Two-thirds of adults in England think cycling is dangerous!

[kayakerles]

Here in the US, or in Maryland at least, the law for auto drivers is that they must give 1m clearance rear, side & front when passing. I estimate that this is courteously given MAYBE 1/3 of the time. On rides with double yellow lines (NO passing allowed) cars usually pass around 6 inches from my shoulder. Yeah, bike riding is risky no matter how you cut the cake, but the pleasure I derive from it is greater than my worries. Having grown up riding bikes in NYC my entire youth, I am a VERY careful, defensive rider/driver. As I have told my wife, if I die by being struck by a vehicle while riding, at least I went doing something I enjoy. I’m sticking with that. We only have so much control in our lives.

 

[kayakerles]

So what? Millions of people hoover up Cocaine every weekend & drink/smoke but think it’s less dangerous.

True. Perhaps it's only the deer that are smart enough to consider the dangers. From the side of the road they watch people carelessly drive and crash all the time. In which case you might be right there, lots of people don’t think about the consequences of their actions, and simply hoover, guzzle & toke on... Or play with their phone. But if the deer had phones, would they put them down to cross the road? 🤔

 

[lazybloke]

Let’s bring some facts to the discussion @matticus . I’m sure John would like that.

View attachment 602585

No argument that cars cause much more death, injury, noise, pollution and congestion than other forms of transport.

BUT... wasn't there an analysis that bikes cause more deaths than cars, once you adjust for distance travelled?
Think it was on a Charlie Alliston thread, but haven't got time to search...

 

[Dogtrousers]

BUT... wasn't there an analysis that bikes cause more deaths than cars, once you adjust for distance travelled?
Think it was on a Charlie Alliston thread, but haven't got time to search...

A back of fag packet analysis...

According to the DfT ...
The number of vehicle miles per year is about 300-350bn (I know you specified "cars", but I'm doing "vehicles")
The number of cycle miles per year is about 3-5bn

So roughly 100 times more vehicle miles than bike miles. (I'd have thought it would be more, maybe I have it wrong)

So if bikes/cyclists cause more than 1% of the number of deaths due to vehicles/drivers they will be more deadly per unit distance travelled.

Annual road deaths are around 1,700

So if more than 17 of these are caused by cyclists, and the rest are due to vehicle drivers then bikes are more deadly per unit distance travelled.

I think we can cap the number of pedestrians killed by cyclists per year at about 1. Each time it happens it is headline news. Let's be generous and say 5. I'll set motorists killed by cyclists at 0. Meaning that the balance of 12 fatalities would have to be cyclists killed either by themselves, or by other cyclists.

It's not impossible - it could even be true. But even if it was true it wouldn't be terribly meaningful. After all many vehicles accrue lots of distance on long uneventful motorway stretches.

Maybe per unit travelling time would be more meaningful? Lets assume that cars go at 4 times the speed of bikes on average (10mph vs 40mph average) So that would mean that bikes/riders would need to kill more than 4% of the number of deaths due to vehicles/drivers to be more deadly per unit travelling time. Which I think highly unlikely.

All my base figures and logic are guaranteed to be flawed.

https://assets.publishing.service.g...d-traffic-estimates-in-great-britain-2020.pdf

 

[lazybloke]

A back of fag packet analysis...

According to the DfT ...
The number of vehicle miles per year is about 300-350bn (I know you specified "cars", but I'm doing "vehicles")
The number of cycle miles per year is about 3-5bn

So roughly 100 times more vehicle miles than bike miles. (I'd have thought it would be more, maybe I have it wrong)

So if bikes/cyclists cause more than 1% of the number of deaths due to vehicles/drivers they will be more deadly per unit distance travelled.

Annual road deaths are around 1,700

So if more than 17 of these are caused by cyclists, and the rest are due to vehicle drivers then bikes are more deadly per unit distance travelled.

I think we can cap the number of pedestrians killed by cyclists per year at about 1. Each time it happens it is headline news. Let's be generous and say 5. I'll set motorists killed by cyclists at 0. Meaning that the balance of 12 fatalities would have to be cyclists killed either by themselves, or by other cyclists.

It's not impossible - it could even be true. But even if it was true it wouldn't be terribly meaningful. After all many vehicles accrue lots of distance on long uneventful motorway stretches.

Maybe per unit travelling time would be more meaningful? Lets assume that cars go at 4 times the speed of bikes on average (10mph vs 40mph average) So that would mean that bikes/riders would need to kill more than 4% of the number of deaths due to vehicles/drivers to be more deadly per unit travelling time. Which I think highly unlikely.

All my base figures and logic are guaranteed to be flawed.

View attachment 602651

https://assets.publishing.service.g...d-traffic-estimates-in-great-britain-2020.pdf

Thanks Dogtrousers; I don't feel a need to check your arithmetic because there would have be a be a very large multiplication factor before "KSIs caused by cyclists" became significant in comparison with vehicles. Hmm, that does sound slightly complacent; any KSI is bad...

Back to the original question: No, I don't think cycling is dangerous; at least not inherently so. Of course some people can and do cycle in a dangerous manner, and even the most careful of cyclists can lose concentration at a critical moment or make a mistake of observation; but I'm confident that the overwhelming majority of danger faced on the roads is from drivers of motor vehicles.

