JamesRL

My usual ride starts in suburbia and goes out to rural. I usually feel far safer in rural despite the higher auto speeds. When there are fewer distractions they have time to give me room.

A week ago though, I came close to honking at a fellow cyclist, even stopping. I was driving down a rural road, about 10 PM, no road lights at all, just my headlights. It was a major road leading to a highway, and most people travel fast on the road. I was doing the limit when all of a sudden I spot a cyclist directly in front of me. No lights, no reflectors, dark clothing. At 80 kph, I had about a half second to move over. If I was speeding, as many do on that road, it could have been fatally less.

I have friends who ride at nigh on a regular basis and wear the right gear and play safe. If you are riding at night, urban roads with lighting might be safer than rural.

CrankyOne

Depends on what you want to know. If you want to know the relative danger of driving vs riding from home to work and back then per mile is the appropriate stat.

If you have an hour to spare and wonder if you should go for a car ride or a bike ride then fatalities per hour of each would be the stat for you.

chasm54

It's pretty great stats for me. I drive fewer than 8000 miles a year. There have been years when I've cycled over 10000.

Buckeye Bob

I live in a fairly rural area. It also is a hilly area in a relatively flat area of the state (Ohio), so there is a fair amount of cycling activity on any given day around my house. With that said I would cycle on the rural roads any day over some of the urban roads/parks that I cycle on.
Not that I feel that uncomfortable in an urban setting. It's just that in my experience the rural roads around my house with drivers that are conditioned to cyclist on the road are much safer. I rarely, if ever get "buzzed" by cars.

Chris516

I don't ride on MUPs for that reason. Because, Sometimes the local government configures a MUP to use the concrete sidewalk more commonly used by pedestrian traffic. Instead of keeping the MUP on the asphalt bike/ped path. If the local government chooses to have MUPs at all.

Jim from Boston

Rural riding vs urban riding?

I ride both, and didn’t have a specific opinion until this morning. I started out on exurban country roads at about 5:15 AM, with sunrise about 6:15, and a good headlight that nicely illuminated the road for about 20 feet ahead. I did start to realize that when I got warmed up, I might be outpacing my headlights. As oncoming traffic began to increase, the approaching car headlights would wash out my illumination and I couldn’t see the road surface well until they passed. I thus had to ride slowly to anticipate any unseen potholes or road cracks. After about three miles I turned back.

I frequently and usually commute at that same time in the city, and never have that problem, even though I commute outbound and face heavier oncoming inbound traffic. There is better ambient illumination of the road, and my eyes do not become so dark-adapted as in the country. While maybe rural drivers may be more courteous, I think they are more likely to routinely drive with high beams.

So I think that in the dark, especially early AM, urban riding is much safer.

mconlonx

Just my experience. *shrug*

Percentage of distracted drivers and those committing moving violations are pretty much equal, rural v. urban. Traffic is less, meaning fewer interactions with drivers, on a rural basis, but that's part of the problem -- rural drivers just aren't expecting cyclists on the road to the extent urban drivers do. Add in distractions, and it can be just as deadly.

Urban, expecting cycle commuters, lighted streets, even some bike paths, slower traffic. Rural, faster traffic, narrower roads, no shoulders, no lighting, cycle commuters a rare breed. I feel safer in traffic in downtown Boston/Cambridge MA than I do on rural roads in S. Maine.

DreamRider85

And you aren't alone on this. I really love this activity, but it's very dangerous. However, if you have Paved paths, I recommend you use your road bike for them. I just wish that the infrastrctures favored cycling.

bakes1

Huhza?
People are regularly trying to sideswipe you with their vehicles?
Who are you?

gios

wtf? you insert regularly because what, you feel like it?

kickstart

Holy smokes people.........its just riding a bicycle!

It's NOT that difficult, or dangerous!

mulveyr 

Yup. But certain people seem to feel the need to make everything dramatic.

DreamRider85

It's the cars that endanger the activity. In my opinion every road should have a bike lane with protection walls. It's a shame that it's not that way.

bakes1

This.
And satellite guided laser beams to instantly vaporize any small animals that are within a certain proximity to your bike as they could potentially run under your tires which is very dangerous.

bakes1

Uhh, no.
I inserted the word regularly because you did not use a specific instance in your silly example. You made a general reference to multiple possibilities. Buzzing by/hitting with mirror/sideswiping to the pavement.
And mostly because you also specifically said you ride with witnesses. Who says that lol?
What did you mean by that other then you maybe have had multiple issues and need witness protection?
Or are you so paranoid that even though nothing has ever happened to you, you still feel the need to have witnesses in case one of the three scenarios you referenced happens to you one day in the future?

mulveyr 

Can we also get water and bike repair stations every 5 miles? And hoses to wash off the thick layer of gnats that accumulate all over me at this time of year when I ride at night?

I'd be happy to have my taxes go for that. Oh, and there should also be masseuses at every water station. It's the only way I'll feel safe.

gios

So you're media matters now. This is what happens when you ass u me.

Hypno Toad

Like all infra, MUPs are all different. Multi Use Path covers a lot of infra, from side-paths to rails-to-trails conversions. Some MUPs are amazing and some are death-traps. In my area (Minneapolis), you will find best-in-case MUPs and classic "converted sidewalks". So I take exception to lumping all MUPs together as "dangerous". I would suggest "side-paths" better describes the dangerous infra, versus the broad term "MUP".

The same can be said about suburban roads, I'm in Minnetonka, it has good, wide roads with shoulders (AKA bike routes). But go north (Plymouth) or south (Eden Prairie), you enter the worst-in-class 45 mph, 4-lane roads with no bike infra, and you're stuck using county roads because all side roads are death by cul-de-sac.

To the OP question/statement, I consider the urban roads by far the safest, the vehicle speeds are the lowest making any collision much less damaging than anything rural. People think that fewer cars on the rural roads make them safer, but the higher speeds are what cause the damage, not the number of vehicles. That said, I ride all road conditions with confidence - from urban, to suburban, to rural.

bakes1

I am going to refrain from specifically responding to that nonsense as I am sure you have witnesses here in case this escalates to something more serious.

gios

^ translation - you resemble that remark?

Saving Hawaii

I think "rural" has a lot of different definitions. I lived in a small city (80k) in the middle of nowhere for a longtime. The rural roads there were great with scarce traffic (some stretches you might go a whole hour and see one car) and I never had issues with the drivers. Or you might go for a loop on one of the busier roads that nonetheless has a lot of cyclists and a decent shoulder and it's pretty great. Now I live in a bigger city and "rural road" has a scary connotation. Some windy, super-narrow road with cars whipping around blind corners like there's a fire. It's not a place you want to be.

The MUPs in the 80k city were awesome. Here I've been pretty impressed as well (though, eugh pedestrians). But I've also lived in places where the MUPs were less than useless.