Eight times risk of death

Qualitymark

Researchers in Trinity College Dublin say cyclists are eight times at risk of dying on the roads compared with other vehicle users, but that the number seriously injured is not being accurately recorded.

The study examined data on the number of incidents involving cyclists between 2005 and 2011 which was recorded by gardai and the Road Safety Authority (RSA)…
Figures from the RSA and gardai said there had been 2,133 incidents in the period studied. However, the ESRI said there had been some 6,565 "episodes of care" for cyclists in hospitals, suggesting there had been three times as many incidents involving cyclists as recorded by the RSA.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/cycling-accident-rates-triple-the-number-on-record-30359483.html#sthash.qYeIw7ei.dpuf

tomasrojo

I can't load the Independent article for some reason, but the phrasing in the excerpt above is misleading. I presume they mean the risk of death is eight times the average risk of all road users. The phrasing suggests that it's the most risky form of transport, when motorcyclists have that distinction.

I don't quite see what the "but" link between fatalities and under-reporting is. Fatalities aren't under-reported; we know them exactly. Episodes of care could be a lot of things, many of which are far from lief-altering.

Did they base their figures on hours of exposure, or km travelled? Cycling looks worse when using the latter, the former is arguably more appropriate.

Chips Lovell

It says:

Per kilometre travelled, cyclists are eight times more likely to be injured or killed in a collision.

I'm not sure if I'd agree that's the best way of assessing risk. I reckon per hour on the road is probably a more accurate reflection.

Lumen

Eight times per km travelled.

I would be interested to see a risk curve based on cyclist experience. These things are not always intuitive - from what I've read professional car drivers (taxis etc) have very high risk of accidents despite having millions of km of experience.

The chance of me dying in an accident whilst cycling to work (non-zero) is infinitely higher than the risk of dying in an accident whilst driving to work (zero, since the traffic jam rarely exceeds 30kph), but in this realm of very low risks I'll take the fun exercise-y option.

Qualitymark

Oscar Gateaux wrote: »

It says:
I'm not sure if I'd agree that's the best way of assessing risk. I reckon per hour on the road is probably a more accurate reflection.

Hm. If you cycle 3km through city traffic and it takes you 15 minutes, while someone driving 3km takes 30 minutes… if you cycle 3km through country roads while someone driving 3km takes 3 minutes… wouldn't the figures balance out?

Odd that you can't load it, tomasrojo. Just go to the front page of The Irish Times and search for 'cyclist' and you should find it.

DavyD_83

Would these episodes of care due to "cycling" include injuries incurred while mountain biking, racing, doing stunts in a BMX?
As said above, comparing on a per km covered is also nonsense.
Statements are vague and unsupported to the point of being meaningless

fat bloke

I reckon insurance is a big factor. Motorcyclists have insurance so accidents will be recorded and claimed for/against.

Also, motorcyclists have to wear those crazy helmet things, which of course increases the risk to them immeasurably... :P

Qualitymark

DavyD_83 wrote: »

Would these episodes of care due to "cycling" include injuries incurred while mountain biking, racing, doing stunts in a BMX?
As said above, comparing on a per km covered is also nonsense.
Statements are vague and unsupported to the point of being meaningless

Yes, definitely more meticulously designed figures are needed; someone in the hospitals needs to design a form for accidents where you can just tick the check box for "cycling", "on daily commute", "cycle race", "scrambling", or whatever's apposite.

magicbastarder

However, the study noted that one in three of the 'episodes of care' arose after an incident on the roads.The remainder were classified as non-traffic, meaning they could have included people falling off their bikes.

this would partly answer the question raised above; it's not just collisions with other vehicles.

tomasrojo

Qualitymark wrote: »

Hm. If you cycle 3km through city traffic and it takes you 15 minutes, while someone driving 3km takes 30 minutes… if you cycle 3km through country roads while someone driving 3km takes 3 minutes… wouldn't the figures balance out?

Not usually. Things like driving between cities on motorway increases the number of safe km in the motorist's tally qite strongly.

I remember someone looking at the UK figures a few years ago, and per km waking was markedly less safe thancycing, but per hoiur it was a bit safer.

At the other end of the scale, the Soviet space programme had an exemplary safety record, per km travelled.

Qualitymark

magicbastarder wrote: »

this would partly answer the question raised above; it's not just collisions with other vehicles.

