated.

Again I'm being lazy as I haven't reviewed the literature and what I'm about to suggest might have been done already, but perhaps the only way to advance the debate on whether cycling is dangerous would be to undertake a proper study. A prospective design would be a good starting place: ie take ~1000 commuting cyclists, obtain basic demographic data (age, sex, number & length of cycle journeys per week etc) and follow them for a defined period eg 10 years (or maybe 10,000 cyclists for 1 year) and record cycling related mortality and morbidity (injuries).

I want to know how likely I am to be injured or killed when I'm cycling and I'm not particularly interested in comparing the risks of cycling with the risks of being a pedestrian or a car driver so study of cyclists alone would suffice. For those of you want to have the bike v car v ped debate this would be much more difficult to study as groups of age & sex matched pedestrians & motorists travelling the same routes as the cyclists would also need to be studied.

Anyone interested in signing up for the study?