How safe is safe on your bicycle: what sort of differential is worthtalking about? Double? A magnitude?

Because of one poster's perverse obsession, we waste a lot of time on this forum discussing how dangerous cycling is, when most of us know that for experienced and sensible cyclists the risk is not huge. Here's some confirmation, and enough information to let us get a statistical handle on what is meaningful and what isn't.

An American cyclist's chances of being injured while riding a bicycle in 1999-2003 has been measured as 1 in 68,400 journeys, and of being killed 1 in 4,761,904 journeys. (All other calculations are based on the same sample/time/reports cited below. Present tense because these are the best figures to be found, and likely to be directly applicable to our own period.)

A person's chances of being injured in a car are 1 in 124,533 journeys, and of being killed 1 in 10,869,565journeys.

Thus a car is twice as safe as a bicycle, or a bicycle is twice as dangerous as a car. Gee.

For perspective, let's say you commute to work five days a week and on both your days off take two journeys as well, 14 journeys a week. Then, if your fortune is precisely, randomly, average, you could ride for 93 years before suffering an injury.

Clearly, in such low risk activities as cycling or motoring, a differential risk factor of 2 isn't worth considering.

However, if the differential risk of being hurt on your bike was ten times that of getting hurt in a car, 124,533/10 or 1 in 12,453 journeys, then the average commuting/recreation rider would stand a chance of being hurt once every 17 years. Being hurt two or three times in a 50 year cycling career, while still a relatively low risk, is probably a consideration for most people..

So, for such comparatively very low risk activities as cycling, a difference of double the risk is just about negligible. What you need before the differential can be considered rationally is a differential of around a magnitude. Or higher.

Statistically, it isn't worth discussing the comparative risk of dying on your bike; nobody grows that old. However, there is a gathering perception in the cycling community that such statistical manipulations fail to meet the common perception that, statistically, none of us should know any cyclists who have been killed on a bike, yet in real life all of us know one or more or several cyclists dead on the roads.

***
Source material:
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/conten...expansion.html
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/conten...expansion.html

Andre Jute
Boss statistician

On Saturday, December 28, 2013 11:31:13 PM UTC, Andre Jute wrote:
Because of one poster's perverse obsession, we waste a lot of time on this forum discussing how dangerous cycling is, when most of us know that for experienced and sensible cyclists the risk is not huge. Here's some confirmation, and enough information to let us get a statistical handle on what is meaningful and what isn't.



An American cyclist's chances of being injured while riding a bicycle in 1999-2003 has been measured as 1 in 68,400 journeys, and of being killed 1 in 4,761,904 journeys. (All other calculations are based on the same sample/time/reports cited below. Present tense because these are the best figures to be found, and likely to be directly applicable to our own period.)



A person's chances of being injured in a car are 1 in 124,533 journeys, and of being killed 1 in 10,869,565journeys.



Thus a car is twice as safe as a bicycle, or a bicycle is twice as dangerous as a car. Gee.



For perspective, let's say you commute to work five days a week and on both your days off take two journeys as well, 14 journeys a week. Then, if your fortune is precisely, randomly, average, you could ride for 93 years before suffering an injury.



Clearly, in such low risk activities as cycling or motoring, a differential risk factor of 2 isn't worth considering.



However, if the differential risk of being hurt on your bike was ten times that of getting hurt in a car, 124,533/10 or 1 in 12,453 journeys, then the average commuting/recreation rider would stand a chance of being hurt once every 17 years. Being hurt two or three times in a 50 year cycling career, while still a relatively low risk, is probably a consideration for most people..



So, for such comparatively very low risk activities as cycling, a difference of double the risk is just about negligible. What you need before the differential can be considered rationally is a differential of around a magnitude. Or higher.



Statistically, it isn't worth discussing the comparative risk of dying on your bike; nobody grows that old. However, there is a gathering perception in the cycling community that such statistical manipulations fail to meet the common perception that, statistically, none of us should know any cyclists who have been killed on a bike, yet in real life all of us know one or more or several cyclists dead on the roads.



***

Source material:

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/conten...expansion.html

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/conten...expansion.html



Andre Jute

Boss statistician

Here we have a concise statement based on reliable source material of precisely where cycling stands on the safe/dangerous activities list. Once more nobody wants to discuss reliable hard numbers, preferring instead to speculate and throw around junk science and cod psychology.

Debate is not something one indulges in for its own sake. It must eventually arrive at a conclusion.

Andre Jute

Andre Jute wrote:
On Saturday, December 28, 2013 11:31:13 PM UTC, Andre Jute wrote:
Because of one poster's perverse obsession, we waste a lot of time on
this forum discussing how dangerous cycling is, when most of us know
that for experienced and sensible cyclists the risk is not huge. Here's
some confirmation, and enough information to let us get a statistical
handle on what is meaningful and what isn't.