I'd say a lot of it is also unsafe roads; I'm forever getting off my bike to pick up rocks and pieces of timber in the path cyclists take; as noted often here, many of the cycle paths are obstacle courses of shattered glass pieces, and if I could pick up and forcefully throw aside the many slippery or sunken manhole covers I'd do it. For example, conveniently outside the Hospice for the Dying there's a deadly trio of manhole covers you have to swerve to avoid, very dangerous in heavy or fast traffic.
Why these pipeworks weren't sited on pavements rather than roadways I can't imagine. You can choose which of two pavements to walk on, so it wouldn't be such an inconvenience to pedestrians when roadworks happen, and also the water and gas and telecom pipes wouldn't be constantly pounded by the weight of three-tone buses and eight-tonne trucks and a stream of 1.3-tonne cars.

tomasrojo

Another thing to keep in mindis a classic mistake comparing cycling and walking, where simple falls for pedestrians are not treated as road statistics, but they are for cyclists. Makes cycling look as if it's much worse than walking, as walking disappears from the dataset for anything less than being hit by a car or such like.

Qualitymark

tomasrojo wrote: »

Another thing to keep in mindis a classic mistake comparing cycling and walking, where simple falls for pedestrians are not treated as road statistics, but they are for cyclists. Makes cycling look as if it's much worse than walking, as walking disappears from the dataset for anything less than being hit by a car or such like.

Might be worth sending a letter to the Times to point this out, tomasrojo?

tomasrojo

Qualitymark wrote: »

Might be worth sending a letter to the Times to point this out, tomasrojo?

I should read the study to make sure that's what they have done first. Probably worth pointing out though, as you say, as it seems to be a very common mistake.

.ak

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

professore

tomasrojo wrote: »

I can't load the Independent article for some reason, but the phrasing in the excerpt above is misleading. I presume they mean the risk of death is eight times the average risk of all road users. The phrasing suggests that it's the most risky form of transport, when motorcyclists have that distinction.

I would say within cities, cycling is far riskier than motorcycling. No stats to back it up, but it stands to reason.

daithi7

Oscar Gateaux wrote: »

It says:


I'm not sure if I'd agree that's the best way of assessing risk. I reckon per hour on the road is probably a more accurate reflection.

Sorry, i ain't buying what you is selling.

Per Km travelled is the only fair way to assess this risk to enable road users make an objective assessment of risk and the merits & cons of different means of travel.

For instance, I live approx ~2km from an Irish city centre where i use to cycle to school & college daily for over a decade & more. I now know that I & members of my family are 8 times more at risk cycling this stretch than either walking or driving it, so I have to take due cognisance of that!!

p.s. it would be useful to compare the stats on roads with cycle lanes versus roads without i.e. by how much per km per cyclist is the risk of death or accident reduced on roads with cycle lanes? if any??

Lumen

professore wrote: »

I would say within cities, cycling is far riskier than motorcycling. No stats to back it up, but it stands to reason.

Why does it stand to reason? Filtering is much harder on a motorbike, you can't legally pass on the left even when it's safer, and any time traffic opens up you are going much faster (over the bonnet of the car which pulls out not having "seen" you).

Edit: if I had to choose coming off my legbike in lycra at 30kph vs coming off a motorbike in leathers and full face helmet at 60kph, I'll take the lycra option.

Qualitymark

professore wrote: »

I would say within cities, cycling is far riskier than motorcycling. No stats to back it up, but it stands to reason.

Not my reason, professore; as I amble along on my bicycle in the inside lane, I see motorcyclists swooping past and between cars and buses at a speed far above mine, riding a far heavier vehicle which has petrol in it. Faster and heavier surely means riskier?

I know a lot of people here disagree, but I think Dutch/Danish-style separated bicycle lanes would make cycling far safer - no parked cars to open their doors into your path, no manhole covers, no pedestrians, reasonable speeds, no cars and buses cutting into space where physics had planned to place you a second hence.

tomasrojo

"It stands to reason": famous last words in many a statistical argument!

I have seen no data on cities alone, so I can't say either way. At the national level, motorcyclists are a substantialy bigger proportion of road fatalities than their proportion of trips undertaken. From memory, I think it's one percent of trips are made by motorbike, but over ten percent of fatalities are motorcycists.

