urbanknight

True, that is the trick. It is also tricky to actually live life instead of avoiding all risk, of course. I'm not sure if hospitals actually do the killing, though, but I do see your point.

DrPete 

She should be trying to discourage you from driving your car if you play the odds...

rruff

Amen!

Seems like paranoia and fear have really escalated in the last decade or so... people even have to drive extra huge "cars" because it isn't safe to drive a small one!

I love these Amsterdam cycling photos... especially the ones with a couple of kids hanging on. Try that in the US and they'd probably take your kids away from you...

https://www.ski-epic.com/amsterdam_bicycles/

heckler

hey urban knight, i understand what you are syaing so i will make it so we are comparing apples to apples.

this site says portland oregon has the most bike commuters at 3.5%

https://hr.blr.com/news.aspx?id=76065

the population is 568,380 according to wikipedia ~20,000 bikers

i don't know the amount of peopel commuting to work but i will assume 50% is a conservative estimate ~284200 people

i assume the graph is ratios based on a life time since death is 1:1 so if 1:4919 people die of bike crashes and there are ~20,000 bikers about 4 die in the city of portland .02% chance of dying if you bike to work in portland.

if 1 in 84 die in cars and ~284200 drive 3,383 car driving folk die in the city of portland. a 1.2% chance of dying in your lifetime in portland

this is flawed in many ways, but i think it may satisfy your type of thinking better since we are comparing drivers to drivers and bikers to bikers. clearly biking is safer not only because less die, but less die per person doing the given activity.

urbanknight

Heckler, you hit the nail on the head. I was inferring that percentages of each group is more accurate since it takes into account only people who do each activity.

Don't get me wrong, the graphic displayed earlier proves a very good point. It just shouldn't be taken as any single person's odds.

cyccommute 

I think you've missed the point of the entire study...and the graphic. Don't consider someone else's risk but only your own. This, after all, is the point that Mustang1 raised. His wife was telling him how dangerous riding a bike is. Your wife may be telling you how dangerous it is. But you and Mustang1... and me, for that matter... participate in at least two activities on the list - bicycle riding and driving a car (I assume you drive). Since we are members of the US population our odds of dying doing either of those activities are given in the chart. Depending on where you live and how often you do the activities, your odds may change but I doubt that they change that significantly.

Now, given that you participate in bicycling and in driving cars and that you are a member of the population, which activity do you have a higher risk of dying while doing? If someone, like your wife, doesn't participate in bicycling, her odds of dying while doing it are indeed very low. However, her odds of dying in a automobile accident are just as high as yours are...if she drives Since dying in an automobile accident is a much more likely cause of death for the general population, anyone who says that bicycling is the more dangerous activity needs to be shown their own risk of dying doing something that they consider 'safe'.

And we haven't even addressed the 3 million+ injuries that result from automobile accidents

urbanknight

That's the part that is incorrect. That chart, to my understanding, shows every person's chances of dying in each activity, whether they do it or not. It is simply the number of deaths divided by the US population. Am I incorrect?

It's also contradictory to say your odds are given in a chart and then state that they vary by location and frequency. I would bet my odds are significantly lower in a car since I spend less time in it by commuting by bike (which raises my odds on a bike). Also, someone who never participates in said activity would deviate from the odds quite a bit (by 100% to be exact), an as I mentioned before, I read that study to include them in the final tally.

Once again, the chart makes an excellent point, but it should NEVER be used for any kind of actual numbers.

DrPete 

Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal condition. Enjoy it while it lasts, because you never know when it'll be over.

Psimet2001 

He's ALIVE!!!!

Didn't read the whole thread. Honestly I hate a lot of the rhetoric that goes around regarding cycling and accidents. Fact is the longer you ride the more you increase the odds of something happening to you.

Case in point:
https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=228955

It happens. It happens to those that know what the F they are doing. Every day you get on the bike if the thought of not coming home to your family upsets you you should take a second and give them a hug and kiss before walking out the door.

If you can man up and accept the risk then whoopie f'n do - join the rest of us, but remember this....it is never anything to laugh about, joke about, posture about, or BS about. Real people with real families who know their ****e die riding bikes.

Murrays

As I like to point out, ~700 people die each year from cycling (half of them children) while 700 THOUSAND die from heart disease (which is greatly reduced through regular exercise). Which is more risky??

Here's an article that tries to take into account rider experience, deaths per million hours of exposure, etc. (just don't tell your wife that the author was killed by a car while on his bike).

https://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/health/risks.htm

-murray

urbanknight

Well, as long as more than 1 out of every 1,000 people ride their bike regularly, riding is clearly the better choice. *Not taking into account the possibility that some cyclists may die of heart disease.

