Home >

Moto Info >

Road cycling is dangerous, unhealthy and not environmentally friendly >

I. Road cycling is dangerous >

Statistics

What the official statistics say:
"Per kilometre travelled, pedal cyclists are 14 times as likely to be killed or seriously injured (KSI) in a road accident than car drivers."

According to another table on that web site, whilst cycling you are 30 times more likely to get involved in an accident and >500 times more likely not to survive it in comparison to a bus or coach. Using a car is 2-3 times more dangerous than a bus. Only driving a motor bike is twice as dangerous as cycling.

Other facts (also from DETR):
1. The highest number of cyclist casualties was for the age range 16-30 years, however the casualty rate was the highest for range 8-15.
2. 62% of cycling accidents took place on minor roads - where cars drive slower (the law), bikes usually not (no law).
3. 73% of pedal cyclists involved in accidents were involved at a junction - not surprising, I see very often cyclists entering junctions without checking the road or assuming that a car will give them way or overtake. Also very few cyclists want to be seen, i.e. wear a reflective cloths or use lights.
4. Pedal cycles accounted for 6% of accidents but only 0.6% of traffic.
5. In terms of road traffic, Britain is one of the safest European countries.

And something about pedestrians:
Only 8% of pedestrians injuries occurred on pavements, 9% on pedestrian crossings, 80% whilst walking or crossing roads in other places.

In 1999 there was 79 accidents on footways and 217 on roads involving pedestrians and cyclists. These are REPORTED numbers, what means that victims either needed hospitalization or were really upset by the cyclists. Let's assume that cyclists travelled 0.1-1% of their 4 bln passenger kilometres a year on pavements (i.e. illegally) causing 79 accidents. This gives almost 2 000-20 000 reported injuries per bln passenger kilometres caused by cyclists!!!
Real number ? three times more ? 6 000  - 60 000 ? This explains why cyclists have so bad opinion among pedestrians.

In 1998, the injury rate for cyclists was about 5700 injuries per bln psn km. This means that on pavements cyclists injure more than they got injured in total. In the same year 4 times more car drivers and passengers suffered injuries than pedestrians.

Finally, imagine that you have a choice of commuting to work by bike, by car or by bus. Here are the KSI rates ("Killed or Seriously Injured") you should expect (based on the data from 1999):
 

Car drivers are involved into all kinds of injury accidents every 2 920 000 psn km, bus passengers 4 720 000 psn km and bike riders: 183 000 psn km (data from 1999). According to a more pro-cycling source a "club road cyclist" is involved in an accident every 16 000 km and a young adult (16-25) every 3 200 km.

Finally, let's look at the death rates. In the UK, one human life is usually valued at around 1 mln pounds - these are the money "worth" spending, in order to save one life. The following table presents death rates for bicycle, car and bus users and also the cost of lost lives per passenger kilometre:
 

It shows that a person, who decides to move from bus commuting to road cycling increases the risk of death on the road by two orders of magnitude. Quite surprising is the fact that in case of bicycles, the cost of lost lives per kilometre is over 4 pence (cars: 0.3p).
 

Why is it dangerous ?

This result is not surprising. Modern cars are much safer than ten, twenty years ago. They stop quicker during emergency braking. They have shock absorbing zones, seat belts and air bags and some other features to protect the passengers. Even front/rear lights make driving safer.

Bicycles are primitive vehicles. Bicycles have not changed a lot in the last years. Frame, two wheels, a bit fancier shape. Still they have poor brakes and zero protection in case of a collision. Perhaps except helmet, but now cyclists are fighting even against them (because it reduced the number of cyclists in Australia). I suppose that richer/more educated will wear them, poorer not - i.e. safety for the reach... At the moment about 18% of UK cyclists use helmets.

So what's new for bikes. I had a look into the latest catalogue of cycling components (of a company I am not going to advertise) and ... the only really new invention I found there were Electro Muscle Stimulators for £300. A quotation: "Personal Gym programmes can stimulate muscle fibre in the same way as physical exercise". Except that many cycle parts are for the price of the whole bicycles, e.g. a plain front wheel fork for £250 or a tool case for £1500 (fifteen hundred).
What definitely got worse, at least in terms of cyclist's health, is the saddle. 50 years ago it was more like a tractor seat and the contact area was large. Today's saddles are long and narrow and ... dangerous for the cyclist (see the next section for more details).

Also bicycles are much less stable (high central point of the mass) and more difficult to control than cars, especially at high speeds. In fact a cyclist at 50km/h (30mph) is a road kamikaze. Cycling on tram rails or low quality surface can also be dangerous. But the fact that cyclist's head is so high above the ground level makes cycling (potentially) safer because s/he can see more, usually above the cars. Another matter is than very few cyclists use this advantage to cycle safer.

