There's only one factor that makes cycling dangerous and it's not the bicycle, the cyclists nor pedestrians.

http://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.3557529

Cycling is more dangerous than some activities and less than other activities. To simply say that it's dangerous is silly.:rolleyes:

This might be of interest:
Risk of dying and sporting activities

Honesly I want to know how someone dies from playing table tennis (ping pong). I mean, does the ball bounce off the table into the player's mouth and get stuck in his throat causing suffocation?

I wondered the same thing. Even running. I had no idea it was that dangerous.

Seriously, though, if the data is correct I am thinking maybe heart attack or stroke, or something similar.

Well, with running, there's always the possibility of getting run over by a car. But table tennis?

And if the cause of death is heart attack or stroke, I'd attribute that to be the cause of death, not exercising. Maybe the exercise might be a factor, but not necessarily the cause of death.

His point, and I get it, is that without cars cycling would be infinitely safer. No need to be pedantic about it.:rolleyes:

Shoot. I know of plenty of cyclists who have wiped out with no auto involvement whatsoever. During one club event a guy came down a hill too fast, lost control at an intersection and ended up dead in the parking lot of some farm supply business across the road. When I was touring out west two friends came off Togwotee Pass into DuBois, WY. One of them ride through a patch of sand on the shoulder and wiped out big time. Broke ribs, punctured a lung, etc. I heard the ambulance but didn't know what had happened. Ended up running into his buddy the following day in city park in Lander. He was camping there while their wives drove out from MN to pick them up. A few days later I was walking to get lunch in Jeffrey City when I saw a van with MN plates heading east. Two bikes were on the roof. One of them was seriously messed up. Must have been them. A few years ago, a friend of mine lost control, went off course and hit a tree with his face while taking a warm up lap before a CX race. He died right there.

So how many people who has posted here and in the following article are thinking of giving up cycling or changing their route because of potholes or road debris? And you're also trying to pin blame for a cyclist trying to avoid pot holes and debris? How many motorists actually do the same?

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2018/06/14/for-torontos-cyclists-the-fear-is-real-and-its-holding-them-back.html

[QUOTE=Daniel4;20413411]So how many people who has posted here and in the following article are thinking of giving up cycling or changing their route because of potholes or road debris? And you're also trying to pin blame for a cyclist trying to avoid pot holes and debris? How many motorists actually do the same?
/QUOTE]

"Swerving into traffic" implies the bicyclist was never accepted as traffic in the first place, but rather squeezed to the side until he needed to take evasive action.

Virtually 100% of my accidents have involved cars. Even the non auto accident I had eight years ago might be argued as car related because I took a convoluted route in order to avoid going across a narrow two lane bridge where I might have been hit by an impatient driver.

The biggest threat bicyclists have is being hit by drivers. From most to least effectiveness...
--Remove the threat.
--Isolate the threat.
--Training the threat not to hit you.
--Training yourself to deal with the threat that's about to hit you.
--Safety equipment when the threat hits you.

This is why I don't advocate helmets; they just don't do much good in avoiding the threat in the first place, or help much during a collision.

I had four injury/damage crashes prior to being hit by a car, all of which were self-inflicted and one of which resulted in greater physical injury and more more damage to the bike than being hit by the car. I didn't think of ceasing to ride roads because in each of the four self-inflicted crashes I knew what happened to cause the crash and the power to correct each condition lay solely with me. Being hit by the car, however, was entirely different. There was absolutely nothing I could have done differently to avoid it other than simply not being on the road, so that is what I choose. Statistics are comforting until you are the one . . .

This presents it like riding on the road is a sure path to injury and death, which it is not. Scare mongering is not beneficial to advocacy.

There is is some risk to riding on the road, but it is not outrageous risk and it is a risk that can be mitigated by many simple things on the riders part

Of course it is not dangerous. Not really. Cycling in places like the US or Canada is only slightly more risky than driving in terms of serious accidents or death per time traveled. But it is still much safer than a lot of activities that people do on a regular basis. The health benefits from cycling exceed the health risks. (A good diet helps, but some physical activity is also important to live a healthy life).

And it depends on how you ride. The data includes recreational cyclists who like to do 50mph descents on curvy roads with moderate car traffic. And it includes bike messengers racing each other through the city disregarding traffic rules.

If you are worried about your safety, ride safely.

I've been cycling on roadways for over 30 years now and have been hit four times. You get used to it:injured::beer:

This may seem like an inflammatory question, but that's not my intent. With the benefit of hindsight and the knowledge you have gained through the years, were any of them avoidable.

How we assess risk and respond to it is an interesting topic. There are certainly activities that are objectively/statistically more risky than others. I'm thinking that most of us don't know the risk statistics for all the activities we take part in throughout each day but our decisions to partake or avoid specific activities is a mix of personal experience, biases, and psychology. A common example is someone who is terrified of flying in an airplane but participates in many other activities that are statistically far more dangerous. I think this happens at a personal level in our decision making and at a societal level. Based on a whole host of historical, cultural, and other reasons we may respond quite differently to certain kinds of threats that are statically less a threat than others that actually are more costly in terms of threat and public safety.

The only way to "ride safely" and not be hit by a car, is to not ride among cars. That is it.


