Cycling UK Forum

Hi
I just saw news of this tragic event... Tajikistan cycle-tourists killed link
Thoughts with the families of all those injured and killed
tim-b

Basically just don't go to those countries. They are dangerous.

Username wrote:Basically just dont go to those countries. They are dangerous.

those countries?

This was a terrible occurrence, but cyclists have been exploring far away places for well over a century and are unlikely to stop because of this. Every time I ride in a new country I am aware of the risks, but I suspect that more cyclists are killed on the road in UK than in Tajikistan.

The UK government advice is here and mentions this incident.

https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/tajikistan

They state it is the first recorded incident of this type. There aren't too many places in the world you'd go to if you avoided countries that have no recorded incidences of this type.

There have been similar attacks in the UK , France and Germany in the last few years.

The abbreviation following "They are dangerous" probably needs to be edited out by the moderators as if fails the form rules.
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=10801

whoof wrote:There have been similar attacks in the UK , France and Germany in the last few years.

The risk to any one individual largely depends upon the total population at risk and the number of casualties of such attacks. Although it may be too early to make a judgement about Tajikistan given that there have been no previous such attacks, the risk is probably far higher than in Europe, given that not many western tourists visit the country. Apparently 213,300 foreign tourists visited the country in 2014. Assuming an average stay of 2 weeks out of the 52 weeks in a year, that equates to an average of 8,200 tourists present in the country at any given time, and not all of those would be westerners. With 4 cyclists killed, the superficial odds based simply on past experience just went from zero to 1 in 2,000.

slowster wrote:

whoof wrote:There have been similar attacks in the UK , France and Germany in the last few years.

The risk to any one individual largely depends upon the total population at risk and the number of casualties of such attacks. Although it may be too early to make a judgement about Tajikistan given that there have been no previous such attacks, the risk is probably far higher than in Europe, given that not many western tourists visit the country. Apparently 213,300 foreign tourists visited the country in 2014. Assuming an average stay of 2 weeks out of the 52 weeks in a year, that equates to an average of 8,200 tourists present in the country at any given time, and not all of those would be westerners. With 4 cyclists killed, the superficial odds based simply on past experience just went from zero to 1 in 2,000.

Your calculation would also need to include frequency which is impossible with a single event.

whoof wrote:Your calculation would also need to include frequency which is impossible with a single event.

We tend to measure the frequency of incidents like this on an annual basis. Regardless of the fact that there were no such incidents in previous years, the frequency for 2018 is now 1.

slowster wrote:

whoof wrote:Your calculation would also need to include frequency which is impossible with a single event.

We tend to measure the frequency of incidents like this on an annual basis. Regardless of the fact that there were no such incidents in previous years, the frequency for 2018 is now 1.

Who are we?

If that was the case the probability would be the same for an event that had happened once ever and every year without fail. People may like to express such events in this way but that just means they can label it a probability not that it is the probability.

It might not be be possible to mathmatically verify the statisitical probability of a single event, but that does not mean people cannot draw meaningful conclusions from the fact that this year out of a relatively small number of visitors to Tajikistan 4 have been killed.

You made a comparison with attacks in the UK, France and Germany in recent years. Even though there have been multiple attacks in all those countries, the population sizes are such the annual risk of being injured or killed in such an attack is probably somewhere in the order of 1 in several hundred thousand or less.

The study of probability is fundamentally about uncertainty. The fact that we cannot be certain of what is the frequency of terrorist attacks in Tajikistan unless and until there are more attacks, does not mean that people cannot reasonably conclude that the risk is already higher there than in western Europe.

slowster wrote:.

The study of probability is fundamentally about uncertainty. The fact that we cannot be certain of what is the frequency of terrorist attacks in Tajikistan unless and until there are more attacks, does not mean that people cannot reasonably conclude that the risk is already higher there than in western Europe.

Not so. Last year the odds (following the 'maths' given) were zero. Now the odds are 'higher'. But that''s how risk works. The odds may be 1 in 10 million, it's just that the 'one' has just occurred, it doesn't (necessarily) mean that the odds are now higher. There may not be another instance for a 1000 years, and then you would not claim the risk is higher than western Europe.

chris_suffolk wrote: The odds may be 1 in 10 million, it's just that the 'one' has just occurred, it doesn't (necessarily) mean that the odds are now higher. There may not be another instance for a 1000 years, and then you would not claim the risk is higher than western Europe.

I did not say the risk was higher because an attack had happened, I said that people could reasonably conclude that the risk is already higher there than in western Europe.

In western Europe you are likely to be one of millions of the population of those whom the perpetrators of these attacks would consider as potential targets. In Tajikistan, as a westerner you are likely to be just one of several thousand, and probably immediately recognisable as a westerner. It's a country with a repressive regime which borders another, Afghanistan, to which the west has done a sterling job of exporting peace and stability for the last 10, 20, 30 or 200 years (pick your own number).

But if you think the risks are no worse than in the UK, France or Germany, please feel free to demonstrate your belief by booking a flight and spending a year riding around the country.

simonhill wrote:

Username wrote:Basically just dont go to those countries. They are dangerous.

those countries?

This was a terrible occurrence, but cyclists have been exploring far away places for well over a century and are unlikely to stop because of this. Every time I ride in a new country I am aware of the risks, but I suspect that more cyclists are killed on the road in UK than in Tajikistan.

Not by terrorists tho. And there are a heck of a lot more cyclists here than in remote Tajikistan countryside. Obviously every country has its own risks, but terrorism and war related risks are higher in certain parts of the world. I'd personally not even consider such destinations.

There is no simple answer

“The Common Sense” option is to make an informed decision

There are lists of countries that classify the “known” danger given the present information that the Government has.

Consult these when deciding

I find some of the replies to this incident a rather sad indictment of this forum. What should have been a tribute to fellow cyclists who dare to venture away from their home base, has turned into accusations and a debate on statistics.

From what I have read, the dead cyclists were cycling The Pamir Highway, which is a route followed by hundreds if not thousands each year. In fact there is currently a post a few down about one forum member who has recently completed it.

I would like to offer my condolences to the dead cyclist's families and my sympathy to their friends while remembering they were doing something they loved to do. We all take risks when cycling, particularly those of us who do long haul touring. Long may it continue for people to follow the road less travelled.