You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Is there a report anywhere that covers this? A friend of mine argues that cycling is inherently dangerous on the road and that riding regularly on the road is, therefore, like repeated rounds of Russian roulette with the same gun and eventually you're sure to be hit.
My logical mind sees his point but also raises the question of the influence of experience of riding on roads and how that impacts the rate of accidents and lessens it to a certain statistical minimum (not trending to zero obviously).
Does anyone know of a study into this? A light Googling turned up little of interest.
I doubt you'll turn up anything.
Accidents studies generally just identify the vehicle type involved and the age / sex of the victim.
A friend of mine argues that cycling is inherently dangerous on the road and that riding regularly on the road is, therefore, like repeated rounds of Russian roulette with the same gun and eventually you're sure to be hit.
Or to put it another way on a long enough timeline the likelyhood of death from any activity approaches 100%. Life is inherently risky and will only end one way!
I read a French report that broke down fatal cycling accidents into categories. I can't remember much detail apart from red light running being very high. My conclusion was you can protect yourself from the major causes of fatal accidents by riding within the law, not undertaking busses or trucks and being as visible as possible.
Try these figures on him:
2011 Fatality rate by billion vehicle/foot miles:
Car Occupants: 4
Pedal cyclists: 35
Pedestrians: 41
Motorcyclists: 125
-- source: [url= http://www.dft.gov.uk/statistics/releases/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-annual-report-2011/ ]DfT Road Casualties Annual Report 2011 (table RAS41001)[/url]
Safety using miles traveled as a factor is misleading. Using that data air travel is way safer than car travel. But judge apples to apples, and air travel is actually three times riskier than car travel, and cycling is riskiest of all.
The only data that makes any sense is comparing 'per journey' statistics.
[url= http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/risks_of_travel.htm ]Travel Risks[/url]
But a lot of those cyclist figures will be children. I remember reading cyclist deaths are skewed heavily that way.
Plus riders in the smoke who may or may not have a different number of chromosomes to us.
cycling is riskiest of all.
Yeah depends how you look at it. I'd argue that "per journey" is a lot more favourable to pedestrians as many pedestrian journeys will be very safe and go nowhere near an open road.
"Per mile" gives you a theoretical level where you can say "What's the safest way for me to travel the 3 miles from A to B" - but you're right that it is also skewed.
Whichever way you look though, Motorcycles are always the riskiest. There is a reason medics call them donorcycles. 😕
Car insurance cost depends on all sorts of things like age, gender, occupation, home address etc.
Presumably this is based on data collected by insurance companies.
Has nobody ever collected similar data for cyclists, or are 8 year olds riding 2 miles to school during rush hour and 50 year olds doing 100 miles on a Sunday morning all lumped together as the same risk per mile ?
But a lot of those cyclist figures will be children. I remember reading cyclist deaths are skewed heavily that way.
A lot of pedestrians will be children too though:
KSI Pedestrians: 1602 children of 5907 total (27%)
KSI Pedal Cyclists: 398 of 3192 (12%)
KSI Car users: 336 of 9225 (3%)
Source: RAS30062
Re RLJing and cyclists breaking the law:
In crashes where a cyclist over 25 sustained minor injuries (the vast proportion of collisions), the motorist was entirely at fault in between 67% and 75% of incidents, and the cyclist solely at fault in only 16% to 22% of cases (p33).When a cyclist over 25 sustained serious injuries, the motorist was entirely at fault in between 64% and 70% of the time, with the cyclist at fault in between 23% and 27% of incidents (p33).
In cases when a cyclist over 25 died in a crash, the motorist was deemed entirely at fault in between 48% and 66% of incidents (p33), and the cyclist in 33% to 43% (p33).
NOTE: The figures for faults in fatal and serious crashes are likely to underestimate the number attributable to drivers because the victim's ability to give evidence against the driver is strongly affected by the crash
Unlike off road where it's your own "watch this" bravado that'll cause problems, on the road you're more likely to be killed by someone else's stupidity than your own.
Between 2001 and 2005 in London there were 3 cyclists killed when a car RLJed, and 2 killed when they RLJed.
I seem to remember the % of cyclist deaths attributed to them jumping a red light was in the single figures.
Has nobody ever collected similar data for cyclists, or are 8 year olds riding 2 miles to school during rush hour and 50 year olds doing 100 miles on a Sunday morning all lumped together as the same risk per mile ?
