cycling v the seaside
oblongomaculatus
Posts: 616
Anyone see the report on BBC breakfast this morning about fatalities on Britain's beaches? 163 people died in the sea last year (apparently 58% of these weren't swimming or surfing; they either fell in or went after a dog). The report has repeatedly mentioned that this figure is more than died on the roads cycling last year, implying that cycling is a risky activity, and that we should expect a high level of fatalities. I don't know about anyone else, but isn't this a disgraceful suggestion? I have emailed BBC Breakfast asking them to remove the comparison - which seems to have come originally from the RNLI - but so far they haven't.
0
Comments
-
Didn't see the article, but if the figures are accurate, why remove them?
Don't be so precious.0 -
It's not the figures, it's the implication from comparing the two that a high mortality rate for cyclists should be expected that I find offensive, plus as I said, it's promulgating the myth that cycling is dangerous.0
-
You'd find it more offensive if I wrote what I thought of your opinion when I read your two posts
Why don't you have a nice relaxing cycle to the seaside to recover from the trauma?
The comparison of the numbers is actually interesting, I'd assume in a heart beat that it would be the other way around.0 -
Wasn't the majority 'trips & falls'
LOBI'm sorry you don't believe in miracles0 -
The way it was presented was along the lines of "who'd have thought a trip to the seaside could be even more hazardous than cycling, which as we all know is really really dangerous?" Better would have been just "who'd have thought a trip to the seaside could be so dangerous?" Or you could look at it the other way round - cycling is even safer than a day at the seaside. Most people would expect it to be the other way round, that was the point they were making. And most people would be wrong, not because walking on a beach is risky, but because cycling isn't.0
-
Not sure but a fellow "athlete" on strava posted pics of himself in A&E last night after a road collision.
I'm thinking a BC membership is on the cards purely for the legal cover.Advocate of disc brakes.0 -
Well worth it. 10% extra off at CRC pays for the membership anyway. :oops:I'm thinking a BC membership is on the cards purely for the legal cover.
I'm amazed anyone survives the London to Brighton bike ride hearing these figures.0 -
-
Yes, the media perception is that cycling is dangerous, the reality is irrelevant. It reminds me of the fact that more people died riding horses in any given year than taking ecstasy. Every ecstasy death made the front pages, riding deaths were scarcely reported. So the public perception is seriously skewed.
CRC are probably better for MTB than road. It's an extra 10% so if something is already discounted you get 10% off the discounted price.0 -
I dread to think of the potential dangers within a cycle trip along the coast.
Throw in cycling without a helmet or hi-viz and it is the perfect suicide plan.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I dread to think of the potential dangers within a cycle trip along the coast.
Throw in cycling without a helmet or hi-viz and it is the perfect suicide plan.
That was me this morning, no helmet, no hi-viz, just a bright red rucksack! I am MENTAL!Cannondale Trail 6 - crap brakes!
Cannondale CAAD80 -
The perception that cycling is dangerous is partly our own fault - we keep telling everyone how bad motorists put us at risk or injure/kill cyclists all the time and that something should be done about it. And the voice of the cyclists telling everyone this is getting louder and louder, so its only natural to think it is therefore dangerous.0
-
Approx 700 people die from falls on stairs and from ladders each year. I've written to Ofcom to get adverts from Stannah and B&Q taken off the air. Ban this evil filth/think of the children/oh the humanity.0
-
Cycling is dangerous - so is the sea. I was racing (sailing) two weekends ago and there were at least a dozen mayday and Pan-pan's calling for help. Life boats and helicopter were out many times. Its common for there to be at least 10-20 every weekend.
What good can come from under playing risk? Accept it and mitigate it as best you can.0 -
Cycling is dangerous - so is the sea. I was racing (sailing) two weekends ago and there were at least a dozen mayday and Pan-pan's calling for help. Life boats and helicopter were out many times. Its common for there to be at least 10-20 every weekend.
What good can come from under playing risk? Accept it and mitigate it as best you can.
Jaysus what sort of sailing do you do?!?We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
Approx 700 people die from falls on stairs and from ladders each year. I've written to Ofcom to get adverts from Stannah and B&Q taken off the air. Ban this evil filth/think of the children/oh the humanity.
