Stats

The British Medical Association has said the benefits of riding a bike outweigh the risks by a ratio
of 20 to 1.

The American Medical Association concluded: "Even after adjustment for other risk factors, including
leisure time physical activity, those who did not cycle to work experienced a 39% higher mortality
rate than those who did."

The Harvard Center for Risk Analysis says the risk of death from heart disease is 1 in 397, a motor
vehicle accident is 1 in 6745, and from a bicycle accident is 1 in 376,165.

(forwarded from the Galway Cycling Campaign -- [email protected] via
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/A690572) Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> The Harvard Center for Risk Analysis says the risk of death from heart disease is 1 in 397, a
> motor vehicle accident is 1 in 6745, and from a bicycle accident is 1 in 376,165.

Is this the risk per year?

 

>The Harvard Center for Risk Analysis says the risk of death from heart disease is 1 in 397, a motor
>vehicle accident is 1 in 6745, and from a bicycle accident is 1 in 376,165.

I suspect these stats cannot be interpreted in the way you suggest as there's a huge inbuilt bias
because 1000's times more road miles are travelled by car than by bike.

You can only make any kind of sensible risk-comparison by comparing the deaths per mile travelled by
that means of transport, across the population.

The personal risks of injury-through-accident are going to depend very heavily on your style of
cycling (on-road/off-road, within ability or risk-taking) and if on-road then the type of road, the
amount and attitude of other traffic (which depends also a lot on the time of day you travel), the
junctions you encounter, the density of potholes, the level of parked cars etc etc.

On a one-mile stretch of the A23 near me, I see at least half a dozen cars written-off every year -
which says something about the attitude and density of traffic there! I avoid using much of the A23
in rush-hour, but at 11 at night (apart from the very occasional idiot with purple florescent lights
doing 60mph+) it's a very easy way of getting from A to B.

The benefits, including the fitness and the de-stress effect of off- road cycling in scenic
countryside are immeasureable!

- Andrew

 

Adrian Boliston wrote:
>> The Harvard Center for Risk Analysis says the risk of death from heart disease is 1 in 397, a
>> motor vehicle accident is 1 in 6745, and from a bicycle accident is 1 in 376,165.
>
> Is this the risk per year?

And surely there are some other minor factors like age, predisposition to heart disease, smoking...

--
StainlessSteelRat "A fashion is nothing but an induced epidemic." -- George Bernard Shaw

 

"StainlessSteelRat" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Adrian Boliston wrote:
> >> The Harvard Center for Risk Analysis says the risk of death from heart disease is 1 in 397, a
> >> motor vehicle accident is 1 in 6745, and from a bicycle accident is 1 in 376,165.
> >
> > Is this the risk per year?
>
> And surely there are some other minor factors like age, predisposition to heart disease,
> smoking...

Smoking whilst cycling looks very hazardous and distracting when I have seen it done on a few
occasions.

 

There are quite a lot of stats relating to roundabouts, pinchpoints and so on on my site at

http://www.thebikezone.org.uk/thebikezone/campaigning/campaign1.html

A full 50% of cycle/vehicle crashes at roundabouts are due to drivers failing to give way to a
cyclists who is already circulating...

Mayer Hillman's study 'Cycle helmets: the case for and gaints notes that between 1988 and 1983 984
cyclists died after being in collison with a car or lorry. In these collisions only 1 car driver
also lost their life.

Mills P. in 'Pedal Cycle Accidents: a hospital study. Transport and Road Reseach Laboratory Report
RR 220 (1989) found that cyclists were to blame in only 17% of cyclist/vehicle collisions.

I have been debating this point with a local 'road safety' officer. Below is my reply to his
suggestion that in most cycle crashes a vehicle driver is not at fault and that if the local
authority spent its time dealing with public concerns they would target cyclists...

