Why does cycling have a 'high' risk rating? or does it?

[GrumpyGregry]

it's a risk v outcome thing though isn't it?

The chances of getting hit when riding are tiny.

The consequences of doing so can be, and often are, huge.

 

[Boris Bajic]

How quickly the recent past becomes the distant past.

Last night I was watching footage of the heroic (but questionably fuelled) feats of M Pantani in the 90s.

Not a helmet in sight. I do sometimes think that many of the 'teamalike' full-carbon racer clones one sees in squillion-pound helmets are quite unaware that pro racers were largely helmetless into this century.

This may look like a grenade, but isn't meant as one.

 

[dellzeqq]

I think Ianrauk puts it well. Cycling has become a kind of moral test. Cycle and you become a 'good person' (and that, in itself, is a cause of resentment). For a lot of people 'it's dangerous' is cover for 'don't want to'.

 

[sidevalve]

I've come back to cycling and yes it is dangerous but so is walking, mountaineering, motorcycling, horse riding, driving, using ladders etc etc [even breathing, you will note that 100% of people who breath die]. I take precautions to reduce the risk same as when doing anything else [pain hurts], I do wear a helmet but that's just my choice, each to his/her own. The main point however seems to be this the media and our elected leaders assume that we must all be cosseted like small children and will trumpet any accident/injury to prove their case for as many knee jerk "safety" ideas as they can instead of telling people the hard truth that they need to take responsibility for their actions. If you fall off and no one else is involved who's fault is it ? Cars do not simply "go out of control" because they feel like it, however instead of reporting "another numpty lost it going too fast" we get the headlines "this bend must be made safer" "cyclists Must wear helmets" and so on.

 

[tyred]

A further thing which annoys me is the so called Road Safety Authority of Ireland who message to cyclists seems to consist entirely of "wear a helmet and wear high-vis and you'll be fine" without actually looking at the things (mostly sleepy, unobservant or impatient drivers) that are responsible for the huge majority of injuries to cyclists, pedestrians, motorcyclists and other car drivers/passengers alike.

 

[Boris Bajic]

There is also an extent to which one might argue that we cyclists raise the perception of our passion as a 'dangerous pursuit' when some among us lose control over a rough surface and slap in a claim for compensation.

As far as I can tell, life itself is a rough surface and any stretch of this mortal coil coated in metaphorical smooth tarmac is a bonus.

I just threw that in to be troublesome... I think.

 

[Red Light]

no. comparing like for like age groups and stripping out alcohol effects from both

And what data set are you using to do that analysis? I am especially interested in the data set on alcohol effects on cyclists and pedestrians that you are using.

 

[Red Light]

I know it's easy to get wound up by close passes and impatient drivers, but how often are we really put in genuine danger? Not very often in my case at least. And what would half an inch of plastic do for me if I were hit by a car at 60mph?

I suspect there is also a control issue in there - a bit like being a passenger in a plane - in that when a car close passes we get worried even though from the drivers point of view it was a perfectly safe pass, yet we happily pass stationary cars at not dissimilar distances in traffic without thinking twice about it. I was pondering this recently when I was passing two lines of queued traffic motorbike style down the middle and quite happily flew through quite small gaps without feeling concerned at all. If a car had passed me at that distance and speed I would not have been pleased.

 

[Red Light]

Much of the rational part of my mind finds that a convincing argument. I was on my 'kamikaze descent' yesterday with an M-B Vito right on my tail. It was wet in patches, dry in patches and had rivulets in places - because of patchy tree cover. I was seeking out drier, rougher tarmac; not easy at 25mph. I made a conscious decision to go easy on the front brake and kept pedalling to prevent a rear lock-up. I did allow (couldn't prevent) the worst-case scenarios to whizz through my brain. I accept that and that does bring the danger of 'building it up'. Nonetheless, I was in an extremely exposed position and the fear was based in part on the danger to which I was exposed and my realisation of same. Three times in the past couple of weeks I've left that descent in a state of some concern. I still have a real run at it in the dry or when there's no traffic. It's not 'fear of flying' (the novel or the notion).

I agree with you that the 'negative painting' is a big issue. That was part of my point in my original post. I disagree with your notion that rationally I know it is not dangerous. My assessment is based on four decades of cycling and a good part of that time being spent hurtling into bushes, tarmac or both with less than complete control of speed or bearing. I'm not arguing against your broader point at all.

