Risk of cycling

SSCorn

Article in Irish Times:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sciencetoday/2012/0712/1224319856388.html

"Walking and cycling are considered to be healthy and environmentally friendly, but they expose you to a much higher chance of death than driving does. Per 160km travelled, driving will expose you to an average of half a micromort [a measurement of risk]. Cycling will expose you to five micromorts, and walking exposes you to six micromorts, over the same distance."

Surely measuring by distance skews it against walking and cycling? Or is this factored in? Any thoughts?

Lumen

When the aggregate risk gets to one mort, that's when you have to worry.

kenmc

The lifetime risk of dying in an air crash is 1 in 7,178, according to the National Safety Council of America. This is far lower than the 1 in 98 chance of dying in a car crash or the 1 in 701 chance of being killed as a pedestrian. Cyclists face a 1 in 4,381 chance of dying on their bicycles over their lifetime.

these numbers are at odds with the numbers quoted in the first post though, which seems to indicate that driving is the least risky compared to cycling and walking.

Although surely most cycling fatalities are when cyclists are no longer on their bikes? I'd imagine that very very very few cyclists die mid-pedalstroke.

SSCorn

Lumen wrote: »

When the aggregate risk gets to one mort, that's when you have to worry.

- even after a lifetime of low-risk behaviour, our prospects are terminal

seamus

SSCorn wrote: »

Surely measuring by distance skews it against walking and cycling?

Of course it does, but it depends on what way you want to look at it. Safety per km travelled is typically how they make claims that air travel is X times safer than driving a car.

It is a bit misleading because it assumes that all modes of travel are an option for all journeys. When in reality most people wouldn't drive 10,000km across the planet or walk (or cycle) 160km.

But on the face of it, if you're selecting a mode of travel you may be inclined to choose the one which is safest for the distance you're travelling.

Time would be a better measure if you wanted to compare one mode versus another - incidents per hour or something - because this gives a more realistic measure for comparison.

I do think though that the article is meant to be light reading somewhat, and not any kind of serious discussion.

It states at the end:

Walking and cycling are considered to be healthy and environmentally friendly, but they expose you to a much higher chance of death than driving does.

Even though she quite clearly stated at the start of the article that you are 7 and 44 times less likely to be killed as a pedestrian or a cyclist than in a car.

robinph

For distance travelled then strapping yourself to a rocket and flying to the moon has to be the safest form of transport ever.

Tonyandthewhale

robinph wrote: »

For distance travelled then strapping yourself to a rocket and flying to the moon has to be the safest form of transport ever.

Well I for one have never experienced a fatal space-travel accident.

Beasty

SSCorn wrote: »

"Walking and cycling are considered to be healthy and environmentally friendly, but they expose you to a much higher chance of death than driving does.

Wow! I thought we were all at 100% on this one:D

piston

A lot of people seem to miss the elephant in the room with this - it's the dangerously driven cars that make cycling (and indeed driving for most people) more dangerous than it needs to be.

seamus

I think the real question here is that if there are 1,000 micromorts in a millimort, how many millimorts in la petite mort?

Beasty

SSCorn wrote: »

"Walking and cycling are considered to be healthy and environmentally friendly, but they expose you to a much higher chance of death than driving does.

Actually I'm going to rephrase it to something that is much more accurate

"Walking and cycling are considered to be healthy and environmentally friendly, but they expose you to a much higher chance of death longer life than driving does."

daragh_

3/4 of a teaspoon.

Don't forget to wash the teaspoon.

Lumen

piston wrote: »

A lot of people seem to miss the elephant in the room with this - it's the dangerously driven cars that make cycling (and indeed driving for most people) more dangerous than it needs to be.

I dunno about that. I've crashed my bikes loads of times and none of those have had anything to do with cars.

smacl

seamus wrote: »

Time would be a better measure if you wanted to compare one mode versus another - incidents per hour or something - because this gives a more realistic measure for comparison.

What he said. The thing that exposes you to the highest risk of death is living, and living takes time. You could however validly argue that certain forms of travel are more likely to get you to your destination alive. For example, if the doctor told me I had one hour to live, and I wanted to pay a last visit to a loved one 10 miles away, a motor bike would be a better option than walking. This doesn't make walking an unsafe form of travel, just a slower one. Never heard of a micromort before, but given we're all mortals I guess were exposed a certain level of background micromorts all the time. Ever more so as we get older. Time to get off the damn computer and onto the bike while I still can

SSCorn

seamus wrote: »

I do think though that the article is meant to be light reading somewhat, and not any kind of serious discussion.

The article is in the IT Society section, not the Science section, although they do quote a Prof. Spiegelhalter - he sounds sciency.

Hmmzis

Lumen wrote: »

piston wrote: »

A lot of people seem to miss the elephant in the room with this - it's the dangerously driven cars that make cycling (and indeed driving for most people) more dangerous than it needs to be.

I dunno about that. I've crashed my bikes loads of times and none of those have had anything to do with cars.

There is a bit of a difference in having a spill on the road at 30km/h with nobody around and being hit by a car that weighs around 1.5 tonns and is moving at 50km/h.

In the first case you'll be sore for a few days in the second case it's hospital or the morgue. Most fatalities on roads are caused by motor vehicle operators, so I would agree to the white elephant in the room being ignored theory.

hardCopy

Lumen wrote: »

I dunno about that. I've crashed my bikes loads of times and none of those have had anything to do with cars.

How many of those crashes were fatal?

Lumen

Hmmzis wrote: »

There is a bit of a difference in having a spill on the road at 30km/h with nobody around and being hit by a car that weighs around 1.5 tonns and is moving at 50km/h.

My point is that from my own experience the first one happens a lot and the second one happens never.