You'll get a better result from canvassing the Govt to insist that all staircases are are closed and all future housing and commercial properties are ground floor only.
It will have a dramatic effect because the land take for buildings would be so great that cycling and walking would be impossible.
Doubly benefit.0 -
Cycling is dangerous - so is the sea. I was racing (sailing) two weekends ago and there were at least a dozen mayday and Pan-pan's calling for help. Life boats and helicopter were out many times. Its common for there to be at least 10-20 every weekend.
What good can come from under playing risk? Accept it and mitigate it as best you can.
Where were you sailing? I'm fucked 'cos I live by the sea and cycle, so the odds are I won't be around to read the reply. I am slightly concerned at the level of muppetry that must go on where you sail as I race in the Solent, the busiest recreational waterway in the UK, and don't hear that level of calls in a month, let alone a weekend.Trail fun - Transition Bandit
Road - Wilier Izoard Centaur/Cube Agree C62 Disc
Allround - Cotic Solaris0 -
Cycling IS a little dangerous.
It's not base jumping, hang gliding or skiing but there IS risk.
By saying this I'm not condemning these sports or doing them an injustice. That fact that they're dangerous doesn't mean one shouldn't participate in them.
I think you're having a slight rationality problem.0 -
Absolutely everything you do carries risk. But the perceived risk for cycling is much higher than the actual risk. I've quoted these Dept of Transport figures before (in a helmet debate) but perhaps they're worth repeating. In a given year (I forget which one, about 2011 or 2012 I think) cyclist deaths on the road were 38 per billion miles travelled. This is one every 26,300,000 miles, approximately. I cycle around 12,000 miles a year, which I imagine is somewhat above the average. It would take me about 2,193 years to cover those 26 million miles. For me, that means cycling is an acceptably low risk activity. The figure for pedestrian deaths for that year, incidentally, is higher than that for cyclists, at 42 per billion miles. Whether this includes walks along the beach, or if that activity is recorded separately, I couldn't say.0
-
That is as maybe, but how many people walk 12,000 miles per year?[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19646924#p19646924]oblongomaculatus[/url] wrote:Absolutely everything you do carries risk. But the perceived risk for cycling is much higher than the actual risk. I've quoted these Dept of Transport figures before (in a helmet debate) but perhaps they're worth repeating. In a given year (I forget which one, about 2011 or 2012 I think) cyclist deaths on the road were 38 per billion miles travelled. This is one every 26,300,000 miles, approximately. I cycle around 12,000 miles a year, which I imagine is somewhat above the average. It would take me about 2,193 years to cover those 26 million miles. For me, that means cycling is an acceptably low risk activity. The figure for pedestrian deaths for that year, incidentally, is higher than that for cyclists, at 42 per billion miles. Whether this includes walks along the beach, or if that activity is recorded separately, I couldn't say.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
That's a bit beside the point, isn't it? The point being, cycling is a low risk activity, and so is walking. But walking is slightly more risky if you compare the two by the collective milage of cyclists and pedestrians for a given year.0
-
I thought that was precisely the point.[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19646953#p19646953]oblongomaculatus[/url] wrote:That's a bit beside the point, isn't it? The point being, cycling is a low risk activity, and so is walking. But walking is slightly more risky if you compare the two by the collective milage of cyclists and pedestrians for a given year.
It is the risk per mile travelled. I travel far further by bike than walking so the risks are increased accordingly.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I think the figures were given as deaths per billion miles travelled because cyclists cover more miles than pedestrians (and motorists more than both) so as to have a way of comparing different forms of transport. I agree that since (I would guess) no-one would be walking 12,000 miles a year, it would take longer than 2,000 years to hit the 24 million mile mark the figures would suggest is the point you might, statistically, have a fatal accident while walking, and as such, you are less likely to have such an accident when walking. My point was that cycling is a low risk activity; the figures support this.0
-
The angle you could look at it from is that if you were to go out cycling, it would be safer than a day at the seaside.
We don't want the general public to think that cycling is a low risk activity - especially those who drive cars.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
The angle you could look at it from is that if you were to go out cycling, it would be safer than a day at the seaside.
We don't want the general public to think that cycling is a low risk activity - especially those who drive cars.