There is nothing as cyclists we can do about cellphone zombies and mid-afternoon drunks coming back from tailgating. Cyclists will still be hit and killed even after doing everything right WRT traffic law and street smarts.

Humans are notoriously terrible at estimating risk and act consistently on irrational inborn biases. We gamble away our savings, ignore massive threats to life and limb, and get all phobic about stupid stuff. Whole industries are built on this fact and our public policy and politics reflect it vividly.

this is IMHO an totally misleading to newbies and in accurate view.

if that were true ever person who ever rode a bike on the road would have been hit.

I have riding on the road for 50+ years, narrow Montana highways (US 2) on my 3 speed columbia getting my cycling merit badge and later on my first road bike, Newfoundland, Bermuda, Bahamas, Nova scotia, and New england with the bike I kept on the Coast Guard ship I was stationed on, NYC when I lived there and all over california.

By your stated standards I should have been hit many times, but I have never been hit by a car. I fell once and got a cheek scrape when a car pulled into a gas station in front of me. My biggest injury was caused by a dog chasing cat and running in front of me.....and that was really huge bruising.

The question every individual must ask themselves every day. Is the risk worth the enjoyment? "Risk" is that which is PERCEIVED by the individual.

I have not owned a car since 1989. I've commuted up to 36 miles a day for 18 months. Mostly my commutes are 5-8 miles in a city grid. I have also biked across the USA five times self contained - mostly solo camping. I am no cycling wimp. But I no longer ride a bike for fun. Just the utilitarian trips that are absolutely necessary. Work, grocery, dentist, etc. What finally did me in is complicated and a combination of factors.

1. Rampant Cellphone usage by motor vehicle operators.

2. So many oversized vehicles on the roads - like all of the giant pickup trucks out there.

3. National drug emergency with so many addicted to pain killers AND DRIVING.

4. Plus all the usual motorist azzhattery.

So I no longer need to ask the question. I'm done. Been done for about three years now and no regrets, only relief.

Hope this helps. Cheers.

Survivor bias; in another universe, in another world, you have been struck and killed many times over by autos, and struck even more times. The reason why you have not is the same reason we have never detected a 600 mile wide crater in the earth despite us knowing many such craters exists on other planets.

Take 100 kids, have them ride bicycles around cars for an hour each day for 70 years. Then ask the survivors how dangerous bicycling is. The answer is, "not very" despite being struck and killed by an auto (in a car, bicycle, motorcycle, or pedestrian) is the number 1 way of dying accidentely in the USA. The other <dead> kids aren't around to say otherwise.

^^Yup.

Basically I used to believe the odds were stacked SLIGHTLY in my favor. I am an expert city cyclist, use a mirror, and pay 100% attention to what is going on 360* around me. Ten years ago, when motorists were behaving MOSTLY predictably and holding a pretty straight line while underway, I believed my skills were enough to survive day in and day out JUST BARELY. Now however I feel like the odds are stacked SLIGHTLY out of my favor. Phone users are running red lights, stopping at green lights, driving well below the speed limit imitating someone who is looking to turn or park, or way over the limit and drifting across fog lines to the right and dashed lines to their left. Or just bumping into the vehicle in front of them stopped at a red light. I have witnessed too much BS mostly caused by phone use AND vehicles that are too wide for people not paying strict attention.

Anyone care to put a number on the likelihood of being hit by a motor vehicle per 1000 mi. ridden by them on their customary routes? I'll give it a big .013. Not terrifying, but more dangerous than tiddlywinks.

Edit: Thinking about it, perhaps I'll come down to .0086.

Just ask people who got hit and see what happens to the numbers.

Their estimates are likely to be high. Incidentally, I have been hit at least four times that I can remember, but I've been on the roads for over five decades and many thousands of miles.

What if you add in the times you were ALMOST hit? Then add in the times that a few more inches out of your favor would have killed you but didn't leave a scratch. It's the margin for error, every car, car after car after car, that stacks up. Flipping a coin gives you a 50/50 chance of coming up heads. If you come up tails 100 flips in a row, the odds of coming up tails on the next flip is STILL 50/50. So car, after car, after car you have to figure "what are the odds of THAT car hitting me?" for every single car - not the entire day or year. EVERY CAR is a risk.

Every car in your lane? In Mumbai? Does it have to be moving? C'mon smart guy, put a number on it.

Well, every car in a position to fail and hit me with a small margin for error, which I thought would just be understood. So yes, cars in my lane and cars crossing my lane mostly. Cars leaving parallel parking spaces to my right. Sometimes oncoming cars who decide to pass another car using my lane head-on. Most often, cars negotiating intersections near me. NEAR ME in all cases. I would say within five feet.

So you want a number. If I rode my bike like most people I see riding bikes in the city on my route, I would have to interact with about 100 vehicles per 5 miles. But because I cycle about 18-20 mph during peak hours, and selectively run red lights to utilize the empty road spaces caused by those red lights, normally I only have to interact with about 5 to 10 cars per 5 miles.

Why would you bring up cars in Mumbai? Just to get a reaction. That harms your credibility in an argument although it is all the rage in current American politics these days. The proper response to "You are a crook" is NOT "Well...what about Hillary?" This kind of statement just reflects poorly on you.