Murrays

Have to disagree. Read the link I posted. Experienced cyclists (anyone here I suspect), make up a fraction of those 700 annual deaths (half of which are children alone).

To your point, there are half a dozen avid cyclist (>1000 miles/year) I've met where I work out of perhaps a thousand. I'm certain there are dozens more that are more casual riders.

-murray

Beaker

Question is, will any of this interesting discussion actually persuade your wife? Sometimes a logical argument is not that effective. What kind of roads do you ride? What time of day are you riding? These can make a huge difference to someones perception of risk.

urbanknight

Not sure how that is disagreeing with me. I said cycling was SAFER, so for you to disagree you would be saying that cycling is more dangerous than sitting on a couch waiting for heart disease. Is that what you meant?

Larry3x2

First, the odds posted by others are correct. To avoid any injuries, stay in bed away from windows.
Second, Plan for problems by wearing a helmet, having a cellphone, riding with a buddy
Third, Plan for a First Responder finding your carcass in the street with you unconscious, those who have responded for me were very glad I had a rider ID card visible.
I'm 58, have been at this for years, and have split two helmets.

Larry

yeamac 

What I want to know is how many of you have a greater chance of dying by legal execution?

Murrays

Sorry, I was disagreeing with the 1 out of 1,000 number. I'd say if perhaps more than 1 in 10,000 people ride bikes, your comment may be valid.

-murray

cyclezealot

Been there done that. My solution. Be a man ,you gotta bike; or else. If that does not work. Pout.

munkyv22

You know, it occurs to me that there is a very relevant cliche that I have not seen mentioned yet.

Sh*t happens.

Now go ride.

urbanknight

Ah yes, I was simply dividing your 700,000 figure by the 700 figure and my result has no merit other than the simple math it was derived from.

That should go on the chart!

Quite profound. That should be on a sticker... or jersey.

rruff

A good practice for anyone... on any day.

Some more stats for you... in the US, the odds of getting killed on a bike are about 5 times as great (per mile) as driving a car. Over 90% of fatalities involve being hit by motor vehicles.

The death rate for cyclists in the US is ~1 per 15,000,000 miles. If you ride 5,000 miles per year, you have 50/50 odds of lasting 3,000 years before you get killed... or I guess if you ride this way for 50 years, your odds of eventually getting killed are 1/120. In reality experienced cyclists should have better odds than this, since they have better skills and sense than many casual riders and kids. It is more dangerous here than it is in most developed countries, but it ain't that bad.

So I'll take the 1/~few hundred chance that I'll get killed doing this in my lifetime.

Murrays

Not according to the site I linked earlier.



and



So while these stats show cycling as 2.5 times as dangerous per mile, it's about half as dangerous per hour vs. motoring. Either way, I'm probably more likely to die in an auto accident.

-murray

rruff

Guestimations on the number of miles traveled will vary. Those stats show about 1 death per 25 million miles, so better odds than the stats I used.

Psimet2001 

Mike Kalan
Accomplished Mountain Bike, Cyclocross, and Road racer.
Friend, Co-worker, husband, father of two.
Skilled and experienced cyclist.

Odds of being hit and killed by a car - 1:1

https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=228955

Throwing out huge numbers for odds are misleading. Many who don't know better might assume that it means if they are experinced on the road then it won't happen to them or that the odds are so small that they should never even consider it.

...and yet it happens to a lot of cyclists every year. More often than not it happens to people we have heard of, know through others, or have sat down at dinner with or even rode with.

cyccommute 

I'm sorry for your loss. However, it's incorrect to say that the more often you ride the more likely something is to happen to you. Random events are just that...random. Just because the odds of getting killed in a car accident are 1 in 84 or the odds of getting killed on a bicycle are 1 in 4900 that doesn't mean that every 84th time or 4900 time you use a car or bicycle, respectively, that you are going to die. Nor does it mean that you are safe up to the 4899th time you go for a bike ride. A random event may happen on the 1st ride, the 200th or the 40,000,000th or never.

Cyclists dying in an accident isn't that common. It happens about 1000 times a year. It's rare enough that it makes the news nearly every time it happens and that's what gets everyones knickers in a knot. Car deaths are so common and so frequent that they just don't make the news unless they are particularly horrific. It's a sad commentary on our society that the carnage on the roads can be at such a high level without anyone noticing.