WNCGoater

According to this other thread, you were closer with your original figure.
https://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-s...ide-bikes.html

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/03/0...ke-it-a-habit/

DXchulo

1 in 3 seems very, very high. How do they define "ride a bike"? Once a year?

bbbean 

Ask the authors. I know that the Missouri number is 2.1 million Missourians who will ride a bike at some point in the year, so 110 million nationally certainly seems to be in the ball park.

Of course, you could argue that someone who borrows a bike for an hour once this year isn't the same as a daily commuter or racer who puts thousands, possibly tens of thousands of miles on their bikes each year. But then you'd have to break down the number of fatalities relative to miles or hours ridden and once again the number comes out to be very low.

As a point of reference, between 3500 and 4000 people drown each year in the US. 42,000 people die from poisoning.

So while 800 deaths in bike accidents is a tragedy for 800 families and communities, it is not quite the growing national crisis that headlines would proclaim it to be. That is the point I was trying to make.

What follows is that while we should obviously be looking for ways to make cycling safer, we have to balance those efforts with a sense of proportion and a risk/reward analysis.

Daniel4

Something is off kilter with all the analysis. Who is killing all these cyclists? Pedestrians? Other cyclists?

Why isn't anybody discussing the epidemic that's called bad driving?

DXchulo

I agree with your overall premise. Cycling isn't as dangerous as people make it out to be. I just think that 1 in 3 number had to have come out of somebody's ass.


Like you said, we really want to know some numbers in terms of deaths per hour of activity, but those numbers are impossible to find.

CliffordK

The problem is times/distance.

Those riders that ride, say 100+ days a year, and over 5000 miles a year have a whole lot more exposure than those riders who ride, say a few miles for an hour or so a year.

Those that ride a lot are likely better skilled with riding around traffic, and thus safer, but potentially take higher risks than those who never ride outside of their local neighborhood or public parks.

genec

Several reasons:
Most drivers believe they are better than they are
Most drivers believe roads are for cars
Cyclists are a tiny minority
800 deaths a year is nothing relative to the 40000 deaths a year of motorists and passengers
Bicycles are toys for kids
This happens to "the other guy"

So as far as the big picture is concerned, cyclists don't matter, and there is no driving problem.

reppans

If you look at deaths per miles traveled, bicycling is 3-10x more dangerous than driving cars. From HERE.

On public roads, I feel safer on a motorcycle than on a bicycle.

genec

Wow, from that site comes this revelation:
67% of crashes are at non intersection locations. The site later mentions that 33% of crashes are at intersections, thus confirming that 67%.

This exactly opposite of what we've been told for so many years... that intersections are dangerous...

Daniel4

Why is bad driving an acceptable norm that we would rather accept the fatality rates of road users than to address those who are causing those fatalities?

FBinNY 

I believe that you're mixing data. The fatality rate doesn't correlate with the accident rate.

The higher fatality rate resulting from passes on straight sections, reflects the higher speeds involved. Intersection accidents tend to involve lower speeds, so one is more likely to be injured rather than killed.

It also depends where you ride. Open road cyclists are more likely to be victims of passing accidents, while urban riders are more likely to be injured at intersections.

I-Like-To-Bike

What do you suggest is a credible, useful or practical means to "address those who are causing those fatalities?" Certainly it can't be just to repeat the same platitudinous question over and over on BF.

reppans

I think the same 'per passenger mile' thing applies - it's just that the VAST BULK of a bicyclists' mileage is not near an intersection. Take the NYC example - you are only w/in +/-25ft of an intersection <20% of the time (short blocks ~250 ft), yet it accounts for 89% of the fatalities. Rural riding is going to have a tiny percentage of mileage through intersections. Averaging it all in, and I'd guess MOST bicycle fatalities are a result of getting accidentally hit/sideswiped from behind at non-intersections.

Human at the controls will always result in some level of error/accident - you can never reduce that to zero, and I'm actually surprised the fatality rates are not higher. I'm into dangerous sports (statistically far more dangerous than bicycling) but bicycling (on public roads) is unique risky to me for 2 reasons: 1) I reliquish most of the control to the other guy (car passing me), and 2) the inability to maintain average road user pace means I expose myself to many more of those 'other guys in control' (vs a motorcycle, for example).

