With regard to the perception of safety, I found this document which demonstrates just how far removed from the actual facts the LCC et al are distorting it, and how much of a disservice they are doing to cyclists and cycling. They make themselves more politically powerful by making out that cycling is dangerous and they alone can make it safer. Unless you ride like a loon (OK, we probably all do) It's no more dangerous than walking and we all know it.
Here's the document. Road Causalties in Great Britain 2006 on a link from the CTC forums. It makes interesting reading.
For a start motorcyclists are 3 times more likely to be killed or seriously injured on the road than cyclists.
But here's the really interesting bit:
Page 70 has a chart that breaks down cyclist accidents by what they collided with. Motorcycles are the safest vehicle to cyclists. the bare facts are right there. Based on hospital admissions:
Out of a total of 7065 hospital admissions
No collision at all (i.e. cyclist just fell off their bike or hit pot hole etc): 4,268
car: 1,592
"object" - tree, lamp post etc. (Don't think it includes Object): 242
HGV or bus: 102
Other cyclist: 89
Other vehicle, not bus, car, bike or HGV - so van, tractor etc: 77
Motorcycle: 50
Pedestrian or animal: 34.
So the LCC's claim that motorbikes are loads more likely to hit you than a car, is quite frankly, politically motivated bullshit, created by a severe distortion of statistics to suit their aims. Out of actual vehicles motorbikes are the safest. And that's because we are basically cyclists with engines.
Now, as I did last week I shall demonstrate at Trixiedix tonight just why colliding with absolutely fuck all causes the most injuries, by falling off my bike a lot. Again. I still have the cuts and bruises.
With regard to the perception of safety, I found this document which demonstrates just how far removed from the actual facts the LCC et al are distorting it, and how much of a disservice they are doing to cyclists and cycling. They make themselves more politically powerful by making out that cycling is dangerous and they alone can make it safer. Unless you ride like a loon (OK, we probably all do) It's no more dangerous than walking and we all know it.
Here's the document.
Road Causalties in Great Britain 2006 on a link from the CTC forums. It makes interesting reading.
For a start motorcyclists are 3 times more likely to be killed or seriously injured on the road than cyclists.
But here's the really interesting bit:
Page 70 has a chart that breaks down cyclist accidents by what they collided with. Motorcycles are the safest vehicle to cyclists. the bare facts are right there. Based on hospital admissions:
Out of a total of 7065 hospital admissions
No collision at all (i.e. cyclist just fell off their bike or hit pot hole etc): 4,268
car: 1,592
"object" - tree, lamp post etc. (Don't think it includes Object): 242
HGV or bus: 102
Other cyclist: 89
Other vehicle, not bus, car, bike or HGV - so van, tractor etc: 77
Motorcycle: 50
Pedestrian or animal: 34.
So the LCC's claim that motorbikes are loads more likely to hit you than a car, is quite frankly, politically motivated bullshit, created by a severe distortion of statistics to suit their aims. Out of actual vehicles motorbikes are the safest. And that's because we are basically cyclists with engines.
Now, as I did last week I shall demonstrate at Trixiedix tonight just why colliding with absolutely fuck all causes the most injuries, by falling off my bike a lot. Again. I still have the cuts and bruises.