Google sponsored links
The "bear" thread reminded me of this thought.
Since I don't usually drive, when I do get out on the freeway I feel less safe than I do when riding my bike in traffic. I'm not sure if I'm actually safer on my bike, but it's a feeling I get.
What's it to you?
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content
here.
Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
-
http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in
this thread)
-
http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in
this thread)
Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
-
http://www.bikeforums.net
Depends on what route I take on my bike. My normal route has relatively low traffic.
In that case I feel safer by a long shot.
However, occasionally I ride down busy roads. Initially I tend to feel less safe. After a while I get used to it and I feel as safe or safer than a freeway.
So..... the answer is mostly safer and occasionally less safe.
People drive nutty in Colorado but that is a whole other subject.
In New Mexico, it's perfectly legal in non-urban areas to ride a bicycle on the freeway (albeit on the wide shoulder). It might sound dangerous, but I haven't heard on any cyclist getting creamed while riding on the shoulder of the freeway. So I wonder what is more dangerous, riding on the shoulder of the freeway, or riding in town?
So I wonder what is more dangerous, riding on the shoulder of the freeway, or riding in town?
I don't have the reference handy (sorry) but I've seen statistics that riding on an interstate shoulder has a lower death rate and accident rate per mile compared to urban riding by quite a bit.
But of course statistics are just that and most often don't take into account many other factors such as rider experience, where (sidewalk, wrong way, street) the cyclists are in urban areas, etc.
Al
I think he meant as a motorist on a freeway, in which case I vote for freeway (should've been a poll.) On a bike at least you have a good variety of on and off-road routes to choose from, but most of the time in a car you're forced to drive on the meat-grinder freeways.
I don't have the reference handy (sorry) but I've seen statistics that riding on an interstate shoulder has a lower death rate and accident rate per mile compared to urban riding by quite a bit.
But of course statistics are just that and most often don't take into account many other factors such as rider experience, where (sidewalk, wrong way, street) the cyclists are in urban areas, etc.
Al
"Statistics" based on number of accidents, without considering other factors, would probably show that bicycle riding the wrong way down the middle of freeway lanes, at midnight during snow storms, is the safest method, since there are probably zero bicycle accidents recorded.
That is the notorious and bogus risk analysis method used for evaluating risk/danger from the rear by the proponent of Vehicular Cycling™
I think he meant as a motorist on a freeway, in which case I vote for freeway (should've been a poll.) On a bike at least you have a good variety of on and off-road routes to choose from, but most of the time in a car you're forced to drive on the meat-grinder freeways.
How can operating a motor vehicle on the freeway be more dangerous than riding a bike? :rolleyes: It is incredibly more dangerous to ride a bike anywhere than the drive a car anywhere.
For starters, you have to balance on 2 wheels instead of resting on 4 wheels. That makes a world of difference if the ground is even the slightest bit slippery as you don't need to balance in car.
Also, try getting hit while riding in a car, then on a bike. Unless you are driving an illegal P.O.S., you're secure behind a crumple-zone, airbags, seatbelt, etc. Get hit on a bike, even if both of you are going very slow, and you can get a serious injury (speaking from experience).
Even drive into a stationary object? I've been in a truck when my carpool driver drove into a pole. No problem, just some big dents on his truck, but we're okay. Now ride your bike into a parked car. You'll be on the ground with injuries (saw it happen in Boy Scouts).
If you want safety, drive a 4-wheeled vehicle - the bigger, higher, and heavier the better (SUV). If you want the thrill of being out in the open and tearing down the roads, drive a motorcycle. If you want the thrill of being out in the open under your own power, go ride a bike.
How can operating a motor vehicle on the freeway be more dangerous than riding a bike? :rolleyes: It is incredibly more dangerous to ride a bike anywhere than the drive a car anywhere.
I think this says it all: http://www.iihs.org/research/fatality_facts/pdf/general.pdf
"Seventy-five percent of motor vehicle fatalities in 2003 were passenger vehicle occupants, 11 percent were
pedestrians, 8 percent were motorcyclists, 1 percent were bicyclists, and 2 percent were occupants of large
trucks."
This only includes fatalities where a motor vehicle was involved. What did all those airbags and crumple zones do for these 30,000+ motorists?
Huh? That's apples to oranges.