Gresp15C

I wonder if demographics plays into the fatality data. I'd like to see it broken down by age. For motorists, traffic deaths are strongly correlated to age, and I suspect the same thing is true for cyclists. I'd like to know what the risk is for someone of my age.

FBinNY 

There is data broken down by age. I believe you'll find it on the CDC site, though it might be at NHTSA.

If I recall there's concentration at the low end (children) which shouldn't surprise anybody, but what may surprise is the concentration at the high end, in disproportion to the participation, which is interesting.

genec

You are right... the way I restated the data in my post is wrong... here is the original quote, which looks strictly at fatalities...

I added the bold to show that those two numbers do add up. Now bear in mind that these are recent numbers... gathered during this current century... since the advent of the cell phone (whatever...). And more importantly, these are quite the opposite of what we have heard from the Vehicular Cycling crowd for the last 30+ years or so, while they cite the Cross study... the latter done in the 70s. (Cross 1)

Have conditions changed that much? Are non-intersections fatalities now greater in number than intersection fatalities?

Indeed, I tend to agree that same direction collisions will likely involve higher speeds , and thus tend to be fatal... This is especially true since the national speed limit of 55MPH has long been rescinded, and even some non-highway arterial roads may have speeds as high as 55MPH.

genec

Speculation has long held that cyclists reentering the sport in later years skews the high end concentration of which you speak.

Ninety5rpm

That's temporary. Autonomous cars are just around the corner.

Daniel4

Your challenge to me indicates your defense of bad driving habits and nothing should be done. It is of the view that motorists rule and all their victims be damned.

There are many solutions studied around the world but again political will gets in the way in favour of the bad driver.

Intentional traffic calming obstructions force motorists to drive carefully. But critics say they slow down traffic times too much.

In Ontario, legislation is being proposed to increase the fine for road fatalities to $50,000, max 2 years in jail and demerit points. Current fine is only $500. An election is coming up and I can see critics state that the proposal is another cash-grab. How much is a life worth?

I have stated many times in these discussion forums that in order to earn a drivers license one should be required to have 8 hours of in traffic bicycle experience. One survey indicated a lot of would-be cyclists don't because of motorists. That's people being afraid to cycle because of themselves.

So you critize my repeat of the same question but you didn't answer that question. I have never recieved an approprite answer to why bad driving is acceptable.

Daniel4

You should tell that to the Mayor of Toronto and any other authority to abandon the plan of VisionZero.

You also cannot reduce diseases, unemployment or public debts to zero. But they are good causes and goals to achieve.


.... The two reasons are actually one: bad driving. If it weren't for the bad driver, you wouldn't worry about the close pass and the drivers' inability to stay in control.

I-Like-To-Bike

Who, besides yourself, ever claimed that "bad driving is acceptable"?

sweeks

Statistics only apply to large groups and, as you point out, have limited utility in predicting risk for individuals.

This ^^
For me, this means riding carefully and considerately, wearing a helmet and using a rear-view mirror. YMMV, of course.
Steve

JoeyBike

There are WAY too many variables to conclude bicycles are safe or not. Presuming we are staying on roads shared with motorists, here are some variables that just pop to mind.

Rider Skill
Rider Experience
Bicycle Type
Road Types
Road Widths
Traffic Volume
Sight Lines
Road Shoulders or Not
Culture of Motorists Encountered (Jackson, Mississippi would be FAR different than Davis, California)
Culture of Cyclists (New Orleans vs. Seattle WA would be fairly extreme)
Total Numbers of Cyclists
Time of Day or Night
Alcohol Law Enforcement

To name a few. You can't just throw out a statement that "bicycles are reasonably safe" unless you are riding circles in an empty parking lot. Life does not get lived in a vacuum.

FBinNY 

My statement about safety was intended to be taken in the context of the other risks we all face in our daily lives, not a promise of absolute safety (something that doesn't exist anyway).

On the spectrum of various risks, I place bicycling someplace between using knives in the kitchen, and wreck diving., but closer to the kitchen than the sea.

jon c. 

This is true, but because life is not lived in a vacuum it is also true of pretty much everything else we do.

We'll never get out of here alive.