A Rant At Cyclists...

hugheskevi

some uk stat go on per million miles covered, this actually makes motorcycling safer than car driving.

Sounds like Table RAS 53001

But that shows motorcyclists to have the highest risk rate in all categories (death, death and serious injury, and all injury)?

Interestingly, there is a higher mortality rate amongst pedestrians than cyclists per billion kilometres travelled. Although the difference is small, and may be explained by different demographics (I'd expect cyclists to be on average younger than pedestrians). Still, shows that it is reckless to be out on the pavement without a walking helmet and dressed in bright clothing.

all stat reports are done favourably to the end users benefit, as heard many times on various politics shows.

Statistics published with National Statistics accreditation tend to be quite robust. They are however usually selectively quoted and spun when cited on various politics shows.

[Deleted User]

skitler wrote: »

so a pretty useless survey and results then really, as it was done in the 70s and not under normal usage conditions.

There was nothing at all wrong with the way the experiment was conducted, or with the data. The fault was with the dishonest way the report presented them. The truth was that the states without the compulsory helmet law were the safer ones.

What are you talking about, "not under normal usage conditions"?

What has changed about risk compensation between the 1970s and now?

It was exactly the same with seatbelts. In 1981 when they were made compulsory, no jurisdiction anywhere in the world had demonstrated a reduction in fatalities attributable to seatbelts. The Department of Transport knew this, and acknowledged as much in the Isles report, which was also suppressed. The legislation was passed anyway, and the report was only published several years later after it was leaked to New Scientist.

some uk stat go on per million miles covered, this actually makes motorcycling safer than car driving.

Since the risk incurred is proportional to the amount of travel, the stats are meaningless as a measure of the relative safety of different modes of transport unless they're normalised.

KSI per billion miles:

Motorcycle: 1659
Car: 27

skitler

so then as cyclists in the uk, helmets are made compulsory your better off not wearing one, and when not compulsory you should wear one.


is the common denominator sense,


which would mean ditch the bike and get a car.

Marco_Panettone

skitler wrote: »

so then as cyclists in the uk, helmets are made compulsory your better off not wearing one, and when not compulsory you should wear one.


is the common denominator sense,


which would mean ditch the bike and get a car.

Although as more people are killed by head injuries in cars than outside them you really shouldn't ditch the helmet...

hugheskevi

If choosing transport mode by road safety statistics, wouldn't it mean ditching the bike and getting an aircraft, train, boat, bus, coach or van - all of which are safer than a car?

Although looking solely at KSI stats per x miles overlooks the consequential health benefits of exercise. Cycling is going to produce the biggest benefit, walking to the bus or train station will help a little, whilst walking to car won't do anything (and sitting in long traffic jams seems very detrimental to some driver's stress levels).

I've read about recent studies which have found that factoring in the health gains from cycling more than offsets the higher risk from accident or pollution. In which case the logical thing to do is ditch the car and get a bike when all risks are taken into account

Cycrow

And if everyone also does the same, then there will be less risks on the road too

skitler

hugheskevi wrote: »

If choosing transport mode by road safety statistics, wouldn't it mean ditching the bike and getting an aircraft, train, boat, bus, coach or van - all of which are safer than a car?

Although looking solely at KSI stats per x miles overlooks the consequential health benefits of exercise. Cycling is going to produce the biggest benefit, walking to the bus or train station will help a little, whilst walking to car won't do anything (and sitting in long traffic jams seems very detrimental to some driver's stress levels).

I've read about recent studies which have found that factoring in the health gains from cycling more than offsets the higher risk from accident or pollution. In which case the logical thing to do is ditch the car and get a bike when all risks are taken into account

its a shame they built the motorways then.;)


how much stuff do you think you can tow behind your bike, its funny watching cyclists huffing and puffing up hill as it is, it will be even funnier when there towing a trailer with a small sliced loaf in it.:rotfl:

hugheskevi

Personally I've found that cyclists using trailers or panniers seem to know what they are doing.

Far more amusing are those carrying bags of shopping over the handlebars and lurching left and right as it swings about

smileycon

I remember having to carry my bags up the hill on the handlebars of my bike... many a near accident mind you going down the hill haha! Do not miss those days

esuhl

skitler wrote: »

how much stuff do you think you can tow behind your bike, its funny watching cyclists huffing and puffing up hill as it is, it will be even funnier when there towing a trailer with a small sliced loaf in it.:rotfl:

how far do you think you can get without putting petrol in your car, its funny watching motorists stuck in traffic and emptying their wallets to buy petrol as it is, will be even funnier when the car needs servicing and ends up costing more than a brand new bike. :rotfl: