Sunday Times article on cycling safety.



"Zog The Undeniable" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Peter Fox wrote:
>
>> For somebody doing 5000 miles a year this is:

>
>> Killed/Seriously injured - 92 years

>
> I only do half that mileage, but they're still unattractive odds. They
> *feel* correct based on my experience of British traffic, although I've
> become wise to the usual tricks pulled by drivers, such as overtaking and
> then immediately turning left (a cyclist, after all, moves so slowly that
> he/she can be considered a stationary object).
>
> I always breathe a sigh of relief when I get off the road and onto my
> driveway at night.


Shock, horror, news headline just in: odds of a person dying: 100% It gets
us all in the end!

Might as well spend whatever time we have alive doing something that is
usually fun, enjoyable, relaxing, health benefits outweighing health risks
so helping us to be fit enough to actually enjoy our time alive... Cycling
fits the bill for me!
 
"Rob Morley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Jim Harvest
> [email protected] says...
>
>> It would be fair to say that if he cycles for 60 years there is a 1 in 3
>> chance that he will be ksied. To me, that is scary, maybe to you it
>> isn't.
>>

> Cycling's benefits to health and fitness probably balance that up pretty
> well.


According to the BMA "Cycling towards health and safety" the benefits exceed
the risks by at least 20 to one.
 
In article <1icmo20.1qgtgtn1bd32r3N%
[email protected]>, Ekul Namsob
[email protected] says...
> Rob Morley <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>, Jim Harvest
> > [email protected] says...
> >
> > > It would be fair to say that if he cycles for 60 years there is a 1 in 3
> > > chance that he will be ksied. To me, that is scary, maybe to you it isn't.
> > >

> > Cycling's benefits to health and fitness probably balance that up pretty
> > well.

>
> Sorry, Jim's post hasn't arrived here. Could someone please repost it?
>

That bit I quoted was it, in response to your "If the odds are that you
would need to cycle 2500 miles / year for 184 years in order to be KSId
on British roads, would it not be fair to say that the odds are that you
will neither be killed nor seriously injured?"
 
Mark McNeill <[email protected]> wrote:

> Response to Ekul Namsob
> >
> > Sorry, Jim's post hasn't arrived here. Could someone please repost it?

>
>
> You pretty much got it. In any case, it's here:
>
> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
>
> _______________
> x-no-archive:Ekul Namsob wrote:
> > Zog The Undeniable <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Peter Fox wrote:
> >>
> >>> For somebody doing 5000 miles a year this is:
> >>> Killed/Seriously injured - 92 years
> >> I only do half that mileage, but they're still unattractive odds.

> >
> > Seriously? If the odds are that you would need to cycle 2500 miles /
> > year for 184 years in order to be KSId on British roads, would it not be
> > fair to say that the odds are that you will neither be killed nor
> > seriously injured?
> >

>
> It would be fair to say that if he cycles for 60 years there is a 1 in 3
> chance that he will be ksied. To me, that is scary, maybe to you it
> isn't.
> _______________
>
>
>
> My take on it? We're told that cyclists live longer than non-cyclists
> on average, and anything which seems likely to extend my life shouldn't
> greatly bother me - rationally, anyway. ;-) IMO, if we're weighing up
> cycling versus not cycling, we should probably be very appreciably more
> scared of cardiovascular diseases than of cycling accidents.


Thanks. I'm happy to take the 2/3 chance of survival over 60 years of
cycling, particularly as I'm a lot fitter than I used to be.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>
 
Rob Morley wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Jim Harvest
> [email protected] says...
>
>> It would be fair to say that if he cycles for 60 years there is a 1 in 3
>> chance that he will be ksied. To me, that is scary, maybe to you it isn't.
>>

> Cycling's benefits to health and fitness probably balance that up pretty
> well.


I think that's the point; given my propensity to eat a lot of sugary
foods and things, not cycling would probably see me dead by 55.
 
Garry from Cork wrote:

> The chap who regularly writes a bit about cycling in the Sunday Times
> was this week stressing the safety of cycling and said that one
> cyclist was killed for every 20 million miles cycled.
> What???
> That means that for the ten cyclists killed per annum in Ireland, 200
> million miles are cyclist.
> Let's assume (wrongly) that 50,000 people cycle here. That means that
> the average cyclist cycles 40000 miles per annum.
>
> This figure stinks.
>
> Anybody know what the real figure is.


Figures for Britain don't necessarily translate to Ireland - we don't have
your dreadful three lane main roads, and driving standards are a little
higher, on the whole. However, I think you're way wrong on your number of
cyclists. While there may be only 50,000 who cycle regularly or for any
distance, if the three million other people who also have bicycles cycle
only a few miles each year, that adds up faster than you'd thing.

Suppose your '50,000 cyclists' on average cycle 50 miles a week - that's a
five mile commute to and from work - and the other three million average 23
miles in the whole year, or less than half a mile a week, that's your 200
million miles:

50,000 * 50 * 52 = 130,000,000 - regular cyclists
3,000,000 * 23 = 69,000,000 - occasional cyclists

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

I'm fed up with Life 1.0. I never liked it much and now it's getting
me down. I think I'll upgrade to MSLife 97 -- you know, the one that
comes in a flash new box and within weeks you're crawling with bugs.
 
Peter Fox <[email protected]> wrote:

> Martin Dann wrote:
>
> > Experienced cyclists should be less likely to be KSIed as they should be
> > aware of the main hazards (car doors, turning lorries, RLJ), and so
> > should last a lot longer.

>
> It isn't 'experience' as such but knowledge and good habits.
>
> Firstly they make a huge difference with simple good habits making the ride
> safer (and less stressful).
>
> Secondly I get quite a few visitors to the quiz on my web page ranting on
> as "I've been cycling 30 years and what you say is a disgrace... blah blah
> blah".


well it's not suprising take your first question, your correct answer is
directly in the middle of the road to, turn left or right. yes you
shouldn't curb hug. but taking that line gives no indication as to
direction.

i know what points your making but you need to think of a better way of
doing it.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com
 

Similar threads