-
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)
Khornight2-
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?
Yes, that's exactly what I've done! So overall perhaps the balance of risk evens out, but my blood pressure levels are massively improved because I don't currently need to deal with the daily stress of punishment passes, abuse hurled from car windows, being cut up, pulled out on, SMIDSY'd, and having cunts in lorries overtake me and then pull left across my front wheel.
Instead I can sit on a nice warm / air-conditioned train, reading my book about road safety in peace, with a half-mile stroll each way at either end, one side of which is through a completely pedestrianised area. It is SO. MUCH. BETTER.
bothwell
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.