This is a bicycling advocacy and safety forum. It is foolish, unwise, and quite harmful to trick new cyclists into thinking it's safer riding their bikes than driving on the freeway. This is not to deter people from riding bikes, but to make them aware that it is a more dangerous activity than driving a car and take the proper precautions/be more alert. Anyone who thinks otherwise is blissfully ignorant until their first bike-auto accident.
I think this says it all: http://www.iihs.org/research/fatality_facts/pdf/general.pdf
"Seventy-five percent of motor vehicle fatalities in 2003 were passenger vehicle occupants, 11 percent were
pedestrians, 8 percent were motorcyclists, 1 percent were bicyclists, and 2 percent were occupants of large
trucks."
This only includes fatalities where a motor vehicle was involved. What did all those airbags and crumple zones do for these 30,000+ motorists?
Brad I agree with you but I predict you will get nowhere trying to convince people that cars are dangerous. People don't judge "danger" based on objective data. They judge it based on subjective feelings. People feel safer in a car, so they believe they are safer. They sure can't tolerate believing that their pretty car, where they spend so much time, is actually a deathtrap. The car body that supposedly protects them is what actually injures or kills people in most crashes. Furthermore, when you're traveling 70 mph, or even 25 mph in a car, the physical forces that can harm you are greater than when you are travelling 15 mph on a bike.
So give me my nice safe bike any day.
Huh? That's apples to oranges.
This is a bicycling advocacy and safety forum. It is foolish, unwise, and quite harmful to trick new cyclists into thinking it's safer riding their bikes than driving on the freeway. This is not to deter people from riding bikes, but to make them aware that it is a more dangerous activity than driving a car and take the proper precautions/be more alert. Anyone who thinks otherwise is blissfully ignorant until their first bike-auto accident.
Then I'm ignorant. Please enlighten me with some reasoned arguments, oh wise one. :)
To start with, what makes you think that most bike accidents are car-bike crashes?
In New Mexico, it's perfectly legal in non-urban areas to ride a bicycle on the freeway (albeit on the wide shoulder). It might sound dangerous, but I haven't heard on any cyclist getting creamed while riding on the shoulder of the freeway. So I wonder what is more dangerous, riding on the shoulder of the freeway, or riding in town?
I used to commute on I-25 between Raton and Springer and Raton and Trinidad, Co. It's not exactly high traffic during the week and the shoulders are nice. Exit ramps and truck wash are the biggest dangers...not to mention tourists in motor homes. I'd say that stretch of 25 at least is safer than US 64 east to Des Moines where all the Texans and Okies like to either drive 100 in the lane or 65 on the shoulders. But due to the lower speeds involved, in town is definitely safer, though of course Raton isn't Albuquerque! ;)
Also, try getting hit while riding in a car, then on a bike. Unless you are driving an illegal P.O.S., you're secure behind a crumple-zone, airbags, seatbelt, etc. Get hit on a bike, even if both of you are going very slow, and you can get a serious injury (speaking from experience).
Even drive into a stationary object? I've been in a truck when my carpool driver drove into a pole. No problem, just some big dents on his truck, but we're okay. Now ride your bike into a parked car. You'll be on the ground with injuries (saw it happen in Boy Scouts).
.
My stepson was driving a Grand Am about 20 mph on a residential side street. He hit a patch of black ice just as he was braking for a stop sign. The car skidded and he continued to brake with the "anti-lock" braking system. The car hit a street side tree on the driver's door. The air bags did not deploy. Jerry was slammed by both the tree and various parts of the car. The car was was a mangled wreck. Jerry suffered a broken neck, a broken arm, several broken ribs and a shattered pelvis. They rushed him into surgery to remove his spleen and repair his diaphragm. He was comatose on a ventilator for a month. They had his guts i a plastic bag for a week. A year later he has made a pretty good recovery.
everybody says he is lucky.
Ironically, I had just recovered from a single bike accident. I hit the pavement at 15 mph. The ER doctors said I was hurt worse than cyclists usually are. I had a broken wrist, a broken rib and considerable soft tissue damage.
Everybody can draw their own conclusions, but for me: Give me my bike!
If you want safety, drive a 4-wheeled vehicle - the bigger, higher, and heavier the better (SUV).
How did I miss this earlier.
http://www.onlinelawyersource.com/suv/statistics.html
Then I'm ignorant. Please enlighten me with some reasoned arguments, oh wise one. :)
To start with, what makes you think that most bike accidents are car-bike crashes?