A propos brakes. During breaking the weight of a 70kg cyclist with 15kg bicycle and 5kg of misc weight is spread on the area of about 2x 4cmx 15cm = 120 cm² , i.e. 0.75kg/cm² (narrower tyre - even greater value). If you break only with one tyre you get 1.5kg/cm²! The same person in a 1000kg car will touch the road on the area of 4x 20cm x 30cm = 2400cm² i.e. 0.45kg/cm². This means that in the case of a car its mass is spread on larger area therefore the energy density generated in a form of heat is smaller, tyre temperature lower, braking more efficient and braking area larger. Modern cars usually have ABS and their wheels do not get blocked and they brake more efficiently. Bicycle burns a tyre ... Also just mentioned, very high central point of mass plus smaller breaking area makes emergency breaking even more dangerous.

You may say that bicycles travel slower. Yes, but because of that they are closer to the "danger" therefore have less time for emergency braking, which is already very inefficient.

Cycling is chaotic (at least in Britain). Cyclists do not have to know the highway code and many do not obey it. This also statistically increases the danger of cycling. Cyclists use public roads but can be much less responsible. There is no cycling licence, proving that the cyclist know how to use roads safely. In 1998 66% of regular road cyclists (adults) had a driving licence. It means that 34% of adult cyclists may have never heard about any Highway Code! The highest cyclist casualty rate is for ages 0-30 and in that range approx. 45% of cyclists knows the highway code (i.e. hold full driving licences).
Also a person cannot be banned from cycling for example as the result of dangerous cycling with some fatal results. There is no compulsory cycling insurance, something which quite efficiently encourages car drivers to drive safer ("money is the power": safer = cheaper). There is not bike's MOT and bicycles do not have to be roadworthy to be used on public roads (ok, officially have to, but noone checks that).
Unfortunately there are plenty of evening "ghost" cyclists. Some surveys found that only 20% of road cyclists used legal lights. My best experience: a black person in dark jacket on dark bicycle in the night without lights driving downhill, 20mph. You can imagine what I felt when I suddenly saw him in front of my car braking ... (it was T-junction and he was not in my lights). More comments from The Times: "Reign of the two-wheeled terrorists".

Cyclist are dangerous for normal pedestrians. Many of them cycle on pavements at very high speeds (even 10 times more than a pedestrian; it is like driving a car in a city at 80mph). Also cyclists attach their bicycles to whatever sticks out of the ground (road signs, fences; often 50m from cycle racks) exposing pedestrians to some (usually minor, therefore not reported) injuries caused by their bikes.
NB. In Britain cycling on pavements is illegal and can be fined. In US is not.

Cyclists are dangerous for themselves. Should cyclists be allowed to cycle more than 20km/h within cities ? High speed means high effort, and therefore longer reaction time. If you add inefficient breaking and low controllability, speeding cyclists simply are live missiles, dangerous from themselves and the others. A dog, cat or even a squirrel, crossing a road can kill a speeding cyclist ("Avoiding dogs"). It is something unexpected and the cyclist may simply panic and ... transport statistics.

Finally, some cyclists do not like any opposition but some other helped me verify a lot with some estimations on this page. Cycling web sites usually write about the positive aspects of cycling and leave the negative one in silence. I do the opposite - I look for all the negative aspects of cycling and leave the positive one for the cycling web sites.
 

Possibilities of Improvement

Road bicycles have not been designed to be safe. Any collision can have fatal results. If one tries to add some safety features (known from cars) it will increase the cost, the mass, the size and the final result, much safer, but much less portable, probably will not be practical.
Unfortunately many advantages of current bicycle designs are because of missing safety elements. Therefore improvements are very unlikely.
What I believe may help:

• practical training and cycling licence for every cyclist using public roads or at least:
• cycling training and exam as the penalty for dangerous cycling
• flashing red(back) & yellow (front) lights used at all times (I find cyclist using 3-4 leds flashing lights much more visible)

Finally cyclists could try to be more clever than all these "zombie drivers". I suspect that the majority of cyclists know that they have zero protection from their bikes in case of any accident. Therefore, for example, if a cyclist approaches a junction and s/he knows that he *may* be cut by a car, why not to slow down, look around, perhaps stop ? And if safe proceed. You may waste 2 minutes in your journey but save life, injuries, ... . When the weather is bad, low visibility, wet surface, wet rails ... how about slowing down a bit ? perhaps a lot ... . Rather than blaming the God, local councils or whoever possible for whatever possible.
 

