Study in to EU cyclist safety.

On Thursday, May 12, 2016 at 5:12:05 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/12/2016 5:02 PM, James wrote:
On 13/05/16 06:17, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/12/2016 6:17 AM, Graham wrote:

"Frank Krygowski" wrote in message
...
On 5/11/2016 8:05 PM, John B. wrote:
rOn Wed, 11 May 2016 15:39:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

[snip]

Actually, it's not just Pucher. This sort of comparison has been made
many times in many countries. I have some of the results on file.
As I
recall, the only westernized country that found cycling more dangerous
than walking was Britain, for one year perhaps five years ago.
(Someone
here pointed that out, IIRC.) But things were soon back to normal -
that
is, back to cycling being safer.

I have provided those statistics here in the past purely for
information as there is this constant argument over statistics. Here
are the latest UK statistics up to and including 2014:

Reference:
https://www.gov.uk/government/statis...al-comparisons

Table TSGB0107 (RAS53001). They are expressed on a per billion kms
basis.

Unfortunately the UK data do not support the "back to normal"
statement above.

They do show a welcome very slowly falling long term trend for both
cyclists and pedestrians with regard to the numbers killed. Within the
bounds of statistical significance I think we can say that the same
number of cyclists and pedestrians are killed in the UK in most years..

The trends that are emerging are that the number of cyclists being
seriously injured and the total number of cyclist casualties are
rising in both abslolute terms and relative to pedestrians. The number
of cyclists seriously injured has recently exceeded twice that of
pedestrians and the number for all casualties three times.

The data available for the last 3 years to 2014 (for last 10 years see
the reference above) together with the 10 year averages a

Cyclists

Killed: 24 22 22 | 26
KSI: 668 646 672 | 607
All: 3929 4011 4228 | 4037

Pedestrians

Killed: 23 21 23 | 28
KSI: 333 288 291 | 332
All: 1403 1281 1309 | 1474

All I ask is that interested parties study the data and come to their
own conclusions regarding whether they think a per billion kms basis
is the correct basis on which to do these comparisons (the UK
Government clearly thinks it is) and whether, on that basis, cycling
in the UK is, as stated in the post above, safer than walking.

The data you linked actually confirms what I've been saying, except that
the anomaly occurred for two years, not just one as I thought. In eight
of the ten years listed, cycling had fewer deaths per km than pedestrian
travel. After two years (2012 and 2013) of being slightly worse,
cycling returned to beating walking in 2014. In the ten year average,
cycling beats walking.

And again, Britain is unique, AFAIK, in ever having walking safer than
cycling in deaths per km traveled. Most countries seem to routinely
find cycling safer by that measure.


Though the cyclists suffer about twice as many deaths or serious
injuries per billion kilometres.

In other words, cyclists suffer fewer fatalities per km, but more
serious injuries per km.

Serious injuries may be more difficult to compare between countries, I
think, because I'm not sure that the definitions are uniform, country to
country. IOW, which injuries qualify as "serious"?

A classic cycling injury is a broken collar bone. The usual treatment
is, IIRC, to keep that arm in a sling for a month or two. Not that I
would want one, but I think it's rarely serious in the sense of
potentially life changing.


It depends. Many of my friends have broken collar bones. My closest friend had internal fixation. Some end up with AC joint (acromio-clavicular joint -- the bump on the top of the shoulder) disruption and surgery because of that. Others get a sling only.

One of my son's good friends (with whom I rode when in SLC) just did a face plant with no helmet. He was knocked out and broke his face and jaw. He has his jaw wired shut and seems like a different person. He is having a very bad short-term recovery from his concussion. Shoe drops: he was riding drunk.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 13/05/16 10:12, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/12/2016 5:02 PM, James wrote:


Though the cyclists suffer about twice as many deaths or serious
injuries per billion kilometres.

In other words, cyclists suffer fewer fatalities per km, but more
serious injuries per km.

