Could you elaborate on that? How, statistically, is walking more dangerous than biking?
Isnāt it obvious?! Whatās wrong with you people, I mean, you go 3 times as slow, you got 200% more control, so why dont you bloody underst-- rightā¦ err, nevermind uh, yes. So, someone mentioned free coffee?
Iām such an awesome Coker rider that Iām never going to hit my head from a Coker UPD. My reactions are very quick so Iād be able to keep my head off the ground in any kind of a Coker UPD. And Iām so good I donāt crash anyways. 
When Coker riding my concern is more on the cars around me, the bicyclists around me, the skaters around me, the joggers around me, the dogs around me, the kids around me, and all the other things around me that I canāt control. Being hit by a car would make it very difficult for me to keep my head safe from impact on the car or on the ground. Getting tangled up with a bike, dog, or jogger could cause me to tumble in a way that causes my head to make direct contact with the ground. Those are things that are mostly out of my control and the main reason for the helmet. Then there are the unexpected things that can happen like the unexpected bump at 15+ mph that could lead to a bad UPD and a head impact.
I donāt usually wear a helmet for freestyle except for when trying a new skill that feels very unstable. I wore a helmet when first trying backwards riding and while first learning wheel walking. When I get to trying gliding Iāll probably put the helmet on again for the learning process. Otherwise I donāt see a helmet as necessary for standard freestyle riding.
I do wear a helmet when riding trials and muni and when riding along roads or the cycle paths.
Fatality rates per billion km travelled, according to the Department of Transport:
Bus: 0.4
Car: 3.1
Bike: 42
Pedestrian: 59
Motorbike: 106
These are figures for 2001, but I canāt imagine it having changed all that much since then.
Phil
Well, if youāre going to rely on FACTS to support your argumentā¦ pah!
Soā¦ does anyone know why walking is so much more dangerous than busing, and somewhat more dangerous than cycling? Any idea what the cause of those walking fatalities generally are?
Iām having difficulties understanding why walking is apparently resulting in more fatalities than cycling, as cycling seems to carry more risk, and, when Iām cycling it definitly feels more risky than walking on the pavement.
I notice that the stats given are per billion km travelled, could that in some way be distorting the figures?
Re: Helmets anyone?
āonewheeldaveā <onewheeldave@NoEmail.Message.Poster.at.Unicyclist.com> writes:
> I notice that the stats given are per billion km travelled, could that
> in some way be distorting the figures?
Using those stats and assumjing bikes travel 5 times as fast a
pederstians, I figure a bicyclist is 3.5 times more likely to die per
hour. Stating it this way, one could easily claim walking is safer.
ā¦even if itās caused by a drunk driver behind you?
Ever seen a bicyclist going downhill 100 k.m./h in Swiss during a race, and a femal driver (around a corner) driving in the oppesit direction in a posh-cabrio (and ignoring police orders), meeting VERY close (and not though the doorā¦)ā¦?
Or letās remember Fabio Carsatelli, untill 10 years ago an Italian team-mate of Lance Armstrong under Dutch team-manager Hennie Kuiperā¦
Last two case were on two wheelsā¦ most likely wont have happen on one wheel.
But it illustrates your just fragile, and part of traffic.
Personally I never wear a helmet, I donāt even have one anymore.
But okay, Iām not a cokernaut, donāt trail, muni, and in traffic avoid being close to cars.
thatās the number of people who are killedā¦how about you do the percentage of pedestrians that donāt get hurt to pedestrians that do get hurt, vs. bikers who donāt get hurt to bikers who do get hurt. I bet those statistics will tell a different story.
You took the smiley off the end of that paragraph. I should have used the sarcastic smiley cause that first paragraph was a jab at people who claim they are so good that they can ride fast and not need a helmet. Itās an argument some use to justify not wearing a helmet when they bike. That argument ignores physics and it ignores the fact that other vehicles and people are on the road/trail and you have almost no control over whether they crash into you or not no matter how good of a rider you are.
Iām pro helmet but also pro individual choice and anti mandatory helmet laws.
My main concern when Cokering is having another vehicle or person hit me. My second concern is the odd type of fall or UPD where you fall with no warning or no control. Both are reasons to wear a helmet just in case.
Re: Re: Helmets anyone?
Nice.
Wow, that rate for pedestrians is high! But I think only in very few cases a helmet would have had any use for them.
