Aushiker wrote:human909 wrote:Statistics don't suggest that cycling is much more dangerous than driving, some measures suggest less. (Going by deaths per time, NOT the erroneous deaths per km)
I haven't seen any Australian research of note on this aspect so very interested in your sources. Care to share?
Andrew
I've seen numerous figures. Here are some I just googled.
http://acrs.org.au/wp-content/uploads/A ... -WebLR.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Car occupant 2.6 deaths per billion kilometres
Bicyclist 11.8 deaths per billion kilometres
Given average motorist speed throughout the day is about 41kph and cyclists are likely 15kph** we get. (**debatable, though most cyclists are not fast enthusiasts!)
Car occupant 106.6 deaths per billion hours.
Bicyclist 177 deaths per billion hours.
This figures are quite close on the scale of "riskiness". In the grand scheme of thing they are both approximately as likely as each other. A sensible scale of riskiness is of course logarithmic!
Overseas research:
http://cyclehelmets.org/1026.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
jules21 wrote:it's not clear cut that time is a more effective measure than distance. few people say "i'm going out driving for an hour!" they are heading to a destination, i.e. defined by distance. i certainly spend more time riding my bike than i would driving my car (if i had one) in the course of servicing my transport needs.
People generally have commutes between 30mins and 1hour. It is well established through research that people job search and house search around this band. Cyclists ride far less kilometers on average than motorists drive.
Either my point was that they are at a similar point on the risk scales. This constant claim that cycling is very dangerous is bizarre. It's like many enthusiasts are proud of the fact. The roadID is symptomatic of this and is down right morbid. Participants in far more risky sports don't have such things.