Serious injuries may be more difficult to compare between countries, I
think, because I'm not sure that the definitions are uniform, country to
country. IOW, which injuries qualify as "serious"?

A classic cycling injury is a broken collar bone. The usual treatment
is, IIRC, to keep that arm in a sling for a month or two. Not that I
would want one, but I think it's rarely serious in the sense of
potentially life changing.



So my (sarcastic) question "Do I cue the rhetoric about grazed knees?"
was answered.

Most people see broken bones as "serious", I imagine. Even a broken rib
(another common cycling injury) can cause a punctured lung and serious
complications.

A separated AC joint is relatively common, and that shoulder will never
be the same.

--
JS

On Thu, 12 May 2016 15:43:42 +1000, James
wrote:

On 12/05/16 10:05, John B. wrote:

But, if you fall over while stationary the chances of being injured is
very small while if you fall while going 30 KPM you are far more
likely to be hurt.

That very much depends.

If you fall from standing position like a plank, as have a few young
folks here when king hit by a drunken fool, there is a very real risk of
a fatal head wound.

OTOH, I've slid off the bike in a race on a wet road going through a
corner, and suffered no more than a very light graze on my ankle and hip.

I have crashed at higher speed in races, and suffered no more than a
jarred wrist.

What greatly increases risk of serious injury is particularly how you
fall, and what solid objects you collide with before you stop.

That wasn't the point at all. I said (above) that the chances of being
hurt increased with an increases in speed. Not that one would
automatically be severally damaged at any speed over XYZ.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 12 May 2016 11:17:22 +0100, "Graham"
wrote:


"Frank Krygowski" wrote in message ...
On 5/11/2016 8:05 PM, John B. wrote:
rOn Wed, 11 May 2016 15:39:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

[snip]

Actually, it's not just Pucher. This sort of comparison has been made
many times in many countries. I have some of the results on file. As I
recall, the only westernized country that found cycling more dangerous
than walking was Britain, for one year perhaps five years ago. (Someone
here pointed that out, IIRC.) But things were soon back to normal - that
is, back to cycling being safer.

I have provided those statistics here in the past purely for information as there is this constant argument over statistics. Here are the latest UK statistics up to and including 2014:

Reference: https://www.gov.uk/government/statis...al-comparisons Table TSGB0107 (RAS53001). They are expressed on a per billion kms basis.

Unfortunately the UK data do not support the "back to normal" statement above.

They do show a welcome very slowly falling long term trend for both cyclists and pedestrians with regard to the numbers killed. Within the bounds of statistical significance I think we can say that the same number of cyclists and pedestrians are killed in the UK in most years.

The trends that are emerging are that the number of cyclists being seriously injured and the total number of cyclist casualties are rising in both abslolute terms and relative to pedestrians. The number of cyclists seriously injured has recently exceeded twice that of pedestrians and the number for all casualties three times.

The data available for the last 3 years to 2014 (for last 10 years see the reference above) together with the 10 year averages a

Cyclists

Killed: 24 22 22 | 26
KSI: 668 646 672 | 607
All: 3929 4011 4228 | 4037

Pedestrians

Killed: 23 21 23 | 28
KSI: 333 288 291 | 332
All: 1403 1281 1309 | 1474

All I ask is that interested parties study the data and come to their own conclusions regarding whether they think a per billion kms basis is the correct basis on which to do these comparisons (the UK Government clearly thinks it is) and whether, on that basis, cycling in the UK is, as stated in the post above, safer than walking.

I cycle for both leisure and competition (7-8000 miles a year). I also walk and I do not find either in the least bit intimidating i.e. they are both acceptably safe activities. I do wear a helmet through personal choice when riding (but not walking!) and have on numerous occasions benefited from the protection it offers my head. No "definitely saved my life" claims but a few unpleasant injuries avoided. Similarly I have benefited from wearing padded gloves and wearing sun or clear safety glasses. The tarmac, bugs on fast decents or stuff thrown up from a mate's back wheel are, I believe worth protecting my hands and eyes from even if rare occurences. Am I guilty of thereby of conveying a Danger, Danger! message. You decide. I am also testament to the health benefits of cycling and would recommend it to anyone. I find the arguments of zealots on all sides of the cycling safety debate act more to discourage than encourage people to take up cycling.


