cycling v the seaside
Comments
-
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19647011#p19647011]oblongomaculatus[/url] wrote:
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.
Yes, I agree. I said so in an earlier post, quoted above. The line beginning "good point" is actually mine, but I somehow messed up the quote facility.
All I was really trying to say all along is that cycling is nowhere near as risky as the BBC report was implying. No-one here is disagreeing with that, are they? It irritates me that the media nearly always take this angle. It seemed especially annoying this time, perhaps because it was part of a story not even about cycling, another example of drip feeding the message, "don't ride a bike, you're going to die if you do." It's something Chris Boardman is at pains to correct whenever he is interviewed on the subject. Only of course, they never take any notice.0 -
It's misguided to criticise the BBC for this report. A quick Google reveals it was the RNLI which made the initial statement that the seaside was more dangerous than cycling in a press release issued to mark its latest Respect the Water campaign. The BBC correspondent Fiona Trott accurately reported what the RNLI had said.
As a journalist myself, I know how common it is to deal with "blame the messenger" callers angry that your news organisation has accurately reported something that the caller disagrees with. Just because a journalist reports someone's opinion doesn't necessarily mean he or she agrees with it.
Having said that, there's no doubt that cycling is more dangerous than many other activities. You only have to read the heartbreaking account in this forum from a woman whose husband was terribly injured when a dog jumped up as he was riding along a cycle path. Such an accident could happen to any of us.
Thankfully, such incidents are rare. It's the perception of cycling being a dangerous activity that is worse than the reality. I've lost count of the times I've been at a social gathering when people have asked me don't I find my hobbies (cycling, fell running and formerly motorcycling) are dangerous.0 -
Yes, OK, fair enough, the comparison did come from the RNLI report initially, the BBC was just repeating it, if in a way that seemed to be endorsing the misconception. They, and other broadcasters, have been guilty of this directly themselves plenty of times before, though. It's frustrating that when they are corrected, by people like Chris Boardman, who they invite on their programmes because he is an expert, and should know what he's talking about, they take no notice.0
-
Yes, Chris Boardman regularly gets an unfairly rough ride when questioned by interviewers who are clearly not cyclists. I remember when he did a filmed opinion piece on BBC2's Daily Politics making a reasoned argument for a Dutch-style approach to traffic management. Presenter Jo Coburn, egged on by Andrew Neill, used up virtually all the subsequent studio discussion with interrogating Boardman about why he wasn't wearing a helmet in his film. I was fuming. We have a long way to go in this country.0
-
Yes, Chris Boardman regularly gets an unfairly rough ride when questioned by interviewers who are clearly not cyclists. I remember when he did a filmed opinion piece on BBC2's Daily Politics making a reasoned argument for a Dutch-style approach to traffic management. Presenter Jo Coburn, egged on by Andrew Neill, used up virtually all the subsequent studio discussion with interrogating Boardman about why he wasn't wearing a helmet in his film. I was fuming. We have a long way to go in this country." wrote:We have a long way to go in this country.
Agreed! The government is not serious when it says it wants to promote cycling, only pretending to be because it thinks there are votes in it.
You can see this when a new road system is built, or an old one revamped, especially in towns and cities. The approach is nearly always to look at the available space, work out how many lanes of motor traffic there is room for, then paint a white line eighteen inches from the edge of the road, and call it a cycle lane. If the government were serious about cycling, proper cycling infrastructure - adequate width lanes, separated from cars by a physical barrier, no interruptions from side roads, bus stops, and so on - would be designed in first, and the motor traffic fitted around that. This cycle first mentality, I'm told by those who have been there, is what they do in the Netherlands. To be fair, if we want that here, it won't happen overnight, it took the Dutch something like 40 years. I may be being too cynical, but I doubt it will ever get anywhere near what they have in the Netherlands here.0 -
I was cycling back along the coast yesterday, the return leg of my favourite ride, nice tail wind, sat up to stretch my back.
Went past a fishermans hut & the wind funnel very very nearly took me out.
Cycling along the beach is therefore dangerous.
No gloves, no helmet, just SPF 50 to protect me. I wonder what Jeremy Vine would have to say. Even if I didn't mention my courier days........ :twisted:0 -
If you have SPF residue on your hands, you could loose your grip on the handlebars and crash. SPF is very very dangerous.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0