Read my 1st post above.
The only time I can think of where driving on a freeway is more dangerous than riding a bike is when I'm on my motorcycle splitting lanes during rush-hour traffic. Cars, trucks, and SUVs can and do dart in and out of traffic. I've been hit before.
First of all, you have to compare the total amount of miles travelled by both motor vehicles and bicycle to make a fair comparison. The more miles you travle, the higher the chance you have of getting into an accident.
Now let's talk about accidents. Minor car accidents are not dangerous to the people into the vehicle. However, a minor bicycle accident results in injuries to the cyclist. Even something as simple as falling off of your bike results in cuts & scrapes, bruises, and even a fractured collarbone.
When you see two cars get into a minor accident, no one is injured and they walk away. When you see bicylists get into a tangle with each other (i.e. group riding), they get bloodied up and even hospitalized (again, speaking from experience). When you see a car and a bike get into what would have been a minor car-to-car accident, the bicyclist is badly injured.
How can riding on a sub-50 lb piece of steel in lycra shorts (i.e. no motorcycle armor) be safer than riding in a good quality 2,000# car or 5,000# SUV on the freeway? Physics (F = ma) dictates that result of a collision between those objects will be much more violent for the smaller one.
Huh? That's apples to oranges.
This is a bicycling advocacy and safety forum. It is foolish, unwise, and quite harmful to trick new cyclists into thinking it's safer riding their bikes than driving on the freeway. This is not to deter people from riding bikes, but to make them aware that it is a more dangerous activity than driving a car and take the proper precautions/be more alert. Anyone who thinks otherwise is blissfully ignorant until their first bike-auto accident.
Oh horsepucky. Cycling is not nearly as dangerous as playing demolition derby on the freeways. My opinion is based on over 30 years of commuting on both. And your's is based on what...this thread? http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=162778
You are allowed to only cycle in fair, sunshiny weather, and consider it a dangerous activity, but please don't try to pass off your fears and opinions as fact.
Read my 1st post above.
The only time I can think of where driving on a freeway is more dangerous than riding a bike is when I'm on my motorcycle splitting lanes during rush-hour traffic. Cars, trucks, and SUVs can and do dart in and out of traffic. I've been hit before.
First of all, you have to compare the total amount of miles travelled by both motor vehicles and bicycle to make a fair comparison. The more miles you travle, the higher the chance you have of getting into an accident.
Now let's talk about accidents. Minor car accidents are not dangerous to the people into the vehicle. However, a minor bicycle accident results in injuries to the cyclist. Even something as simple as falling off of your bike results in cuts & scrapes, bruises, and even a fractured collarbone.
When you see two cars get into a minor accident, no one is injured and they walk away. When you see bicylists get into a tangle with each other (i.e. group riding), they get bloodied up and even hospitalized (again, speaking from experience). When you see a car and a bike get into what would have been a minor car-to-car accident, the bicyclist is badly injured.
How can riding on a sub-50 lb piece of steel in lycra shorts (i.e. no motorcycle armor) be safer than riding in a good quality 2,000# car or 5,000# SUV on the freeway? Physics (F = ma) dictates that result of a collision between those objects will be much more violent for the smaller one.You're making this all up, aren't you?
My stepson has made a pretty good recovery.
Ironically, I had just recovered from a single bike accident. I hit the pavement at 15 mph. The ER doctors said I was hurt worse than cyclists usually are. I had a broken wrist, a broken rib and considerable soft tissue damage.
Everybody can draw their own conclusions, but for me: Give me my bike!
I'm sorry for your stepson and glad to hear he's okay.
However, your argument is flawed. If your stepson lost control @ 20 mph and hit another vehicle, all passengers would still be alive and only the one closest to the tree would be severely injured. But, if your stepson lost control @ 20 mph and hit a bicyclist, the latter would be dead.
Now, how many miles have you ridden on your bike vs. riding in a car? You've had a bike accident which required hospitalization after only XXX number of miles. How many times have you had a car accident and over how many miles? It's a number game (like with women) - the more miles you are on the road, the more of a chance you will get into an accident. Now, in which device would you have fewer and lesser injuries - a motor vehicle or a bicycle?
If I wanted safety, I would sell my motorcycle and buy the biggest, most massive SUV there was. I guarantee you I would have 0% injuries if I ever hit/got hit by a bicyclist, but that bicyclist would most likely be seriously injured or dead.