But essentially simple numbers of deaths is meaningless. Although
these sort of calculation are frequently used to justify something.

Re
https://www.gov.uk/government/collec...ing-statistics

About 3% of the population in the U.K. cycle 5 or more times a week
and approximately 47% walk at least 5 times a week.

As the population of the U.K. is in the neighborhood of 63,182,000
(2011 census) then the cycling population is about 1,895,460 and the
walking population is 29,695,540.

Using the figures for a ten year average then the cycling figures come
to 26/1895460 = .00137%. Walking deaths for the ten years average is
28/29695540 = .0000943%.

It might be noted that deaths due to old age in the U.K. amounted to
about 313,942 deaths on average per year in people aged 75 and over. A
death rate of 313,942/63,182,000, or 0.49%.

Which makes the death rate of cyclists or pedestrians,, whether in raw
numbers or percentages, look rather insignificant :-)

--
cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 12 May 2016 19:08:42 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

John B. considered Wed, 11 May 2016 18:46:16
+0700 the perfect time to write:

On Wed, 11 May 2016 00:21:04 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/10/2016 9:13 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2016 11:43:52 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/9/2016 11:58 PM, James wrote:
What I find most refreshing is the absence of helmet agenda, and
interesting that pedestrians appear to have a *higher* incidence of head
injury than cyclists in the EU.

I don't know what the helmet wearing rate is like across the EU, but it
may be safe to say that cyclists are not at significantly higher risk of
a head injury than pedestrians or any other road user group. In other
words, to target cyclists for mandatory helmet laws seems like class
discrimination.

http://nrso.ntua.gr/geyannis/images/...nnis-pc235.pdf

While I don't have time now to read that report, this is no surprise to
me. For example, the Phillips Report: National Report on Traumatic
Brain Injury in the Republic of Ireland, 2008 (by the Traumatic Brain
Injury Research Group) makes it clear that cycling is a minor
contributor to serious TBI.

Not that the report comes out and says so; that would be a violation of
some unwritten "must make cycling sound dangerous" rule in the TBI
community. But table 6.1 shows that road users are just 22% of the TBI
problem, and table 6.8 shows cyclists were jst 68 out of 463 road user
cases, or 15% of that 22%. That makes cyclists about 3% of the problem.
Plus, table 6.9 makes clear that cyclists' TBI, when it occurs, tends
to be mild (76% of the time), whereas for motorists and pedestrians,
it's mild only half the time (51% and 46% respectively) and
motorcyclists, mild only 23% of the time. Otherwise, TBI are moderate
or severe.

In the U.S., the TBI fatality count for pedestrians is far, far higher
than for cyclists, and contrary to myth, the two groups have roughly the
same percentage of fatalities due to TBI. And John Pucher of Rutgers
has concluded (from studying available data) that the per-km risk of
fatality is over three times as high for pedestrians as for cyclists.

And should anyone suspect bias, Pucher is very much a "Danger! Danger!"
guy. He fantasizes about turning America into Amsterdam. He does NOT,
however, favor mandatory helmets!

Some details on the above are available at
http://ohiobike.org/images/pdfs/CyclingIsSafeTLK.pdf

Not to question Pucher's findings, but is a rate per kilometer
traveled an accurate method of comparing an activity where speeds are,
say 30 Km./Hr. versus an activity where travel is, Oh say 5 Km. W/Hr.
Wouldn't a more accurate comparison be the length of time an activity
is engaged in?

As mentioned before, there are many ways of comparing these things.
Which way is most appropriate may depend on one's objectives - and I'm
talking about legitimate objectives, not (say) the objective of selling
or mandating a questionable retail product.

