volosong

Was browsing the headlines on Drudge Report and he linked to a Miami Herald article about how dangerous it is to be a pedestrian in Florida. That made me curious about how that compares with bicycle/car collisions. We know that pedestrians don't usually travel very far, and us oldsters don't think anything of riding for 10-20, or more miles on a ride.

One Googled web site shows that there were 4,884 pedestrians killed in auto collisions in 2014 and 'only' 726 cyclists. Realizing that even one is too many, it is a minor relief to me that it appears I am much safer riding my bike than hoofing it.

The article didn't state it, but subtly implied that most ped/auto crashes happen at intersections. We as riders already know that and are usually hyper aware when we approach and traverse an intersection. It's almost like we expect something to happen and are on the lookout for it. Ride safe, everyone.

VNA

A lot more pedestrians than cyclists.
What would be more relevant is the accident rate per 10,000 pedestrians vs cyclists?
Half of the fatal bike accidents are with kids--so unfortunately, another quarter of them are at night too often without lights!

DiabloScott

I did some research for a safety presentation in my office last year.

ROUGHLY -

13% of bike-car collisions are right hooks
13% of bike-car collisions are left hooks
26% of bike-car collisions are bike riders going against traffic (salmoning)

FlashBazbo

It's all in how you slice the statistics. I suspect that the number of deaths per 100,000 participants is somewhat higher for cyclists than for pedestrians, even though the absolute number is lower. I also suspect the number of deaths per person-hour of activity is vastly higher for cyclists.

If we want to use absolute numbers, jumping out of a plane is far, far safer than staying inside the plane. (22 fatalities vs. 428 for 2015)

VNA

That word "salmoning" is a great descriptive.
Lots of kids do it and on side walks as well.
Would like to think "blinkies" help with those right and left hooks--but certainly not fool proof!

Aidoneus

One of the first things I explain in my statistics courses is how often raw numbers are useless. To compare risks in these examples one needs to consider ratios. I would use total accidents per total time spent in activity or accidents per distance traveled, depending on what data is available or can be estimated. In fact, just yesterday for my first class this semester at Purdue I gave the raw statistic that there are more bicycle fatalities in August than in January, but one could not conclude that riding in winter is safer based on this data.

SloButWide 

In the Commuting forum, there's a discussion on this. WPHamilton makes an interesting observation:

BlazingPedals

Nope, not in my case at least. Back when I bicycle-commuted, there was a 'problem' intersection on my route where I'd been right-hooked several times. I learned not jut to take the lane, but to ride in the left tire track. That didn't stop one old lady from changing lanes and then hooking me from the next lane over. Put a dent in her fender over a foot wide. When she saw I was OK enough to get up off the pavement, she drove off. I always wondered how she explained that to her husband when the dent was discovered.

John E

Most motorists do not understand that right turns are to be initiated from the curb. Oregon and other states with bike lanes extending all the way to an intersection reinforce this, as do bike lane buffers.

Daniel4

All of these numbers thrown around make the assumption that bad driving is an acceptable norm.

Remove the car and pedestrian deaths would be around 1 every five years due to cyclist collision. Remove the car and cyclist deaths would drop dramatically to cyclists losing control over road conditions. Neither will go down to zero, but they won't be in the hundreds per year either.

The measurement that makes sense would be deaths of pedestrians, cyclists and motorist per motor-vehicle, not per population nor per miles.

We can't remove the car, but it seems we can improve driver behaviour.

Only time will tell how all these fatality rates will decrease when self-driving cars are introduced.

mr_bill

The actual report....

Dangerous by Design

The largest problem with the metric is that the denominator is derived from the Census Department's American Community Survey (ACS), which is quite noisy and only captures pedestrians who commute to work where walking is the farthest DISTANCE of their commute.

(Same problem with ACS and biking btw. If you walk or bike to a train or subway, but you ride the train or subway farther, you are a transit commuter not a pedestrian commuter or a bike commuter.)

They then use the ACS number as a proxy for how many people are walking in an area.

The other is that the numerator is Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), which is the opposite of the canary in the coal mine, and even then, FARS is both noisy because of the "small" numbers of fatalities (by area) and the quality of the data that it does/doesn't contain.

That said, even with that limitation, while being number one versus number seven means not very much, being an order of magnitude more dangerous by this metric (most of the metropolitan areas of Florida versus most of the metropolitan areas of the Northeast) does mean something.