That's kind of what I was wondering. I went for a road ride with my old man recently and in the 2 miles or so from my place to the dual use road alongside a river (no motorised traffic, just pedestrians and bikes) he was pretty nervous as it's his first ride on a road bike for some time and was getting used to the gears and how it handled. Although we rode the same distance, I'd have said (in a not-at-all-scientific way) that he was at a greater risk of an accident/crash than me.
Of course, I suppose it's in nobody's best interest to produce a report that says when you start cycling you're 20 times more likely to die than after you've ridden 1000 miles on the road.
I'd like to see stats concerning different types of motorcyle accidents. That is, young hot head speedy gonzalez who was pushing it too hard on the A66 and clipped a lorry coming the other way, vs Sam Browne on a 125 taken out whilst waiting to turn right by an inattentive lorry driver.
Re cyclists - how do you measure experience? For a while, the more I cycled in London the MORE risks I took, it was a fun white knuckle ride. Only with a near miss did I re-consider.
So time spent as a cyclist is not a good indicator.
molgrips - got no answer how to measure experienced or skilled or whatever
Following on from that, I've read suggestions that one of the reasons that female cyclists are more likely to be killed on our roads is that they are more likely to follow the "rules" (e.g. staying in a cycle lane even when it places them in danger) and less likely to ride assertively (e.g. jumping a red light or taking the primary position in a lane).
Not sure how true that is, but it is an interesting theory. If following the rules means you are more likely to get killed then something is badly wrong.
other thing to bear in mind is that cyclists 'en masse' live longer so any adverse risk associated with the act of cycling is offset by the increase in life expectancy for cyclists.
(clearly any cyclist death is a tragedy for them and their families but statistics don't work like that)
[i]So time spent as a cyclist is not a good indicator.[/i]
I agree - knocked off once in 20odd years commuting. That was a couple of weeks ago. Complacency (& maybe overconfidence) counteract experience...
Safety using miles traveled as a factor is misleading. Using that data air travel is way safer than car travel. But judge apples to apples, and air travel is actually three times riskier than car travel, and cycling is riskiest of all.The only data that makes any sense is comparing 'per journey' statistics.
Travel Risks
I've been trying to find the original source for those numbers (they're on Wikipedia too) and it simply cites 'DETR study', as published in a magazine. Can anyone find anymore info on this?
[quote=TuckerUK ]and cycling is riskiest of all.
I thought that horse riding was riskiest?
time spent as a cyclist is not a good indicator.
Agreed. dual carriageways are over represented in cycling deaths. I'd suggest that any cyclist braving that kind of road is probably fairly experienced.
Can I just say what a nice little balanced debate you lot are having where everyone is chipping and not getting shot down without a certain (pseudo) Scottish twit drowning out all other opinion. Very refreshing.
As you were....
There needs to be some kind of 'nutter' measurement. For all road users.
If someone could quantify that there'd be a revolution in insurance premium calculations at least.
Safety using miles traveled as a factor is misleading. Using that data air travel is way safer than car travel. But judge apples to apples, and air travel is actually three times riskier than car travel, and cycling is riskiest of all.The only data that makes any sense is comparing 'per journey' statistics.
Assuming you want to show air travel is more risky, and cycling less. I personally can't see that either way is more or less valid than the other.
Very refreshing.
+1
ride assertively (e.g. jumping a red light
Is "assertively" the new word for "illegally"?
I hadn't realised. Must keep up.
😀
The other thing about the data from http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/risks_of_travel.htm is that it doesn't distinguish between leisure and non-leisure use of transport - I wouldn't be at all surprised if a large % of the motorbike deaths are weekend warriors out for a spin, while cycling deaths will be more skewed towards people on the way to work.
Is "assertively" the new word for "illegally"?
I hadn't realised. Must keep up.
It is when the other option is "get squashed by an HGV who can't see you legally stopped at the red light just below his cab".
Careful... lets not end up making this another RLJ discussion 🙂
Alcohol accounts for a large number of the KSI figures as well, i think its listed in the stats somewhere.
Should you take into account the positive health benefits of cycling too?
On average it lengthens your life expectancy.
I consider myself an 'experienced' cyclist and I ride my Brompton in London pretty much every working day. I'd estimate an average of 600 individual trips per year of various distances from 1 mile to 7 miles each.