Briefly, if one is comparing the safety of various means of getting from
one place to another, then "per km" data may be most reasonable -
assuming, of course, that the geography is appropriate. There's no
point in comparing, say, the safety of intercontinental flights with
that of driving to the grocery store; they don't compete. Similarly,
driving vs. cycling comparisons should exclude most freeway miles for
cars. But I think walking and cycling are pretty comparable. (And BTW,
if we adopt the strategy of some "Danger! Danger!" freaks and say only
the very safest method is acceptable, then all car drivers should be
made to switch to buses and trains.)

I'm still not sure that comparing an activity that takes place at
approximately 30 KPH with one that takes place at, say 5 KPH is valid.
If you come off the bike at 30 KPHG you hit the ground at a velocity
sufficient to break bones while falling while walking is more akin to
dropping a watermelon.

Physics 101 - your vertical velocity on hitting the ground is the
same, no matter how fast you are moving along parallel to it. - the
only thing that makes a difference is the height you fall from.
Your speed only makes a difference to the level of gravel rash you
will suffer, or if you actually collide with something.
And very few utility cyclists travel at 30kph. On average the speed
of a utility cyclist is 3 to 4x that of a pedestrian, depending on
terrain.

That is an over simplification. I seem to remember (although memory
can be a sometime thing) that the force of a falling body that is also
traveling horizontally is a vector of the two forces, i.e. vertical
velocity and horizontal velocity.

But even of you ignore the above the force imposed on a body that is
de-accelerated results in various other forces being imposed. There
has, for example, been some discussion here of the "fact" that the
addend mass of a helmet may result in greater twisting forces applied
to the spine.

As for 30 kph I agree that it may not be an average speed but it is
certainly a speed that is attainable for significant periods of time.
According to Cycling Magazine the average speed of "You" over a 14 Kim
time trial course is 19 - 20 MPH, or 30 - 32 kph.

So certainly it is a reasonable figure.


But regarding danger, danger, I grew up in New England and the house
I lived in was painted with white lead paint as well as the house my
grand parents lived in, and the Methodist Church, and most of the
other wooden buildings in town and lead paint was commonly used as I
know back to the 1700's if not earlier.

Now I'm assured by (primarily) Usians that lead paint is absolute
poison and you shouldn't get near it,

I'm also told that mercury is a poison and if you drop a thermometer
you better run. Yet a Doctor advised me that liquid mercury is not
dangerous to the human body.

And on and on and on. What ever happened to the brave, stalwart
pioneer, braving wild animals and wilder people to settle the country?

Regarding lead :-) While in High School I worked a summer for the
Vermont Forest Service and one of the jobs we did was re-roofing the
barn at the Calvin Coolidge homestead. The old house was in pretty bad
shape but we camped out there and I discovered that the water system
was a pipeline from a spring up the hill a ways and at least in the
summer the Coolidge family had running water. Through a lead pipe.

Can you imagine, Calvin Coolidge grew up drinking water from a lead
pipe and look how he turned out :-)


Fatalities per hour is an alternative. That's more useful for general
comparison of widely different activities, like swimming vs. cleaning
gutters vs. gardening vs. riding motorcycles vs. rock climbing vs.
bicycling. It works well for comparing many leisure activities, since
people probably tend to budget a relatively constant amount of time to
those activities.

Total fatality or injury counts are perhaps best for evaluating "cost to
society" or something similar. And proponents of bike helmets are very
big on claiming that huge portions of our county's budget get sunk into
caring for brain damaged cyclists. That's nonsense, of course, as shown
by any dispassionate examination of actual causes of serious TBI.

And BTW, examining only negative consequences (fatalities, TBI counts,
ER visits, etc.) still gives an incomplete picture. Obviously, in the
U.S. we permit motoring despite over 30,000 motorist deaths per year
because we judge the benefits of motoring are even greater. In a
similar way, the hand-wringers should acknowledge that every study on
the issue has judged that the medical and societal benefits of cycing
_far_ outweigh its tiny risks.

