Cycling 23 times more dangerous than driving, really?

[mrjemm]

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.

Thanks Bicycler. That is a disturbing thing to hear about suicide's prevalence.

I agree about subjective interpretation of bias. The BBC is very much a popular whipping boy for both 'sides'. I don't really understand economics, so CPI and RPI mean little to me, and trying to grasp the Wikipeadia view-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_P ... ed_Kingdom)

I wouldn't say we've had a good govt. for quite some time, but I gather from the article, Labour gave Interest rate control over to an independent body, whilst Mr GO chose to use the lower CPI for pensions and benefits...

[Mick F]

My question was rather a simple one really.
How many people die each year and why?

With a simple set of figures, you should be able to see if cycling is 23 times more "lethal" than driving.
Trouble is, simple questions tend not to have simple answers.

I go for a drive.
I go for a cycle ride.
I get killed once in the car, and 23 times on the bike.

[Psamathe]

My question was rather a simple one really.
How many people die each year and why?

With a simple set of figures, you should be able to see if cycling is 23 times more "lethal" than driving.
Trouble is, simple questions tend not to have simple answers.

I go for a drive.
I go for a cycle ride.
I get killed once in the car, and 23 times on the bike.

So the moral of this story is ... when you go out for a bike ride, go in a group of 24 people as that way at least one of you will survive.

Ian

[Bicycler]

Mr Jemm, I think we agree on our lack of good governments. Apologies for being overly sarcastic. Alongside the minimum wage, taking responsibility for interest rates out of the hands of politicians was the best thing that came out of those early Labour years. It didn't require the move to a better looking lower rate of inflation though. At best that was a very happy coincidence as it appeared that they had reduced inflation overnight. Then again the Tories had used much the same trick in the 80s. So maybe you were right about the ONS being the poor political football.

Back onto cycling. If cycling journeys are too different to be meaningfully compared to motor journeys and people are more bothered about absolute risks of cycling, is there anything to be gained by making these comparisons or are they just harmful because they make a relatively safe mode of transport seem dangerous?

[Bicycler]

My question was rather a simple one really.
How many people die each year and why?

With a simple set of figures, you should be able to see if cycling is 23 times more "lethal" than driving.

It all depends on how you factor in exposure to risk. It is meaningless to say that 2 people in the UK died from lightning strikes (I made that up) and a couple of hundred of pneumonia (ditto) and say that getting hit by lightning is 100x safer than catching pneumonia. We had the whole debate upthread about whether it is best to measure deaths per-mile, per-hour, or per-journey. Say you got a per-journey figure you can only make comparisons between the average car journey and the average bike journey and they are probably nothing like each other so how do we get a useful statistic out of that?

We are also treating risk as if it is independent of our own actions like the drawing of the lottery. This may be true if deaths are caused by a 3rd party who would have hit you regardless but in many cases whilst driving or cycling we have significant influence over the positions we put ourselves in and even the behaviour of others.

The more I think about it I am coming to the conclusion that we can't get a meaningful statistic out of this. We may be able to say that x cyclists are killed per mile, hour or journey but we can't really say that figure represents the risk or danger involved in cycling. In particular we can't say that an individual would be x amount safer by another means of transport

[Mick F]

......... we can't get a meaningful statistic out of this. We may be able to say that x cyclists are killed per mile, hour or journey but we can't really say that figure represents the risk or danger involved in cycling. In particular we can't say that an individual would be x amount safer by another means of transport

I agree.

The OP was about a report linked to http://www.northernireland.gov.uk/index ... -first.htm

Environment Minister Mark H Durkan said: “Cycling is much riskier than either walking or travelling by car. Based on miles travelled, cyclists are 23 times more likely to be killed or seriously injured than car users.

Absolutely meaningless.

[[XAP]Bob]

and cf+ walking?

they're rather similar on this side of the water

[irc]

The more I think about it I am coming to the conclusion that we can't get a meaningful statistic out of this. We may be able to say that x cyclists are killed per mile, hour or journey but we can't really say that figure represents the risk or danger involved in cycling.

I'd say it does. On average of course. Any individual may have a higher or lower risk depending on his skill and experience but in general cyclists are at higher risk than drivers.