I think I've had the Brompton about 5 years, so I'll use that as an figure for my supremely unscientific study.
Based on 3000 trips with an conservatively estimated overall distance of 6000 miles, I've only ever been hit by a car (it was an Addison Lee car that jumped the lights and drove into me whilst I was waiting for the lights to change in the ASL!) once. In that incident I was not injured in any way (apart from being flippin' angry!)
So that's a 0.03 recuring % chance on being hit per journey, or one incident per 6000 miles.
I therefore declare that cycling is really very safe, OR I am just awesome riding around the city*
I think that's all that needs to be said
*this sentance may not be factually accurate
Alcohol accounts for a large number of the KSI figures as well
It's a well known fact that alcohol has no affect on an individuals ability to ride safely when astride a 'Boris Bike'
If you look back through the 'More or Less' podcasts on radio 4 they did a useful item on it - firstly dealing as above with whether look at risk per mile, per hour, per journey or per.....per what? - whats a measure that actually matters if you are a cyclist. The other they highlighted was that cycle injuries and deaths are assumed to be transport related so injuries in trail centres or skate parks might get grouped with road collisions leading to cycle risks on the road to possibly be overstated/over reported. However pedestian injuries and deaths are only treated as journey related if they involve an accident with vehicle. So if you trip and break your neck on your walk to work it isn't entered in the stats but if you get knocked over crossing the road to the office it is - and yet both are part of the risk of that journey so pedestrian risks/injuries/deaths are under reported.
Even keen cyclists will spend more time behind the wheel and /or on foot so they spend more of their time exposed to those risks that cycling.
What you can't do easily is separate out 'experienced' cyclist form the stats. There was a suggestion in an experiment that cars pass lycra-clad/helmet-wearing cyclist closer than non-experienced looking cyclists - hence Graham Obree's advice to ride wobbly - look clumsy and people will make more room for you. Women are passed closer than men too. But also do experienced cyclists ride more boldly, make more assumptions - have they got their race face on and gurning through their strava segment slip-streaming a bus. Who knows.
Even keen cyclists will spend more time behind the wheel and /or on foot so they spend more of their time exposed to those risks that cycling.
I do more miles by bike than by car in a year.
I also travel at a slower speed, which means I spend a lot more time cycling than driving.
I reckon I probably spend more time cycling than walking, assuming you only count outdoor walking from one place to another.
Overall risk, taking into account health benefits, etc. show that cycling is a net benefit to health.
Regarding experienced/inexperienced, most serious accidents involving cyclists are the fault of a third party. In those incidents, experience wouldn't help.
There have been two cyclists killed in Darlington recently, the most recent was on Friday last week.
[url= http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/local/darlington/9986821.Tributes_paid_by_family_of_cyclist_killed_in_Darlington/ ]He was an experienced cyclist, who was wearing a helmet and hi-viz and using cycle infrastructure[/url]. I ride past this junction twice a day and he lived round the corner from my mam and dad.
The other recent one, in 2008, was also [url= http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/4588040.Diabetic_driver_had_no_memory_of_crash/ ]a very experienced cyclist, who was essentially driven through by an elderly lady driver[/url], who didn't stop until something like 400 metres later.
A very emotive and sad piece in Teh Grauniad about road casualties, particularly pedestrians:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/13/road-deaths-rise-uk-safety
The central point that struck me:
Former transport secretary Justine Greening blamed variations in the weather for 2011's figures, with increased use of mobile devices highlighted as another cause of worsening safety...On his first day in the job as transport secretary in May 2010, Philip Hammond made a speech in which he said, "We will end the war on motorists. Motoring has got to get greener, but the car is not going to go away."
Funding for speed cameras – famously loathed by David Cameron's Cotswolds neighbour and Top Gear presenter Jeremy Clarkson – was withdrawn. A clampdown on "cowboy clampers" was announced. National casualty-reduction targets were dropped. An 80mph speed limit on motorways was proposed.
And, oh look, deaths have gone up.
I do more miles by bike than by car in a year.
I also travel at a slower speed, which means I spend a lot more time cycling than driving.
I reckon I probably spend more time cycling than walking, assuming you only count outdoor walking from one place to another.
thats something more than keen though 🙂
Most people die from heart disease, diabetes, etc. Cycling rather than driving should help beat those odds.
