I thought I would start a thread, to show that cycling is safe and its not a war on motorists I'll keep updating until something happens. As I ride in some form everyday. Either commuting or for pleasure I'll just count from the start of the year until something happens.
To define an incident, it will only include incidents in which there is actual physical contact, or there is an issue in which I have to take evasive action and I am In fear of a collision, Any situation in which there is an altercation with another party. I will exclude the one where I think it is close but not enough to frighten me. So those are the ground rules Anyone care to join in ? I will update the counter on a periodic basis
Days without incident = 33
2016 Days without incident
2016 Days without incident
Last edited by NUKe on 3 Feb 2016, 9:35am, edited 2 times in total.
NUKe
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
Re: 2016 Days without incident
DfT stats 2014
Cycling deaths per billion miles...35
Deaths in motorcar per billion miles 2
Cycling injuries per billion miles 6,588
Motorcar injuries per billion miles 286
As we seem to be steadfast in the measure of risk using distance travelled it's fairly obvious that cycling IS dangerous. All the bluster stating it isn't have only to look at the stats to see theyre wrong.
Cycling deaths per billion miles...35
Deaths in motorcar per billion miles 2
Cycling injuries per billion miles 6,588
Motorcar injuries per billion miles 286
As we seem to be steadfast in the measure of risk using distance travelled it's fairly obvious that cycling IS dangerous. All the bluster stating it isn't have only to look at the stats to see theyre wrong.
Re: 2016 Days without incident
If we're in the 'lying with statistics' game, I think we should factor in:
- Extra life-years gained through better physical and mental health, brought about by regular exercise including cycling.
- Life-years lost through higher risk of heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and cancer, brought about by sedentary lifestyle associated with over-dependence on the car.
Suppose that this room is a lift. The support breaks and down we go with ever-increasing velocity.
Let us pass the time by performing physical experiments...
--- Arthur Eddington (creator of the Eddington Number).
Let us pass the time by performing physical experiments...
--- Arthur Eddington (creator of the Eddington Number).
Re: 2016 Days without incident
Cycling in itself is not dangerous.
It's the dumbs**t actions of others that are dangerous.
It's the dumbs**t actions of others that are dangerous.
Bill
“Ride as much or as little, or as long or as short as you feel. But ride.” ~ Eddy Merckx
It's a rich man whos children run to him when his pockets are empty.
“Ride as much or as little, or as long or as short as you feel. But ride.” ~ Eddy Merckx
It's a rich man whos children run to him when his pockets are empty.
Re: 2016 Days without incident
661-Pete wrote:If we're in the 'lying with statistics' game, I think we should factor in:Figures, anyone?
- Extra life-years gained through better physical and mental health, brought about by regular exercise including cycling.
- Life-years lost through higher risk of heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and cancer, brought about by sedentary lifestyle associated with over-dependence on the car.
It's all well and good including added benefits but the risk factor of death or serious injury whilst cycling is ridiculously high.
Trying to deny that cycling in the road is low risk is cobblers.
Re: 2016 Days without incident
Shouldn't the figures of deaths count all those killed by those accidents, and who was at fault. So in a car vs cyclist collision, where they both die somehow, shouldn't the two deaths count against the mode of transport at fault, the same with pedestrians too.
Re: 2016 Days without incident
Well, I could bring on the old 'tea-cosy' trope if you like: more people are killed or injured in accidents involving tea-cosies, than those involving chainsaws.....
Everything is dangerous, to a degree.
Everything is dangerous, to a degree.
Suppose that this room is a lift. The support breaks and down we go with ever-increasing velocity.
Let us pass the time by performing physical experiments...
--- Arthur Eddington (creator of the Eddington Number).
Let us pass the time by performing physical experiments...
--- Arthur Eddington (creator of the Eddington Number).
Re: 2016 Days without incident
or there is an issue in which I have to take evasive action and I am In fear of a collision,
I can tweak that to be anywhere between several times a ride and once per decade.
Every ride I will have cars intimidate me out of my priority, pull out in front, overtake dangerously close and attempt to get alongside then push back to the kerb before passing me. I have learnt how to avoid letting that become a collision.
Only a few times have I had to make the choice between leaving the road and dying.
Re: 2016 Days without incident
At the moment I'd soon be a cyclist than an over the top celebrity
Re: 2016 Days without incident
Tonyf33 wrote:DfT stats 2014
Cycling deaths per billion miles...35
Deaths in motorcar per billion miles 2
Cycling injuries per billion miles 6,588
Motorcar injuries per billion miles 286
As we seem to be steadfast in the measure of risk using distance travelled it's fairly obvious that cycling IS dangerous. All the bluster stating it isn't have only to look at the stats to see theyre wrong.
And walking?
Cycling isn't dangerous - cyclists are vulnerable.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
-
PhilWhitehurst
- Posts: 260
- Joined: 9 Aug 2011, 4:14pm
Re: 2016 Days without incident
Tonyf33 wrote:661-Pete wrote:If we're in the 'lying with statistics' game, I think we should factor in:Figures, anyone?
