sggoodri

Setting aside freeways, which are hard to classify and irrelevant to the discussion, more non-fatal car-car collisions occur in urban surface streets compared to roads in unincorporated areas. These are typically intersection-related, where traveling more slowly usually reduces the probability of collision.

But the car-car collisions in the unincorporated areas are much more catastrophic, with a much higher fatality rate. The number of fatal collisions in the unincorporated areas is highly disproportionate to the population there. Also, a great many of these collisions happen in non-intersection locations. When looking at pedestrian and cyclist fatalities, these tend to happen on the higher speed roads, most of which are in unincorporated areas, so even though there are fewer pedestrians in those rural areas, their fatality rate is higher, likely due to a combination of high speeds, darkness, and lack of sidewalks. There are too few cyclist fatalities in my area of NC to make many useful generalizations about contributing factors (some are intersection related, some are in darkness, and one or two have been daylight overtaking on high speed rural roads).

So, the tradeoff of urban cycling is likely more potential conflicts with cars at a lower probability of collision and severity of collision with each. I read a study once that showed that high-intersection-density urban cyclists were somewhat more likely to get into a collision with a car, normalized according to total cycling distance, but were less likely to receive serious injuries, normalized according to total cycling distance. As a utility cyclist, my destinations are urban, so that is where I cycle, and I appreciate the lower traffic speeds. But when I ride as a recreational cyclist, I like fewer interactions with cars, and so I choose out-of-the way rural routes and shrug off the occasional redneck I see careening around blind corners and over hills in his pickup.