Regarding experienced/inexperienced, most serious accidents involving cyclists are the fault of a third party. In those incidents, experience wouldn't help.
other than experience might lead to choices that put you in a position of risk. Inexperenced riders would get off and push at busy roundabouts, right turns in traffic etc. Experienced ones probably wouldn't, they might also choose traffic heavy routes rather than cycle paths and back roads. And they might ride in work day rush hour rather than sunday afternoons around the park.
Most people die from heart disease, diabetes, etc
nobody cares about that though 😕
I saw five club guys out last Saturday morning mostly mature (40-50s), on a very busy but slow road lined with shops and parking spots. A car ahead was waiting to turn right because a car was stopped in the road it was trying to turn into. Behind that was a bus wanting to pull out of a bus stop, then another car, then me in my car. This is entirely normal for that road, and everyone's expecting it.
The car in front of me stopped early to let the bus out, it came half way out and then waited. As it was doing this the group of cyclists came up behind me. Some went around on the outside, where they could get through; some came up the inside of me where they'd been riding and then had to come around the bus as it was starting to move, they then had to slalom back inside the right turning car whilst being heard to say 'ooo eck' or similar. It looked like they felt compelled to get through because their mates had So basically, cyclists everywhere in all our fields of view, hazards all over the place and they are diving both sides of vehicles. A good opportunity for an accident, and they looked like at least relatively experienced cyclists. Mature and lycra clad.
Of course, time on the bike doesn't make you intelligent. They should've stopped behind me en masse and waited for the road to clear. No point in taking risks.
most serious accidents involving cyclists are the fault of a third party. In those incidents, experience wouldn't help
I definitely beg to differ here. Most of the experience I've accrued whilst riding bikes is dedicated to mitigating other people's mistakes. It's all about managing the situation and reading what drivers are going to do.
Inexperienced cyclists I think are more likely to adhere to the rules of the road, which is not always in their best interests. For instance, you may have right of way, but you still have to stop if someone's going to pull out without looking.
It looked like they felt compelled to get through because their mates had
I bet none of them would have done the same thing if they'd been on their own.
Crowd theory: The IQ of a group is always less than the average of its members.
Where I come from, I see very, very few inexperienced cyclists using the road at all, with the vast majority favouring off-road cycle networks and pavements.
It's funny, I was thinking about this yesterday as I watched someone riding down the pavement next to a perfectly decent on-road cycle lane. (I know we have this argument all the time about 'perfectly decent cycle lanes', but that's just how people roll round these parts - I'm sure it's a very different contrast to some of the major cities).
Which leaves only the hardcore cyclists left on the road. And it's certainly those guys spending the most time on the road. Logic would dictate that they are the most likely to be involved in a serious incident. I have no real data to substantiate that. But as a fairly experienced cyclist, that reflects my own feelings, and in a way I agree with your friend and limit my time in traffic to a minimum.
In my direct experience, you can have as many close calls in one week of cycling as you would in a whole year of driving. And that's too many for me.
This is from a report put out by ROSPA:
About one fifth of the cyclists killed and injured are children. Cycling accidents increase as children grow older, with 10 to 15 year old riders being more at risk than other age groups, including adults until about the age of 60 years. To some extent, this reflects increased cycling as children grow older followed by a switch to motorised transport from the late teens onwards. It also co-incides with the age when children attend Secondary school, and may
indicate riskier behaviour by this age group.Males are far more likely to be involved in cycling accidents than females; four out of five cyclist casualties are male.
I don't know how much you can infer from this though, given that as Butcher says, adult cyclists in the UK are pretty much a self-selecting group.
This is dubious too:
Males are far more likely to be involved in cycling accidents than females; four out of five cyclist casualties are male.
Given that four out of five cyclists I see on the road are male.
In my direct experience, you can have as many close calls in one week of cycling as you would in a whole year of driving.
That's interesting. I don't share this experience at all. Very few close calls for me. For the record, I cycle in Cardiff and I through work I enjoy various congested locations in the South East and London.
[i]Whichever way you look though, Motorcycles are always the riskiest. There is a reason medics call them donorcycles.
[/i]
And according to the stats, every motorcyclist I've never known must have died based on my 30 years of riding a m/c (including 20k last year alone) - and also never knowing anyone who died either.