- Extra life-years gained through better physical and mental health, brought about by regular exercise including cycling.
- Life-years lost through higher risk of heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and cancer, brought about by sedentary lifestyle associated with over-dependence on the car.
It's all well and good including added benefits but the risk factor of death or serious injury whilst cycling is ridiculously high.
Trying to deny that cycling in the road is low risk is cobblers.
Do you consider driving in the road as low risk?
Re: 2016 Days without incident
Yes, it's far less scary, it's much less stressful I find driving a car very much less risky than cycling. To be safe and to ensure those around you are safe it takes less overall effort/thinking than cycling because other motor vehicles won't act the same compared to when I'm on a bike. People are invariably predictable when you're driving, when you're cycling people are less predictable, their behaviour varies massively from second to second. You are far less able to control your environment/other road users (despite riding defensively and in accordance with the accepted methods of controlling your environ) even less so without fear/threat of harm..
'We' keep denying that cycling is high risk or dangerous when mixing with motorised traffic but the evidence is there.
Of course there are other health benefits, of course other activities have similar or even higher death tolls(but tea cosy wearing isn't anything to do with travel/outdoor activity whose risk factor is measured and accepted as such in distance travelled) So,. per billion miles travelled and that mostly involves being on a rosd/interacting with other 'traffic'/road users the risk of death/injury through cycling is massively more than being in a car by the accepted method of measuring (on this forum and by those doing the studies worldwide at least)
The stats define the risk of injury/death NOT lifespan or increased health benefits.
It highlights the huge disparity in safety for cyclists compared to the most popular mode of transport and that needs addressing in a big way rather than the ineffectual ways we currently do that have negligible impact on the safety of cyclists
We need to stop kidding ourselves that anything really useful has being done to change the status quo..it really hasn't!
'We' keep denying that cycling is high risk or dangerous when mixing with motorised traffic but the evidence is there.
Of course there are other health benefits, of course other activities have similar or even higher death tolls(but tea cosy wearing isn't anything to do with travel/outdoor activity whose risk factor is measured and accepted as such in distance travelled) So,. per billion miles travelled and that mostly involves being on a rosd/interacting with other 'traffic'/road users the risk of death/injury through cycling is massively more than being in a car by the accepted method of measuring (on this forum and by those doing the studies worldwide at least)
The stats define the risk of injury/death NOT lifespan or increased health benefits.
It highlights the huge disparity in safety for cyclists compared to the most popular mode of transport and that needs addressing in a big way rather than the ineffectual ways we currently do that have negligible impact on the safety of cyclists
We need to stop kidding ourselves that anything really useful has being done to change the status quo..it really hasn't!
Re: 2016 Days without incident
Tonyf33 wrote:DfT stats 2014
Cycling deaths per billion miles...35
Deaths in motorcar per billion miles 2
Cycling injuries per billion miles 6,588
Motorcar injuries per billion miles 286
As we seem to be steadfast in the measure of risk using distance travelled it's fairly obvious that cycling IS dangerous. All the bluster stating it isn't have only to look at the stats to see theyre wrong.
I don't necessarily dispute the figures, but I don't feel that they apply to me. My cycling feels a lot safer than that. Last year I had not one incident that put me at serious risk of physical harm.
Also, looking at your figures, that doesn't look like all that many deaths per billion miles. Divide by 1000 to get deaths per million miles, or 10,000 to get the theoretical chance of being killed cycling if you do 100,000 miles in your lifetime. Okay, car use is even safer, but so what? Two not-very-dangerous activities, one safer than the other. Both probably a lot safer than hill walking in the winter.
There are several more risky cycling things that I don't do much, thus keeping my personal risk down. I don't do the on-the-pavement / off-the-pavement darting about that you see some people doing in built up areas. I don't ride without lights and hi-viz at night. And I am lucky enough not to have to cycle in major built-up areas, where hazards are more plentiful.
It's not statistically of any value whatsoever, but in maybe 50 years of cycling I've had no major mishaps and I can't think of an occasion when another road user has come close to seriously harming me.
Re: 2016 Days without incident
Also, factor out motorway miles, which are safest per mile for driving but cyclists aren't allowed so not fair to be in the comparison.
Re: 2016 Days without incident
Postboxer wrote:Also, factor out motorway miles, which are safest per mile for driving but cyclists aren't allowed so not fair to be in the comparison.
Yes, the more you think about it the less easy it is to compare. I used to cycle to work at a place where I was the only regular cycle commuter. Everyone else arrived by car. Including one of my best friends, who was overweight and suffering with his health. Yes, on his actual journey to work he may have been less at risk from harm caused by other road users, but the major risk factor, for him, is his lack of physical fitness. For him the danger from cycling would be minor in comparison. He once joked that the only thing more dangerous than cycling is not cycling!
I really believe that if 100,000 people started cycling to work (having never done it before) the number of lives saved through increased fitness and the avoidance of illness would be greater than the lives lost through accidents on the road. Much greater.