Cycles of all sorts

Using one meaning of the word, cycling is not dangerous. There are some injuries and a few very rare fatalities caused to non-cyclists by cyclists, largely due to cycling on the pavement (UK) or a sidewalk (USA), but since this is itself a response to the danger posed by others to cyclists this is arguably not an inherent danger of cycling. Off-road cycling is more dangerous, but not unusually so when compared with similar outdoor activities such as hiking.

To consider it from another perspective, cycling is dangerous because cyclists, like pedestrians, are especially vulnerable to the negligent actions of others - specifically, drivers of heavy motor vehicles. It is indicative of the unusual power of the motor vehicle lobby in Western politics that, against normal practice, the majority of proposed solutions to this problem take the form of restrictions imposed on the bicyclist (who is endangered) rather than the motorist (who poses the danger).

Actuarial data and governmental statistics both show that cycling is a relatively safe activity overall, the risk being comparable with that of walking near traffic. Injuries for pedestrians and cyclists also follow very similar patterns. In both cases the dominant source of injury is collision with heavy motor vehicles, with pedestrians apparently being significantly more likely to be blamed for such incidents than cyclists (perhaps due to how often people walk while under the influence of alcohol). These figures should be treated with caution: exposure data is notoriously difficult to assess, and findings of blame are also inclined to be arbitrary with courts widely perceived as giving undue weight to the claims of motorists.

The boundaries are blurred due to cyclists' reputation for flouting the rules of the road. Some of this is deserved, some is not. In its Research Report 549 of 2003, the Transport Research Laboratory noted that:

A key finding which should be noted was that, when commenting on the scenarios it was usually the behaviour of the cyclist that was criticised – no matter how small the misdemeanour. Few links were made between the cyclist’s behaviour and any external influences that could be affecting their choice of behaviour; i.e. the respondents’ comments indicated that they thought the cyclist’s actions were inherent and dispositional behaviours. In contrast, the motorists’ misdemeanours were excused or justified in terms of the situational influences. As this tendency seemed to continue across the groups and the individual depth interviews and was unprompted, it is unlikely that group dynamics had any significant effect on this finding. [...] This aligns with the psychological prediction of targeting of members of an ‘out group’.

The case for strictly regulating cyclists is inherently weak, since cycling does not pose an extraordinary danger to others or their property (unlike motoring). There is no credible evidence that cyclists are more unruly than any other road user group; the offences for which they are criticized (riding on footways, running stop signs and traffic signals) are not unique to them, and drivers, for example, freely admit to committing other offences such as speeding.

Measures to encourage cycling are generally seen as desirable from a public policy standpoint due to health benefits (for cyclists), reduced danger (to others and their property), and lower environmental impact. Yet the public is often urged (and in some cases even compelled) by the government to restrict their cycling. The root cause of this inconsistency is a matter of some debate.