An American cyclist's chances of being injured while riding a bicycle in
1999-2003 has been measured as 1 in 68,400 journeys, and of being killed
1 in 4,761,904 journeys. (All other calculations are based on the same
sample/time/reports cited below. Present tense because these are the
best figures to be found, and likely to be directly applicable to our own period.)



A person's chances of being injured in a car are 1 in 124,533 journeys,
and of being killed 1 in 10,869,565journeys.



Thus a car is twice as safe as a bicycle, or a bicycle is twice as
dangerous as a car. Gee.



For perspective, let's say you commute to work five days a week and on
both your days off take two journeys as well, 14 journeys a week. Then,
if your fortune is precisely, randomly, average, you could ride for 93
years before suffering an injury.



Clearly, in such low risk activities as cycling or motoring, a
differential risk factor of 2 isn't worth considering.



However, if the differential risk of being hurt on your bike was ten
times that of getting hurt in a car, 124,533/10 or 1 in 12,453 journeys,
then the average commuting/recreation rider would stand a chance of
being hurt once every 17 years. Being hurt two or three times in a 50
year cycling career, while still a relatively low risk, is probably a
consideration for most people..



So, for such comparatively very low risk activities as cycling, a
difference of double the risk is just about negligible. What you need
before the differential can be considered rationally is a differential
of around a magnitude. Or higher.



Statistically, it isn't worth discussing the comparative risk of dying
on your bike; nobody grows that old. However, there is a gathering
perception in the cycling community that such statistical manipulations
fail to meet the common perception that, statistically, none of us
should know any cyclists who have been killed on a bike, yet in real
life all of us know one or more or several cyclists dead on the roads.



***

Source material:

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/conten...expansion.html

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/conten...expansion.html



Andre Jute

Boss statistician

Here we have a concise statement based on reliable source material of
precisely where cycling stands on the safe/dangerous activities list.
Once more nobody wants to discuss reliable hard numbers, preferring
instead to speculate and throw around junk science and cod psychology.

Debate is not something one indulges in for its own sake. It must
eventually arrive at a conclusion.


Maybe it's just that most of us here are already aware of how safe or
unsafe cycling is. After all most here are fairly experienced riders.
What passes for debate here regarding safety is hardly actual debate.


--
duane

On Monday, December 30, 2013 9:46:42 PM UTC, Duane wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:

On Saturday, December 28, 2013 11:31:13 PM UTC, Andre Jute wrote:

Because of one poster's perverse obsession, we waste a lot of time on

this forum discussing how dangerous cycling is, when most of us know

that for experienced and sensible cyclists the risk is not huge. Here's

some confirmation, and enough information to let us get a statistical

handle on what is meaningful and what isn't.







An American cyclist's chances of being injured while riding a bicycle in

1999-2003 has been measured as 1 in 68,400 journeys, and of being killed

1 in 4,761,904 journeys. (All other calculations are based on the same

sample/time/reports cited below. Present tense because these are the

best figures to be found, and likely to be directly applicable to our own period.)







A person's chances of being injured in a car are 1 in 124,533 journeys,

and of being killed 1 in 10,869,565journeys.







Thus a car is twice as safe as a bicycle, or a bicycle is twice as

dangerous as a car. Gee.







For perspective, let's say you commute to work five days a week and on

both your days off take two journeys as well, 14 journeys a week. Then,

if your fortune is precisely, randomly, average, you could ride for 93

years before suffering an injury.







Clearly, in such low risk activities as cycling or motoring, a

differential risk factor of 2 isn't worth considering.







However, if the differential risk of being hurt on your bike was ten

times that of getting hurt in a car, 124,533/10 or 1 in 12,453 journeys,

then the average commuting/recreation rider would stand a chance of

being hurt once every 17 years. Being hurt two or three times in a 50

year cycling career, while still a relatively low risk, is probably a

consideration for most people..







So, for such comparatively very low risk activities as cycling, a

difference of double the risk is just about negligible. What you need

before the differential can be considered rationally is a differential

of around a magnitude. Or higher.







Statistically, it isn't worth discussing the comparative risk of dying

on your bike; nobody grows that old. However, there is a gathering

perception in the cycling community that such statistical manipulations

fail to meet the common perception that, statistically, none of us

should know any cyclists who have been killed on a bike, yet in real

life all of us know one or more or several cyclists dead on the roads.







***



Source material:



http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/conten...expansion.html



http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/conten...expansion.html







Andre Jute



Boss statistician



Here we have a concise statement based on reliable source material of

precisely where cycling stands on the safe/dangerous activities list.

Once more nobody wants to discuss reliable hard numbers, preferring

instead to speculate and throw around junk science and cod psychology.



Debate is not something one indulges in for its own sake. It must

eventually arrive at a conclusion.

Maybe it's just that most of us here are already aware of how safe or

unsafe cycling is. After all most here are fairly experienced riders.

What passes for debate here regarding safety is hardly actual debate.

Unfortunate but true. -- AJ