If I wasn't on a rather underpowered feature phone, I'd be more help here!

WillyFXP

"Per kilometre travelled, cyclists are eight times more likely to be injured or killed in a collision.

No sh1t Sherlock, considering collisions are usually between cyclists and vehicles.

seamus

professore wrote: »

I would say within cities, cycling is far riskier than motorcycling. No stats to back it up, but it stands to reason.

Anecdotally I would say motorcycling is far more dangerous. It's basically the same as cycling but with much higher speeds between lights. Very few cyclists are struck by overtaking traffic. It's crossing traffic that presents the biggest danger, and this danger exists for cyclists and motorcyclists alike, except that motorcyclists are moving at a greater pace.

Per Km travelled is the only fair way to assess this risk to enable road users make an objective assessment of risk and the merits & cons of different means of travel.

Is it?
If you compare the no of deaths per KM travelled between cars and spaceships, you'd probably find that car travel is extremely dangerous in comparison. So a per KM assessment is arguably the subjective assessment, not the objective one.

Per hour is a fairer comparison of actual risk because it recognises that people will choose different modes of transport for different needs, i.e. that people will tailor their choice depending on the speed of the mode. Therefore the primary metric should be per hour rather than per KM.

I.e. even if bikes turned out to be safer per KM, people still aren't going to take the bikes out for a trip to Cork. Likewise for commuting; even if the stats said that cycling was 100 times more dangerous, you couldn't convince me to spend 2 hours in the morning driving 10km into work.

Per journey is also a pretty good metric because it levels out the differences in both distance and time and averages them out into a discrete measurement of risk.

rollingscone

Does anyone know if their data is available?

I'm not a quants guy (alas for my employment prospects) but I remember going through ROSPA stats last year and finding absurd levels of agglomeration (serious accidents included everything from broken bones to comas) and a failure to declare the confluence of certain behaviours with injury I.e. The top causes in their estimation were going inside turning HGVs, jumping off footpaths into traffic and red light jumping.

All of which are effectively self inflicted wounds but the way they interpreted it in their findings was as if such behaviours were intrinsic to cycling.

equivariant

The original article is available at

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967070X14000699#

I think that it is open access - I am at work so I would have access anyway

Chips Lovell

It's charging me $35 for access.

Qualitymark

Oscar Gateaux wrote: »

It's charging me $35 for access.

Is there a cycling association that might pay for access and perhaps discuss the figures and their sources? (I see that one of the authors' email and phone number are listed.)

equivariant

Oscar Gateaux wrote: »

It's charging me $35 for access.

Apologies - my mistake. I work at a place that has access to the journal.

If you know anyone who works at a third level institution, they should be able to get a copy for you.

Also, most academics are happy to provide copies of articles to people on request, so you could pop an email off to one of the authors.

professore

tomasrojo wrote: »

"It stands to reason": famous last words in many a statistical argument!

I have seen no data on cities alone, so I can't say either way. At the national level, motorcyclists are a substantialy bigger proportion of road fatalities than their proportion of trips undertaken. From memory, I think it's one percent of trips are made by motorbike, but over ten percent of fatalities are motorcycists.

If I wasn't on a rather underpowered feature phone, I'd be more help here!

I wasn't making a statistical argument. I said I had no statistics, as again it's on total miles travelled. I'm not arguing at all that overall motorcycling is far more dangerous than cycling, due to the speeds involved.

I am certainly not anti-cyclist. I do both motorcycling and cycling; I have had far more brushes with death on my "push bike" due to being shoved off the road by faster moving traffic, potholes at the side of the road, etc. I suppose being a relatively old fart who prefers "making progress" to redlining everywhere probably skews my perception somewhat. Maybe I should rephrase and say in my opinion in a built up area, comparing a responsibly ridden motorcycle and a bicycle, the motorcycle is safer.

A lot of motorcycle deaths are due to young, mainly male riders whose only goal in life is to hit the rev limiter and speedo limiter on every road. You can't do that on a bicycle.

serendip

We can probably quote a little from the conclusion without hitting any copyright issues:

> Cycling is growing and is being supported by public policy. The evidence here shows that cycling is less safe than official figures show and that cycling is not becoming safer as other modes are. ...

