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)
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
 Cyclist Crash Statistics 09.pdf | 232.79 KB |
Comments
Sloppy as usual
We of course expect them to quote out-of-date, disproved, and acknowledged by their own authors to be incorrect, data in certain fields - the religious belief is strong - but why are they still missing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.)