Study shows cyclists at greater risk of accident than car drivers

[Crackle]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/03/cycling-roads-accidents-hospital-admissions

"Much greater efforts are needed to make roads safer for cyclists, who are at considerably greater risk of an accident requiring hospital admission than car occupants, a study says today......"

Haven't found the original study yet, just this article.

 

[Cab]

Ahh, yes, because it can be shown that cyclists are more at risk (fair enough), it therefore follows that greater segregation is the answer... Irritatingly stupid.

 

[Crankarm]

Shocker. Who would have thunk it! Talk about stating the bleedin' obvious .

 

[hackbike 666]

Cycling isn't dangerous?

 

[Crackle]

Well it uses the word separation rather than segregation but it amounts to the same thing 1+1=100.

It is a frustratingly 'loose' article, everywhere and nowhere at the same time.

 

[BentMikey]

Cycling isn't dangerous?

Debra Rolfe, campaigns co-ordinator of CTC, the national cyclists organisation, said: "It's important to remember that the health benefits of cycling outweigh the risks by a factor of 20:1. Cyclists live two years longer than non-cyclists, have the health of someone 10 years younger and take 10% fewer sick days. CTC's Safety in Numbers research has shown that in places where more people cycle the risks of cycling is lower. In order to get more people cycling, we need to address the fears that deter people from cycling."

 

[Cab]

I thought the comments from Debra Rolfe were spot on but, as ever, the good news about cycling is at the bottom of the broadsheet article way, way below the negative headline. I'll wager that more than half those who pick up the paper and who start reading that article don't get to that bit.

 

[Wheeledweenie]

There was a report on BBC1 on this this morning and it was so rubbish I got the rage.

People get paid to reach these conclusions?

 

[Arch]

"Much greater efforts are needed to make roads safer for cyclists, who are at considerably greater risk of an accident requiring hospital admission than car occupants, a study says today......"

Well, duh....

There was a piece on Breakfast about it - seemed good (talked about the health, economy and greeness of cycling) until they just had to put in a bit about cyclists breaking the law (accompanied by some video of admittedly stupid behaviour). Once again, the implication is that really, at the bottom of it all, it's our fault for being 'associated' with people who break the law.

If only the law breaking numpties only got themselves injured, I wouldn't care, but they undermine those of us who do take care.

To be fair, they did highlight how much room the HC says a driver should give when overtaking - as much as if you are overtaking a car. I've never felt that was very clear though. Does it mean, the width of a car (which would be fine), or just as much spare distance as you'd give when passing a car. I bet that many people overtaking a car at say 15 mph, would also come closer than is sensible or comfortable for us...

 

[661-Pete]

To be fair, they did highlight how much room the HC says a driver should give when overtaking - as much as if you are overtaking a car. I've never felt that was very clear though. Does it mean, the width of a car (which would be fine), or just as much spare distance as you'd give when passing a car. I bet that many people overtaking a car at say 15 mph, would also come closer than is sensible or comfortable for us...

Quite. I don't know the answer to your question, but some time ago, in my car, I had an overtaking car rip off my wing mirror. To his credit, the driver stopped, admitted his error and coughed up for the repair, but still ... if I'd been on the bike, presumably it would have been part of my anatomy that he'd have torn off...

Too-close overtaking must surely be the commonest complaint by cyclists against motorists. Witness the wealth of helmet-cam footage provided by members of this forum, amongst others. It rarely leads to an accident, but it certainly does a lot to sap a less-experienced cyclist's morale. Take that one aspect of motorist's bad behaviour out of the equation, and I'm sure there'll be a lot more willing start-up cyclists - and a lot more safer roads for the rest of us...

 

[mattybain]

To be fair, they did highlight how much room the HC says a driver should give when overtaking - as much as if you are overtaking a car. I've never felt that was very clear though. Does it mean, the width of a car (which would be fine), or just as much spare distance as you'd give when passing a car. I bet that many people overtaking a car at say 15 mph, would also come closer than is sensible or comfortable for us...

LOL I was having that exact same though this morning when a bus came pretty close to me.

I would like to think it meant that an overtaking car should pull out as much as it would if it were overtaking a car i.e the width of the car + safety margin. Anybody know any different?

Is it deliberately vague I wonder?

 

[Cab]

There was a piece on Breakfast about it - seemed good (talked about the health, economy and greeness of cycling) until they just had to put in a bit about cyclists breaking the law (accompanied by some video of admittedly stupid behaviour). Once again, the implication is that really, at the bottom of it all, it's our fault for being 'associated' with people who break the law.

Just like the BBC piece on cycling in Cambridge a few days ago (some of said footage being use by BBC Breakfast today, I believe). There is a name for using a negative impression of a few doing something wrong that is unrelated to the matter in hand, a name for using out of context criticism of a few in a way to fuel a negative portrayal of an entire perceived grouping. Prejudice.

 

[Cab]

Is it deliberately vague I wonder?

Almost certainly. And thats fair enough, safe overtaking distance depends on speed, positioning, weather conditions, etc.

It would be good to clarify it as being 'assume the cyclist is car width, overtake with that in mind and providing the same safety margin as for overtaking a car', but as precious few motorists know the rule as it currently stands anyway, its a tall order.

 

[JamesAC]

Debra Rolfe, campaigns co-ordinator of CTC, the national cyclists organisation, said: "It's important to remember that the health benefits of cycling outweigh the risks by a factor of 20:1. Cyclists live two years longer than non-cyclists, have the health of someone 10 years younger and take 10% fewer sick days. CTC's Safety in Numbers research has shown that in places where more people cycle the risks of cycling is lower. In order to get more people cycling, we need to address the fears that deter people from cycling."

+1

 

[hackbike 666]

Debra Rolfe, campaigns co-ordinator of CTC, the national cyclists organisation, said: "It's important to remember that the health benefits of cycling outweigh the risks by a factor of 20:1. Cyclists live two years longer than non-cyclists, have the health of someone 10 years younger and take 10% fewer sick days. CTC's Safety in Numbers research has shown that in places where more people cycle the risks of cycling is lower. In order to get more people cycling, we need to address the fears that deter people from cycling."

Doesn't answer the question.