Thanks a lot for your reply... Yes, I fully realise that 'the Great British Public' forever go on
about 'pavement cyclists' and so on. Strange thing is such behaviour results in very few casualties
compared with drivers speeding, ignoring pedestrian crossing and so on and yet everyone seems to
accept such behaviour without a second thought. Even 'hit and run' incidents and so on don't lead to
the sort of hysteria that pavement cyclists do. (Even my own comments in the local press regarding
the failure to give Carl Baxter a substantial driving ban were seized upon as another excuse to
attack cyclists...).. Needless to say there is a long history of there being an irrational dislike
of cyclists in the UK and I am glad Hull City Council does not propagate this further.

Actually, I have always being intrigued how the average pedestrians fear of 'pavement cyclists'
seems to disappear when a pedestrian wishes to use facilities set aside for cyclists! (Are not
almost half of the users of the National 'Cycle' Network pedestrians?) Similarly, in part time
pedestrian zones, whilst pedestrians part like the Red Sea before Moses when a car comes up behind
them, they totally ignore any cyclists trying to thread their way through. Pedestrians also seem to
feel no need to keep to the 'correct' side on segregated cycle/footpaths, bless em!

Given that the majority of cycle/pedestrian collisions occur on the highway perhaps cyclists should
start to complain about the 'menace' of careless pedestrians!

On a similar theme I recently got into discussion with someone who argued that cyclists who were
riding 2 abreast were being 'dangerous' as drivers had to slow down until there was gap in the
oncoming traffic and cross over the central white line to overtake. I had though the Highway Code
showed this to be the correct over taking procedure even when passing a solo cyclist...

Anyhow, if this logic were applied to pedestrians would it not also be then case that pedestrians
walking 2 abreast or in the centre of a shared use path or bridleway would also be acting in a
'dangerous' manner on the basis a cyclist would have to slow down and wait until it was safe to
pass? I would suspect that in this case the onus of responsibility would be placed on the cyclist.
Personally, I would accept that this is correct and the burden of responsibility rests on the
faster, overtaking party, whether that person is riding a bicycle or driving a car...

I am most intrigued by your comment:

The majority of injuries to cyclists in Hull are not caused by other road users.

Are we including all those incidents where people simply 'fall off their bikes' in this, including
those under 16? If so I would probably agree with you. (I used to work at Rock City Skatepark and
the number of 'trick cyclists' who used to hurt themselves was amazing -or rather it was not given
the stunts they were trying to pull!).

However, such a statement certainly does not seem to tally with the research I have read on the
cause of cycle/vehicle collisions involving adult cyclists, some of which suggest that in as many as
83% of cases the vehicle driver is wholly or substantially at fault. (And of course, most life
threatening and fatal cycle injuries arise from cycle/vehicle collisions rather then people simply
'falling off' their bikes). I would argue that there are many grounds for arguing that such a figure
is substantially accurate. Ie:

Statistical studies of crash causation. Studies of factors contributing to crashes. Studies of
driver attitudes toward cyclists. My own experiences of over 30 years of cycling...

Statistical studies of crash causation.

Many other reports I have read indicate that in the majority of driver/cyclists, the driver is
wholly or substantially at fault. For example, Maycock and Hall (1984/1986) found that a full 50% of
cycle/ vehicle collisions on roundabouts were due to a driver simply failing to give way to a
cyclist who is already circulating the roundabout with another 10% being due to a driver exiting
across a cyclists path.

cyclists involved in cycle/vehicle collisions in the dark were correctly lit and so on.

(For some reason whilst I have never come close to knocking an unlit cyclist off whilst driving -
due to my car having excellent headlights and because I take due care to look for them as it is
reasonably predictable that one will come across them. However, when I cycle fitting £150 worth of
halogen lighting to my bike at times seems to render me invisible!..).

Studies of factors contributing to crashes.

