-
My point is, whatever form of transport, it might be it has about the same level of risk involved.
Not so much. The stats for this nationally do exist. Here's 2008, for eg:
(from http://cyclinguphill.com/safe-cycling-stats-cycle-casualties/ )
When it comes to fatality rates, literally everything is safer than walking and cycling, except motorcycling which we can perhaps regard as cycling on steroids. So yes, my current train/tube habit is statistically a lot safer than my previous cycle commute, although god help me on my walk to and from the stations.
bothwell-
My point is, whatever form of transport, it might be it has about the same level of risk involved.
Not so much. The stats for this nationally do exist.Fair enough, I was thinking of it in absolute numbers (i.e. 51 deaths on public transport on 7/7 for example) rather than in per passenger-mile terms.
-
Wait a sec, how far do you live from a tube station and how far is it to work at the other end? Do you walk it? Haven't you just exchanged one form of transport for a combination of a safer one and a less safe one?
(Not to mention that stat is accident per mile, skewed against short distance, ignores the fact that a lot of those cyclist and ped deaths are caused by the other forms of transport and the other benefits of more exercise and less pollution)
Greenbank
Khornight2
Given a quick think about it, how close is the KSI rate of London commuting by bicycle to the rate for London commuting by train/bus/tube if you consider the various random events over the years (7/7, Kings Cross fire, Ladbroke Grove, Clapham Junction, Hatfield[1], Potters Bar, etc)?
My point is, whatever form of transport, it might be it has about the same level of risk involved. The difference is that you can't do much to mitigate risk of accident due to poorly maintained points when travelling by train, but you can be better prepared when out on your bicycle.