I suspect that if you had come off your stopping distance would have been a lot longer than the Vito's. But there is always the option to descend more slowly than you appear to have been doing but then that removes a bit of the adrenalin rush of descending near the limit. And you could practice the Sheldon Brown advice on braking on the front wheel as rear wheel braking is not really an effective way to stop anyway, especially downhill.

 

[musa]

But to be fair using statistics is manipulation. Does stats agree with what we say is, reality? It's mainly health and safety but you can be here forever drawing tables, I've just completed a module on damn thing it's cause and effect and could-be's.

 

[Boris Bajic]

I suspect that if you had come off your stopping distance would have been a lot longer than the Vito's. But there is always the option to descend more slowly than you appear to have been doing but then that removes a bit of the adrenalin rush of descending near the limit. And you could practice the Sheldon Brown advice on braking on the front wheel as rear wheel braking is not really an effective way to stop anyway, especially downhill.

All fair points, although the one about relative stopping distance is more easily made by someone whose rear wheel was a little further away from the van's front bumper than mine was. There is also the issue (on that descent) of oncoming traffic round bends.

Descending more slowly... Yes... And no. Normally this is a 35+mph descent. I was doing about 25. I could have done 15, but similarly I could have driven or stayed at home.

As to Sheldon, I've read his stuff great in places (when building my fixopholous) and dull or massively obvious in others. I wasn't braking to stop; I was braking to keep my speed down. I was also whipping round some fairly horrid bends, as mentioned. I wasn't staying off the front brake I "made a decision to go easy on the front brake". I've raced motorcycles and have cycled for many adecade, so I'm OK with how to use front and rear brakes. I was on a section of road as described by Sheldon below, offering advice on why the front brake may not always be a good idea:

"Slippery surfaces. On good, dry pavement, unless leaning in a turn, it is impossible to skid the front wheel by braking. On slippery surfaces, however, it is possible. A front wheel skid almost always leads to a fall, so if there is a high risk of skidding, you're better off controlling your speed with the rear brake."

It seems that you and I agree that cycling is unhelpfully labelled as dangerous. I'm not sure where your issue is with my having been scared on a section of road that is scary in the wet in traffic.

 

[Boris Bajic]

I would suggest that you have possibly said enough on that subject.

Well that's going to stop me.... :troll:

 

[musa]

Oh yeah and another thing, the assumption can be made that majority are 'experience' riders, having said that why can't experience supersede the fear factor for some?

Why can't our experience talk for us?

 

[VamP]

I do wonder where the perception comes from. It's something I've been pondering for the past week or so. I had emailed my sister a few photographs taken by a friend at a recent VCC ride on old road bikes, including 1 or 2 of me riding. She phoned me up to object that 4 of us (including me) weren't wearing helmets and how stupid we are, etc, etc, etc. I was wondering where that had sprung from. This was a purely social ride at relatively slow speeds of about 30 miles in the middle of nowhere, we hardly seen a car at all, we are all old enough and have been cycling long enough not to take any silly risks. It was, I would say, a safe and enjoyable way to spend a Sunday afternoon. Yet to talk to my sister, you would think we were jumping of cliffs.

I know it's easy to get wound up by close passes and impatient drivers, but how often are we really put in genuine danger? Not very often in my case at least. And what would half an inch of plastic do for me if I were hit by a car at 60mph?

How much of it is just that irrational fear of losing a loved one? I never give a second's thought to my safety when cycling, but frequently worry when my beloved is out on a bike, including demands for frequent updates on progress. Can't justify it, but I still worry...

Oh and points deducted for trying to to turn this into a helmet thread

 

[VamP]

How quickly the recent past becomes the distant past.

Last night I was watching footage of the heroic (but questionably fuelled) feats of M Pantani in the 90s.

Not a helmet in sight. I do sometimes think that many of the 'teamalike' full-carbon racer clones one sees in squillion-pound helmets are quite unaware that pro racers were largely helmetless into this century.

This may look like a grenade, but isn't meant as one.

There's another aspect to this, which is that a helmet is required for competition. If you have to wear it in races, you might as well train in it.