[[XAP]Bob]

The more I think about it I am coming to the conclusion that we can't get a meaningful statistic out of this. We may be able to say that x cyclists are killed per mile, hour or journey but we can't really say that figure represents the risk or danger involved in cycling.

I'd say it does. On average of course. Any individual may have a higher or lower risk depending on his skill and experience but in general cyclists are at higher risk than drivers.

Absolutely - it's the one thing statistics are actually good for.

[Bicycler]

The more I think about it I am coming to the conclusion that we can't get a meaningful statistic out of this. We may be able to say that x cyclists are killed per mile, hour or journey but we can't really say that figure represents the risk or danger involved in cycling.

I'd say it does. On average of course. Any individual may have a higher or lower risk depending on his skill and experience but in general cyclists are at higher risk than drivers.

Undoubtedly we are generally more at risk on comparable journeys but stating an exact figure x is not very helpful. It implies the ability to compare with greater precision than we really can. We simply aren't comparing like with like unless the journeys are broadly the same. We can't really say that the average motor journey is equivalent to the average cycle journey. So one thing is 23 times safer than something not really comparable. I can't see how that statistic can be of much practical use.

[[XAP]Bob]

I want to travel from point A to point B - therefore the per mile statistic is the only relevant one. Except of course it should probably be the "per mile as the crow flies" since I would choose different routes based on my mode of transport...

It takes at least twice as long, more like three times as long, to do my normal commute by car, despite it being less distance and much of it being on a 60 mph dual carriageway.

per hour is clearly the wrong measure for transport, just as per mile is wrong for sport or leisure (where per hour is likely more appropriate).


Of course my real gripe with the thread title is that cycling isn't dangerous, that's the motorists. We may suffer the consequences (because the danger motorists pose is externalised)

[Bicycler]

My point was that, regardless of method used, we don't end up with a comparable 'unit' because the journeys themselves are not interchangeable. We can't account for the fact that these are averages based upon much different uses. For a start a significant proportion of car journeys involve long distance travel which would be unrealistic by bike, much cycling is recreational leisure cycling, but the same is not true for driving. Much driving is motorway driving and much cycling is off-road or pavement cycling. The average miles are very different in character. I don't think we can then take a comparable journey such as an urban on-road commute and say that on average it is 23 times riskier by bike.

I agree that this talk of the danger or risk of cycling isn't helpful. There is some small inherent risk from balancing on two wheels but these figures reflect deaths involving motor vehicles rather than people simply falling off bikes. The comparison between modes isn't as useful as we might think anyway as it masks the absolute figures, which could be small or horrific. It also allows a falling rate of fatalities in one mode to make the other seem more dangerous without any change.

[irc]

. For a start a significant proportion of car journeys involve long distance travel which would be unrealistic by bike,

But that isn't where the accidents happen. Motorways are by far the safest roads.

[reohn2]

. For a start a significant proportion of car journeys involve long distance travel which would be unrealistic by bike,

But that isn't where the accidents happen. Motorways are by far the safest roads.

Which in itself shows how complicated such analysis is.Not every car travels on the motorway for all it's journey,not all cyclist have the same riding ability or traffic sense.
The chap slipping up the of the Saab indicating left in the York video is but one example.
How do we compare one with another ?
Hours in the saddle or behind the wheel on the road compared to an MTBer hitting a low branch,compared to little Johnny falling off his trike in the garden,etc,etc.
Too many variables to compare one mode with another with any meaningful use IMO

[[XAP]Bob]

. For a start a significant proportion of car journeys involve long distance travel which would be unrealistic by bike

Much smaller proportion than you might think - although I agree that a significant proportion of the miles driven are in long journeys.

Overall in 2012, there were an average of 954 trips per person per year, 1,054 stages, 6,691 miles travelled, and an average trip length of 7.0 miles. Of all trips made in 2012, 20% were less than one mile in length, 66% less than 5 miles and 95% were less than 25 miles.

So people, on average, travel more than 25 miles fewer than 50 times a year (and I used to do a 70 mile journey 10 times a week, so there is a skew to longer commutes, and trains journeys are included in the above!)
They travel more than 5 miles only 315 times (again consider commutes by train)

Sub 5 miles journeys are made 630 times!

The average distance is only 7 miles, and that is skewed by the people who have, like I used to, very long commutes...


Also see http://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/wiki/ ... ting-needs