I think I said that somewhere at the beginning. The BBC reporter however, looking for something dangerous to compare the seaside to, came up with cycling.0 -
Possibly if you did it by averages. Off the top of my head....[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19646987#p19646987]oblongomaculatus[/url] wrote:I think the figures were given as deaths per billion miles travelled because cyclists cover more miles than pedestrians (and motorists more than both) so as to have a way of comparing different forms of transport. I agree that since (I would guess) no-one would be walking 12,000 miles a year, it would take longer than 2,000 years to hit the 24 million mile mark the figures would suggest is the point you might, statistically, have a fatal accident while walking, and as such, you are less likely to have such an accident when walking. My point was that cycling is a low risk activity; the figures support this.
Deaths per 10,000 miles driven.
Deaths per 1000 miles cycled.
Deaths per 500 miles walked.
You could then easily extrapolated your personal risk based on your miles travelled.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Possibly if you did it by averages. Off the top of my head....[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19646987#p19646987]oblongomaculatus[/url] wrote:I think the figures were given as deaths per billion miles travelled because cyclists cover more miles than pedestrians (and motorists more than both) so as to have a way of comparing different forms of transport. I agree that since (I would guess) no-one would be walking 12,000 miles a year, it would take longer than 2,000 years to hit the 24 million mile mark the figures would suggest is the point you might, statistically, have a fatal accident while walking, and as such, you are less likely to have such an accident when walking. My point was that cycling is a low risk activity; the figures support this.
Deaths per 10,000 miles driven.
Deaths per 1000 miles cycled.
Deaths per 500 miles walked.
Good point, that would probably be a more meaningful way of comparing. Cycling would still come out as low risk, though.
You could then easily extrapolated your personal risk based on your miles travelled.0 -
Cycling is dangerous - so is the sea. I was racing (sailing) two weekends ago and there were at least a dozen mayday and Pan-pan's calling for help. Life boats and helicopter were out many times. Its common for there to be at least 10-20 every weekend.
What good can come from under playing risk? Accept it and mitigate it as best you can.
Where were you sailing? I'm farked 'cos I live by the sea and cycle, so the odds are I won't be around to read the reply. I am slightly concerned at the level of muppetry that must go on where you sail as I race in the Solent, the busiest recreational waterway in the UK, and don't hear that level of calls in a month, let alone a weekend.
Yep me too - count them next time you go out - I race 12M you'll be surprised how many you hear more when there are a few races on. Of course it was the round the island 2 weeks ago 1600 boats trying not crash. Skippers on rented boats with inexperience crew, I was listening to one where a crew member had a head injury and the skipper carried on racing, 30 mins later they are calling mayday because they have become unconscious. To be fair you do pick up the traffic from quite a way away.0 -
-
The thing is, your manipulation of figures is every bit as flawed as anyone else's.[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19646924#p19646924]oblongomaculatus[/url] wrote:Absolutely everything you do carries risk. But the perceived risk for cycling is much higher than the actual risk. I've quoted these Dept of Transport figures before (in a helmet debate) but perhaps they're worth repeating. In a given year (I forget which one, about 2011 or 2012 I think) cyclist deaths on the road were 38 per billion miles travelled. This is one every 26,300,000 miles, approximately. I cycle around 12,000 miles a year, which I imagine is somewhat above the average. It would take me about 2,193 years to cover those 26 million miles. For me, that means cycling is an acceptably low risk activity. The figure for pedestrian deaths for that year, incidentally, is higher than that for cyclists, at 42 per billion miles. Whether this includes walks along the beach, or if that activity is recorded separately, I couldn't say.
Your post seems to be suggesting walking is slightly more dangerous than cycling due to the quoted 42 deaths per billion miles versus 38 for cycling. I'd say that's very open to interpretation, and I think based on your own calculation for your supposed risk based on your cycling mileage per year, that your own interpretation is inconsistent with this approach. Following your logic, one would have to walk 10857 miles a year to be at the same risk of death due to walking. I'd suggest pedestrians cover considerably less mileage than cyclists so comparing metrics based on distance is a nonsense.
I still think you're making an issue out of a non-issue.
Taking offense at a comparison like this makes little sense.0
