Cycling: Promotion of a dangerous activity?

[Herbsman.]

I can't be bothered to read this thread in full, as it's a waste of time. But just in case no-one's already said this: Compared to motoring, cycling is not dangerous. It's actually motor vehicles that create the danger, so stop trying to put the blame on cycling.

 

[beeboo]

the 6.87 figure is an overly simplistic analysis - its relevance diminishes when you consider the total number of journeys -if all car and bicycle journeys were the same length then the the compaison is valid.

My point - which is included in your quote from the CTC - is that the statistical risk of injury has decreased since 1950, despite the massive growth in motorised transport. Which has quite a lot to do with your point, esp in terms of rubbishing it.

I think you're missing the point entirely. If you are travelling from A to B, then you're comparatively safer to do so by car than by bike. Since TfL are encouraging people to travel by bike rather than other modes (for commuting etc rather than recreationally) then you ARE talking about situations with direct mile-for-mile comparisons.

No one is saying that cycling causes the danger. Sure, accidents might be caused by motorists but it is still the cyclist that is more likely to be killed or injured. The fact the risk of injury has decreased is neither here nor there.

 

[teuchter]

I can't be bothered to read this thread in full, as it's a waste of time. But just in case no-one's already said this: Compared to motoring, cycling is not dangerous. It's actually motor vehicles that create the danger, so stop trying to put the blame on cycling.

someone's already said that, and I've already pointed out that it doesn't matter who is to blame for the dangerousness, the fact is, that the cyclist is the one more likely to end up injured.

 

[beeboo]

I can't be bothered to read this thread in full, as it's a waste of time. But just in case no-one's already said this: Compared to motoring, cycling is not dangerous. It's actually motor vehicles that create the danger, so stop trying to put the blame on cycling.

It might help if you at least got the point of the thread! It's not about who creates the danger, it's about the relative risks of cycling vs. driving (or travelling by any other method).

Surely it's a no-brainer that you're more at risk on a bike than you are in a big metal box with airbags and the like, or on a train which runs on rails and hardly ever crashes into anything else?

That's it.

And the question was, is it responsible of TfL to encourage people to do something which is putting themselves at comparatively more risk of getting killed or injured than the alternatives. And I would say the answer is, for all sorts of reasons, yes it is.

 

[Biddlybee]

I think you're missing the point entirely. If you are travelling from A to B, then you're comparatively safer to do so by car than by bike. Since TfL are encouraging people to travel by bike rather than other modes (for commuting etc rather than recreationally) then you ARE talking about situations with direct mile-for-mile comparisons.

No one is saying that cycling causes the danger. Sure, accidents might be caused by motorists but it is still the cyclist that is more likely to be killed or injured. The fact the risk of injury has decreased is neither here nor there.

That makes perfect sense... and I don't think anyone would dispute it tbh, it's common sense - but the OP didn't put it like that, and the site he linked to was a bit of a joke.

 

[teuchter]

I think you're missing the point entirely. If you are travelling from A to B, then you're comparatively safer to do so by car than by bike. Since TfL are encouraging people to travel by bike rather than other modes (for commuting etc rather than recreationally) then you ARE talking about situations with direct mile-for-mile comparisons.

No one is saying that cycling causes the danger. Sure, accidents might be caused by motorists but it is still the cyclist that is more likely to be killed or injured. The fact the risk of injury has decreased is neither here nor there.

Yes. Exactly.

beeboo, you seem to be the only one who's getting what I'm saying.

As I took care to point out in my OP, this is not some kind of anti-cycling thing.

Just that if TFL are promoting cycling they should be mindful of the safety implications that go along with it.

This includes an obligation to make things as cyclist-friendly as possible, of course.

 

[kyser_soze]

Well I thought it was perfectly obvious what you were saying and pretty logical to say that it's riskier to travel on something that provides you with no external protection.