A Bit of History

(from the "The 1998 Casualty Report" by Dept of ET&R):

1903-1904: Motor Car Act introduced driving licences. Vehicle braking requirements are introduced for the first time.
...
1930: Speed limit of 20 mph is abolished for cars and cycles. PSVs are limited to 30 mph and maximum working hours for PSV and goods vehicle drivers are introduced. Testing for some driving licences is made compulsory. Third party insurance cover becomes necessary.
1931: Highway Code issued.
1934: In built-up areas a speed limit of 30 mph is made compulsory. HGV licences are introduced. The first pedestrian crossings appear. Regulations concerning vehicle safety glass and windscreen wipers are introduced. Invention of  cats eyes  reflecting road studs.
...
1949-1954: Brakes on pedal cycles are made compulsory.
...
1961-1963: Testing of all vehicles of 30 cwt and under and more than 7 years old is made compulsory. A valid test certificate is required to obtain a vehicle licence.
...
1975-1976: Vehicles now required to be lit when daylight visibility is seriously reduced.
...
1984: New pedal cycles are required to meet British Standards.
...
1992: New emission requirements made 3-way catalytic converters necessary on virtually all-new petrol-engined cars.
...
1996: Driving theory test introduced for car and motorcycle learners (1 July).
...
1997: Road Traffic (New Drivers) Act 1995 comes into force, withdrawal of licence and compulsory retesting for new drivers who accumulate 6 or more penalty points within 2 years of passing their driving test.

As you may have noticed bikes are about 50-100 years behind cars ...

1817: First practical two-wheeled muscle-powered machine, Baron Karl von Drais, Germany
1840: First pedals - Kirkpatrick McMillan, Scotland
1888: First pneumatic tyres by John Dunlop
"By 1895 the bicycle as we know it had arrived and come to stay"

This is a Track Bicycle from 1892 (Coventry, England), currently on display in the Canberra Bicycle Museum (Australia):

A quote from The Times: "Reign of the two-wheeled terrorists" (3^rd April 2002):

"No breed has mastered the art of having the best of both worlds as cyclists have. They rely on others observing the Highway Code, but make a point of riding through red lights. They use the roads and the pavements, and woe betide any poor pedestrian who gets in the way. They demand safer roads with cycle lanes, but contribute nothing to pay for it. And while motorists must pass a driving test, then pay for the tax, MoT and insurance for a vehicle, cyclists needn't even take a proficiency test."

"Many Cyclists believe they are above the law and are un-touchable by the police. WRONG! In fact there are twelve laws for cyclist's which ..." - scoutbase.org.uk

Pollution from Cycling (note some very old references) from Royce's Commuter Corner : "Some people think that you breathe more smog on a bike, and they're right, but you're still better off from a health standpoint."

And from: Tomorrow's roads: safer for everyone The Government's road safety strategy and casualty reduction targets for 2010:

9.10 [...] "Motor vehicles are the biggest danger, but collision with a bicycle can also kill or injure."
9.22 Like pedestrians, cyclists must take some responsibility for their own safety and their behaviour towards other road users. They should observe traffic rules, use adequate lights at night and they should not cycle on the pavement. Pedestrians often feel unsafe with cyclists around, yet many cycles do not have a bell to warn others of their presence. Introducing legislation to make it compulsory for all new adult bicycles to be fitted with a bell at the point of sale will mean greater safety for pedestrians and cyclists alike.
9.37 We shall make sure that drivers are better trained to be aware of vulnerable road users. [That's interesting - everyone wants to train drivers but noone cyclists ...]

Road Safety:

• 95 per cent of all road accidents involve some human error. In 76 per cent of road accidents the human is solely to blame.
• In 1901 there were 101,000 motor vehicles in Britain and in 1997 there were approximately 27 million. Over the same period fatal road accidents have increased from 1,070 to around 3,600.
• Pedal cyclists. The highest proportion of pedal cyclists killed or injured are in the 12 to 15 years age group and overall, males are four times more likely to be injured while cycling than females[car drivers don't like males??? (joke)], probably because they ride more and take greater risks. The most common accidents, in which cyclist are involved are: turning right, emerging from a driveway, failing to give way at a junction, young cyclists falling off cycles (no other vehicle involved), being struck from behind, or a motor vehicle failing to give way at a junction.

• Helmets and VAT [...] The Government introduced this measure for motorcyclist helmets some years ago [...] However, European Law currently prohibits individual countries from widening the scope of existing zero rates or from introducing new exemptions. Therefore, zero rating of cyclist helmets would need to be agreed on a European level.
• Use of Cycle Lights at Night. Cyclists riding in the dark without adequate lights and reflectors are at greater risk of being involved in a road accident. Therefore, when riding in the dark, all cyclists should use front and rear lights (and have a rear reflector fitted) as required by law. They should also have front, pedal and wheel reflectors fitted to the bicycle and wear something fluorescent and reflective.
• Cycling on Footways. Footways are for the use of pedestrians. It is illegal to cycle on the footway, unless signed otherwise. Cycling on the footway poses danger, concern and fear to pedestrians, particularly to elderly or disabled ones.