Cycling safer than gardening

QUOTE:
"A cyclist can expect to sustain 0.05 injuries in 1,000 hours of
cycling. According to RoSPA, you’re also far more likely to be injured
in an hour of gardening than an hour of cycling and, unless you live
in a bungalow, you’re far more likely to ‘come a cropper’ walking down
your stairs than riding your bike into town!

As we all know, inactivity is, in the long term, one of the biggest
killers.

It gets better! The more cyclists there are on the road, the safer it
gets per journey. In London there has been a 91 per cent increase in
the numbers of cyclists since 2000, but a fall of 33 per cent in
casualties."

http://www.lynnnews.co.uk/news/opini...good_1_2977580

Simon Mason

On 19-Aug-2011, Simon Mason wrote:

QUOTE:
"A cyclist can expect to sustain 0.05 injuries in 1,000 hours of
cycling. According to RoSPA, you’re also far more likely to be injured
in an hour of gardening than an hour of cycling and, unless you live
in a bungalow, you’re far more likely to ‘come a cropper’ walking down
your stairs than riding your bike into town!

As we all know, inactivity is, in the long term, one of the biggest
killers.

It gets better! The more cyclists there are on the road, the safer it
gets per journey. In London there has been a 91 per cent increase in
the numbers of cyclists since 2000, but a fall of 33 per cent in
casualties."

http://www.lynnnews.co.uk/news/opini...good_1_2977580

Simon Mason

The difference is, of course, that in a garden or a bungalow there are no
motorists to kill you, although one could crash through a bungalow or garden
and kill you perhaps. Nowhere is safe from motorists as we know. Probably
what this means is that if there were no drivers at all cycling would be
phenomenally safe.

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

On Aug 19, 6:22*am, "Doug" wrote:
The difference is, of course, that in a garden or a bungalow there are no
motorists to kill you, although one could crash through a bungalow or garden
and kill you perhaps. Nowhere is safe from motorists as we know. Probably
what this means is that if there were no drivers at all cycling would be
phenomenally safe.


It's a good job I don't play Rugby anymore.
30 injuries in 1000 hours sounds dangerous as opposed to 0.05 injuries
in 1,000 hours of cycling.

--
Simon Mason

"Doug" wrote in message
...

On 19-Aug-2011, Simon Mason wrote:

QUOTE:
"A cyclist can expect to sustain 0.05 injuries in 1,000 hours of
cycling. According to RoSPA, you're also far more likely to be injured
in an hour of gardening than an hour of cycling and, unless you live
in a bungalow, you're far more likely to 'come a cropper' walking down
your stairs than riding your bike into town!

As we all know, inactivity is, in the long term, one of the biggest
killers.

It gets better! The more cyclists there are on the road, the safer it
gets per journey. In London there has been a 91 per cent increase in
the numbers of cyclists since 2000, but a fall of 33 per cent in
casualties."

http://www.lynnnews.co.uk/news/opini...good_1_2977580

Simon Mason

The difference is, of course, that in a garden or a bungalow there are no
motorists to kill you, although one could crash through a bungalow or
garden
and kill you perhaps. Nowhere is safe from motorists as we know. Probably
what this means is that if there were no drivers at all cycling would be
phenomenally safe.


With no mechanised transport we would have to reduce our population to cave
man numbers.
Assuming we could then the cyclists would be safe :
apart from when the cyclists knock each other off, or ride into solid
objects, or into rivers, or go too fast down a hill, crash into fence posts,
bollards, impale themselves on their own handlebars, kill themselves by
crashing into pedestrians etc. etc.
Cyclists need to take some responsibility for their own safety, they cannot
rely on others to do it for them.

http://www.thehubsa.co.za/forum/topi...itting-jogger/

http://www.visaliatimesdelta.com/art...xt%7CFrontpage

On Aug 19, 6:22*am, "Doug" wrote:

The difference is, of course, that in a garden or a bungalow there are no
motorists to kill you, although one could crash through a bungalow or garden
and kill you perhaps. Nowhere is safe from motorists as we know. Probably
what this means is that if there were no drivers at all cycling would be
phenomenally safe.


I also remember when Rugby League pitches had special parts of the
touchline dedicated to disabled drivers, so playing Rugby was even
more hazardous in those days.