I'd go further and say that riding a POWERED two wheeler is probably even MORE dangerous. These are not difficult things to process - even if you hit a ped or stationary object on a bike and come off, if you're travelling at any kind of speed you could injure yourself quite badly.

But the actual POINT of the OP is bollocks - that TFL should put some kind of health warning on their campaign to get people onto bikes...or maybe I missed it when most people had their risk assessment faculties surgically removed, I dunno...

 

[Sigmund Fraud]

I think you're missing the point entirely. If you are travelling from A to B, then you're comparatively safer to do so by car than by bike. Since TfL are encouraging people to travel by bike rather than other modes (for commuting etc rather than recreationally) then you ARE talking about situations with direct mile-for-mile comparisons.

No one is saying that cycling causes the danger. Sure, accidents might be caused by motorists but it is still the cyclist that is more likely to be killed or injured. The fact the risk of injury has decreased is neither here nor there.

thats valid for the 7>1 point, but not for the overall decrease - and this isn't even a set of figures I posted up, they're teuchters - the figures point to a lower number of fatalities over a greater number of kms covered - 1 for every 25 Million km in 1950 and 1 for every 30 million kms in 2005. All this against a backdrop of 7x increase in motorised traffic.

getting kind of bared of this now.

 

[beeboo]

That makes perfect sense... and I don't think anyone would dispute it tbh, it's common sense - but the OP didn't put it like that, and the site he linked to was a bit of a joke.

I think the OP has been jumped on a bit unfairly, I think it's a reasonable point for discussion. Unfortunately I think he did a quick google for some stats to back up what he was saying and made a bad choice.

I do think you could argue it is irresponsible of TfL just to tell people to jump on their bikes, when they could be spending more on providing safe cycle lanes, helping to promote road training for cyclists, better awareness of cyclists for other road users (vehicles and pedestrians), etc.

As I said earlier, knowing a teeny bit about TfL, I would be surprised if they hadn't thought about it though.

 

[Biddlybee]

I do think you could argue it is irresponsible of TfL just to tell people to jump on their bikes, when they could be spending more on providing safe cycle lanes, helping to promote road training for cyclists, better awareness of cyclists for other road users (vehicles and pedestrians), etc.

As I said earlier, knowing a teeny bit about TfL, I would be surprised if they hadn't thought about it though.

Afaik TfL are doing some of those things - and provide funding to all London Boroughs to individually promote safe cycling as well.

 

[teuchter]

But the actual POINT of the OP is bollocks - that TFL should put some kind of health warning on their campaign to get people onto bikes...or maybe I missed it when most people had their risk assessment faculties surgically removed, I dunno...

I agree in principle that people should be able to make their own judgement about stuff like this.

But I have recently mentioned this issue of the safety of cycling to various people who seem to have been surprised to learn how much more dangerous than other modes of transport it actually is.

The number of posters asking me to provide statistics at the beginning of this thread (the implication being that they didn't believe my statement that it's significantly more dangerous than other options) indicates that it isn't common knowledge.

There are all sorts of good reasons to promote cycling.

I just find it surprising that the safety aspect of it doesn't seem to be widely discussed.

Especially bearing in mind the health warnings, risk assessments etc. that seem to be applied to almost everything else in life.

 

[beeboo]

Afaik TfL are doing some of those things - and provide funding to all London Boroughs to individually promote safe cycling as well.

aye - I'm just being devil's advocatey really

Overall I think it's a very good thing that cycling is being promoted but it is kind of interesting to wonder why they're doing it and whether the risk stuff factors into their decisions.

I must look into some cycling training, although I need to get a bike first and the other half is vetoing it at the moment because he says we don't have room in the flat

 

[Biddlybee]

I just find it surprising that the safety aspect of it doesn't seem to be widely discussed.

Especially bearing in mind the health warnings, risk assessments etc. that seem to be applied to almost everything else in life.

But safety aspects of most modes of transport aren't widely discussed are they? I know it's more dangerous to travel by bike, but you don't often hear people talk about the dangers of travelling by bus, car, tube... well I don't.