Ah, but when an automobile hits something it is described as "an
accident".

Not anywhere I know of any more.
"Collision", "Incident" and suchlike terms are now preferred, because
smart lawyers worked out that if someone like the police use the word
"accident" it means it's nobodies fault really, so they should not be
punished for something beyond their control. So the word is avoided
to prevent prejudice.

You discount common conversation? I've never heard anyone say, "Oh! I
had a car incident". The term normally heard is "Oh! I had an
accident".

Official people often use a different language in order to be
specific. To the extent that the usual contract usually starts with a
"definition of terms". something that the normal conversation (or post
here in) doesn't do :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

Serious injuries may be more difficult to compare between countries, I
think, because I'm not sure that the definitions are uniform, country to
country. IOW, which injuries qualify as "serious"?

A classic cycling injury is a broken collar bone. The usual treatment
is, IIRC, to keep that arm in a sling for a month or two. Not that I
would want one, but I think it's rarely serious in the sense of
potentially life changing.

For what it's worth, here's the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board
definition for aviation incidents and accidents:

Serious injury means any injury which: (1) Requires hospitalization for more
than 48 hours, commencing within 7 days from the date of the injury was
received; (2) results in a fracture of any bone (except simple fractures of
fingers, toes, or nose); (3) causes severe hemorrhages, nerve, muscle, or
tendon damage; (4) involves any internal organ; or (5) involves second- or
third-degree burns, or any burns affecting more than 5 percent of the body
surface.

So a broken collarbone would count.

On 5/12/2016 8:45 PM, James wrote:
On 13/05/16 10:12, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/12/2016 5:02 PM, James wrote:


Though the cyclists suffer about twice as many deaths or serious
injuries per billion kilometres.

In other words, cyclists suffer fewer fatalities per km, but more
serious injuries per km.

Serious injuries may be more difficult to compare between countries, I
think, because I'm not sure that the definitions are uniform, country to
country. IOW, which injuries qualify as "serious"?

A classic cycling injury is a broken collar bone. The usual treatment
is, IIRC, to keep that arm in a sling for a month or two. Not that I
would want one, but I think it's rarely serious in the sense of
potentially life changing.



So my (sarcastic) question "Do I cue the rhetoric about grazed knees?"
was answered.

Most people see broken bones as "serious", I imagine. Even a broken rib
(another common cycling injury) can cause a punctured lung and serious
complications.

That's the worst case scenario game again. I have a friend who fell and
broke a rib while walking on a forest path. Yes, it hurt, but not
nearly as badly as the shingles pain two different friends of mine
endured. And the treatment was the same: tough it out, perhaps with mild
analgesics. Is shingles considered a "serious injury?" Then why should a
simple broken rib, with no complications?

To put it another way: Yes, a punctured lung is serious. A broken rib
is not. And only a tiny percentage of broken ribs puncture lungs.

A separated AC joint is relatively common, and that shoulder will never
be the same.

But they are generally not treated at all, beyond slings and mild pain
relievers. The only people who get surgery for that are athletes. For
others, its of no practical importance.

I suppose we could examine a list of specific injuries that are, and are
not, included in the "serious injury" part of KSI.

But as usual, this thread has morphed. The original point, by James, was
that "cyclists are not at significantly higher risk of a head injury
than pedestrians or any other road user group." I can cite at least
four or five studies that show that cycling's medical benefits far
outweigh its risks.

Given these facts, it seems silly to spend time fantasizing about
hypothetical punctured lungs, or sports careers ruined by AC tears.