If I (as pedestrian or unicyclist) cross a crossing or street and ignore a red light, then I often remember this -shocking- movie of a car ignoring a red light and hitting a pedestrian who had a green one.
Did I? Hmmm, āI didānt notice, I must have overlookedā.
Plus smiling would be the last thing I would do if this happens to any unicyclist.
For the rest it seems we totaly agree. I wish you a save trip trough the Alphs.
All the statistics you see for accident figures are misleading. As they say: 53.7% of all statistics are made up.
Those who collect the statistics look closely at some variables, and not at others. Also, the definitions used are open to question. For example, does āmiles walkedā include on the road, on the pavement, on public footpaths, or in the home, workplace and covered pedestrian areas?
Is the distance covered the relevant one? Surely it should be time exposed to risk. So, if a bicycle travels at ana verage of 12 mph on a country road, and a car travels at 40 mph (these are both realistic averages) then the bicycle is exposed to the risk of an accident with another road user for more than 3 times as long.
Then look at the subscategories. It is obvious at first glance that the risk to a sensible experienced mature cyclist on a well maintained bicycle is less than the risk to an irresponsible young rider with no road manners and poorly maintained brakes and gears. Either could be involved in an accident that is or isnāt their fault, but the irresponsible rider on a badly maintained bike is at greater risk.
Insurers recognise this type of diffeence by group rating different types of car and charging different premiums for different age groups.
The group rating of vehicles reflects the built in safety features (air bags, ABS), the type of driver likely to buy it, and the likely cost of an accident if one happens - including repair costs, and the severity of any injuries. A VW Golf Turbo is not only more likely to have an accident than a Skoda of similar pghysical size, but the accident is likely to be at a higher speed and cause more damage.
Apply these principles to the figures quoted earlier on this thread: we know that cyclists generally are at a higher risk of death, per mile travelled, than car drivers/passengers. So, allow for the difference in time exposed to risk, the fact that most motorists have at least had some training and have passed a test, and that many cyclists treat the law and road safety with complete contempt. We now no nothing at all about the comparative risks of a sensible experienced mature and alert cyclist on a safe machine, and a car driver meating similar criteria.
My guess, based on a hell of a lot of experience on the roads (I used to drive 35 000 miles a year; Iāve ridden big and small motorcycles and scooters, tandems, bicycles, unicycles and even vintage bicycles) is that the āidealā cyclist is at no greater risk of an accident than the āidealā motorist. However, the consequences of an accident are greater for the cyclist because the cyclist is less protected.
Back to helmets: common sense says usually wear one, but donāt think it makes you safe. Your helmet is there to protect your most important piece of safety equipment: your brain.
Iām all for helmets. Especially since abought the beginning of June. I was happily unicycling along when I accidenatly got to much speed and fell, and landed on my head. Luckily I was wearing my helmet at the time, or else I would have come out of it much worse than with a minor concussion. (couldnāt unicycle for a week due to major headaches)
In all, I donāt think nor believe that helmets should be absolutely mandatory, I just think itās a smart thing to have, no matter what your doing, because accidents do happen. And if your really worried about looking stupid, your already on a unicycle, I think people are going to notice the unicycle more than you wearing a helmet.
Iāve heard it said that āa helmet is there to protect your brain, not instead of itā. I like that philosophy - wear a helmet to protect yourself from some injuries, but still look out, it wonāt make you invincible.
I agree with that although it states in the latest CTC (Cycle Touring Club) magazine that the BMA (British Medical Association) are trying to push for a ban on cycling without a helmet in the UK even though in countries where mandatory helmet wearing is imposed cycling has fallen by 25-40%. Iād hate to see that law imposed even though I normally wear one while bicycling, as for unicycling, it all depends on the type of riding Iām doing, It seems daft not to wear one while riding down tree lined single track, but for genaral cross country I donāt usually bother. It should be a personal choice thing.
Re: Helmets anyone?
MattPH wrote:
> it states in the latest CTC (Cycle Touring
> Club) magazine that the BMA (British Medical Association) are trying to
> push for a ban on cycling without a helmet in the UK even though in
> countries where mandatory helmet wearing is imposed cycling has fallen
> by 25-40%.