 

[teuchter]

thats valid for the 7>1 point, but not for the overall decrease - and this isn't even a set of figures I posted up, they're teuchters - the figures point to a lower number of fatalities over a greater number of kms covered - 1 for every 25 Million km in 1950 and 1 for every 30 million kms in 2005. All this against a backdrop of 7x increase in motorised traffic.

Not sure what you're on about and how it's relevant to what I'm saying, to be honest.

If cycling fatalities have dropped from 1/25M to 1/30M that's good, of course, against whatever backdrop.

In the same time, motoring fatalities, according to the same quote, have dropped from 1/26M to 1/206M. Which is also good.

I'd want to see them both drop further, of course.

I'm simply talking about the situation at present. Which is, that cycling is more dangerous than motoring. Which is more dangerous than going by train. Etc.

 

[beeboo]

thats valid for the 7>1 point, but not for the overall decrease - and this isn't even a set of figures I posted up, they're teuchters - the figures point to a lower number of fatalities over a greater number of kms covered - 1 for every 25 Million km in 1950 and 1 for every 30 million kms in 2005. All this against a backdrop of 7x increase in motorised traffic.

getting kind of bared of this now.

your interpretation of those statistics is not making any sense to me now.

The increase in motorised traffic and change over time is irrelevant to the current discussion.

What is relevant is that in 2004 there was 1 death per 30 million miles travelled by bike but 1 death per 206 million miles by car.

edit: I seem to be constantly 1 post behind on this thread, someone has always got there before me!

 

[teuchter]

But safety aspects of most modes of transport aren't widely discussed are they? I know it's more dangerous to travel by bike, but you don't often hear people talk about the dangers of travelling by bus, car, tube... well I don't.

I do.

Tube safety is brought up in virtually every argument about PPP or tube workers' dispute.

There is massive outrage at any kind of safety breach on the railways to the point of hysteria in many cases.

Road safety is often discussed although not in proportion to the level of airtime given to rail accidents. We have constant debate anout the effectiveness of speed cameras, and so forth. And there are ever increasing regulations relating to car design.

 

[Orang Utan]

the other half is vetoing it at the moment because he says we don't have room in the flat

If you have a corridor, you have room!

 

[Biddlybee]

I do.

Tube safety is brought up in virtually every argument about PPP or tube workers' dispute.

There is massive outrage at any kind of safety breach on the railways to the point of hysteria in many cases.

Road safety is often discussed although not in proportion to the level of airtime given to rail accidents. We have constant debate anout the effectiveness of speed cameras, and so forth. And there are ever increasing regulations relating to car design.

ok.

 

[beeboo]

If you have a corridor, you have room!

that is what I keep telling him! And he really loves bikes too!

We've got a huge stairwell and I want to rig up some kind of pully system so the bikes go above our heads on the stairs

 

[mattie]

that is what I keep telling him! And he really loves bikes too!

We've got a huge stairwell and I want to rig up some kind of pully system so the bikes go above our heads on the stairs

Or maybe get a folding bike, if you don't mind looking a bit silly a times (sorry Ed)

 

[Orang Utan]

Just carry the bike upstairs and plonk it in your corridor

 

[laptop]

More data:

Fatalities per billion passenger kilometres in 2002: 

air		0.0
water		0.0
rail		0.3
bus/coach	0.4
van		1.0
car		3.0
pedal cycle	29
foot		44
two-wheeled motor vehicle 111.

Source: Department for Transport

Reformatted from http://www.transport2000.org.uk/factsandfigures/FactsGroup.asp?FactGroupID=7

So the risk to me of taking the bus is 72.5 times lower than if I cycled.

And on these figures the risk to me of driving would be nearly 10 times lower than if I cycled.

I do have to be extra careful walking to the bus stop, though.

And risk per kilometre is a meaningful comparison.

 

[beeboo]

Just thinking of the stats....