And if they really were so dangerous surely the Police/Ambulance/etc wouldn't use them?
[i]In my direct experience, you can have as many close calls in one week of cycling as you would in a whole year of driving.[/i]
+1 for M/C too.
Motorcycles definitely are dangerous.
The question is, what makes them dangerous?
And if they really were so dangerous surely the Police/Ambulance/etc wouldn't use them?
I think policing and ambulancing is pretty risky work - but with the risks being for a greater reward.
The most interesting comparison was motorcycling with soldiering. 200 miles on an M/C is apparently comparable in risk to a day on the front line in afganistan.
Its curious as to whether that makes m/c's seem more dangerous or soldiering seem safer than we assume.
Motorcycles definitely are dangerous.The question is, what makes them dangerous?
in most instances its the nut that holds the handlebars
I tend to agree with that.
However, imagine being t-boned at 30mph by an inattentive driver. Pretty serious on a motorbike or pushbike, less so in a car, wouldn't you agree?
in that circumstance yeswouldn't you agree?
but motorcyclists themselves tend the be the main cause of motorcycle accidents
convert - Member
Can I just say what a nice little balanced debate you lot are having where everyone is chipping and not getting shot down without a certain (pseudo) Scottish twit drowning out all other opinion. Very refreshing.As you were....
It [i]was[/i] nice until you chipped in with that unnecessary and spiteful post. Well done.
GrahamS - MemberAgreed. dual carriageways are over represented in cycling deaths. I'd suggest that any cyclist braving that kind of road is probably fairly experienced.
Or just use that route because that's the way they drive to work. Seen some frightening stuff when I get a lift in, stupid thing is there's a very pleasent B-road route that takes you to exactly the same place (and is actually more direct!).
but motorcyclists themselves tend the be the main cause of motorcycle accidents
Yes but at the risk of labouring a point and derailing the thread... if you decide to be responsible and drive nice and safely, this means you are most likely to have an accident due to someone else's carelessness. And if that happens, the consequences are worse for you if you are on a bike.
if you decide to be responsible and drive nice and safely
lets not derail it but...... have you met any motorcyclists? 🙂 🙂
lets draw a line theres though because the interesting bit is about cycling and 'experience' in relation to risk - as perceived by the OP's colleague who presumably doesn't cycle. I think that guys issue is not finite risk but the kind of risk - hes more squeamish about being seriously hurt on a bike than just as seriously hurt in a car or being made just as critically ill (eventually) by his diet or the flame-retardant treatment in his sofa.
Humans can't assess risk. White bread is more dangerous on a population level than riding bikes, smack or nuclear bombs
Part of the risk of cycling is under the control of the cyclist, though. And in a way that is often not well understood by individual cyclists.
For example, some of us know to hang back and not undertake long vehicles turning left. And others apparently do not. Some of us take this a step further and don't undertake any moving vehicles.
I suspect that much of this is due to the lack of cyclist education. There are comprehensive rules and road markings instructing motorists, and they have rigorous training (for what that's worth). Cyclists have to make it up as we go along. There's some stuff in the Highway Code, but it's far from comprehensive or detailed, and you're not required to have ever read it to ride a bike. I think this is bonkers.
I would love to see a mandatory school-based training course that properly teaches cycling roadcraft.. but I think this would be difficult without having learned to drive a car - my familiarity with roads and traffic patterns does come in part from having been a driver. Simply because when I cycle I have a good idea of what the cars are going to do.
Then there could be an advanced cycling course to be given to adults, government backed but adminstered by say the CTC, conferring some kind of membership or insurance scheme maybe? An incentive at any rate.
I think a lot of people would cycle but are nervous about traffic, an accessible widely known training scheme would help.
There's some stuff in the Highway Code, but it's far from comprehensive or detailed, and you're not required to have ever read it to ride a bike. I think this is bonkers.
I don't think thats bonkers though - as much as I'd like cyclists to be more educated than they are (the lack of education or even just perception on this forum is often alarming) I wouldn't hope for a situation where cyclists have to learn or prove something in order to cycle, just as I wouldn't have such hopes for a pedestrian to instructed or licensed to be able to cross the road.
The duty of care is with the motorist - they're (we're) the ones who have earned a special entitlement. Its for them to mitigate for other road users, pedestrians, cyclists, children, senior citzens, escaped zebras, the mentally ill, wiley coyote, the visually impared, nuns on rollerskates, falling rocks or anything or anyones else they come across.