Read my 1st post above.
The only time I can think of where driving on a freeway is more dangerous than riding a bike is when I'm on my motorcycle splitting lanes during rush-hour traffic. Cars, trucks, and SUVs can and do dart in and out of traffic. I've been hit before.
First of all, you have to compare the total amount of miles travelled by both motor vehicles and bicycle to make a fair comparison. The more miles you travle, the higher the chance you have of getting into an accident.
Now let's talk about accidents. Minor car accidents are not dangerous to the people into the vehicle. However, a minor bicycle accident results in injuries to the cyclist. Even something as simple as falling off of your bike results in cuts & scrapes, bruises, and even a fractured collarbone.
When you see two cars get into a minor accident, no one is injured and they walk away. When you see bicylists get into a tangle with each other (i.e. group riding), they get bloodied up and even hospitalized (again, speaking from experience). When you see a car and a bike get into what would have been a minor car-to-car accident, the bicyclist is badly injured.
How can riding on a sub-50 lb piece of steel in lycra shorts (i.e. no motorcycle armor) be safer than riding in a good quality 2,000# car or 5,000# SUV on the freeway? Physics (F = ma) dictates that result of a collision between those objects will be much more violent for the smaller one.
Oh my, I must really be due to have an accident...I better quit driving and riding ASAP and hide out in the bunker with plastic and duct tape! Indeed, based on your logic we had better quit walking down the street unless we don a force field. OMG how have I stayed in one piece all these years...and I rarely even wear a helmet! Somebody get me a bubble!
You're making this all up, aren't you?
:beer: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:
Oh horsepucky. Cycling is not nearly as dangerous as playing demolition derby on the freeways.
Demolition Derby? Bullocks! :p
Seriously, what is this general trepidation over freeways? For motorcyclists, freeways are a lot safer than streets since everyone is going in the same direction and there's no cross-traffic. I've driven tens of thousands of miles on the freeways (and in CA 4+ lane freeways, not some podunk 2-lane "highway") and ridden over ten thousand miles on my bicycle. I've been in 2 car accidents, one of them which rendered my vehicle inoperable, and walked away from both. I've been in 2 serious bicycle accidents and had numerous other "dangerous situations" with traffic (i.e. SUVs buzzing past me on canyon roads).
So my minor accidents to car miles is 2 / 100,000 or 0.002%.
And my major accidents to car miles is 0%.
But my major accidents to bike miles is 2 / 10,000 or 0.02%.
And minor accidents (i.e. hitting a pothole and crashing, wiping out on sand at beach, etc. all of which drew blood and required me to get a new helmets) is lot higher. I'm think I've wiped out 15 or 20 times in my life so that's 20 / 10,000 or 0.2%.
So my accident rates are 0.002% for motor vehicles and 0.22% for bicycles. I have 110 times more accidents per mile on a bicycle vs. a motor vehicle. Conclusion: riding in a motor vehicle is over 100 times safer than riding a bicycle.
Demolition Derby? Bullocks! :p
Seriously, what is this general trepidation over freeways? For motorcyclists, freeways are a lot safer than streets since everyone is going in the same direction and there's no cross-traffic. I've driven tens of thousands of miles on the freeways (and in CA 4+ lane freeways, not some podunk 2-lane "highway") and ridden over ten thousand miles on my bicycle. I've been in 2 car accidents, one of them which rendered my vehicle inoperable, and walked away from both. I've been in 2 serious bicycle accidents and had numerous other "dangerous situations" with traffic (i.e. SUVs buzzing past me on canyon roads).
So my minor accidents to car miles is 2 / 100,000 or 0.002%.
And my major accidents to car miles is 0%.
But my major accidents to bike miles is 2 / 10,000 or 0.02%.
And minor accidents (i.e. hitting a pothole and crashing, wiping out on sand at beach, etc. all of which drew blood and required me to get a new helmets) is lot higher. I'm think I've wiped out 15 or 20 times in my life so that's 20 / 10,000 or 0.2%.
So my accident rates are 0.002% for motor vehicles and 0.22% for bicycles. I have 110 times more accidents per mile on a bicycle vs. a motor vehicle. Conclusion: riding in a motor vehicle is over 100 times safer than riding a bicycle.
