[Cycloid]

Once again Chris and the Cycling Establishmnet have come out and rightfully said that Helmets are low on their priority of cycling safety factors. Helmets will never prevent an accident, and they may actually increase the probabilty of one happening. A helmet will not help much in a collision with motor vehicle doing 30+mph.

But every time their argument states that cycling is very safe and that helmets only help in minor falls. This is true, but compared with motorised vehicle travel cycling is relatively very dangerous,

If you do the same journey (say a commute) on a bike and in a car you are about forty times more likely to be killed or seriously injured on the bike than in a car. (This is nothing to do with helmet use, just the risk of cycling) REF Cycling UK  https://www.cyclinguk.org/statistics.

Cycling bodies are doing all they can to address the fundamental problems, but they avoid talking about the magnitude of the problem.

Will you do a charity parachute jump with me? Your parachute is extremely safe, but it is forty time more likely to fail than mine? Lets go for it mate!

It’s time to have the real debate

 

Topic

[Rich_cb]

In my experience I have far
In my experience I have far more close passes on urban roads but the close passes I have on rural roads are at far higher speeds.

I also find that you encounter very dangerous road surfaces more often on rural roads.

I much prefer cycling on rural roads but I think I’m probably safer on urban roads.

[Awavey]

Im not saying ALL country

Im not saying ALL country roads are necessarily safer vs urban roads, I know a number of roads that would be classed as country routes which I avoid like the plague on a bicycle as Im convinced you would get hit if you used them.

but its literally like the first and last 5% of my longer mileage rides,which are urban roads, are hellish, everyone is driving around like a complete loon, its the point Im most fearful of being hit and where nearly all my most dangerous close passes occur. the other 90% once Ive escaped urban sprawl, I can ride around for hours,and barely encounter other traffic, as long as I stick to the right roads,and its very nice and relaxing, its a rare day I feel as at risk as I do on those bits as I do in the urban bits, unfortunately the commute route is all urban bits.

so it doesnt feel to me at least like the risk breaks down on a pure mile basis, there are other factors we need to consider, its fine as a general pointer maybe to show cycling isnt that risky to new riders, but of all the riding I do I feel my commute,which are the shortest rides I do, are the riskiest.

[Awavey]

possibly on a pure numbers

possibly on a pure numbers game the stats tell a different story, but maybe theres a factor, or a number of factors in play that causes those stats but they arent showing the whole picture of.

[IanGlasgow]

Rich_cb wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

It’s meant to be a quick guide rather than an exact calculation. I’m not sure the statistics back up your assumption though. Are KSI rates per mile 8 times higher on urban roads?

According to Brake the oppsite is true:
“Per mile travelled, country roads are the most dangerous roads for all kinds of road user:
Cyclists are almost three times more likely to be killed on a country road than an urban road.”

[IanGlasgow]

Although contry roads can

Although country roads can feel safer for cycling than city streets, they’re not. According to Brake, per mile travelled cyclists are three times more likely to be killed on a country road.

[Rich_cb]

It’s meant to be a quick
It’s meant to be a quick guide rather than an exact calculation.

I’m not sure the statistics back up your assumption though. Are KSI rates per mile 8 times higher on urban roads?

[Rich_cb]

The best way to think about
The best way to think about the relative risk is simply to multiply the distance cycled by the relative risk and then ask if driving such a distance would be considered dangerous.

So if the relative risk is 40 and I cycle a 5 mile commute, would we consider a 200 mile drive dangerous?

Most people would not therefore most people should not consider a 5 mile commute dangerous.

As others have said you also need to factor in that cycling drastically reduces your risk of serious ill health meaning that your overall risk of death is likely lower than that of drivers.

[Awavey]

but the flaw then is the risk

but the flaw then is the risk per mile is assumed to be equivalent for all miles, whilst I would class riding 40miles in the countryside where I see barely any traffic at all to be relatively much safer to my 5mile commute where Im constantly on the back foot in terms of having traffic all around me, very unhappy to have to deal with a cyclist

[mdavidford]

Didn’t seem like a rant to me

Didn’t seem like a rant to me – I thought it was reasonable, coherent, and well-constructed. If I could give you more than one like, I would.

[TheBillder]

This is why I think the right
This is why I think the right to choose is so important. I’m very glad that since you were a victim you have continued to to ride and continued to choose when a helmet is right for you.

I agree, we are not rational beings. I’ve read the research that shows that helmets are really only useful at low speeds, yet I’m more likely to wear one on a longer, faster ride, and mostly because it makes me and my loved ones feel less worried. I hope also that if I do hit my head I may have slowed down a bit. Sometimes I take the helmet off mid ride, if it’s hot and I’m climbing, and then put it on for a descent. Not sure if the research backs me up, but I’m unable really to be objective at that moment; I just do what seems right for me and may change my behaviour if I do some further reading.

