Cycling UK Forum

According to the DOE NI we are 23 times more likely to be killed or seriously injured than when driving. That doesn't sound right? Anyone with better grasp of the stats care to comment.

Some basic stats given at the bottom of this press release on their new TV campaign starting tonight.
http://www.northernireland.gov.uk/index/media-centre/news-departments/news-doe/news-doe-180414-doe-launches-first.htm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-27071033

Don't see why not. Crash a car you are in a steel cage. A bike you are easily hurt A broken pinky counts as a serious injury.

Lots of wonderful statistics you can play with. For example you are 1,400 times more likely to be killed or seriously injured per km in a car than in an aircraft. Or eight times more likely in a car than a train and twice as likely as on a bus.

But whichever way you look at it, its very unlikely to happen and campaigns like this simply serve to put people off cycling by making it appear very dangerous.

TonyR wrote:Lots of wonderful statistics you can play with.

Yes, been popular in the news this week, with regards to wages and jobs.

'Average' is such a dangerous word.

Coronary heart disease is the UK's biggest killer. I'll keep cycling thanks!

They don't say what their comparisons are. Are they comparing only people killed in traffic accidents? How reliable are the miles travelled for cyclists? With so few deaths, a small variation or inaccuracy in the estimate, and the comparative numbers will be way off.

'23 times more dangerous than driving' obviously doesn't include the effect of pollution form exhaust, or the health benefits from cycling.

cjchambers wrote:Coronary heart disease is the UK's biggest killer. I'll keep cycling thanks!

Yep, not cycling is 460 times* as dangerous as driving

* cycling is 23x more dangerous than driving and not cycling is 20 times the risk of cycling QED

And if the stats are calculated as 'per hour on the road' rather than per mile travelled the x23 could fall by a factor of 2-3 (car 20-30mph average, cyclist 10-15mph) so I'll also opt for staying healthy and reduce my overall risk of death significantly.

cyclists might be 23 x more vulnerable than drivers - but not 23 x more dangerous.

What does "more dangerous" mean?

Mick F wrote:What does "more dangerous" mean?

According to DOE it means cyclists are 23 times more likely to be killed or seriously injured than motorists based on miles travelled

I wonder if they are not differentiating between motor vehicle drivers and passengers? ---

IIRC motor vehicle drivers are at more risk (than their passengers) due to (even collapsable) steering columns and in a motor vehicle headon collision their side is presumably more likely to hit the oncoming car.

MickTheCyclist wrote:

Mick F wrote:What does "more dangerous" mean?

According to DOE it means cyclists are 23 times more likely to be killed or seriously injured than motorists based on miles travelled

I can believe that as a bare statistic.

Trouble is, are there 23 times more cyclists killed or seriously injured than drivers of cars?
Somehow I doubt that very much.

It comes down the "likely" then, or it you were a betting man using the perceived risk to base your odds, and not actual figures of killed or seriously injured.

Do we have any actual facts?
Numbers KSI car divers vs KSI cyclists?

How are the figures arrived at? Is it in terms of man miles or in man hours of exposure? These would give dramatically different results. On some fancy management course many years ago we were asked "which is more dangerous, rock climbing or parachute jumping?" Everybody else said parachute jumping and I played devil's advocate with rock climbing on the basis that the exposure time to risk is greater. Made them think a bit.

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.

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?

I'd also be inclined to remove motorway miles and KSIs as long distance motor travel is not a comparable alternative to a bicycle journey and the relative safety of such roads could skew the results massively