Cycling 23 times more dangerous than driving, really?

[irc]

A claim often made but never delivered.

Usually when it is delivered it is because it was originally designed and built by the Victorians or earlier generations. Former railway lines and towpaths make good cycle routes because they are direct, gradients are low, the sight lines are generally good, and the junctions are infrequent. Present day "designers" do their best to ruin them by poor surfaces and frequent cycle unfriendly barriers but despite this they are usually better than almost any purpose built modern routes.

[reohn2]

I watched the Amstel Gold race(NL) yesterday and found myself (once more) looking at the cycling infrastructure as much as I did the race and (once more) found myself envying the Dutch.
Safety,perceived or actual involves less interactions with motors IMHO.
I've ridden all my life on the roads of the UK and some other European countries and have never felt more vulnerable,threatened or fearful as I do in the UK(and I'm no shrinking violet).
The feeling of danger whether perceived or real is ever present,that is no way to promote cycling as are poorly constructed and poorly maintained infrastructure.
It's no wonder cycling in the UK is considered a pastime/mode of transport for oddballs and loonies by the general(car centric)public.

[mrjemm]

The Dutch are generally progressive though. Whilst our fellows are typically regressive. Look at far wider aspects of both countries and societies, and it is quite noticable. Their engineering skills are way beyond our's also; they design things well, build them efficiently, and they last. This will of course include cycling facilities and infrastructure. Yes, I am generalising wildly, but...

[Mick F]

I heard on the radio this morning that 2,000 people a year die of skin cancer.

Is sunbathing 23 times more dangerous than cycling?

[Bicycler]

It's infinitely more dangerous per mile

[mrjemm]

Though some anti cycling wags may point out you're more likely to get skin cancer when cycling than driving. Enough pics aournd of pedallists showing off their tan-lines after all.

[Mick F]

Are there any figures to say how many people die each year in UK?
Also, maybe the figures could be arranged to show what caused the deaths?

That way, we can see what is the most "dangerous" activity ................ other than growing old.

[mrjemm]

That way, we can see what is the most "dangerous" activity ................ other than growing old.

I'd say opening your mouth. (Not you personally, Mick )

Be that talking, smoking, eating or drinking.

Of those... Hmmm. Eating on a personal scale. Talking on a larger one.

[reohn2]

The Dutch are generally progressive though. Whilst our fellows are typically regressive. Look at far wider aspects of both countries and societies, and it is quite noticable. Their engineering skills are way beyond our's also; they design things well, build them efficiently, and they last. This will of course include cycling facilities and infrastructure. Yes, I am generalising wildly, but...

It's because they're concerned for society as a whole and not just some sections of it ie; a classless society or at least approaching it.

[TonyR]

Are there any figures to say how many people die each year in UK?
Also, maybe the figures could be arranged to show what caused the deaths?

That way, we can see what is the most "dangerous" activity ................ other than growing old.

Avoid eating starch and being in bed. Over 99% of people who die have eaten rice or potatoes in the previous 24 hours and a large percentage of people die in a bed. You have been warned. By comparison standing in the lion enclosure at London Zoo is extremely safe. There were no fatalities from that activity last year.

[SleepyJoe]

MikeF asked

Are there any figures to say how many people die each year in UK?
Also, maybe the figures could be arranged to show what caused the deaths?

The answers? can be found (eventually) at the Office of National Statistics.
The latest figures were for 2012 are available at http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/taxonomy/inde ... s+of+Death
In England & Wales there were 499,331 deaths, but it is a bit hard to mine relevant info as it is typically split by gender & age
For me, a male just in the 35-49 age range, the top three causes are
1- suicide & injury/poisoning by undetermined intent (18%)
2- ischaemic heart disease (12%)
3- cirrhosis and other liver disease (10%)
As we all get older, heart disease increases.
Unfortunately, how we relate this to activities is not obvious, but I hope that regular cycling will keep my heart & lungs healthy so I think I am doing something right!

If someone has more time & statistical expertise, they might help answer Mike's question
Mark

[mrjemm]

1- suicide & injury/poisoning by undetermined intent (18%)

Erm, are you sure about that? Or should that 'injury' slipped in there be rather more prominent than the headlining 'suicide'?

Would 'indeterminate injury' at the top, and suicide/poisoning not be better seperated, with injury up high, and the others infitesimally smaller?

[SleepyJoe]

I claim no responsibility for creating any of the death statistics!
I went back to check the wording and for 35-49 yo males, the top cause of death is 'suicide and injury/poisoning by undetermined intent'. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/vsob1/mor ... death.html
Don't ask me what this means and why it isn't separated out.
Hours of fun browsing all the data, and I would spend some more time, but I'm suppose to be teaching!
Mark

[mrjemm]

How odd.

Just looked at the chart linked to, and I assume, as I see no key, that the grey section is all the other causes of lesser percentages.

I don't know enough about the ONS, but of late I've been questioning their stance anyway, due to the recently published data regarding wage rises against inflation, and employment levels. Seems to me that they are aiming to muddy the waters with purposefully vague terminology, or at least published in the media with that interpretation.

The part I questioned previously could be questioned as to whether the vague description does include accidental injury (i.e. including motoring and industrial 'accidents'*, but almost disguised by bracketing it in with suicide and poisoning, and put in that sequence. I really cannot believe that suicide is the biggest killer of my own subgroup.

My issue with the other stats I refer to above, is the use of 'average' taking the data out of context and misleading the reader. "The average wage is rising faster than inflation": how to define that? Average shows no interest in allowing for disparity, let alone income- wages seemingly only being counted, which presumably discounts the unwaged. Bankers bonuses removed, the stats showed that the rise was less, but more awards for the upper echelons are based on crazy wages and other benefits now, so we can see that the stats are incredibly skewed.

Does this follow with all ONS data? Are they just a flunky wing of the incumbent government?

BTW, I am not questioning you, Joe, just the system! Try not to let the little gits and Gove get you down...


* 'Accidents' of course being a poor word to describe what is usually being referred to; generally with bias or intention.

[Bicycler]

Sadly, suicide is a much bigger issue than many think and is indeed the biggest killer of young men.

Sometimes I think people find what they want to find in terms of political bias. I love the way the BBC is viewed by both sides of the political spectrum as being somehow biased in favour of the other. As regards the ONS and average wages, they have been collecting that information for years under many different governments. They also collect and publish information regarding income disparity amongst their many datasets. Arguably one problem is the use of the lower CPI rather than RPI measures of inflation, though that change predates the current terrible government, having originated in the time of the previous wonderful government. Again, the ONS collects and publishes the RPI data so that could be used if preferred.