--
Simon Mason

On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 21:46:39 -0700 (PDT), Simon Mason
wrote:

snip


It gets better! The more cyclists there are on the road, the safer it
gets per journey. In London there has been a 91 per cent increase in
the numbers of cyclists since 2000, but a fall of 33 per cent in
casualties."

http://www.lynnnews.co.uk/news/opini...good_1_2977580

Simon Mason


And closer at home:

The number of pedal cyclists killed increased by 7 per cent from 104 in 2009 to
111 in 2010.

The number seriously injured in accidents reported to the police increased by 2
per cent to 2,660.

Total reported casualties among pedal cyclists also rose, by 1 per cent,
compared to 2009.

Pedal cyclist traffic levels are estimated to have risen by 1 per cent over the
same period.

Reported Road Casualties in Great
Britain: Main Results 2010

On Aug 19, 9:04*am, Simon Mason wrote:
On Aug 19, 6:22*am, "Doug" wrote:



The difference is, of course, that in a garden or a bungalow there are no
motorists to kill you, although one could crash through a bungalow or garden
and kill you perhaps. Nowhere is safe from motorists as we know. Probably
what this means is that if there were no drivers at all cycling would be
phenomenally safe.

I also remember when Rugby League pitches had special parts of the
touchline dedicated to disabled drivers, so playing Rugby was even
more hazardous in those days.

--
Simon Mason

We young wags called them spazz chariots, I am ashamed to say.

--
Simon Mason

On 19-Aug-2011, "Mrcheerful" wrote:

The difference is, of course, that in a garden or a bungalow there are
no
motorists to kill you, although one could crash through a bungalow or
garden
and kill you perhaps. Nowhere is safe from motorists as we know.
Probably
what this means is that if there were no drivers at all cycling would be
phenomenally safe.


With no mechanised transport we would have to reduce our population to
cave
man numbers.
Assuming we could then the cyclists would be safe :
apart from when the cyclists knock each other off, or ride into solid
objects, or into rivers, or go too fast down a hill, crash into fence
posts,
bollards, impale themselves on their own handlebars, kill themselves by
crashing into pedestrians etc. etc.
Cyclists need to take some responsibility for their own safety, they
cannot
rely on others to do it for them.

I don't see how cyclists can take responsibility for their own safety in
conditions where they are knocked down by cars hurtling towards them.

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

On Aug 20, 7:13*am, "Doug" wrote:

I don't see how cyclists can take responsibility for their own safety in
conditions where they are knocked down by cars hurtling towards them.

Indeed.
Motorists are found to be at fault for the majority of cycle accidents
involving another vehicle.

--
Simon Mason

"Doug" wrote in message
...

On 19-Aug-2011, "Mrcheerful" wrote:

The difference is, of course, that in a garden or a bungalow there are
no
motorists to kill you, although one could crash through a bungalow or
garden
and kill you perhaps. Nowhere is safe from motorists as we know.
Probably
what this means is that if there were no drivers at all cycling would
be
phenomenally safe.


With no mechanised transport we would have to reduce our population to
cave
man numbers.
Assuming we could then the cyclists would be safe :
apart from when the cyclists knock each other off, or ride into solid
objects, or into rivers, or go too fast down a hill, crash into fence
posts,
bollards, impale themselves on their own handlebars, kill themselves by
crashing into pedestrians etc. etc.
Cyclists need to take some responsibility for their own safety, they
cannot
rely on others to do it for them.

I don't see how cyclists can take responsibility for their own safety in
conditions where they are knocked down by cars hurtling towards them.

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.


a recent study showed that 74 per cent of cycle/car crashes were the
cyclists' fault. Even if that figure is triple the true figure then there
are still a lot of cyclists causing a lot of crashes. How many deaths have
you read of where the cyclist squeezes up the inside of a large vehicle and
gets crushed? Those deaths are certainly the cyclists fault, they are
doing something extremely risky and pay the price, their deaths are entirely
self inflicted since there can be no reason to try for those extra few
seconds by doing something foolish, no one should be in that much of a rush
on the roads. Cyclists do need to take responsibility for their own safety
and minimise their own exposure to risk. Certainly there are some crashes
which could not be avoided by cyclists, but there are loads where they
could, just by applying common sense to their riding. since this is not a
cyclist's strong point then it seems there needs to be some forced
education, whether that be classroom, or learn the expensive way by fines.