I think the key part is the second part of the second sentence.

beauf

If you read the comments under the article.

ciaranD 3 hours ago
The RSA records 2133 accidents involving cyclists and the ESRI data says that only one third of its 6565 cases related to incidents on the roads so basically the same figure as produced by the RSA.

skangerland 38 minutes ago
The article says "Researchers in Trinity College Dublin say cyclists are eight times at risk of dying on the roads compared with other vehicle users", but the researchers themselves say, "Per kilometre travelled, cyclists are eight times more likely to be injured or killed in a collision".

On the basis of the extracts quoted here, the research does NOT support the assertion that "cyclists are eight times at risk of dying": the risk referred to in the research itself is that of death OR INJURY. It appears, therefore, that this report misrepresents the research in a way that is misleading and that unhelpfully overstates the dangers of cycling.

In my opinion the Indo appears to have a anti cycling agenda, or they are simply creating tabloid headings that appeal to the largest audience.

If you consider their slant on this...

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/planned-twoway-cycle-route-on-dubin-quays-to-cut-motorists-to-one-lane-30361116.html

professore

I think the reason that the stats are not improving here is that there are very few allowances made for cyclists.

I lived in Belgium for years and did my driving test there. You are taught at every juncture that when you see a cycling lane, you check before crossing it. How many car drivers do that here? More often than not they drive or park in the cycling lane !!!

Cyclists have right of way when in cycling lanes (maybe they do here too - but you wouldn't know it !!!). In fact everything (pedestrians, cyclists, buses, trams) have right of way over a car.

daithi7

seamus wrote: »

Anecdotally I would say motorcycling is far more dangerous. It's basically the same as cycling but with much higher speeds between lights. Very few cyclists are struck by overtaking traffic. It's crossing traffic that presents the biggest danger, and this danger exists for cyclists and motorcyclists alike, except that motorcyclists are moving at a greater pace.

Is it?
If you compare the no of deaths per KM travelled between cars and spaceships, you'd probably find that car travel is extremely dangerous in comparison. So a per KM assessment is arguably the subjective assessment, not the objective one.

Per hour is a fairer comparison of actual risk because it recognises that people will choose different modes of transport for different needs, i.e. that people will tailor their choice depending on the speed of the mode. Therefore the primary metric should be per hour rather than per KM.

I.e. even if bikes turned out to be safer per KM, people still aren't going to take the bikes out for a trip to Cork. Likewise for commuting; even if the stats said that cycling was 100 times more dangerous, you couldn't convince me to spend 2 hours in the morning driving 10km into work.

Per journey is also a pretty good metric because it levels out the differences in both distance and time and averages them out into a discrete measurement of risk.

yes but we're not comparing spaceships & cars are we?

the best way is by example imho, that 2km stretch to to the city that I can either cycle or drive or walk. i just want to compare what is the relative risk of each mode of transport for that particular journey. Having stats on a per Km basis allows for this.

Trying to skew the stats by per hour or per journey, is shifting the measurement unit of travel, which is in fact in metres travelled!!

rollingscone

professore wrote: »

I wasn't making a statistical argument. I said I had no statistics, as again it's on total miles travelled. I'm not arguing at all that overall motorcycling is far more dangerous than cycling, due to the speeds involved.

I am certainly not anti-cyclist. I do both motorcycling and cycling; I have had far more brushes with death on my "push bike" due to being shoved off the road by faster moving traffic, potholes at the side of the road, etc. I suppose being a relatively old fart who prefers "making progress" to redlining everywhere probably skews my perception somewhat. Maybe I should rephrase and say in my opinion in a built up area, comparing a responsibly ridden motorcycle and a bicycle, the motorcycle is safer.

A lot of motorcycle deaths are due to young, mainly male riders whose only goal in life is to hit the rev limiter and speedo limiter on every road. You can't do that on a bicycle.

'In my opinion' is not enough to justify an argument.

I spent a little under a year dealing with motorcycle accidents professionally, of the twelve or so fatal cases I dealt with not one was the stereotypical young man on a Fireblade in flip flops and shorts.

The biggest issue was cars pulling out of side roads followed by cars swinging left or right into the path of overtaking motorcyclists.

Cyclist average speeds make this less likely to happen.

seamus

daithi7 wrote: »

the best way is by example imho, that 2km stretch to to the city that I can either cycle or drive or walk. i just want to compare what is the relative risk of each mode of transport for that particular journey. Having stats on a per Km basis allows for this.