Of course, there are many well know factors that contribute to collisions and indicate at least a
degree of driver responsibility, speeding, driving under the influence of drink or drugs, driving
with uncorrected defective vision, using a mobile phone etc. (You are probably aware of the TRRL
report 'Blood alcohol levels in fatalities in Great Britain, 1978-86.' This found that the average
blood alcohol content of those involved in fatal crashes were 69 mg/100 ml for pedestrians, 51 for
motor vehicle drivers, 46 for motorcycle riders. And just 15 for pedal cyclists...)

Studies of driver attitudes toward cyclists.

It would also seem reasonable to assume that negative driver attitudes towards cyclists are also
reflected in the amount of care and courtesy they show cyclists, with a lack of such courtesy being
a significant contributory factor in many collisions. As The Scottish Office report 'Sharing Road
Space: Drivers and Cyclists as Equal road users (2001) states:

...It appears that many motorists have a superior attitude towards cyclists and feel that they have
more right to the road, or that perhaps, due to the increased size and robustness of their
vehicles, they can bully cyclists into getting their own way. Seemingly, many motorists need to be
educated and encouraged to show more courtesy and patience when cyclists are in the vicinity of
their vehicle.'

... At most of the group discussions among cyclists, at least one respondent would have personal or
anecdotal experience of another cyclist being knocked off a bicycle by a driver who had either
misjudged their distance from a junction or who had awarded themselves priority at a junction even
though the cyclist had right of way. Finally, some drivers were criticised for their impatient and
aggressive attitude towards cyclists or simply because their speed is too fast, particularly in
situations when there are many road users around.

One also frequently reads newspaper letters stating 'I will treat cyclists with respect when they
(insert pet dislike of cyclists here).' Again this seem to read almost as an admission that some
drivers do deliberately drive in an intolerant or even dangerous manner when encountering cyclists,
or at least that they could drive in a more considerate manner if they chose to...

Personal experience.

The statistical analyses I have read seem to tally with my personal experience. I consider myself to
be a very careful and law abiding cyclist (and driver) and yet when cycling I frequently have to
take evasive action as a result of the actions of drivers overtaking me and turning left across my
path, pulling out of junctions into my path and so on. However when driving very few cyclists seem
to actually try to throw themselves under my wheels. Certainly myself and other cyclists I know are
fully aware that being in a collision will at the very least hurt and may result in death (and that
they are unlikely to get much support from the police , insurance companies etc) so they do
everything to avoid collisions occurring! Perhaps my own experience gives me a biased view. However,
I would really appreciate any data you have showing the causal factors in cycle/vehicle collisions
in the area. Is Hull out of line with national trends perhaps?

Other factors relevant to the attribution of blame.

I am aware that the concept of 'blame is rather is a tricky one. After all do not all road users
have a responsibility to do everything reasonable possible to avoid a collision even when others are
at fault? I would accept that, even though in many cases drivers willfully increase the risk they
pose to others, all road users may make genuine errors. However, given the principle that all road
users should do everything reasonable to avoid causing injuries even when others are at fault, and
the inevitability of 'errors', would it not be reasonable to expect drivers to minimise the possible
consequences of any error by driving at say 20 MPH or less in towns?

Is not driving at say 30 MPH - a speed where half of those hit will be killed- a sign of negligence
in itself? Similarly, does not the current edition of the 'Highway Code' say that drivers should
slow down whenever 'sharing' the road with cyclists? In my experience many feel it is perfectly
acceptable to bully their way past cyclists at high speed even on very narrow country roads. .

I also realise the collection of accurate statistics is difficult and that there is a gross under
reporting of cycle crashes. Although many of these will be 'cycle only' falls, many vehicle/cycle
collisions are not reported or are reported in a way that leaves the question of culpability open.
Even when culpability might seem to be clear cut an injured cyclist will still have to be able to
present significant evidence as to the culpability of a third part and doing so may be difficult.
Consequently, it would seem very likely that some 'accident' statistics, such as those complied by
insurance companies, reflect the number of 'proved' cases only, rather the the actual number of
cases where a driver was at fault...

