News articles on fatalities putting you off?

polska1979

With the tragic news of the death of Gary Mason in the news recently, along with the news today about James Cracknell. I just wondered how it affects your attitude towards cycling/commuting?

Personally, seeing the recent articles has made me assess my safety, my riding style, my visibility etc. All things that i feel we should do on a regular basis. But it doesnt half hit home just how vulnerable we are on the roads.

iPete

Its great to hear that hes back out riding (James Cracknell).

It does make you think, which can only be a good thing as long as it doesn't put you off but improves your riding.

Although if you think too much about anything, you won't leave the house, then again the house is also a 'dangerous' place...

SBezza

Alot more people die driving cars, I know the percentages are different, but for me I drive far more many miles than I cycle, and normally on fast motorways. I see myself at more risk in the car than on my bike.

I am quite lucky as I cycle/commute on more rural roads, and hence the risk for me is probably less than someone that has to encounter heavy motor vehicle traffic when they cycle/commute.

As above if you thought about all the risk's you took in life, you would probably never leave the house.

polska1979

I think what makes it worse is the fear in your wifes eyes as you're leaving for work, and the relief that you have got home safe...That relief seems to turn into anger pretty quickly when i walk through the house covered in dirt :shock:

wgwarburton

polska1979 wrote:

I think what makes it worse is the fear in your wifes eyes as you're leaving for work, and the relief that you have got home safe...That relief seems to turn into anger pretty quickly when i walk through the house covered in dirt :shock:

You should correct her misconception that cycling is dangerous! She is obviously worried about you and it's unnecessary... You are not at significantly greater risk from cycling than you would be by any other normal way of getting to work (e.g. walk/drive/bus/train).

Maybe you should propose getting a motorcycle instead!! I understand that that's a bit more risky.

Cheers,
W.

shouldbeinbed

The papers would be bit weighty if they reported every safe cycle journey made every day. Travel bad news makes the papers travel good news doesn't.

jonny_trousers

WGWarburton wrote:

You should correct her misconception that cycling is dangerous! She is obviously worried about you and it's unnecessary... You are not at significantly greater risk from cycling than you would be by any other normal way of getting to work (e.g. walk/drive/bus/train).

Is that really the truth, though? It's hardly scientific research, but pretty much all of my friends who cycle have been involved in accidents that at least had the potential to be serious. I would be really interested to know what the statistics actually are.

cyclingpast

I had a collision with a car in November which left me in intensive care. Had my lights, high-vis and everything, was lit up like a Christmas tree, but the driver still pulled out into my path, I didn't stand a chance. I was determined not to let it stop me cycling though, and bought a new bike last week and cycled the 9 miles to and from work today! As Boris Johnson says, 'Every successfully completed bicycle journey should be counted a triumph over death.' At least the numbers getting killed each year are going down.

spen666

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

WGWarburton wrote:

You should correct her misconception that cycling is dangerous! She is obviously worried about you and it's unnecessary... You are not at significantly greater risk from cycling than you would be by any other normal way of getting to work (e.g. walk/drive/bus/train).

Is that really the truth, though? It's hardly scientific research, but pretty much all of my friends who cycle have been involved in accidents that at least had the potential to be serious. I would be really interested to know what the statistics actually are.

The Department of Transport or whatever it is called now published figures showing that per km travelled cycling was safer thar driving or walking!
Make of that what you will

spen666

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

WGWarburton wrote:

You should correct her misconception that cycling is dangerous! She is obviously worried about you and it's unnecessary... You are not at significantly greater risk from cycling than you would be by any other normal way of getting to work (e.g. walk/drive/bus/train).

Is that really the truth, though? It's hardly scientific research, but pretty much all of my friends who cycle have been involved in accidents that at least had the potential to be serious. I would be really interested to know what the statistics actually are.

The Department of Transport or whatever it is called now published figures showing that per km travelled cycling was safer thar driving or walking!
Make of that what you will

P_Tucker

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

WGWarburton wrote:

You should correct her misconception that cycling is dangerous! She is obviously worried about you and it's unnecessary... You are not at significantly greater risk from cycling than you would be by any other normal way of getting to work (e.g. walk/drive/bus/train).

Is that really the truth, though? It's hardly scientific research, but pretty much all of my friends who cycle have been involved in accidents that at least had the potential to be serious. I would be really interested to know what the statistics actually are.

And all your friends who drive cars haven't?

pst88

To be honest it has changed my behaviour. After a lot of careful consideration I've decided the only possible solution is to stop all together. From now on no more reading the news.

RufusA

spen666 wrote:

The Department of Transport or whatever it is called now published figures showing that per km travelled cycling was safer thar driving or walking!
Make of that what you will

Safer than walking / per km BUT driving is safer per km by a huge margin:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/da ... st2008.pdf

i.e. per Billion km there were 32 fatalities and 541 serious injuries (KSI) on cycles, in the same period there were 2 fatailities and 20 KSI in cars.

Obviously cars tend to travel faster / further in the same time period!

However if you are doing a 20km daily commute you are much more likely to be killed or injured on a bike than if you did the same journey in a car.

Going by foot there is marginally riskier than by bike, but journeys tend to be shorter and immature pedestrians skew the figures somwhat!

YMMV - Rufus.

iPete

Aren't you statistically more likely to die from diabetes from living a sedentary live vs regular cycling?

wgwarburton

RufusA wrote:

spen666 wrote:

The Department of Transport or whatever it is called now published figures showing that per km travelled cycling was safer thar driving or walking!...

Safer than walking / per km BUT driving is safer per km by a huge margin:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/da ... st2008.pdf

i.e. per Billion km there were 32 fatalities and 541 serious injuries (KSI) on cycles, in the same period there were 2 fatailities and 20 KSI in cars....

I don't think the relative risk is the issue (although, I have to admit I implied so, earlier... sorry). The point I was trying to make was that it doesn't matter too much whether it's 32 or 541 KSIs, given that this is per billion Km.

We're talking about a serious accident rate of less than one per million Km...

From Malcolm Wardlaw's Paper on assessing the actual risks for cyclists:

A British cyclist who rides for 280 hours per year (2,300 miles) will face
an annual risk of death about double that of a British driver,
but the risk is low at 0.0083% per year. This risk corresponds
to an expectation of travelling 280 hours’ per year for 12,000
years – the same as for a German driver and safer than a Belgian
driver.

Now, we're mixing statistics, here, so there's bound to be room to challenge some of these figures, especially on the detail...however the main thing to note is that the risks here are low. Cycling is not actually dangerous (by any useful definition of the word), and hence the sort of comparitive analysis we're engaging in serves to mislead, as it focusses attention on the unlikely.

We should be encouraging people to realise that cycling is (or can be) a routine activity, not something that requires fancy dress, protective clothing and an urban guerilla attitude.

Note, for example, that people here occasionally flag up that they've had an incident or near-miss despite being lit & Hi-Viz'd to the nines... We also regularly see ninja-cyclists who seem to survive despite their apparent invisibility. How can this be?
People will see but not perceive a cyclist who is brightly lit, similarly an unlit cyclist is still pretty unlikely to be hurt. We think that we take control by wearing protective gear, but it isn't really necessary... it just helps to offset the perception that we are at risk.


Cheers,
W.

The Rookie

The Media love to ignore statistics to make a story, take the recent shootings in the USA, each year about 35,000 Americans die of gunshot wounds (yes really) so about 90/day, being cynical, why all that fuss over 6, however tragic it is, its ignoring the plain fact that they were but one 15th killed that day (assuming it was a near average day), likewise we kill about 8.5 motorists a day in the UK, few make the news but one cyclist does.

Cycling is 'risky' but it is not dangerous, we are very susceptable to serious injury (clearly car drivers are better protected from the stupidity of others) but probably 50% of cycling deaths could have been avoided BY THE CYCLIST being more aware, the other 50% is probabluy split in half between where the cyclist could have been better aware of risk and were our own behaviour has little effect on our chances, it's all about minimising the risk.

Simon

RufusA

WGWarburton wrote:

We're talking about a serious accident rate of less than one per million Km...

Totally agree - I was suprised how low the figures were i.e. how safe cycling is!

If you factor in the health, well being and life expectancy gains from regular outdoor exercise, NOT being a cycle commuter is far more likely to kill you!

Rufus.

Mr Plum

Stories like these have definitely made me assess my riding style and visability - I now have 3 rear lights, 2 front, and reflective patches all over my bike. It'll never put me off, just wake me up to the realities of commuting through a city on a push bike, and that's only a good thing.

UndercoverElephant

The statistics in the DofT report are a bit misleading too. The death rate for cars, when excluding driving on a motorway rises up to about 11 per billion miles, which since I can't ride on the motorway is a fairer comparison.

I think it was mentioned in the house of lords a while back that for every year of life expectancy lost by a cyclist due to being killed in an accident, twenty years is added due to being a cyclist.

Them's not bad odds.

jonny_trousers

Mr Plum wrote:

Stories like these have definitely made me assess my riding style and visability - I now have 3 rear lights, 2 front, and reflective patches all over my bike. It'll never put me off, just wake me up to the realities of commuting through a city on a push bike, and that's only a good thing.

You are very wise and more people could do with following your example (although I have a feeling things are getting better).

I was wearing a high viz jacket and had three powerful lights on my bike when I got taken out, but there's not much you can do if the car driver chooses not to look. It hasn't put me off commuting by bike, however, but I do now have front and rear helmet lights, quality bike mounted lights and those cool new spoke lights.