Except that you don't really care about the distance, do you? Your primary concern is time.

When you're considering such a trip, you're not worried about safety first and foremost, you're worried about time. You will pick the option which gets you there quickest and then safety becomes the secondary aspect. Hence you need to know safety on a per hour basis, not a per KM one.

When you're planning a 100km trip, you don't wonder about whether it's safer to drive or cycle or walk, do you? No, you ask yourself which one will get you there is shortest time. Then you ask yourself which is safer.

The per KM metric is a subjective metric which is meaningless in practical terms. The aviation industry has been using it for a long time to pretend that it's the safest way to travel, i.e. safer than busses or trains. When in reality aircraft perform journeys which can't feasibly be done by train or bus, so it's an irrational comparison. Taken per hour (and per journey), aircraft are less safe than busses and trains.

If my options were an hour in the sky, or two hours on a bus, in actual fact I would be safer taking the bus. However, if I were to use the per KM travelled metric, I would be led to believe that the aircraft is safer for this journey - even though it's not. So it's the time of the journey that matters more than the distance.

beauf

professore wrote: »

I think the reason that the stats are not improving here is that there are very few allowances made for cyclists. ...

That true. But I think the article and how its written highlights theres a strong anti cycling agenda. or more correctly, a strong pro car lobby.

slideshow bob

daithi7 wrote: »

the best way is by example imho, that 2km stretch to to the city that I can either cycle or drive or walk. i just want to compare what is the relative risk of each mode of transport for that particular journey.

This would be great (and many people have public transport options too).

daithi7 wrote: »

Having stats on a per Km basis allows for this.

But I don't think this is it because the per KM car figures include lots of motorway KMs that are statistically very safe.

It would be very helpful if studies like these lead to appropriate investment in infrastructure, training and other things that will improve safety for cyclists. But it may just add to the reasons people have for not cycling and rationalising car use.

In terms of overall risk to health and wellbeing, it would be informative to have the risks and costs of a sedentary lifestyle factored in, but I expect that would be diffficult and controvertial. Anyway, time for a smoke break...

GlennaMaddy

equivariant wrote: »

...If you know anyone who works at a third level institution, they should be able to get a copy for you.

3rd level students will have access too, directly when on-campus, or by following the 'check access' link and choosing their institution

daithi7

seamus wrote: »

The per KM metric is a subjective metric which is meaningless in practical terms.

So it's the time of the journey that matters more than the distance.

No it is not. The per KM is the objective measure, cos it is per unit of distance travelled, that is the only objective measure here.

The per journey, or per hour, are the subjective measures that you seen to wish to use to cloud the debate.

This is best seen by example imho, I am 2 kms from an Irish city centre, I used to cycle it for over a dozen years of my existence. I'd like to know the relative safety of travelling this by bike, foot or car, and when I consider which mode of transport to use I will factor that into what I will choose. It's simple!!

P.s. I do take the point the other poster is making about cars being measured on relatively safe motorway miles. This is an issue with the quality of the data presented, as in order to make a fully informed decision you probably need the relative safety of each mode of transport on each different road category, then you can make a fully informed decision from there.

However, to recap, the best unit of measure is clearly per KM travelled, cos this is the quantum we measure travel in.

HivemindXX

daithi7 wrote: »

No it is not. The per KM is the objective measure, cos it is per unit of distance travelled, that is the only objective measure here.

The per journey, or per hour, are the subjective measures that you seen to wish to use to cloud the debate.

You keep trying to make this point but it is simply not true. My commute is 45 minutes. This is a completely objective and valid measurement. In a lot of cases it's in the most useful measurement.

Number of km is also a valid measurement. Which one is better is open for debate. That time isn't a valid measure is not.

HivemindXX

serendip wrote: »

We can probably quote a little from the conclusion without hitting any copyright issues:

> Cycling is growing and is being supported by public policy. The evidence here shows that cycling is less safe than official figures show and that cycling is not becoming safer as other modes are. ...

I think the key part is the second part of the second sentence.

Does the study actually show that? I was under the impression that cycling as a mode of transport was increasing significantly while fatalities were decreasing slightly. Is this because they are adding non-serious injuries in to the mix? I slipped and gave my ankle a fierce whack with the pedal the other day, should I send a mail to the RSA?

beauf

Considering you wouldn't choose a car to do 0.5km if it took 60 mins. Or a bicycle for a 80km commute. and considering the stats in the original article included off road accidents for bicycles. Blanket generalisations are not useful.