 

[RichardB]

As I have told my wife, if I die by being struck by a vehicle while riding, at least I went doing something I enjoy. I’m sticking with that. We only have so much control in our lives.

Good attitude.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

No argument that cars cause much more death, injury, noise, pollution and congestion than other forms of transport.

BUT... wasn't there an analysis that bikes cause more deaths than cars, once you adjust for distance travelled?
Think it was on a Charlie Alliston thread, but haven't got time to search...

Not even close. Most years zero deaths from pedestrian crashes with bikes. Unless motorists are driving infinite distances every year. That assertion doesn’t compute.

Plus upwards of 18,000 serious injuries a year caused by motorists hitting pedestrians.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

Got breakdown in front of me now.

Cars is 116 billion miles estimated in urban areas. Cycles is estimated at 3.31 billion urban. Ratio is 35 to 1.

Pedestrians killed by car crash is 1778 between 2013 and 2019. Pedestrians hit by car is 123,327 over 2013 to 2019. Pedestrians seriously injured by car crash is 27,542

Pedestrians killed by cycle crash is 2 between 2013 and 2019. Pedestrians hit by cycle is 831. Pedestrians seriously injured by cycle crash is 122. over 2013 to 2019

Cars hitting pedestrians is 148 times greater. Taking into account the 35 to 1 ratio. It’s 4 times greater. But taking in account exposure time it’s nearer 8-10 times greater.

A back of fag packet analysis...

According to the DfT ...
The number of vehicle miles per year is about 300-350bn (I know you specified "cars", but I'm doing "vehicles")
The number of cycle miles per year is about 3-5bn

So roughly 100 times more vehicle miles than bike miles. (I'd have thought it would be more, maybe I have it wrong)

So if bikes/cyclists cause more than 1% of the number of deaths due to vehicles/drivers they will be more deadly per unit distance travelled.

Annual road deaths are around 1,700

So if more than 17 of these are caused by cyclists, and the rest are due to vehicle drivers then bikes are more deadly per unit distance travelled.

I think we can cap the number of pedestrians killed by cyclists per year at about 1. Each time it happens it is headline news. Let's be generous and say 5. I'll set motorists killed by cyclists at 0. Meaning that the balance of 12 fatalities would have to be cyclists killed either by themselves, or by other cyclists.

It's not impossible - it could even be true. But even if it was true it wouldn't be terribly meaningful. After all many vehicles accrue lots of distance on long uneventful motorway stretches.

Maybe per unit travelling time would be more meaningful? Lets assume that cars go at 4 times the speed of bikes on average (10mph vs 40mph average) So that would mean that bikes/riders would need to kill more than 4% of the number of deaths due to vehicles/drivers to be more deadly per unit travelling time. Which I think highly unlikely.

All my base figures and logic are guaranteed to be flawed.

View attachment 602651

https://assets.publishing.service.g...d-traffic-estimates-in-great-britain-2020.pdf

You have 2450 pedestrian road deaths from motorised traffic between 2013-2019. Same period, 2 from cycling traffic.

Thats a ratio of

1225 : 1 motorised traffic killing pedestrians vs cycles killing pedestrians. Even using their crap km travel figures It’s still 122 times more likely a pedestrian will be hit and killed by motorised transport.

The argument well if we scale cycling up then … also doesn’t compute. At the moment cycles are forced close into the left side of road in close proximity with pedestrians and poor sign lines between the two because of driven cars and parked cars. Imagine all those parked cars and driven cars drastically reduced because switch the cycling as it scales. Suddenly the hazards which promote a lot of those collisions is gone.

Plus we have to look at how many motorists kill them selves or other motorists. The ratio of people killing themselves when driving is far higher than those killing themselves or others when cycling.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

In the Netherlands the road deaths per 100,000 population is 3.5. In the UK it is 24.7 per 100,000. We have a long way to go.

 

[matticus]

Here's another crazy stat - as in it's crazy that people aren't shouting about this:
548 pedestrians were killed by drivers on pavements or verges in the last 13 years [between 2005 and 2018]

 

[Dogtrousers]

Thanks @Ming the Merciless for upgrading my back of fag packet figures to back of envelope.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

Thanks @Ming the Merciless for upgrading my back of fag packet figures to back of envelope.

Well upgraded to actual figures from the Department for Transport and calculated in excel from their data.

 

[Dogtrousers]

Well upgraded to actual figures from the Department for Transport and calculated in excel from their data.

My fag packet was based on actual DfT figures too. Just different ones. But nothing as complex as excel, just lots of rounding and finger in the air.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

I did some more looking and found that the survey points where they count modes of traffic are often bizarre. For instance a traffic count going into an industrial estate or a count on a B road off a trunk road that no sane cyclist would touch.

Had a quick look at Hertfordshire and they don’t have a single traffic count with cycles that goes beyond single digits in an hour. Which is bizarre as I can see more than that pass by in minutes when stopped at side of road on a ride.

So I’d say that their methods of assessing how many billion miles of cycling are done is flawed. They clearly assumed all roads are equal in some way to assess traffic. Whilst this may be true for motorised. It’s certainly not for cycles where a minor road they choose will see bugger all people cycling as it doesn’t form a useful part of any route.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

My fag packet was based on actual DfT figures too. Just different ones. But nothing as complex as excel, just lots of rounding and finger in the air.

As I was using the excel data you can download direct from dft.