Yep, the health benefits outweighing the dangers is an excellent statistic.

Mrs_Ragbrutty

WGWarburton wrote:

polska1979 wrote:

I think what makes it worse is the fear in your wifes eyes as you're leaving for work, and the relief that you have got home safe...That relief seems to turn into anger pretty quickly when i walk through the house covered in dirt :shock:

You should correct her misconception that cycling is dangerous! She is obviously worried about you and it's unnecessary... You are not at significantly greater risk from cycling than you would be by any other normal way of getting to work (e.g. walk/drive/bus/train).

Maybe you should propose getting a motorcycle instead!! I understand that that's a bit more risky.

Cheers,
W.

Motorcycles are 'safer' than push bikes - having riden both for the past 25 years I have been hit more often on the pushie than on the engined bike. In the past 3 years I have avaraged a knock annually (thats 6-8k miles)
I would argue that bikes aren't dangerous - what is dangerous is the car / van / truck driver that does not look or pay enough attention to their surroundings.

spen666

RufusA wrote:

spen666 wrote:

The Department of Transport or whatever it is called now published figures showing that per km travelled cycling was safer thar driving or walking!
Make of that what you will

Safer than walking / per km BUT driving is safer per km by a huge margin:....

That is a different report to the one I was referring to, but seems to be more recent, but hugely contrary to the report I had seen

pshore

We interrupt this this program to bring you these happy messages

"... Gonna ride my bike until I get home ..."

kingrollo

iPete wrote:

Aren't you statistically more likely to die from diabetes from living a sedentary live vs regular cycling?

Don't know the stats - but there is a risk in doing nothing. Just got back to commuting after all the ice and snow - which put me in car/bus since end of nov .......almost a stone heavier !

SmellTheGlove

The Beginner wrote:

Cycling is 'risky' but it is not dangerous

+1000

FWIW my own "assessment" of risk runs as follows:
if there is genuine likelihood of death or maiming resulting from first attempting Activity x, then Activity x can be classed as dangerous.
If no such likelihood exists then Activity x is normal adult behaviour.

Cycling falls into latter category.

ellieb

The trouble is these statistics don't really see to add up. I seem to remember reading Wardlaw & being amazed at the extent to which he admitted to massaging the figures to get a figure he was happy with.

So for example from the DfT road casualty figures 2009
http://www.dft.gov.uk/adobepdf/162469/2 ... gb2009.pdf

Cycling Death rates =
approx 50 per billion miles travelled =
1 per 20 million.

if you cycle 5000 miles a year (which I do)=
1 in 4000 chance of being killed.

Over a 40 year cycling career that is a 1 in 100 chance of being killed.
Low but in the overall scheme of things relatively significant.
Especially as you are 25 times more likely to be seriously injured than killed.
Which means that the chance of you being KSI as a regular cyclist are 1 in 4

Now I'm not saying these figures are exact, but you can certainly make a case for them, just as much as you can for those which deliberately seek to minimize the risk.

ellieb

Note, for example, that people here occasionally flag up that they've had an incident or near-miss despite being lit & Hi-Viz'd to the nines... We also regularly see ninja-cyclists who seem to survive despite their apparent invisibility. How can this be?

In the same way that someone can be killed by a car crashing through the wall while they are sitting in their front room watching telly, while a drunk meandering down the middle of Park Lane can survive without getting run over. It doesn't mean that the relative risk is the same.

pshore

ellieb wrote:

Over a 40 year cycling career that is a 1 in 100 chance of being killed.

It looks grim until you realise that over a 100 year career you have a 99% chance of dying just from old age. I made up 99% but not that many live past 100 years old.

If you look here:
http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/booth/Risk/dyingage.html
... iit says you have a 1 in 112 chance of dying when you are aged 55-64. You are mitigating that risk by cycling.

Without any context such as how does it compare to driving a car, walking, smoking, drinking, eating, or any other activity in life I would not worry too much.

nightoff

Whatever the risks are, cycling has improved my quality of life in a few ways.

1. I have lost over 2 stone in 9 months. Now reached a weight I am happy with
2. My wife appreciates the new look (but doesn't appreciate me talking about equipment upgrades).
3. I am saving about £500 per annum on commuting costs.
4. I am much fitter than this time last year. My resting heart rate has dropped from 75-80bpm to 50-55bpm
5. I am generally less stressed out and have more energy.

I consider the risk to be worth the above. I do what I can to reduce the risk by wearing hi-vis reflectives and mounting lots of good quality lights on my bike and riding defensively.

I think it would take a lot to put me off cycling when I consider the positives.

Drysuitdiver

as the post above.

if i woried about what might kill me i wouldn't get up in the morning, and tht in itself could kill me.

lifes too short to worry about dying , live life .