I think a lot of people would cycle but are nervous about traffic, an accessible widely known training scheme would help.
Training won't help. Proper infrastructure will help.
[i]lets draw a line theres though because the interesting bit is about cycling and 'experience' in relation to risk [/i]
But its the same, the more experienced you are the less likely you are to have an accident, as you are less likely to get yourself into a position to have one. 30 years of m/c has taught me that, plus following those less experienced.
Also did you know that Police motorcyclists are at a higher risk than the average motorcyclists, when on their personal m/c - as they forget that other road users ignore normal m/c's...
But its the same, the more experienced you are the less likely you are to have an accident, as you are less likely to get yourself into a position to have one
I don't think it is the same - I don't think being more experienced puts you are less risk. On a M/C you are in the same roads and same traffic situations as a teenager or a middle-aged novice power ranger as the most experienced timeserved riders. Inexperienced cyclists will avoid traffic as much as they can - take traffic free routes, ride on the pavement, get off and push at difficult junctions. Experienced riders will ride the road. They might do it with more awareness of positioning and all sorts of other things - but they are one the road instead on beside it, or in the park, or wheeling it across the pedestrian crossing to make a right turn.
I assume we are also going faster as well which might be a factor.
It is a swings and roundabouts as you gain from experience making some things less likely but you will commute in rush hour which is clearly more risky.
there are too many variables,allied with insufficient data to make an objective assessment, so we are left with our own subjective experiences to try and answer the OP. Experience is certainly going to help offset some risk factors, but the biggest factor is out of our control-- the people in 'charge' of motorised vehicles-- it is rightly their responsibility to take due care and attention . This is though a very variable notion, but the culture engendered by Clarkson and his ilk is inappropriate for public safety.
There is a long way to go in treating driving for what it is-- a highly responsible activity that requires maximum attention and minimum distraction .
so we are left with our own subjective experiences
But can we be objective - measure by our own experiences
Take B-Rs assertion
And according to the stats, every motorcyclist I've never known must have died based on my 30 years of riding a m/c (including 20k last year alone) - and also never knowing anyone who died either.
In TuckerUK's link you see that motorcycling - no matter how you measure it- is by a spectacular degree the riskiest form of transport. But even then - the risks are calculated in units of per billion: per billion miles, per billion journeys, per billion hours. Homeopathically diluted risk. B-R would need to know thousands of millions of motorcyclists to expect to have known one who died. But in the OP's post - his friend's contention that cycling is like russian roulette and a serious or accident is a "when" not "if" scenario....... By anyones own experience (rather than perception and perceived wisdom) - who do you actually know (would at least be on nodding aquaintances with, be recognised at their funeral for instance)..... who do you actually know who has died in any sort of accident - travel and transport related, work related, sheer bad luck related, threshing machine related or otherwise.
Thinking back over my 40 odd years...... for me - two pedestrians in RTAs. I can think of two people who have been in car crashes that really could have killed them, but thankfully didn't. One person who's been in a car crash in which someone else died.
I've known more people who've committed suicide. One person who died of an overdose. And thats all the instances across all the people I've known over a 41 3/4 year sample period. I personally don't even know anyone who's had a trip to A&E for anything cycle related. I only know one who's had lasting, serious injuries from a motorcycle incident. But then I only know a very small number of motorcyclists.
That said - I'm not a social cyclist, I have friends who might also cycle, but I don't make seek or meet people through cycling - not in a club or someone who rides in groups or someone who attends cycling events really - I've never met another forum member for instance - so I have a lower connected-to-cyclists-ness factor than many on this forum - their experience though would over-report the risk.
Trouble with subjectivity is it can be really skewed by certain incidents, i know three motorcyclists who have been killed,a cyclist who lived across the road was wiped out by a motorist fiddling with his heater- two other mates spent four months in traction for m/cycle incidents.I know three riders who have been hospitalise with injuries, two were on the road, one on a cycle path!
None of these things will stop me cycling, like many experienced riders,i do not feel 'unsafe' whilst on the roads, but am on guard with traffic.
I think a lot of people would cycle but are nervous about traffic, an accessible widely known training scheme would help.
Bindun.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/bikeability/what-is-bikeability/
And most local authorities offer something similar for adults.