If TfL's advertising persuades 15,000 people to take up cycling, and each person cycles to-and-from work each day, adding up to 200 journeys a year of (let's say) an average of 5 miles each way, then that is 30 million miles covered annually. Which, if these statistics are to be believed means that the advertising would result in the death of 1 person per year, who would have been substantially less likely to die if making the same journeys by any other means.

Is it worth it?

Obviously you can ask the same question of anything else. 1 person died running the marathon this year. Is it worth it?

As far as I'm concerned the answer is yes and yes, providing the appropriate amount of effort is put into minimising the risks.

 

[Sigmund Fraud]

What is relevant is that in 2004 there was 1 death per 30 million miles travelled by bike but 1 death per 206 million miles by car.

yes - and both cycling deaths and drivers deaths are falling per km travelled, though the rate at which car deaths are falling outstrips cycling deaths greatly (the massive increase in mileage is no doubt down to the motorway network, seatbelts, airbags, crumple zones, Shellgrip and a host of other technological advances).

So I'm fine with the more dangerous bit - I always was - I'm less fine with the 'significantly more dangerous' assertion. Its significantly more dangerous to smoke dunhills over silk cut, its significantly more dangerous to shag a stranger in a hedge instead of a travelodge, its significantly more dangerous to eat a bloody steak than a hamburger. Should we all stay at home teuchter?

 

[robotsimon]

I'm not convinced of the validity of Fatalities per Kilometre statistics when comparing the safety of cars to the safety of bikes. A billion kilometres by bike would represent far more journeys than a billion kilometres by car, given that a (typical) journey by bike is likely to be shorter than a (typical) journey by car.

In any case, and this may have been mentioned above as I've only skimmed this thread, regular cyclists live on average 2 years longer than non-cyclists (assuming we don't get squashed before we reach old age). The source for that is on the internet somewhere . . .

 

[Sigmund Fraud]

I'm not convinced of the validity of Fatalities per Kilometre statistics when comparing the safety of cars to the safety of bikes. A billion kilometres by bike would represent far more journeys than a billion kilometres by car, given that a (typical) journey by bike is likely to be shorter than a (typical) journey by car.

yep. add to this the type of road stats - lots of safer motorway miles versus more congested urban roads with the highest accident rates. Not as simple as some are making out.

 

[robotsimon]

that is what I keep telling him! And he really loves bikes too!

We've got a huge stairwell and I want to rig up some kind of pully system so the bikes go above our heads on the stairs

You can get things just like that - Lidl were selling one a few weeks ago. Here's one idea (not the lidl one): Cycle pulley thing

 

[laptop]

I'm not convinced of the validity of Fatalities per kilometer statistics when comparing the safety of cars to the safety of bikes.

So concentrate on the comparison with buses, which will be for pretty much exactly the same set of journeys.

 

[teuchter]

So I'm fine with the more dangerous bit - I always was - I'm less fine with the 'significantly more dangerous' assertion. Its significantly more dangerous to smoke dunhills over silk cut, its significantly more dangerous to shag a stranger in a hedge instead of a travelodge, its significantly more dangerous to eat a bloody steak than a hamburger. Should we all stay at home teuchter?

How many times do I have to state that I'm not suggesting that we should be forcing anyone off their bikes or anything like that?

It's up to you where you want to shag strangers, which fags you smoke and whether you cycle to work or get the bus. It's reasonable to suggest that it's a good thing that you are aware of the relative risks of each option beforehand, though, isn't it?

According to the last bunch of statistics posted up (from Transport 2000 who I imagine would tend to be pro-cycling) you're 60 times more likely to get killed going to work by bike than by bus. If you don't think that's a significant difference, that's fine by me. If you reckon the advantages outweigh the risk, that's fine by me too.

 

[beeboo]

You can get things just like that - Lidl were selling one a few weeks ago. Here's one idea (not the lidl one): Cycle pulley thing

ace - just sent that link to him!