Apologies if already posted, but if so I can't see it.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Resources
Is urban cycling worth the risk? (Spoiler: yes)
(11 posts)-
Posted 7 years ago #
-
Amongst the many good things in this analysis
1. Use of data
2. Excellent graphs by city on how long you can cycle before the benefits outweigh the the risks
3. Commentator with injury realigning his daily commute from must achieve personal best to taking different routes and not becoming complacent.
4. What do the data tell us? ( I.e. Same as point 1 but also excellent use of data as plural, datum as singularPosted 7 years ago # -
One thing the article doesn't touch on - perceived enjoyment. The health implications of commuting by bike are unarguable and is the main reason I have done so for so many years, but I now find urban commuting on shared roads unenjoyable due to the forced experience of other people's selfishness and stupidity on the road.
2 years ago I wouldn't have been bothered, but I have had an about face on this issue now - my bike time is quality time to myself. Commuting doesn't give me this. The hassle of dealing with errant drivers and other obstacles takes the one thing away that I like about being on a bike - being on my own, away from other people, pounding out the miles on open roads.
I accept this is a different scenario to the article's main focus (urban commuting), but I have gone from being ultra confident and able to take on any traffic without any hesitation in a city centre to a state where I can still do this if I need to, but would rather not because it just isn't fun. Instead I would rather get up an hour earlier, go for a ride in the dark and then drive to work. This tells me that we have a long way to go before urban commuting becomes something to be enjoyed and appreciated, for me at least.
Posted 7 years ago # -
Great article! But I'm a bit sceptical about the following:
Of more concern are the statistics around injury. The UK’s overall casualty rate for cyclists, a broader measure which counts serious injuries and slight injuries as well as deaths, was around 5,800 per billion miles in 2015, not far off the casualty rate for motorcyclists – and almost three times higher than the 2,100 per billion miles for pedestrians.
5800 per billion gives me one accident, serious or slight, per 172000 miles. I'm not sure many people on this forum have such a low rate...
Posted 7 years ago # -
I'd expect light injuries to be grossly underreported. How about serous? How are these reported and is there scope for under-reporting? Quote from Wikipedia "The UK definition" of serious injury Wcovers injury resulting in a person being detained in hospital as an in-patient, in addition all injuries causing: fractures, concussion, internal injuries, crushings, burns (excluding friction burns), severe cuts, severe general shock which require medical treatment even if this does not result in a stay in hospital as an in-patient."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killed_or_Seriously_InjuredPosted 7 years ago # -
@nobrakes the psychological side is really important.
Posted 7 years ago # -
"I'm not sure many people on this forum have such a low rate.."
Out by two orders of magnitude for me, although I'm on my longest incident-free streak ever - 5000 miles and counting. If I carry on incident free, and cycling at the same rate I currently do, I'll be down to one incident every 172000 miles by the time I'm 200 years old.
Posted 7 years ago # -
@Frenchy "Limit to human life may be 115 (ish)"
Posted 7 years ago # -
Doing a very rough back of the envelope calculation - counting mostly my commuting work, uni and when I used to cycle to school, I've probably cycled 60 000 miles total.
I've had once had a minor accident that would have been counted in the stats (around 10 000 miles ago) when having hit a pothole, a "kind" passer by called an Ambulance and I was taken to the Royal.
But over the miles I've had physical contact with cars three times, (all low speed, where the driver just pulled out into me). One high speed crash (aged 17) when cornering at the bottom of a hill, that destroyed my front wheel, and I possibly should have had medical attention. And probably half a dozen minor incidents involving ice, grit and my mistakes.
So my rate is about one incident every 6000 miles.
Posted 7 years ago # -
In the Edinburgh context at least, I think there's a great difference between cycling at peak travel time/ "rush hour" and cycling just about any other time of day.
Certainly I gave up on peak travel time cycling two years ago, because it was just too stressful on the busy roads. It's much preferable to get up slightly earlier and walk instead. That was only possible for me because the distance is walkable.
In contrast I normally enjoy thoroughly my off-peak cycling around town. Sometimes it can still be a bit of a stress fest in the city centre, but finding quieter routes usually gets rid of most of the aggro. I suppose the key is not to be in too much of a hurry, and try and avoid "arterial routes" wherever possible. It does help if you've the option of using some of the network of railway paths the city has to offer: a much more enjoyable cycling experience.
Posted 7 years ago # -
I think it is more enjoyable and less stressful to cycle in the city than drive, even walking at peak times not much fun the bus may be most relaxing but it may be a bit too full and things not that I come in to the city at peak times that often.
Posted 7 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
