From cam.transport

On cam.transport, Nick McLaren, who seems to have his head screwed on,
presented this analysis of the latest transport stats:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/162259/162469/221412/221549/227755/rcgb2007.pdf

The results are in tables 7a and 7b (pages 82 and 84) for 2006; why
they
haven't produced the results for 2007, I don't know, but they are
comparable.  The relative risks of cycling versus walking are:

     Of being killed, 0.86 times as much per kilometre, 3.2 times as
much
per journey and 2.5 times as much per hour.

     Of being seriously injured, 1.5 times as much per kilometre, 5.5
times as much per journey and 3.6 times as much per hour.
                               ^^^

     Of being slightly injured, 2.4 times as much per kilometre, 8.3
times as much per journey and 6.8 times as much per hour.

Being a car driver or passenger has a lower risk than walking in all
cases except that of being slightly injured, measured per journey or
per
hour.

There is strong evidence from table 31 on page 140 that very few
vulnerable people (e.g. the over 60s) cycle, but neither this document
nor the one from which it claims to take its demographic data have
enough data to even guess the age-related rates.
- - -- - - - -
This makes our position that cycling is about as safe as walking 
somewhat arguable - especially as cycling compares worst on slight 
injuries, which helmets might be expected to prevent.

Of course, if cyclists' slight injury rates have got relatively worse 
since the mid-1990s, that would be an argument that helmet use is
making 
things worse.

Nick's last paragraph may explain why cyclists' fatality rates are 
better than the serious injury rates, compared to pedestrians.

Colin.

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 18:48:56 +0100, judith wrote:

People might be tempted to take this more seriously if you hadn't signed it 
"Colin".

Only tempted, mind.

-- 
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
The thing about Tony Parsons, though, the defining aspect of his
personality, is that he is a complete twat.

On 1 Oct, 08:55, "Dave Larrington" 
wrote:
> People might be tempted to take this more seriously if you hadn't signed it
> "Colin".
>
> Only tempted, mind.

She was quoting a repeat of Nick's original post by Colin McKenzie.

Nick /is/ a statistician, but the apinae under his H-word tend to blur
things somewhat.

The stats cover the population as a whole, and are pretty useless
to help an individual to decide their own risks.  For example my
chances of being injured in a car are pretty much zero per mile --
because I don't have a working car at the moment.  My chances
of being injured in a cycling incident are lower than average
because over the population as a whole the standard of care when
riding is about at the same level as driving, and I've put thought
and effort into learning where the dangers lie and take a different
approach to average (in the Franklin / Forester style).

Mike