Once again, I look forward to receiving any data you might be able to provide showing that
proportion of cycle/ vehicle collisions that were wholly or significantly due to an error on the
part of the cyclist alone and where the driver did everything reasonable to prevent a collision
occurring. (Including modifying their speed, road positioning and so on when first seeing the
cyclist, as the Highway Code advises...).

Many regards and thanks again,

 

> A full 50% of cycle/vehicle crashes at roundabouts are due to drivers failing to give way to a
> cyclists who is already circulating...

Here in Denmark most roundabouts have cycle paths around the edge (usually raised about 10cm
compared to the road surface). This means the cyclist is not prone right in the middle of the
roundabout. Instead the risk comes mostly from cars exiting the roundabout, but at least the
cyclists have more of a chance seeing as there is a "safe area" for them. Cars always have to give
way to cyclists, although some cyclists seem to think this means they have priority, which isn't
quite the same thing!

Anyway, my point is that perhaps the system in the UK of cycling in the middle of the roundabout
isn't the most optimal - I find it especially dodgy on roundabouts over motorways (those constructed
of 2 bridges over the motorway).

Mads

 

On 1 May 2003 06:25:47 -0700, [email protected] (Howard) wrote:

>I fully realise that 'the Great British Public' forever go on about 'pavement cyclists'

I would suggest to him that he goes and finds the annual fatality statistics for pedestrians killed
on the pavement by (a) bicyclists and (b) motor vehicle drivers. From memory around two to three
dozen peds are killed on the pavement by motor drivers annually, compared with an average of less
than one per year killed by bikes. I've said this before, and I'm kind of hoping that one day soon
I'll find the original article because it also shows that the average blood alcohol level of
cyclists involved in fatal road crashes (in which, usually, they are the victim rather than the
perpetrator) is the lowest of all modes, average for car drivers being about 50mg, cyclists 16
(from memory).

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

Mads Hilberg wrote:
> Here in Denmark most roundabouts have cycle paths around the edge (usually raised about 10cm
> compared to the road surface).

Cycling timidly round the edge is the most dangerous way to cross a roundabout - this has been
discussed here many times. The safest way to cross a roundabout is to take the same line as you
would in a car - position your vehicle where a motorist would expect to see a vehicle.

Stories come up every so often of councils installing cycle lanes around the edge of roundabouts. I
almost wish they'd do one in Bristol, because it'd look great on my farcilities page.

> Cars always have to give way to cyclists...

Well, that might make it safer, but I can't see it happening in the UK somehow.

> Anyway, my point is that perhaps the system in the UK of cycling in the middle of the roundabout
> isn't the most optimal

It's the safest way to go. Cyclecraft is very clear on this, and I think most urc'ers will agree.

> I find it especially dodgy on roundabouts over motorways (those constructed of 2 bridges over the
> motorway).

Can't say I've every ridden over such a roundabout. It may be a special case, but I imagine I would
approach it in much the same way as any other large roundabout.

--
Danny Colyer (remove safety to reply) ( http://www.juggler.net/danny ) Recumbent cycle page:
http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/recumbents/ "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." -
Thomas Paine

 

Funny I was trying to sum up just how dangerous roundabouts were to the cyclist. If anyone is
interested this is what I wrote... it is aimed at the primary 7 children.

"The simple truth of the matter is, motorists are looking for something "car" sized and anything
that is not is a "space" and space is what you need to get onto a roundabout. Speed is a major
factor on roundabouts, cars, lorries etc. all need a certain amount of speed when the join a
roundabout, especially a busy one. So motor / cycle accidents are mostly serious."

