Latest UK road casualty stats reveal cycling is safer per mile than walking

growingvegtables wrote:

I really don't want to know "that cyclists could ride round the world more than 1,000 times before there would be a fatality."  That's measuring the chances of the vulnerable ... that they don't happen to meet with a bastard driver.

I DO want to know how many times the driver of an Audi Q7, or the driver of a Nissan Qashqai/Juke, or whatever, can drive around their own f***ing block, without endangering a pedestrian, cyclist, or "small-fry" car. 

Cycling is NOT dangerous.  Driving is.

A discussion I've had many times.  So many people, mostly as a result of the horrendously biased media, think that it is the cycling that's dangerous, not the driving, when the reverse is true.  If people can't rationally analyse the risks and their causes, what chance do we have of making cycling mainstream?

It would be great if one of the msm (BBC?) actually had a series about the positives of cycling, perhaps starting with its contribution to reducing pollution and climate change, but I can't see them reversing 30+ years of deliberate misreporting.  Certainly there is not the faintest sign of the institutional bias in the BBC shifting by a micron.

AndyRed3d wrote:

This is really great news that, agreeing with Burtthebike, responsible media need to balance against the "cycling is deadly" narrative.

I am therefore really reluctant to criticise it, but I also feel this is skewing reality... as cyclists travel 4 times faster (and presumably further) than pedestrians.

So I looked up the average commute distance in the UK, which in 2014 was 10 miles by car, 3.3 miles by bike and 0.9 miles by foot.

This means commuting by bike is 3.2 x more likely to result in death and 9.1 x more likely to result in serious injury than people walking to work.

This is not ideal news, but should be more fuel to get our politicians to sort out safer infrastructure.

By the way, this calculation says motorcyling is 40 x more dangerous than walking, which is scary.
 

There are various ways of measuring risk and comparing different travel methods.  In the case of cycling vs walking, the risk per mile travelled is almost identical, but if you use another metric, it can appear different.

Flying is extremely safe per mile travelled, somewhat less so per trip; it all depends how you look at it.

AndyRed3d wrote:

This is really great news that, agreeing with Burtthebike, responsible media need to balance against the "cycling is deadly" narrative.

I am therefore really reluctant to criticise it, but I also feel this is skewing reality... as cyclists travel 4 times faster (and presumably further) than pedestrians.

So I looked up the average commute distance in the UK, which in 2014 was 10 miles by car, 3.3 miles by bike and 0.9 miles by foot.

This means commuting by bike is 3.2 x more likely to result in death and 9.1 x more likely to result in serious injury than people walking to work.

This is not ideal news, but should be more fuel to get our politicians to sort out safer infrastructure.

By the way, this calculation says motorcyling is 40 x more dangerous than walking, which is scary.
 

That is why cycling is perceived as dangerous.

1 hour riding a bike is much more dangerous than one hour walking or driving.

Long term cycling is safer as the health benefits are so vast but in the short term it's considerably more dangerous.

AndyRed3d wrote:

This means commuting by bike is 3.2 x more likely to result in death and 9.1 x more likely to result in serious injury than people walking to work.

  The distance to work for each person is fixed,  so your description of the calculations is misleading.     If someone is able to walk  to work they are slightly less likely to be killed if they chose to go by bike instead.      I still agree with you that headline is skewed, because that person is twice as likely to be seriously injured.  

Pilot Pete wrote:

It would be interesting to know how many pedestrian fatalities involved being distracted with something like a mobile phone whilst crossing the road...

PP

Whilst the peds may be distracted, holding a mobile phone in itself, doesn't increase danger. The danger comes from the drivers of 2 tonnes of metal moving at speed whilst not necessarily paying enough attention to possible hazards.

As much as we'd like all pedestrians to be sober, paying attention, not blind or deaf or have any other disability that may affect them, or be too young to know about the dangers, the reality is that some pedestrians will be more at risk.

fukawitribe wrote:

CUK is partially right, headline is a bit off. You're somewhat less likely  to be killed (per mile) on a bike than as a pedestrian but about 2.5 times more likely to suffer a KSI. The high fatality rate of pedestrians (vs injury) is hardly surprising.

Maybe the higher fatality rate amongst pedestrians is due to the fact that none of them wear helmets?

Mungecrundle wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

CUK is partially right, headline is a bit off. You're somewhat less likely  to be killed (per mile) on a bike than as a pedestrian but about 2.5 times more likely to suffer a KSI. The high fatality rate of pedestrians (vs injury) is hardly surprising.

Maybe the higher fatality rate amongst pedestrians is due to the fact that none of them wear helmets?

Yes definitely.  I don't understand how anyone would go for a walk without a helmet.  It's a no brainer.  Totally foolhardy behaviour.

jestriding wrote:

Mungecrundle wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

CUK is partially right, headline is a bit off. You're somewhat less likely  to be killed (per mile) on a bike than as a pedestrian but about 2.5 times more likely to suffer a KSI. The high fatality rate of pedestrians (vs injury) is hardly surprising.

Maybe the higher fatality rate amongst pedestrians is due to the fact that none of them wear helmets?

Yes definitely.  I don't understand how anyone would go for a walk without a helmet.  It's a no brainer.  Totally foolhardy behaviour.

Yes, y'know, if it saves one life........

burtthebike wrote:

CUK is right, much more needs to be done to make our roads safe for cyclists, and just as important, change the perception that riding a bike is an incredibly dangerous, reckless thing to do.  In fact, regular cyclists live two years longer and suffer less from all forms of illness, so not riding a bike is much riskier than riding one.

Much of the blame for the current attitudes about the risks of cycling come from the media and helmet promotion.  Far too often, the cyclist is portrayed as the cause of the collision, with the driver ignored, or the vehicle being blamed.  Even when the blame is clear, the language used still implies some responsibility on behalf of the cyclist i.e. cyclist was in collision with....  The media refuses to even mention the overwhelming benefits of cycling, but is happy to dwell endlessly on the risks.

Of course helmets wouldn't be seen as being useful or necessary if cycling wasn't continually being shown as incredibly risky, so most helmet promotion deliberately exaggerates the risks, and in the case of some helmet promoting bodies, outright lies.

 

Bad news is good news. Standard stuff.