It would be very annoying if I were not allowed to ride without my helmet, but far worse that any prospective pootler to the shops / park / etc decided that they would drive because a compulsory helmet is off-putting and cycling must be too dangerous really.

In the UK we are pretty bad at learning from other countries, not least because our politicians seem to think that there is something unique about this country so we have to do things our own way – test & trace app is a recent example. But we have to learn from Australia on this. Helmets are compulsory. There are fines for disobedience, larger (I understand) than fines for some other offences that seem far more serious to me. Cycling has a modal share that is low, motor traffic is aggressive and infrastructure not great. Compulsion hasn’t worked, and cycling has become far less safe because people have been told, directly and indirectly, that it is not safe. The propaganda has influenced the reality.

There’s a huge amount of pro-helmet propaganda in the UK, such that Chris Boardman gets flamed for riding without one in videos, likely (I can’t prove it) by people who don’t ride much, if ever, and have never researched the topic at all. The balance needs redressing. Bikes are ridden by Lizzie Deignan and Danny Macaskill in full kit for sport and entertainment, but they’re also (better?) suited to short travel in normal clothes by normal people, and the more we do this the safer it gets, in a lovely virtuous circle.

Sadly, we allow people to be told that driving is safe. Ok, you need ABS, crumple zones, stability control, multiple airbags, cameras to see out of junctions, automatic braking, lane departure warnings etc, but this makes you safe and barely inconveniences the car owner.

No one mentions that the danger comes from the other drivers and that you are the danger to them. So no one deals with the actual issue – we have almost given up on dealing with the cause. Instead we add kit to cars and change road layouts. No action on poor eyesight, ill educated drivers, slow reactions, distractions, proper sanctions that are actually used, etc.

We have to get back to “cycling is safe, driving is dangerous” even though the danger of driving is now primarily to others.

Sorry this is a long rant but I do feel very strongly that our car cult is killing people and the planet and the solutions are in front of our noses.

[OnYerBike]

Actually that’s every shop.
Actually that’s every shop. Clearly you would be crazy to buy a Euromillions ticket when at the very same shop you could buy a National Lottery ticket, which has a 46x better chance of winning the jackpot!

And did you walk to the corner shop to buy your lottery ticket? Madness! Definitely should have driven – much safer. In terms of fatalities, walking is more dangerous than cycling, yet I can’t remember anyone ever considering the dangers of going for a walk.

And as for charity parachute jumps – don’t bother, they’re a waste of money https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10476298/

[Hirsute]

I think that is hard to
I think that is hard to answer as you have to filter out a lot of data to get to some reasonable comparison.
Plus the data sets are very likely incomplete eg lack minor bumps car on car.
Even if the relative danger is greater, the absolute may be insignificant

[Cycloid]

So is cycling more dangerous

So is cycling more dangerous than driving?

[Jetmans Dad]

Absolutely, the risks of

Absolutely, the risks of cycling go down as the proportion of cyclists in the traffic goes up. Encouraging people to get out of their cars and onto their bikes not only improves the health and wellbeing of the individuals that do so, but reduces the risk for those already cycling and reduces traffic volumes for those who genuinely cannot do so. Everyone wins. 

That is why it is so frustrating to see councils giving up on pop up cycle lanes after a few weeks (or even days) because the most vocal drivers kick up a bit of a fuss, way before any benefits can be seen. 

[Velo-drone]

It’s a total false

It’s a total false equivalence to compare ksi per distance travelled in a car and on a bike and say that cycling is more dangerous – people don’t use cars in that way.  Cars go faster, and further, and people therefore use them to travel greater distances than on bikes.    If everyone drove cars for short distances at a maximum of 30mph then you might have a point – but then you would also have a lot lower ksi for cyclists as they would’t be being hit by 60mph motorists.

So if we’re going to have this debate then at least have it on sensible terms, and look at ksi per time spent on the road.  There’s never going to be a perfect comparison, but that at least would be a not quite as fundamentally flawed perspective.

For additional balance, it would be sensible to take some kind of account of the health benefits of cycling in terms of deaths & injuries avoided from sedentary lifestyles.  This is more difficult still, but is nevertheless a relevant and very significant factor and there are studies which have looked at this.  

Last but not least – ksi by distance travelled is approximately the same for cyclists as for pedestrians.  So should we wear helmets to walk as well?  Or go out of our way to tell everyone who is considering walking somewhere how dangerous it is?

[Author]

Replies