The BMAās U-turn, based on a rather dubious meta-analysis of helmet
research and made without the open and honest debate that led to itās
previous anti-compulsion policy, is extremely controversial, not least
among the membership. It seems that the organisation may have been
leant on politically following the failure of last yearās Private
Memberās Bill attempting to make helmets compulsory for children under
16 (a bill that would have made it illegal for me to take my daughter
round the block on her tricycle, with a parent pole, without a helmet).
BTW, if youāre interested in the meta-analysis (the BMA have repeatedly
claimed that the policy change was the result of new data, although the
analysis contains no new data), you can find it by following the links here:
<URL:http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html#1101>
or here:
<URL:http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/public.nsf/Documents/BMA?OpenDocument>
ā
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
<URL:http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/>
āHe who dares not offend cannot be honest.ā - Thomas Paine
My wife commented that helmets are a great advantage to a unicyclist. Since they help unicycling look sporting and less like a circus act.
Re: Helmets anyone?
onewheeldave wondered:
> Soā¦ does anyone know why walking is so much more dangerous than
> busing, and somewhat more dangerous than cycling? Any idea what the
> cause of those walking fatalities generally are?
>
> Iām having difficulties understanding why walking is apparently
> resulting in more fatalities than cycling, as cycling seems to carry
> more risk,
I would have thought the difference between busing and walking was
mostly to do with not being surrounded by a huge, highly visible and
protective metal box while walking.
The difference between walking and cycling has been discussed during
various helmet threads on uk.rec.cycling. I hoped to find an answer
using Google, but didnāt. I also thought I might find an answer here,
but didnāt:
<URL:http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2014.pdf>
There is considerable discussion of the risks to different road users in
āDeath on the Streetsā by Robert Davis, but what Iām about to write is
largely speculation on my part as to the reasons for the difference.
The most important thing to bear in mind is that the vast majority of
fatalities, for all road users, are caused by motorists. The difference
in fatality rates indicates that motorists pose a greater danger to peds
than to cyclists. Personally, I suspect that a major reason for this is
that cyclists who are competent enough to ride on the road tend to be
more careful and alert than the typical ped. Also, competent cyclists
ride in a vehicular style. Following the rules of the road makes our
behaviour more predictable than that of most peds. And the only reason
for crossing the road (which is where peds are exposed to the greatest
danger) is to turn right - in which case we look behind, signal right,
look behind again and pull across to the right in a safe, predictable
manner. We donāt have the problem of trying to see round parked cars to
check whether itās safe to cross, or trying to find somewhere away from
a bend where that might mean walking a couple of hundred extra yards.
Actually, thereās one situation where peds are probably exposed to
greater danger than when crossing the road. Thatās when walking on
roads with no pavement (US: sidewalk). It simply doesnāt occur to some
motorists that they might encounter a pedestrian (or a cyclist, for that
matter) when theyāre haring round narrow country lanes at 60 mph.
> and, when Iām cycling it definitly -feels- more risky than
> walking on the pavement.
Well, thereās an argument for risk compensation. You take more care
when cycling because it feels more dangerous. Although I have to say it
feels a lot safer to me. When walking, Iāve been in too many situations
where a motorist has come haring round a bend, barely in control of the
car, in such a way that they could all too easily come off the road and
career across the pavement, killing any pedestrian who happens to be
there. Itās particularly worrying to have this happen as you are
walking past the remains of a wall or a fence that hasnāt yet been
repaired since the last maniac lost control on the bend. Even more so
if you know that the fence has been repaired 3 times already this year,
like the fence that I used to walk past every morning on my way to the
bus stop.
Of course, a cyclist could easily be wiped out on the same bend, but if
Iām on a bike then Iāll be travelling 4 or 5 times as fast, so Iāll be
in the danger zone for less time.
BTW, a surprisingly high proportion of ped fatalities (Iām afraid I
canāt remember what proportion) is caused by motorists driving on the
pavement. Thatās a risk that competent cyclists arenāt exposed to,
because of course we donāt ride on the pavement.
> I notice that the stats given are per billion km travelled, could that
> in some way be distorting the figures?
In what way?
ā
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
<URL:http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/>
āHe who dares not offend cannot be honest.ā - Thomas Paine
Exposure miles is a poor measure of risk in any case, since miles travelled are not comparable between different modes of transport. Exposure hours is a better measure, and death rates per exposure hour tend to be higher for cars than for either bikes or pedestrians.