Why Cycling's safer than walking

Why cycling's safer than walking

Matt Seaton Wednesday January 11, 2006 The Guardian

It is impossible not to feel haunted this week by the terrible story of
the four cyclists killed in North Wales last weekend. Members of Rhyl
Cycling Club were out on a Sunday training ride when a car lost control
on an icy bend and ploughed into the group. A 14-year-old boy was among
the dead.

As well as the local grief caused by the Rhyl CC deaths, this awful news
has repercussions far beyond. Thousands of other cyclists will have been
out on similar "chain gangs" on Sunday, and this will have sent a
shudder through them all. Yes, it is a freak event - but one not unheard
of. Last July, in Germany, a car crashed into a squad of Australian
racers, killing one, Amy Gillett, and leaving two others in a critical
condition. In October, one of Britain's most talented time-triallists,
Zak Carr, was hit and died while out training in Norfolk. Everyone in
cycle sport either knows of, or knew personally, someone who has been
killed on their bike.

Article continues And it doesn't take black ice. When I go out early on
Sundays, it's common to see cars stuck in hedges and garden walls
demolished. I'm just grateful this phenomenon peaks on Saturday night -
some hours before I'm on the road.

So will this latest tragedy deter the hardcore of club cyclists?
Probably not. We all rely on the calculation that the chances are it
won't happen to us. For the more casual cyclists, however, perception of
danger is everything. I suspect that those pictures of mangled bikes
strewn across the road will be all the disincentive they need.

But just how dangerous is cycling? It is not a simple question to
answer. In 2004 (the last year for which figures are available), 134
cyclists were killed on British roads. Terrible, yes, but in relative
terms? In fact, you could call 134 deaths a "good month" for motorists -
1,671 car users were killed in 2004. Absolute numbers, though, can be
misleading: a better measure is the frequency of casualties
occurring. By distance travelled, cars look safer, with 2.7 deaths per
billion passenger km (public transport is better still: 0.2 for buses;
0.1 for trains). Cyclists die at a rate of 25 per bn km, but then most
do much less mileage than motorists. So although I clock up 5,000 miles
a year by bike, which is way more than average, I'd need to live 5,000
years to stand an odds-on chance of dying on my bike.

Presumably cycling is more dangerous than walking? Not so - 671
pedestrians were killed in 2004, at a rate of 43 per billion km. But the
trend for all road casualties (except motorcyclists) is downward -
especially for cyclists: fewer by a third in the past decade. And the
more people cycle, the better other road users adjust, and the safer it
is.

The tragedy in North Wales gives us all pause. But if there is one thing
the cyclists of Rhyl would not want, it would be for us to stop riding
our bikes.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/wheels/sto...3755%2c00.html
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

Euan wrote:
Why cycling's safer than walking

[chomp]

But just how dangerous is cycling? It is not a simple question to
answer. In 2004 (the last year for which figures are available), 134
cyclists were killed on British roads. Terrible, yes, but in relative


Interesting, in Aus we had, in 2004, 43 cyclists died (in '03, it was
26, source :
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/...df/rfa2004.pdf)

The UK has about 50 million people? We've got around 20 mil? So
they'd (all else being equal, which it isn't* ) be expected to have
2.5 times the deaths than us. Pretty close in '04.


* no helmet compulsion in the UK, amongst other differences, like
weather, traffic density etc

Absolute numbers, though, can be
misleading: a better measure is the frequency of casualties
occurring. By distance travelled, cars look safer, with 2.7 deaths per

Just curious ...

Does anyone have any thoughts on why by-distance travelled is used as a
measure? Is this some sort of accepted standard? Wouldn't deaths per time
spent on the cycle or in the car be a better measure?

Mark

markw Wrote:
Absolute numbers, though, can be
misleading: a better measure is the frequency of casualties
occurring. By distance travelled, cars look safer, with 2.7 deaths
per

Just curious ...

Does anyone have any thoughts on why by-distance travelled is used as
a
measure? Is this some sort of accepted standard? Wouldn't deaths per
time
spent on the cycle or in the car be a better measure?

From the studies I've read on-line per kilometre does seem to be the
standard measure. I guess the rationale is that all transport is
necessary and if a car needs to get from point a to point b then a
bicycle or pedestrian needs to travel the same distance.

It's a valid measure but then so is time exposed. A car travelling at
110 km/h is going to get a lot further in an hour than a cyclist
travelling at 30 km/h. Nearly four hours compared to one and both will
travel 110 kms.


--
EuanB

On 2006-01-16, markw (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
Absolute numbers, though, can be
misleading: a better measure is the frequency of casualties
occurring. By distance travelled, cars look safer, with 2.7 deaths per

Just curious ...

Does anyone have any thoughts on why by-distance travelled is used as a
measure? Is this some sort of accepted standard? Wouldn't deaths per time
spent on the cycle or in the car be a better measure?

Not if you are using cycling for transport. And since you want to
encourage people to cycle everywhere instead of drive, you better use
the comparison that matters.

--
TimC
We don't need no education
We don't need no thought control
-- Pink Floyd, Another Brick in the Wall