In all seriousness, so sensible awnsers please...

Fun statistic fact...

The British army introduced helmets in WW1 because of the number of shrapnel deaths. The number of people admitted to hospital with head injuries rose dramatically afterwards and the commanders were about to order soldiers to stop wearing them... until someone pointed out what the statistics were actually showing them.
 
String said:
Forget statistics, they can mean whatever you want them to mean.

My point of view is based on the fact that I have 20 years experience as a parent, and I have 25 years experience as a driver. I don't need to be fed percentages or probability odds to know that a 5 year old should not be riding a bicycle on the public road.
Click to expand...
So just an extremist then. No room for reason or facts, only holy belief.

You should try living where I do - kids cycling on the road everywhere, it'd blow your mind :D
 
Orionaut said:
However,

Cycling is considerably more dangerous per-mile than Driving, probably considerably more dangerous than driving drunk (Most drink driving fatalities actually only involve the drunk driver, Not third parties so as far as "Risk to self" is concerned, the comparison is not unreasonable)
Click to expand...

Distance isn't the common denominator, time is. To get a useful comparison you need to find out how many hours of travelling on each method of transport per death.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_safety#Transport_comparisons
As you can see from 1990–2000 data cycling in terms of deaths 4.23 times more likely on a bike than in a car. Motorbikes are for the mad nutters at 37.23x the death rate compared to cars.

Anyone want to take up skydiving now? :D

Cycling has got a lot safer since then, so it may be closer to matching pedestrians.

The aero industry like to use distance comparisons as well, because it suits their agenda rather than being a fair comparison. But in reality it's on par with trains, and worse than a bus.
 
Psycho Sonny said:
Cycles should all have their own lane. In fact in order to reduce pollution where there were 3 lanes before make it 2 with 1 dedicated to bikes.
Click to expand...
Utterly non-feasible in many parts of the country. Unless you want to spend £billions. Most roads are far too small to have a cycle lane. Most inner-city roads can't accommodate a cycle lane.

Cycle lanes that are too narrow aren't any good either. And if you've only got one then cyclists have to cycle both with and against the traffic on one side of the road.

None of this is a good idea.
 
Sasahara said:
Distance isn't the common denominator, time is. To get a useful comparison you need to find out how many hours of travelling on each method of transport per death.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_safety#Transport_comparisons
As you can see from 1990–2000 data cycling in terms of deaths 4.23 times more likely on a bike than in a car. Motorbikes are for the mad nutters at 37.23x the death rate compared to cars.

Anyone want to take up skydiving now? :D

Cycling has got a lot safer since then, so it may be closer to matching pedestrians.

The aero industry like to use distance comparisons as well, because it suits their agenda rather than being a fair comparison. But in reality it's on par with trains, and worse than a bus.
Click to expand...

The flying thing insn't really comparable since there isn't really any alternative to flying for most people so the choice is whether or not to make the journey at all. rather than how to make it.

Even the time thing isn't that relevant since Back in the real world the choice is

I have a 5 mile journey to make. Which is safer for me. Driving or Cycling?

The answer here is clear.

You are probably safer DUI than using the cycle.

And if you want to remove the personal safety aspect consider this.

Parent #A Takes Child to school carried on a cycle pillion seat or towed in one of those trailer things

Parent #B Takes Child to school in the family car strapped in a child seat, after having consumed a bottle of Cab-Sav

Patents B's child is going to have a damn sight safer journey that parent A's!

Now, I am not suggesting that Parent B should be allowed to do this, but if safety is the main concern, I am puzzled as to why it is considered acceptable for parent A to! :confused:
 
Orionaut said:
Parent #A Takes Child to school carried on a cycle pillion seat or towed in one of those trailer things

Parent #B Takes Child to school in the family car strapped in a child seat, after having consumed a bottle of Cab-Sav

Patents B's child is going to have a damn sight safer journey that parent A's!

Now, I am not suggesting that Parent B should be allowed to do this, but if safety is the main concern, I am puzzled as to why it is considered acceptable for parent A to! :confused:
Click to expand...
Given there are more drink drive deaths than cycle deaths every year, I suspect it's quite a bit more dangerous to drink drive. Unless we are to believe that drink driving is substantially more popular than cycling (which, apparently, 2.5 million people do 3+ times per week).

You keep slugging away with that one, but it's not really very apt.
 
There’s no point making these comparisons

the only option for a child (under 17) is to cycle on the road or not, so whether they’d be safer with a drunk or sober car driver doesn’t matter!
 
Rather my kid cycle then end up with non alcoholic fatty liver disease. Cycling is also the pro-social choice, ICE fumes help contribute to ~20K odd early deaths.
 
Deus Ex said:
Rather my kid cycle then end up with non alcoholic fatty liver disease. Cycling is also the pro-social choice, ICE fumes help contribute to ~20K odd early deaths.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of other activities involving physical exercise your kid could be doing aside from cycling you know. You seem to be implying that not cycling leads to "non alcoholic fatty liver disease" which is laughable.

You also make the argument about ICE fumes, however your kid would be most likely breathing more of those in by cycling on roads unless you are talking about only cycling on quiet country roads with no vehicles on them, which isn't really the main subject of this thread: young kids cycling on busier roads.
 
Deus Ex said:
Rather my kid cycle then end up with non alcoholic fatty liver disease. Cycling is also the pro-social choice, ICE fumes help contribute to ~20K odd early deaths.
Click to expand...

Unless you have purposely missed the point of this thread would you let your child cycle on a busy road with idiot motorists?
Yesterday my diabetic nurse found out I cycled every day and then acted like an idiot OCUK self righteous only I'm allowed on the road driver.
These are the people your child has got to deal with and that's why my cycle commute in a few minutes will feature only about 10% roads.
 
I say we only allow kids on the roads if they're inebriated and on electric scooters. Only the best will survive eventually resulting in a nation of elite motorists and road users when they're sober.
 
SexyGreyFox said:
Unless you have purposely missed the point of this thread would you let your child cycle on a busy road with idiot motorists?
Yesterday my diabetic nurse found out I cycled every day and then acted like an idiot OCUK self righteous only I'm allowed on the road driver.
These are the people your child has got to deal with and that's why my cycle commute in a few minutes will feature only about 10% roads.
Click to expand...
Yes many car drivers seem to forget that they used to get around by bicycle before they had a car
(unless they had mum & dad driving them around all day & night)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom