Cycling 23 times more dangerous than driving, really?

[MickTheCyclist]

The problem I have with this is the '23 times more dangerous' is now the headline message across the NI media and will put people off cycling. The figures for 2014 so far are 18 road deaths none of which were cyclists. So statistically cycling is infinitely safer than other forms of road transport.

[TonyR]

I think 23x the risk per mile is much higher than the figures I've seen quoted on here for the UK. Or am I misremembering?

You are misremembering. For the UK in 2012 the risk of being killed per bn journey km is 1.3 and 24 for car occupants and cyclists respectively a ratio of 18.5:1 against cyclists. For ksi its 14 and 668 for a ratio of 48:1
(Source: RRCGB 2012 Table RAS53001)

[irc]

I tend to ride my bike to a place rather than for a set length of time. There may be exceptions such as people riding round for an hour's exercise or competing in some time trials but in general it makes more sense to measure the risks of different modes of transport for a given distance rather than a given time.

No necessarily. I just got home to Glasgow from Cambridge. I wouldn't do that on a bike. Bikes do different journeys. Bike V car by distance isn't any more valid than car V plane. By hour is more valid.

The risks quoted by the CTC are nowhere near 23 times car use. The range is cycling roughly 5 - 15 times more dangerous than cars depending on how measured.

Take your pick of the stats. One cycling dearth for 9 million cycling trips for example. Sounds pretty safe to me.

http://www.ctc.org.uk/sites/default/fil ... cs_rpt.xls

[Bicycler]

I tend to ride my bike to a place rather than for a set length of time. There may be exceptions such as people riding round for an hour's exercise or competing in some time trials but in general it makes more sense to measure the risks of different modes of transport for a given distance rather than a given time.

No necessarily. I just got home to Glasgow from Cambridge. I wouldn't do that on a bike. Bikes do different journeys. Bike V car by distance isn't any more valid than car V plane. By hour is more valid.

Long distance motor use isn't generally comparable with cycling, hence my suggestion that motorway miles and KSIs should be omitted. Then again, measuring per hour doesn't solve that problem. What it does do is make two commutes (say) of equal risk seem riskier by car solely because of a shorter journey time.

[irc]

I tend to ride my bike to a place rather than for a set length of time. There may be exceptions such as people riding round for an hour's exercise or competing in some time trials but in general it makes more sense to measure the risks of different modes of transport for a given distance rather than a given time.

No necessarily. I just got home to Glasgow from Cambridge. I wouldn't do that on a bike. Bikes do different journeys. Bike V car by distance isn't any more valid than car V plane. By hour is more valid.

Long distance motor use isn't generally comparable with cycling, hence my suggestion that motorway miles and KSIs should be omitted. Then again, measuring per hour doesn't solve that problem. What it does do is make two commutes (say) of equal risk seem riskier by car solely because of a shorter journey time.

Sorry. I don't follow you. Two commutes of equal risk by what measure? Surely if risk was expressed per hour then doing a commute in a car in half the time would half the risk?

[Bicycler]

Identical as in from one place to another place. Two commutes each with as many KSIs (say there are many people doing effectively the same commute) but with the journey taking twice as long by bike as by car. Risk per hour by bike is recorded as half that by car. Yes, for any recorded result measured by hour you can apparently halve the risk of any journey by doubling your speed

If we are going to compare then we have to have similar journeys (by distance) in mind, otherwise comparisons are meaningless. An individual wants to know the relative risk of making their journey (from A to B) by bike or by car, on foot or public transport. They are not interested in the relative safety of riding a bicycle round for an hour and spending the same time driving round or walking or sitting on a bus. Their journey involves a fixed distance rather than a fixed time.

[irc]

Identical as in from one place to another place. Two commutes each with as many KSIs (say there are many people doing effectively the same commute) but with the journey taking twice as long by bike as by car. Risk per hour by bike is recorded as half that by car. Yes, for any recorded result measured by hour you can apparently halve the risk of any journey by doubling your speed

But any given journey won't be as safe on a bike as in a car. If you have the same rider/driver with the same skill/experience he is going to be safer in a car. If an accident happens the chances of being killed or injured are less when you are in padded air bag protected steel cage.

So you can in fact double your speed in the car and more than half the risk.

But that isn't the issue. If relative safety was what mattered people would choose the train every time over the car. They don't. What matters is whether cycling is acceptably safe. I think it is. That said I don't ride (without studded tyres) when there is a high risk of black ice. I almost always avoid high speed dual carriageways. In those circumstances I think the risk is higher than I would like.