The article was expecting people not to read it properly.

Qualitymark

HivemindXX wrote: »

My commute is 45 minutes.

I was just reading a bit from a book on labour management from the 1920s, which strongly recommended that you should only hire people who lived within 3 miles of the workplace…

tomasrojo

Qualitymark wrote: »

I was just reading a bit from a book on labour management from the 1920s, which strongly recommended that you should only hire people who lived within 3 miles of the workplace…

I read a book about the 1914 Lock-out, and it seems people felt it quite a hardship getting to work in the city centre from Inchicore during the tram strike. Puzzled me a little, because not only is it a quite short cycle, it's quite walkable too, if you have about fifty minutes. I'm not sure how affordable bicycles were to working-class people at the time, and how inclined the somewhat wealthier were to using bicycles for everyday use. (Bit off-topic.)

diomed

If a car driver is writing the article ... "cyclist deaths eight times greater (and we don't know who is responsible)"
If a cyclist is writing the article ... "car drivers kill eight times more cyclists than motorists"

Qualitymark

tomasrojo wrote: »

I read a book about the 1914 Lock-out, and it seems people felt it quite a hardship getting to work in the city centre from Inchicore during the tram strike. Puzzled me a little, because not only is it a quite short cycle, it's quite walkable too, if you have about fifty minutes. I'm not sure how affordable bicycles were to working-class people at the time, and how inclined the somewhat wealthier were to using bicycles for everyday use. (Bit off-topic.)

The wealthy cycled a lot then. Très trendy. But working-class people then were generally living pretty much on the edge and didn't have a lot of extra energy.

An example of the difference is that the Irish Volunteers went happily on route marches of 20 and 30 miles. The Citizen Army, a defence force of working men and women set up during the Lockout, not so much, though they trained hard; men and women who had to be in labouring work next day didn't have the energy to tramp around the mountains.

petethedrummer

tomasrojo wrote: »

At the other end of the scale, the Soviet space programme had an exemplary safety record, per km travelled.

True but an emissions based motor tax on a space rocket would make owning and running one prohibitive for the average man on the street.

CramCycle

petethedrummer wrote: »

True but an emissions based motor tax on a space rocket would make owning and running one prohibitive for the average man on the street.

Leave it in the garage and take a risky spin at the beginning of each month.

ford2600

CramCycle wrote: »

Leave it in the garage and take a risky spin at the beginning of each month.

Neighbourfof mine drove an S class merc once a week for about 20 years, never paid the tax.

The drive was every Sunday to mass

daithi7

HivemindXX wrote: »

You keep trying to make this point but it is simply not true. My commute is 45 minutes. This is a completely objective and valid measurement. In a lot of cases it's in the most useful measurement.

Number of km is also a valid measurement. Which one is better is open for debate. That time isn't a valid measure is not.

Thank you for proving my point so clearly!! :-)

You say your commute is 45 minutes.... ehhhh but by what mode of transport does it take 45 minutes???
And what are the traffic conditions to make it 45minutes?
And what way does the weather have to be to ensure it is 45 minutes?
And if you stop for a coffee, or a chat, or a whatever, does it still take 45 minutes!?

You see your commute time actually varies day to day according to a whole load of factors, but I'm guessing, just guessing now, that it's always the same length? As measured in units of length I.E metres!!

petethedrummer

daithi7 wrote: »

And if you stop for a coffee,

I don't know where you go for coffee but I've never had a road traffic incident while slurping down a cappucino.

incidents per hour makes much more sense.

daithi7

petethedrummer wrote: »

I don't know where you go for coffee but I've never had a road traffic incident while slurping down a cappucino.

incidents per hour makes much more sense.

Yes, but if you're sipping a coffee, I'm guessing you drive slower than normal, and I'm also guessing a driver is more likely to have an accident due to distractions, spillage s, fear of a scalding or wtf. So the point is still illustrated in this, per hour travelled means sfa really, it's KM s travelled is all that really matters, and hence safety ratings are rightfully compared on a per KM basis, cos that gives an apples v apples comparison.

As far as I can see, anyone touting for measuring things on any other basis is just supporting an agenda, consciously or not.