Never occurred to you that maybe your riding was a factor I bet...you already gave us a taste of your 'safe' motorcycle skills. Just because YOU are dangerous on a bicycle does not make bicycling dangerous.
BTW, tens of thousands of miles on a freeway equates to less than a year of my usual commute on freeways, and LA is pretty damn tame compared to a lot of other cities...one big parking lot mostly.
I guess the huge number of fatal accidents on freeways compared to ALL bicycling fatalities is just smoke and mirrors too...we wouldn't want to mistake facts with the perceptions of your vast experience. If you want to think cycling is dangerous and be fearful, that is your business...but don't go passing it off as fact to the rest of the world.
Hmmm. If I drive at freeway speeds along a freeway until I fall asleep my chances of dying are much higher than if I rode a bike until I fell asleep at the speed I could pedal so speed itself induces some danger into operating a motor vehicle that a cyclist doesn't get. You have to add traffic to start arguing about a bike not being as safe and even then it is a slippery slope. My experience says that freeways are more dangerous as I have personally seen more death and mayhem there than on my bike. Add snow to the picture and the freeway often becomes a deathtrap. Anyway, just my experience.
How did city traffic get stuck in here anyway? The OP mentioned a freeway, the most deadly place in America (for 1-35 yr olds anyway.)
So my accident rates are 0.002% for motor vehicles and 0.22% for bicycles. I have 110 times more accidents per mile on a bicycle vs. a motor vehicle. Conclusion: riding in a motor vehicle is over 100 times safer than riding a bicycle.
Wow, I can't believe you even posted this. You just threw out a statistic based on one data point. And, unless you are being sarcastic which I sincerely hope you are, I think you actually believe it.
You mention accidents on bikes resulting in scrapes and bruises. Do you really think that's comparable to say, whiplash that can result from a car accident at 5 mph? Talk to my mom about that one if you don't believe me. I hit the pavement going about 20 mph on my bike when I slid on gravel through a turn. All I was wearing was some little gloves, a short sleeve jersey, some lycra shorts, shoes, and a helmet. I got a little road rash, a cut on my elbow and ankle, and a few scrapes on my bike. I got up and finished the last 70 miles of my 100 mile ride. My sister read ended a tractor trailer doing about the same speed. She was picking glass out of her forehead for a few years after smacking her face into the windshield, not to mention totaling the car.
I'll ride my bike any day over driving. Slower speeds are safer and it's tough to even reach the speed limit most of the time. More active safety is better than more passive safety and you don't get much more active safety than a bicycle.
If I wanted safety, I would sell my motorcycle and buy the biggest, most massive SUV there was. I guarantee you I would have 0% injuries if I ever hit/got hit by a bicyclist, but that bicyclist would most likely be seriously injured or dead.
yeah, except you'd probably roll over. ;)
but you are correct, sure there are more car accidents than bicycle. that's because there are more motorists than bicycles. i bet there are more bike accidents than motor vehicle ones in China.
there are more motor vehicle fatalities than bicycle for a similar reason, plus the fact that a car can (and often does) go much faster than any of us will ever go on a bicycle.
the best safety feature in a car or on a bike is the operator's brain.
and if i wanted the ultimate in safety, i would never have gotten rid of my '76 Sedan de Ville. in some ways, i wish i still had it. but i hate to think what kind of gas bills that 500 ci V8 would be inflicting on me now.
to answer the OP's question:
for you, it may be less safe on the freeway. you state that you don't drive a car often, and are uncomfortable on the freeway. you probably aren't as safe a driver as someone who is conscientious and drives all the time. it's a matter of practice and being used to (and aware of) the situation you are in.
the best safety feature in a car or on a bike is the operator's brain.
Absolutely true.
Less true about your de Ville: Safest and Deadliest Cars of All Time (http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2001/11/01/031830.html)
(...although it's not mentioned per se).
Anyway, the safest place to drive a car is on a freeway, although drivers with less freeway experience seldom feel safer on a freeway than they do on rural roads. IIRC, narrow two-lane rural roads without shoulders are the deadliest roads.
Comparing freeway driving to cycling in general? Honestly, as a lot of others do, I feel safer in my car on the freeway than I do on my bike in busy city traffic -- but I don't trust my intuition. I also feel safer driving than I feel when flying and how much safer is flying than driving? 100 times safer or so?
