My back of cigarette packet calculation which resulted in a 2.7% higher death rate of cyclist vs motor vehicle occupant was based (I think) on 6.5 million cycling ie 10.34% of the UK population. If cyclists only make up 1 or 2 % of the UK population, cycling death rate looks far more concerning. Here are the death stats if anyone else fancies a quick calc:
www.gov.uk
Don't trust government cycling figures. Because they are heavily promoting cycling, they distort the stats as a propaganda weapon to make cycling appear far more safe and attractive than it really is.
Here's an illustration using their lie that 6.5 million cycle. Yes 6.5 million, 10% of the population, may indeed own a bike, but most only get them out of the garage and pump the tyres for the odd fine weather trips.
So using the government figure as propaganda gospel I can show that cycling is the safest of all on the roads with these rounded annual numbers:
1.27 motorcyclists, 330 deaths. 1 death in 3800 m/cyclists
32.9 million cars, 682 occupant deaths, 1 death in 48,000 cars.
6.5 million cyclists, 111 deaths, 1 death in 59,000 cyclists.
Cycling looks very safe doesn't it, even safer than riding in a car.
The real truth is very different. London's compactness and GLC research enable us to have some better figures. We have some 330,000 whole journey commuting by bike daily, making us number two only to Cambridge. That's 3.3% of our London population,
So if we assume that 3.3% of rest of the country does the same, that last line from above looks like this:
2.24 million cyclists, 111 deaths, 1 death in 20,000 cyclists.
Suddenly three times the deaths!
London actually betters that due to the huge numbers of cyclists in such a small space creating more safety. But the rest of the country isn't close to the London cycle commuting levels so their true figure will be far worse.
That real last line figure is probably around 1 death per 15,000 cyclists nationally, making cycling second only to motorcycling's death levels, albeit nowhere near as bad.
.