-mr. bill

bruce19

A friend of mine is a Naturopathic Doctor. Her father lives in FL and he decided he needed to be more active. He took up cycling and walking on a regular basis. She, of course, thought this was long overdue. He went out for a walk one day, was hit by a truck and killed. Ironically, he had previously made complaints to the local PD about drivers in the area.

TimothyH

Keep in mind that cycling or walking, a number of people hit and killed by cars are drunk.

Recreational cyclists are more likely to wear helmets as well. Pedestrians generally don't wear helmets.

Loose Chain

That is very sad. People who are not really "cyclists" or have never ridden a bicycle in traffic one day decide that is their new sport. Or motorcycles, same thing. I think part of cycling (or motorcycling) is growing up in it or at least for a cliche, taking baby steps, learn the ropes. Do not just jump out on a busy street. You have to learn the rules. Of course, even then, sometimes it may not be enough. Knock on wood, I try to believe that I am my l am captain of my fate and that my actions can avoid bad things. Maybe.

bruce19

Just to make sure I was clear. He was killed while walking. And, yes, it was really sad.

indyfabz

IIRC, Florida is usually up there on the list of states with the most cycling deaths.

BlazingPedals

Or, in Florida, incapacitated by age.

Artmo 

Not all of them!
I'm not at all surprised that so many pedestrians are killed by motor vehicles in Florida. For a long time I had assumed that they had the right of way regardless of the situation, but according to FL law that is not the case. Pedestrians, before crossing the street, should look left, then right, then left again to ensure it's safe to cross. In fact, on a daily basis I see many "goofies," old and young, just step into the street without looking either way.

CrankyOne

On a per kilometer basis in the US... Car occupant is 7 fatalities per billion km travelled, bicycle is 75 per billion, and walking is 90 per billion. If you are going to ride 10 miles or walk/run 10 miles then riding is safer (and car much safer).

You can probably guesstimate some exposure time risks given x or y average speeds.

For comparison The Netherlands is 8 bicycle fatalities per billion km so the U.S. is almost 10 times as dangerous.

Gyro

and it's about the same size as maryland. There were 6 cyclists kill.

Maryland traffic fatalities hit 66-year low - Baltimore Sun

While in the netherlands Of the 570 road traffic deaths recorded in the Netherlands in 2014, 185 involved cyclists and cyclists also accounted for half of those seriously injured.

The Netherlands one of safest EU countries for road use, bike deaths an issue - DutchNews.nl

CrankyOne

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. That Maryland is safer?

The Netherlands has over three times the population as Maryland so on a per capita basis someone in Maryland is about three times as likely to be killed by someone driving a car as someone in The Netherlands.

The average Dutch rides a bit over 1,000 km's per year, the average U.S. about 30 km's. Assuming the average for Maryland is about the same 30 km (I'd guess much less but we'll go with the U.S. average) then, very roughly, a bicycle rider in Maryland is a bit over 90 times as likely to be killed per kilometer as someone in The Netherlands.

That DutchNews.nl article you linked skipped over an important bit - per km cycled. The Netherlands is not only one of the safest places in the world to drive a car but is also the ONLY country where riding a bicycle is safer per mile than riding in a car.

Daniel4

No, after my trip to Denmark, I wrote to the Copenhagen traffic safety department for the fatality and injuries statistics. Per billion km, cycling is safer than driving by something like 5x.

And since NYC had implemented more bicycling infrastructure and road changes, the increase in ridership has corresponded with the decrease in fatalities. (Street Fight, Janette Sadik Khan).

CrankyOne

Denmark auto fatalities is about 5 per billion km's while bicycle fatalities are about 10 per billion km's. Even eliminating all motorway miles and fatalities (motorways are much safer than surface streets) brings auto fatalities on surface streets up to about 6 per billion km's. No matter how you measure it bicycling is more dangerous than driving a car in Denmark. That said, Denmark is the second safest country in the world for bicycling and about 7 times safer than riding in the U.S.


Yes. IIRC that's a decrease in fatalities per trip. I think absolute fatalities has risen slightly. Either way NYC is a much safer place to ride a bicycle today than 5 years ago and it's continuing to get safer as more protected bikeways are built.

Gyro

I'm not saying anything. I wonder how the Netherlands compared to a equal size state mass instead of the whole USA. Can't account for what's is or isn't in the article.