Most crashes, whether plane, car or bike, are single vehicle crashes. Assuming a single vehicle crash occurs, airplane passengers will fare worse than those in SUVs, who will fare worse than those in cars -- all of whom will fare much worse than cyclists. Single vehicle cycle crashes are just not that serious, relative to single vehicle auto crashes (fortunately plane crashes, of any type, are extremely rare).
To reach a rational conclusion on the safety of cycling vs driving, we'd need to know --
the number of miles driven in a given period by bike, and by car
the number of fatalities in the period suffered by cyclists, and by motorists
If those figures are available for a given year, an apples/apples comparision can be made, and I'd like to know the reality (but regardless I'm going to keep cycling, as safely as possible).
If you want the thrill of being out in the open and tearing down the roads, drive a motorcycle. If you want the thrill of being out in the open under your own power, go ride a bike.
Citing death rates of bicycling and motorcycling, riding a motorcycle exposes you to a risk of death 30 times greater than bicycling or driving. There's just no comparison between bicycling and motorcycling.
It is foolish, unwise, and quite harmful to trick new cyclists into thinking it's safer riding their bikes than driving on the freeway. This is not to deter people from riding bikes, but to make them aware that it is a more dangerous activity than driving a car and take the proper precautions/be more alert. Anyone who thinks otherwise is blissfully ignorant until their first bike-auto accident.
Please back up your statements with hard evidence. Opinions don't count.
to answer the OP's question:
for you, it may be less safe on the freeway. you state that you don't drive a car often, and are uncomfortable on the freeway. you probably aren't as safe a driver as someone who is conscientious and drives all the time. it's a matter of practice and being used to (and aware of) the situation you are in.
I agree it's a matter of getting used to it. But you're completely wrong about my being inexperienced as a driver. I've been driving a car for over 30 years, and even though I ride my bike to work 30 miles round trip, I still manage to put in plenty of miles on the car, freeway and otherwise. If I figure all the miles I've driven in the 8 or so cars I've owned in my life, it might be the better part of a million.
I'm probably the safest driver out there, because I actually predict the future before it happens, and it often does.
I see a lot of really stupid driver antics on the freeway, but we're all going the same direction and mostly about the same size and weight and going about the same speed. I see a lot of stupid unsafe passing on narrow two lane rural roads with no shoulders, and since we're going toward each other, that's very dangerous. But there are few intersections.
Cyclists have to ride where there is same way traffic, opposing traffic and cross traffic most of the time. Gives us worse odds than if we were always going in the same direction and always traveling adjacent to other vehicles of the same size, weight and speed. Worse odds doen't translate to total insanity like some people would like you to believe, though.
Cyclists have to ride where there is same way traffic, opposing traffic and cross traffic most of the time. Gives us worse odds than if we were always going in the same direction and always traveling adjacent to other vehicles of the same size, weight and speed. Worse odds doen't translate to total insanity like some people would like you to believe, though.
And we are (usually) going slow enough to react to any potentially dangerous situation and have manueverability far greater than anything short of a pedestrian. If all cars slowed down by 10mph on average there would be a lot less accidents.
Around here? Definitely driving on the freeway. Interstate 5 from Seattle to Eugene is a long, skinny, open-air mental hospital. There is no place where I feel in as much danger when bicycling as when driving the freeway.
Cyclists have to ride where there is same way traffic, opposing traffic and cross traffic most of the time. Gives us worse odds than if we were always going in the same direction and always traveling adjacent to other vehicles of the same size, weight and speed.
It's the same with motorcycles. Freeways are much safer than streets since there is no cross-traffic or 90* turns. If you look at motorcycle accidents, it's not from hitting someone in a lane next to them going in the same direction, it's usually getting hit while making a left turn or wiping out on a sharp turn. None of those hazards exist on the freeway. The same can be said of bicycling. Besides being buzzed on the streets, you have the cross-traffic and right-turners that can hit you. Just look at how pedestrians are hit.
I'm still sticking by that driving on the freeway is safer than riding a bicycle. From what I'm read here, I've seen a lot of irrational fears about people driving on the freeway. "Demolition Derby", "mental cases", etc. As if those same people on the freeway never drive on the surface streets next to bicycles or somehow become wonderful drivers once off of it. The criticism of drivers on freeways applies equally to those on the streets we ride. In fact, that makes it even more dangerous as those drivers now have more options - turn left/right, drive in the gutter, drive on the sidewalk (yes, I had to jump out of way from some teenage kids), stop suddenly, swing open their car doors, pull out of a driveway/alley without looking (I got sent to hospital on that one), etc.