Cycling is simply not very dangerous on average, and unfortunately,
"average" includes people like Jay's drunk rider, lots of of
no-light-at-night folks, plenty of salmon riders, etc. If you ride
competently and with reasonable care, cycling is far safer yet.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/12/2016 9:46 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2016 11:17:22 +0100, "Graham"
wrote:


"Frank Krygowski" wrote in message ...
On 5/11/2016 8:05 PM, John B. wrote:
rOn Wed, 11 May 2016 15:39:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

[snip]

Actually, it's not just Pucher. This sort of comparison has been made
many times in many countries. I have some of the results on file. As I
recall, the only westernized country that found cycling more dangerous
than walking was Britain, for one year perhaps five years ago. (Someone
here pointed that out, IIRC.) But things were soon back to normal - that
is, back to cycling being safer.

I have provided those statistics here in the past purely for information as there is this constant argument over statistics. Here are the latest UK statistics up to and including 2014:

Reference: https://www.gov.uk/government/statis...al-comparisons Table TSGB0107 (RAS53001). They are expressed on a per billion kms basis.

Unfortunately the UK data do not support the "back to normal" statement above.

They do show a welcome very slowly falling long term trend for both cyclists and pedestrians with regard to the numbers killed. Within the bounds of statistical significance I think we can say that the same number of cyclists and pedestrians are killed in the UK in most years.

The trends that are emerging are that the number of cyclists being seriously injured and the total number of cyclist casualties are rising in both abslolute terms and relative to pedestrians. The number of cyclists seriously injured has recently exceeded twice that of pedestrians and the number for all casualties three times.

The data available for the last 3 years to 2014 (for last 10 years see the reference above) together with the 10 year averages a

Cyclists

Killed: 24 22 22 | 26
KSI: 668 646 672 | 607
All: 3929 4011 4228 | 4037

Pedestrians

Killed: 23 21 23 | 28
KSI: 333 288 291 | 332
All: 1403 1281 1309 | 1474

All I ask is that interested parties study the data and come to their own conclusions regarding whether they think a per billion kms basis is the correct basis on which to do these comparisons (the UK Government clearly thinks it is) and whether, on that basis, cycling in the UK is, as stated in the post above, safer than walking.

I cycle for both leisure and competition (7-8000 miles a year). I also walk and I do not find either in the least bit intimidating i.e. they are both acceptably safe activities. I do wear a helmet through personal choice when riding (but not walking!) and have on numerous occasions benefited from the protection it offers my head. No "definitely saved my life" claims but a few unpleasant injuries avoided. Similarly I have benefited from wearing padded gloves and wearing sun or clear safety glasses. The tarmac, bugs on fast decents or stuff thrown up from a mate's back wheel are, I believe worth protecting my hands and eyes from even if rare occurences. Am I guilty of thereby of conveying a Danger, Danger! message. You decide. I am also testament to the health benefits of cycling and would recommend it to anyone. I find the arguments of zealots on all sides of the cycling safety debate act more to discourage than encourage people to take up cycling.


But essentially simple numbers of deaths is meaningless. Although
these sort of calculation are frequently used to justify something.

Re
https://www.gov.uk/government/collec...ing-statistics

About 3% of the population in the U.K. cycle 5 or more times a week
and approximately 47% walk at least 5 times a week.

As the population of the U.K. is in the neighborhood of 63,182,000
(2011 census) then the cycling population is about 1,895,460 and the
walking population is 29,695,540.

Using the figures for a ten year average then the cycling figures come
to 26/1895460 = .00137%. Walking deaths for the ten years average is
28/29695540 = .0000943%.

It might be noted that deaths due to old age in the U.K. amounted to
about 313,942 deaths on average per year in people aged 75 and over. A
death rate of 313,942/63,182,000, or 0.49%.

Which makes the death rate of cyclists or pedestrians,, whether in raw
numbers or percentages, look rather insignificant :-)

Graham's source was giving fatalities per billion km traveled, not raw
fatality counts.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/12/2016 2:02 PM, James wrote:

Though the cyclists suffer about twice as many deaths or serious
injuries per billion kilometres.

If you used a metric that corrected for the much lower average number of
miles per trip for pedestrians, it would not have been so much worse for
cyclists versus pedestrians.