[Vorpal]

The level of acceptable risk is always going to be different for some people than others. This is one reason that segregated infrastructure can encourage people to cycle.

I can make the same commute by bike, bus, or car. I choose bike as often as I can because I enjoy it. It takes the same amount of time as the bus, but I get exercise and fresh air at the same time. I'm not sure that I would choose the bike if I didn't have a good route, or if I felt that cycling conditions were risky.

Dangerous is a rather imprecise word. I suspect that the actual number of incidents that cyclists have is relatively much lower than the number that motorists have. The difference of course, is that a cyclist is vulnerable, and the severity of an incident more likely to be severe.

IMO, if the data were available, it would be best to compare incidents per journey, rather than per hour or per kilometre.

edtied to add: As long as the risk is kept to a reasonable (acceptable) level, people will make their travel choices based mainly upon convenience.

[beardy]

I certainly feel that I am safer in my car than on my bike.

However taking an average of the population of car drivers and cyclists is full of possible distortions.

Motor use is limited by regulation, all sorts of user groups are removed either by revoking licences or insurance premiums. Those people are free to ride cycles still.

An individual is free to ride a cycle when in a condition that they would not be allowed a car. Medical or under the influence of drugs.

Cyclists are self selecting, in that many people who are naturally more cautious and less likely to get in a crash have been scared off getting on a bike in the first place.
Though this is balanced by cyclists self-selecting to avoid many roads and keep to safer routes.

The cycling injuries probably involves those of people involved in sporting activities and the similar activities with motor vehicles would be excluded.

Probably plenty of other factors that prevent a straight comparison.

[Psamathe]

I don't know exactly what data (were it available) would form a valid comparison between cycling and driving safety.

I suspect that there are a lot more rides done for recreation (just "going out for some fresh air") than people going out for a drive "for recreation" (at least these days). So comparing accident per journey is not very useful. Similarly, many cycle rides are somewhat longer than drives (when I drive to the city for shopping it takes 20 mins each way but when I go out for a ride it's 2-3 hours). So accident per hour is not really useful either.

I guess you could maybe isolate a subset of transport users and maybe compare accident rates between e.g. people commuting to work by different means on a per commute basis.

But given that there seem no real statistics about bike use anyway, it would seem difficult to get any accurate picture even once a useful indicator had been established.

And as others have pointed out (many times, in many places), the risk of accident is very different from the risk of injury (injury including heart attack, stroke, etc.). And whilst cycling might have a higher risk of accident, it can still result in a lower risk of life changing "problems" through the health benefits.

So I suspect that many of these "safety" statistics might be more about scare tactics than much else. But then maybe the "scare" could work both ways and the authorities might be "scared" into doing something about cyclist safety.

Ian

[TonyR]

The level of acceptable risk is always going to be different for some people than others. This is one reason that segregated infrastructure can encourage people to cycle.

Only because of the widely held but mistaken belief that segregated infrastructure is safer.

[[XAP]Bob]

The level of acceptable risk is always going to be different for some people than others. This is one reason that segregated infrastructure can encourage people to cycle.

Only because of the widely held but mistaken belief that segregated infrastructure is safer.

Poorly designed ut might not be, but well designed it will be...

[Mick F]

I certainly feel that I am safer in my car than on my bike.

Would you feel safer skydiving, or mountain climbing?
Would you feel safer swimming in the sea or running on the road?
How about rugby, or golf?

Personally, I'd feel safer mountain climbing, running and golf.
Someone may be scared of aeroplanes, water, and big hairy men in shorts.

[Vorpal]

The level of acceptable risk is always going to be different for some people than others. This is one reason that segregated infrastructure can encourage people to cycle.

Only because of the widely held but mistaken belief that segregated infrastructure is safer.

Yes, but that's not the whole picture... segregated infrastructure *feels* safer to many people. And however you look at it, a off-road path that goes a long distance without any motor vehicle interaction (e.g. rail trail, canal path) is safer than riding on the road. These type of facilities are what people returning to cycling, or taking infrequent leisure rides will often seek, at least until they feel more confident.

[TonyR]

The level of acceptable risk is always going to be different for some people than others. This is one reason that segregated infrastructure can encourage people to cycle.

Only because of the widely held but mistaken belief that segregated infrastructure is safer.

Poorly designed ut might not be, but well designed it will be...

A claim often made but never delivered.