I realize there's survivor bias here, but I don't even have near-misses with cars, whereas I have a reasonable number of near-misses with gravel and ditches.

Statistics are all very well, but accidents doesn't just happen. If an individual wants to reduce their risk of falling off or getting run over they can just learn to cycle more safely.

For a bit of context think of other statistical bad stuff, like cancer, asteroid strikes and plane crashes. For those the individual really has very little control over the odds.

Beasty

Lumen wrote: »

My point is that from my own experience the first one happens a lot and the second one happens never.

That's my experience also - a couple of spills I could put down to my own stupidity in going out when there was ice about, my others have been down to very poor road surfaces

DirkVoodoo

This is worth a watch. Again an example of people misuse statistics, mostly unknowingly:

http://www.ted.com/talks/peter_donnelly_shows_how_stats_fool_juries.html

RV

SSCorn wrote: »

Prof. Spiegelhalter - he sounds sciency.

Indeed he is sciencey. Any son of Ms. Spiegelhalter would have to be. Indeed, his father and father's father were noted for their scienceiness; hence their pro-creativity.

Cakewheels

Interesting article in the Irish Times today, not specifically helmets but think it can be related to the way the helmet/cycling = dangerous issue is framed by the media/RSA etc.


If we look at the numbers only, a different picture can emerge. The lifetime risk of dying in an air crash is 1 in 7,178, according to the National Safety Council of America. This is far lower than the 1 in 98 chance of dying in a car crash or the 1 in 701 chance of being killed as a pedestrian. Cyclists face a 1 in 4,381 chance of dying on their bicycles over their lifetime.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sciencetoday/2012/0712/1224319856388.html

NeedMoreGears

RV wrote: »

Indeed he is sciencey. Any son of Ms. Spiegelhalter would have to be. Indeed, his father and father's father were noted for their scienceiness; hence their pro-creativity.

Spiegelhalter seems to mean mirror holder in german so he must be uber-sciency or quite vain.:D

I thought the scariest number quoted was 17 for a motorbike compared to 0.5micromort for a car for the same 160km journey:eek: - the rest of the numbers quoted were a bit daft (i think that's the correct sciency term) 1/7178 lifetime chance of dying in an airplane as compared to 1/98 in a car - how often is your average joe/joanna in an airplane as compared to the car.

galwaycyclist

Stepping Stones to a Better Cycling Future

http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/SteppingStones.htm

Deals with cycling risk in terms of time exposure rather than distance - with some surprising results.

wayne0308

"The doc says there's a 1 in 4,381 chance of dying Frank... but there's only a 10% chance of that."

I'm actually surprised by the statistics, even for a typical lifetime. Only skimmed through the articles above, saving them for a quiet spot in work later.

CramCycle

loughgill wrote: »

. Cyclists face a 1 in 4,381 chance of dying on their bicycles over their lifetime.

Where did that stat come from, I would presume you would have to get:

Total number of Cyclists killed while cycling over the average lifetime of an irish person/Total number of people who are cyclists over the same period of time who died from anything (including cycling)

NB Formula obviously needs work but I am tired

Doesn't sound right IMO Anyone know how they came to that number? Personally I am considering calling Shenanigans without an explanation.

smacl

Beasty wrote: »

Actually I'm going to rephrase it to something that is much more accurate

"Walking and cycling are considered to be healthy and environmentally friendly, but they expose you to a much higher chance of death longer life than driving does."

There's a killer stat (pardon the pun) to be found in the above, that puts the others to bed. If on average, including figures for fatal accidents, cyclists live longer than those who don't cycle, than not cycling is bad for your health. It could well be the case that even if the number of cycling related fatalities quadrupled, not cycling would still be statistically dangerous.

It pans out as follows. We all encounter our own personal number of daily background micromorts (heart disease, lung cancer, various other obesity, inactivity and life style indulgence related health risks). We also get a bunch of extra micromorts for cycling (squashed by a bus, crash into a wall, stabbed by wife when one too many CRC parcels arrive with no matching Louis Vuiton purchaes, etc...) However, the cycling reduces the number of background micromorts, such that our amortised micromort count is lower at most points in time, and hence we live longer.

Sounds like it's all a load of purble balls to me

monument

Risk of cycling vs benefits etc - http://cyclehelmets.org/1015.html

Lumen wrote: »

My point is that from my own experience the first one happens a lot and the second one happens never.

I realize there's survivor bias here, but I don't even have near-misses with cars, whereas I have a reasonable number of near-misses with gravel and ditches.

Statistics are all very well, but accidents doesn't just happen. If an individual wants to reduce their risk of falling off or getting run over they can just learn to cycle more safely.

For a bit of context think of other statistical bad stuff, like cancer, asteroid strikes and plane crashes. For those the individual really has very little control over the odds.

I don't have any near misses with gravel and ditches, does that mean you are doing something wrong?!

While "accidents" don't "just happen", collisions are often more the fault of one party than the other and, as has been posted a million times before, research shows again and again that motorists are to blaime for most bicycle-car collisions.

MediaMan

piston wrote: »

A lot of people seem to miss the elephant in the room with this

If you've got an elephant in your room, that's going to increase your millimort exposure significantly...

DavyD_83

MediaMan wrote: »

If you've got an elephant in your room, that's going to increase your millimort exposure significantly...

If you're not sure, check the butter for footprints :pac:

piston

MediaMan wrote: »

If you've got an elephant in your room, that's going to increase your millimort exposure significantly...

But could I reduce the risk by wearing a cycle helmet? Or possibly just shooting the elephant.

hardCopy

MediaMan wrote: »

If you've got an elephant in your room, that's going to increase your millimort exposure significantly...

Especially if his name is Mort.