On Thu, 12 May 2016 23:57:55 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/12/2016 9:46 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2016 11:17:22 +0100, "Graham"
wrote:


"Frank Krygowski" wrote in message ...
On 5/11/2016 8:05 PM, John B. wrote:
rOn Wed, 11 May 2016 15:39:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

[snip]

Actually, it's not just Pucher. This sort of comparison has been made
many times in many countries. I have some of the results on file. As I
recall, the only westernized country that found cycling more dangerous
than walking was Britain, for one year perhaps five years ago. (Someone
here pointed that out, IIRC.) But things were soon back to normal - that
is, back to cycling being safer.

I have provided those statistics here in the past purely for information as there is this constant argument over statistics. Here are the latest UK statistics up to and including 2014:

Reference: https://www.gov.uk/government/statis...al-comparisons Table TSGB0107 (RAS53001). They are expressed on a per billion kms basis.

Unfortunately the UK data do not support the "back to normal" statement above.

They do show a welcome very slowly falling long term trend for both cyclists and pedestrians with regard to the numbers killed. Within the bounds of statistical significance I think we can say that the same number of cyclists and pedestrians are killed in the UK in most years.

The trends that are emerging are that the number of cyclists being seriously injured and the total number of cyclist casualties are rising in both abslolute terms and relative to pedestrians. The number of cyclists seriously injured has recently exceeded twice that of pedestrians and the number for all casualties three times.

The data available for the last 3 years to 2014 (for last 10 years see the reference above) together with the 10 year averages a

Cyclists

Killed: 24 22 22 | 26
KSI: 668 646 672 | 607
All: 3929 4011 4228 | 4037

Pedestrians

Killed: 23 21 23 | 28
KSI: 333 288 291 | 332
All: 1403 1281 1309 | 1474

All I ask is that interested parties study the data and come to their own conclusions regarding whether they think a per billion kms basis is the correct basis on which to do these comparisons (the UK Government clearly thinks it is) and whether, on that basis, cycling in the UK is, as stated in the post above, safer than walking.

I cycle for both leisure and competition (7-8000 miles a year). I also walk and I do not find either in the least bit intimidating i.e. they are both acceptably safe activities. I do wear a helmet through personal choice when riding (but not walking!) and have on numerous occasions benefited from the protection it offers my head. No "definitely saved my life" claims but a few unpleasant injuries avoided. Similarly I have benefited from wearing padded gloves and wearing sun or clear safety glasses. The tarmac, bugs on fast decents or stuff thrown up from a mate's back wheel are, I believe worth protecting my hands and eyes from even if rare occurences. Am I guilty of thereby of conveying a Danger, Danger! message. You decide. I am also testament to the health benefits of cycling and would recommend it to anyone. I find the arguments of zealots on all sides of the cycling safety debate act more to discourage than encourage people to take up cycling.


But essentially simple numbers of deaths is meaningless. Although
these sort of calculation are frequently used to justify something.

Re
https://www.gov.uk/government/collec...ing-statistics

About 3% of the population in the U.K. cycle 5 or more times a week
and approximately 47% walk at least 5 times a week.

As the population of the U.K. is in the neighborhood of 63,182,000
(2011 census) then the cycling population is about 1,895,460 and the
walking population is 29,695,540.

Using the figures for a ten year average then the cycling figures come
to 26/1895460 = .00137%. Walking deaths for the ten years average is
28/29695540 = .0000943%.

It might be noted that deaths due to old age in the U.K. amounted to
about 313,942 deaths on average per year in people aged 75 and over. A
death rate of 313,942/63,182,000, or 0.49%.

Which makes the death rate of cyclists or pedestrians,, whether in raw
numbers or percentages, look rather insignificant :-)

Graham's source was giving fatalities per billion km traveled, not raw
fatality counts.

Well, I'll probably never die as I don't believe I'll ever reach a
billion km :-)
--
cheers,

John B.