Regarding experienced/inexperienced, most serious accidents involving cyclists are the fault of a third party. In those incidents, experience wouldn't help.
Actually it would. Riding far enough away from parked cars that you don't get doored avoids a third party risk.
Choosing to ride the 6 mile zero traffic B road rather than the 5 mile 70mph dual carriageway direct route avoids risk.
Using a mirror to see overtakes coming means near misses can be turned into comfortable passes by moving slightly left. I've once had to ride off the road to avoid being hit.
Riding far enough away from the pavement to avoid peds stepping out in front of you.
Anticipating other road users actions often means hazards can be avoided. The ability to do this increases with experience.
As for the motorcycle casualty rate. IMO it's basic physics. The number of sole cycle fatal accidents is close to zero. Maybe a dozen a year in the UK. Because cyclist crash mainly at 10-25mph speeds the body can cope with. Come off a bike a 75mph and the body has to cope with crash energy nine times greater than a 25mph crash. It can't.
at the end of the day, you shouldn't use statistics as a reason to, or not to do something.
statistics are useful for governments, organisations and bodies responsible for setting policy, practice, regulations, etc. - not to individuals.
you should be able to use your own assessment of risk, common sense and judgement to work out whether you should be riding a bike or not.
[i]I don't think it is the same - I don't think being more experienced puts you are less risk. On a M/C you are in the same roads and same traffic situations as a teenager or a middle-aged novice power ranger as the most experienced timeserved riders.[/i]
You may not 'think it is the same', but it is. As an experienced rider I can 'see' a problem, because I am looking for it. I position myself on the road diffently for almost every yard of it, and for every time I ride it - because the risks change, due to other vehicles/weather/time-of-day etc.
sorry - think you misunderstood me (or I confused things) I was saying [i]I don't think being more experienced puts you are less risk[/i] [b]as a cyclist [/b] . I think you're quite right that is does as motorcyclist.
Training won't help.
I think it would. Most people aren't malicious or utterly careless, they just don't know anything. Bringing the issues to people's attention would really help I think. And making people realise that we are not all weirdos or RLJing scum might also help perceptions.
you should be able to use your own assessment of risk
Well that's not really possible or effective without stats. Accidents don't happen often enough for us to build up a body of evidence from our own experience. Unless we look at stats we do not know how likely something is. I've never been knocked off, for instance. So how on earth would I know how likely it is? Knowing other people's stories from this forum certainly informs my decisions when out riding. These are statistics, although not rigorous ones.
I'd have to disagree, especially in this situation where statistics show minimal risk.
I'd sooner rely on common sense, judgement and experience.
And anecdotes on a forum are just that, not statistics in any shape or form.
I'd sooner rely on common sense, judgement and experience.
Common sense is meaningless, it's simply what everyone else does. Judgement is often wildly inappropriate, and experience of infrequent events is not sufficient.
For example, 30 years ago people used their judgement and thought it was perfectly ok to sit their kids on the back seat of their car without any protection or restraint. 😯
Another example - people used to think smoking was good for you because it makes you feel good. Common sense, innit?
Most of my peers from that age did not die. So common sense and experience should say it's ok, right?
The thing about motorcycles, is that it is possible that you might be able to ride them safely, but it wouldn't be as quick.
And you're talking about a vehicle who's only real purpose for most people is that it lets you go really quick. If you didn't want to go quick, you'd be more comfortable in a car.
How it lets you go quicker than a car is:
1)By filtering through traffic jams.
2)By going round corners on bendy roads faster than you could in a car
3)By overtaking really fast in situations where you probably wouldn't in a car.
All of those things seem to make it way more likely that you'll make an error of judgement (miss seeing someone coming in from the side when filtering, overtake without good enough visibility, overdo it on a bend etc.). That's before you even consider the fact that if someone else messes up you're way less well protected.
So it seems pretty obvious that motorbikes are going to be more dangerous than anything else to me?
Common sense is meaningless, it's simply what everyone else does. Judgement is often wildly inappropriate, and experience of infrequent events is not sufficient.
I beg to differ, and I'm going to leave it at that.
If you look at many other situations in the 21st century, actions with potentially fatal consequences aren't left to judgement, "common sense" or training. Safe systems of use are designed into them. This isn't yet done on UK roads. Have a read of the obituaries at the start of a CTC or Audax magazine and you'll see many examples of vastly experienced cyclists meeting a premature demise.
