Cyclists have a number of risk factors that do not affect car drivers. The main risk factors are  decreased stability and a much lower level of protection than is given by a car. In addition, a cyclist is less visible to other road users than a car or truck. These factors, combined with the condition of the road environment, give cyclists a high level of risk per time unit travelled, although this risk is significantly lower than the risk carried by motorcyclists.

Download here (PDF 232 KB)

PDF icon Cyclist Crash Statistics 09.pdf232.79 KB


We of course expect them to quote out-of-date, disproved, and acknowledged by their own authors to be incorrect, data in certain fields - the religious belief is strong - but why are they still missing important data in other areas?

They go as far as mentioning a possible "safety in numbers" effect, but don't provide the data to see if it exists - where is the the participation/million kms cycled/etc.? Now they must know it, without those numbers you can't measure the deaths/injuries per million km.

Look at the time series from 89 - 08, a cursory glance would suggest that % of all fatalities and % of all injuries haven't significantly changed in 19 years. However we know cycling has dropped, which strongly suggests that rates have gone up.

The phrase "couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery" comes to mind, I wonder why...

(Of course none of this speaks to whether bicycling is dangerous or not, it isn't - the BMA, despite a recent case of blind stupidity, have just re-iterated their 20:1 benefit.)