|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Why Cycling's safer than walking
Why cycling's safer than walking
Matt Seaton Wednesday January 11, 2006 The Guardian It is impossible not to feel haunted this week by the terrible story of the four cyclists killed in North Wales last weekend. Members of Rhyl Cycling Club were out on a Sunday training ride when a car lost control on an icy bend and ploughed into the group. A 14-year-old boy was among the dead. As well as the local grief caused by the Rhyl CC deaths, this awful news has repercussions far beyond. Thousands of other cyclists will have been out on similar "chain gangs" on Sunday, and this will have sent a shudder through them all. Yes, it is a freak event - but one not unheard of. Last July, in Germany, a car crashed into a squad of Australian racers, killing one, Amy Gillett, and leaving two others in a critical condition. In October, one of Britain's most talented time-triallists, Zak Carr, was hit and died while out training in Norfolk. Everyone in cycle sport either knows of, or knew personally, someone who has been killed on their bike. Article continues And it doesn't take black ice. When I go out early on Sundays, it's common to see cars stuck in hedges and garden walls demolished. I'm just grateful this phenomenon peaks on Saturday night - some hours before I'm on the road. So will this latest tragedy deter the hardcore of club cyclists? Probably not. We all rely on the calculation that the chances are it won't happen to us. For the more casual cyclists, however, perception of danger is everything. I suspect that those pictures of mangled bikes strewn across the road will be all the disincentive they need. But just how dangerous is cycling? It is not a simple question to answer. In 2004 (the last year for which figures are available), 134 cyclists were killed on British roads. Terrible, yes, but in relative terms? In fact, you could call 134 deaths a "good month" for motorists - 1,671 car users were killed in 2004. Absolute numbers, though, can be misleading: a better measure is the frequency of casualties occurring. By distance travelled, cars look safer, with 2.7 deaths per billion passenger km (public transport is better still: 0.2 for buses; 0.1 for trains). Cyclists die at a rate of 25 per bn km, but then most do much less mileage than motorists. So although I clock up 5,000 miles a year by bike, which is way more than average, I'd need to live 5,000 years to stand an odds-on chance of dying on my bike. Presumably cycling is more dangerous than walking? Not so - 671 pedestrians were killed in 2004, at a rate of 43 per billion km. But the trend for all road casualties (except motorcyclists) is downward - especially for cyclists: fewer by a third in the past decade. And the more people cycle, the better other road users adjust, and the safer it is. The tragedy in North Wales gives us all pause. But if there is one thing the cyclists of Rhyl would not want, it would be for us to stop riding our bikes. http://www.guardian.co.uk/wheels/sto...3755%2c00.html -- Cheers | ~~ __@ Euan | ~~ _-\, Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*) |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Why Cycling's safer than walking
Euan wrote: Why cycling's safer than walking [chomp] But just how dangerous is cycling? It is not a simple question to answer. In 2004 (the last year for which figures are available), 134 cyclists were killed on British roads. Terrible, yes, but in relative Interesting, in Aus we had, in 2004, 43 cyclists died (in '03, it was 26, source : http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/...df/rfa2004.pdf) The UK has about 50 million people? We've got around 20 mil? So they'd (all else being equal, which it isn't* ) be expected to have 2.5 times the deaths than us. Pretty close in '04. * no helmet compulsion in the UK, amongst other differences, like weather, traffic density etc |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Why Cycling's safer than walking
Absolute numbers, though, can be
misleading: a better measure is the frequency of casualties occurring. By distance travelled, cars look safer, with 2.7 deaths per Just curious ... Does anyone have any thoughts on why by-distance travelled is used as a measure? Is this some sort of accepted standard? Wouldn't deaths per time spent on the cycle or in the car be a better measure? Mark |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Why Cycling's safer than walking
markw Wrote: Absolute numbers, though, can be misleading: a better measure is the frequency of casualties occurring. By distance travelled, cars look safer, with 2.7 deaths per Just curious ... Does anyone have any thoughts on why by-distance travelled is used as a measure? Is this some sort of accepted standard? Wouldn't deaths per time spent on the cycle or in the car be a better measure? From the studies I've read on-line per kilometre does seem to be the standard measure. I guess the rationale is that all transport is necessary and if a car needs to get from point a to point b then a bicycle or pedestrian needs to travel the same distance. It's a valid measure but then so is time exposed. A car travelling at 110 km/h is going to get a lot further in an hour than a cyclist travelling at 30 km/h. Nearly four hours compared to one and both will travel 110 kms. -- EuanB |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Why Cycling's safer than walking
On 2006-01-16, markw (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea: Absolute numbers, though, can be misleading: a better measure is the frequency of casualties occurring. By distance travelled, cars look safer, with 2.7 deaths per Just curious ... Does anyone have any thoughts on why by-distance travelled is used as a measure? Is this some sort of accepted standard? Wouldn't deaths per time spent on the cycle or in the car be a better measure? Not if you are using cycling for transport. And since you want to encourage people to cycle everywhere instead of drive, you better use the comparison that matters. -- TimC We don't need no education We don't need no thought control -- Pink Floyd, Another Brick in the Wall |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Matt Seaton: Why cycling's safer than walking | wafflycat | UK | 2 | January 13th 06 05:07 PM |
wheel walking update | ColDawG | Unicycling | 3 | May 11th 05 05:27 PM |
Ontario Helmet Law being pushed through | Chris B. | General | 1379 | February 9th 05 04:10 PM |
Walking is DANGEROUS! -- Third pedestrian death prompts | serge | Mountain Biking | 0 | February 9th 05 02:44 PM |
Multiuse trail rules: Left or Right side walking? | kab | General | 11 | October 8th 03 12:55 AM |