If you compare it with other forms forms of transport, cycling (and to a lesser extent driving) is positively Victorian in attitude. Killed or maimed for life? Them's the breaks.
http://waronthemotorist.wordpress.com/2012/10/16/the-telling-death-of-a-railwayman/
actions with potentially fatal consequences aren't left to judgement, "common sense" or training. Safe systems of use are designed into them
that's my point. statistics are useful for those people designing the safe systems of use, but not to the individual riding the bike.
judgement is often wildly inappropriate, and experience of infrequent events is not sufficient.
So why then does the accident rate for young and new drivers decrease as they gain experience?
Crashes are infrequent. Near misses less so. Practice makes people better at any other skill. Why would riding a bike in traffic be any different?
Just to chip in with my experiance.
I ride with a road club a couple of times most weeks, say 60-70 times per year. We usually cover 70-80 miles at 20ish mph, riding in a tight group, 2by2, usually a dozen of us so say 6 rows of 2.
In the 9 years I have been with them we have had one car/bike accident, and that was very much the biker's fault.
.
Contrast: I recently got roped in to a 100 mile charity ride with a bunch of complete novices. None had ever ridden in a group before and the average speed, excluding the many stops, was about 12mph, significantly slower on anything that looked even slightly like a hill. The drivers on this route scared the **** out of me!
It's not the road, I ride that one all the time (we were doing laps)
A group of novices riding very slowly, hugging the kerb and really spread out appears to inspire drivers to attempt to get passed at any cost, even on blind corners and regardless of traffic coming the other way. A group riding tight together at a reasonable pace seems to get a lot more respect from drivers.
So in my experience, the more experienced riders are much less likely to be involved in a car/bike accident as the [i]driver's[/i] behaviour was different.
.
On a related subject, why do foreign drivers leave more space? Is it that they are more used to bikes on the continent or is it simply that a LHD car provides a better view of us bikers?
.
Finally FWIW I have only once used a proper cycle lane and I hit a van which put me off somewhat.
why then does the accident rate for young and new drivers decrease as they gain experience?
It starts going up again once you get to a certain age though.
Why would riding a bike in traffic be any different?
Because other road users, whose behaviour you can't always compensate for, are involved.
Because other road users, whose behaviour you can't always compensate for, are involved.
I disagree, the more practice I get, the better I get at spotting who else is going to do something stupid. It's not infallable but I can almost always tell who will pull out in front of me for example. There are always idiots but one can get better at spotting them.
I'd be really wary of self-assessing my ability to cycle safely in a given situation. As a species we're crap at it. From [url= http://waronthemotorist.wordpress.com/2012/10/09/unskilled-and-unaware-of-it-re-post/ ]this post on the same blog[/url]:
In Traffic, Tom Vanderbilt documents the details of the phenomenon of drivers unable to recognise their own lack of skill. A large part of it he puts down to a lack of feedback. For example, in the Monash helmetcam study, there were a mere 2 collisions, but there were 6 near-collisions and 46 “other incidents” (the classic Heinrich triangle). These “other incidents” correspond to those situations where we notice people driving badly. They occur because the driver failed to spot a hazard or failed to recognise as a hazard something that they did see. By definition, if they did not see or did not recognise, the driver will never have been aware of the situation. They will reach their destination assuming that they had done a great job, oblivious to the bad driving that had been recorded. That’s probably what happened in 52 out of the Monash group’s 54 “events”.And when the driver does finally notice that they have just been in a near collision, they can congratulate themselves for having the skill to have avoided an actual collision.
Thus reassured of their own driving skills, on the few occasions when they do get some feedback, they find ways to dismiss it. That horn honk wasn’t aimed at me, or if it was, it must be because the other driver is an impatient egotistical bad driver who wouldn’t recognise good driving like mine. The police pulled me over because they have a quota to fill, or because they’re anti-Motorist, not because I was driving dangerously. After all, I already know that I am not a dangerous driver.
And then they crash, and it was an accident, bad luck, a momentary loss of concentration, beyond one’s control. They couldn’t have caused it, because they already know from their experience and their long record of not causing accidents that they must be a good driver.
Replace "driver" with "cyclist" and we've got you. And me. And pretty much everyone else who does any activity which isn't objectively measured by impartial observers.