--
Cheers,

Wallace Shackleton. Kinross, Scotland.

www.cyclekinross.org.uk

 

In message <[email protected]>, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<[email protected]> writes
>On 1 May 2003 06:25:47 -0700, [email protected] (Howard) wrote:
>
>>I fully realise that 'the Great British Public' forever go on about 'pavement cyclists'
>
>I would suggest to him that he goes and finds the annual fatality statistics for pedestrians killed
>on the pavement by (a) bicyclists and (b) motor vehicle drivers. From memory around two to three
>dozen peds are killed on the pavement by motor drivers annually, compared with an average of less
>than one per year killed by bikes. I've said this before, and I'm kind of hoping that one day soon
>I'll find the original article because it also shows that the average blood alcohol level of
>cyclists involved in fatal road crashes (in which, usually, they are the victim rather than the
>perpetrator) is the lowest of all modes, average for car drivers being about 50mg, cyclists 16
>(from memory).
>
>Guy
>===
>** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
>dynamic DNS permitting)
>NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
> work. Apologies.
Guy, this was contained in Howard's posting:

"(You are probably aware of the TRRL report 'Blood alcohol levels in fatalities in Great Britain,
1978-86.' This found that the average blood alcohol content of those involved in fatal crashes were
69 mg/100 ml for pedestrians, 51 for motor vehicle drivers, 46 for motorcycle riders. And just 15
for pedal cyclists...)"

--
Michael MacClancy

 

More for stat's fans...

The total number of pedestrians killed after being in collision with a cyclist is usually 2 or 3 a
year. In a 'bad' year such as 1999 as many as 5 have died, and I think there have been some years
when no pedestrian died (no time to get full details I am afraid).

HOWEVER, it is also the case that around 75% of cycle/pedestrian collisons occur ON THE HIGHWAY,
often due to a pedestrian stepping out from the kerb without looking properly.

Naturally, a disproportionate number of serious/fatal injuries arise from such 'highway' collisions
due to the higher speeds involved. Roughly equal numbers of cyclists as pedestrians are also killed
in such collisions so perhaps it is pedestrians who pose the real threat!

(In general the police and courts seem to assume that if a pedestrian is in collision with a motor
vehicle on the highway then the pedestrian is at fault. However, as the recent case of the cyclist
who hit someone who stepped in front of them without looking and who was held responsible for the
crash occuring shows, you can't assume the law will treate a cyclist with equal leniency...).

To take 1998 as an example...

Number of pedestrians killed after being in collision with a cyclist in Great Britain, INCLUDING
those on the highway: 2. Number of serious injuries 78, all severities 267.

Number of pedestrians killed after being in collision with a motor vehicle: 775. Number of serious
injuries 8,771, All severities 40,667.

Pedestrians killed whilst using a pedestrian crossing or centre refuge 68, Seriously injured 995,
all severities 4,300.

Pedestrians were killed by motor vehicles whilst walking on a footway or verge 52, another 585 were
seriously injured with the total number of casualties on a footway being 3,550.

Number of cyclists killed after being in collision with a motor vehicle: 158, Seriously injured
3,154, All severities 22,923

It also needs to be remembered that the category 'serious injury' covers a wide range of
severities, ranging from treatemnet to cuts to total disability. 'Serious' injuries arising from
being in collision with car tend to be much more serious then those arising from being in collision
with a bicycle.

In 1999 40 pedestrians were killed by a motor vehicle whilst walking on the verge or footway, 529
were seriously injured with the total number of casualties being 3489.

(All figures taken from 'Road Accidents in Great Britain' and the 'Transport Statistics Bulletin
published by the DETR).

 

On Thu, 01 May 2003 16:51:24 +0100, "wallace.shackleton" <[email protected]> wrote:

>The simple truth of the matter is, motorists are looking for something "car" sized

I think "looking" is a bit overoptimistic...

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

On Fri, 2 May 2003 09:06:39 +0100, Michael MacClancy <[email protected]> wrote:

>Guy, this was contained in Howard's posting:

Yup, but I'm still looking for the original article I read it in; there was a load of this kind of
stuff. I think it was either in CT&C or Velovision, but I can't find the right issue / page.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.