If it can happen to Bradley Wiggins and Shane Sutton is cycling really dangerous?

Following news of cycling accidents to Tour de France and Olympic gold medal winning cyclist Bradley Wiggins and his head coach Shane Sutton within the space of 24 hours, I wanted to do a quick blog on cycle safety.  I'm not going to be able to cover all the issues by any stretch, but here's a few to be getting on with.

Firstly, I want to wish both Bradley Wiggins and Shane Sutton a speedy recovery from their injuries. Secondly, I want to raise the question:

If the most experienced of cyclists can be involved these accidents does it mean that cycling is dangerous?

In my opinion, the simple answer is no.  But there are some complexities to the issue, which provide barriers for would-be cyclists.

What is the risk?

Risk can be measured in a number of ways, one of the main ones used in transport is casualties per billion vehicle miles.  In the last 10 years the number of deaths per billion miles traveled by cyclists has fallen from around 50 to around 40, which basically means cycle fatalities are rare.  To put this in context with other road users the rate is almost the same for pedestrians but for car occupants it is about 3.5 and for motorcyclists it is about 130.  This, however doesn't take into account the fact that you are likely to travel further by bike than you would on foot, and further by car or motorbike than you would by bike.

Source: Department for Transport - Reported Road Casualties 2011

On the face of it then, purely in transport terms, cycling is a bit more risky than walking, but less risky than being in a car.

Vulnerable road user

Cyclists, along with pedestrians and motorcyclists, are classed as vulnerable road users, this is because they aren't afforded the luxury of a protective metal shell that car occupants have.  In an interview today on BBC 5 Live (from about 1:05:30) I heard Paralympic cyclist Jody Cundy put it rather well:

"...as cyclists we're pretty exposed and pretty soft...we're not protected in a big steel cocoon...a little scratch on a car is quite different to broken ribs, elbows, arms...or anything worse that could happen..."

Looking at it like this it is understandable why people consider cycling to be dangerous.  However, this is only half the picture.

Health benefits

Cycling has huge health benefits, including reducing the risk of heart disease and stroke related to inactivity.  These benefits have been shown to outweigh the risks by 20 to one.

Source: ECF - Cycling and Health: What's the Evidence

Overcoming the barriers

The problem is people think cycling is very dangerous, and therefore don't do it.  The fact is, with proper on-road training such as Bikeability, which will improve both skills and confidence, and an understanding of the infrastructure that is in place, cycling is a healthy and enjoyable way to get around.

Yes, more needs to be done at a national level to improve safety for cyclists.  Yes, the infrastructure needs investment, and I hope it gets the investment it needs.  But, there also needs to be more respect between motorists and cyclists.  The Department for Transport recently launched a new 'Let's look out for each other' Think! Cycling campaign which aims to target this, particularly as most cyclists are also motorists.

'What if?'

Finally, accidents can and do happen even to the best of cyclists, therefore it is important for cyclists to do what they can to protect themselves.  I'm not going to go through the ins and outs of the helmet wearing debate as I've already covered my views in a previous post, and as the law stands currently it is up to individuals to choose for themselves.  As much as I've just argued that cycling isn't that dangerous, I would always ask myself 'what if?'