Hang around long enough, and you'll see plenty of wonderful circus acts on the freeway. Not long ago my wife phoned me on her way home from work on the freeway (I was on a train.) She was frantic. Some driver had just done a doughnut in front of an 18-wheeler, and she got to see the whole episode in her rear-view mirror. (Add to that my wife using a cell phone in traffic while she's upset. :( )
The freeway concept is great, with no traffic lights and merging traffic instead of intersections. The problem is, nobody knew that even without stop lights, 75 mph. traffic can suddenly come to a complete stop with little or no warning. It's really fun, and will soon probably be a new kind of ride at Six Flags or Disneyworld.
per mile, per hour?
death rate, injury rate?
age brackets?
Each set will probably give a different answer.
I've given up on bicycling safety statistics since the raw data is so convoluted one can spin it any way one wants.
Al
The problem is, nobody knew that even without stop lights, 75 mph. traffic can suddenly come to a complete stop with little or no warning. It's really fun, and will soon probably be a new kind of ride at Six Flags or Disneyworld.
That is not a problem if you are driving safely and keeping a safe distance away from the cars in front of you. I live in LA. You can be tearing down the freeway at one point then run into bumper-to-bumper traffic. There are also fender-bender accidents from the stop-and-go traffic on the freeways. People follow too close or don't pay attention to the traffic in front of them. However, if you stay out of the fast lane where you will get hugged for not going as fast as possible, you won't get tailgated and can leave as much cushion room as you want in front of you. That's what my old man does.
[Sudden stops from high-speed cruising] is not a problem if you are driving safely and keeping a safe distance away from the cars in front of you. I live in LA. You can be tearing down the freeway at one point then run into bumper-to-bumper traffic. There are also fender-bender accidents from the stop-and-go traffic on the freeways. People follow too close or don't pay attention to the traffic in front of them. However, if you stay out of the fast lane where you will get hugged for not going as fast as possible, you won't get tailgated and can leave as much cushion room as you want in front of you. That's what my old man does.
You are so right. Stay back, that's my motto.
I've seen goofballs (tailgaters) run end-to-end into each other in the middle lane, up to 4 or 5 cars, dry pavement, no extenuating circumstances. I guess that's nothing compared to some of those foggy turnpike pileups, or snow-related pileups. Once there's a crash, people come zooming up on it at unsafe speeds and by the time they see it, they just can't stop.
Mac, I think you made a point before (or someone did) that a lot depends on how you drive ("your brain is your best weapon," or something like that.)
However, if you stay out of the fast lane where you will get hugged for not going as fast as possible, you won't get tailgated and can leave as much cushion room as you want in front of you. That's what my old man does.
I'd love to find a freeway around here where one can drive the speed limit in the slow lane and not get tailgated.
Al
In San Diego I find I can drive the speed limit on most freeways, outside of the fast lane, without encountering too much tailgating.
I'd love to find a freeway around here where one can drive the speed limit in the slow lane and not get tailgated.
Al
Yeah, and I would like to find a freeway in LA where one can drive the speed limit in the slow lane and not get tailgated. Where is this mythical beast?
Yeah, and I would like to find a freeway in LA where one can drive the speed limit in the slow lane and not get tailgated. Where is this mythical beast?
Hell you can't even drive the speed limit off the freeway around these parts without getting tailgated. The one's I love are those that can easily pass, but decide to ride your butt instead. I must be getting crotchity in my old age...I put on the brakes and slow down until they either back off or finally pass.
On the freeways I am usually doing about 80+, only in the left to pass (except during rush hour when you kinda get stuck out there), yet I still get folks tailgating me. I must really have a nice...bumper. (Do I hear Karen Carpenter singing Close to You in the background?)
Finally, I see at least 3 multi-car accidents a day this time of year, mostly when its raining or snowing...and they ain't little fender benders that people just walk away from. People just ain't bright enough to slow the f down - you'd think people who live here would know how to drive in the winter...but noooo, I think they must have all come from someplace else that never got snow.
I could go on and on...bottom line, anyone who thinks driving on the freeways is safer than riding a bicycle has never driven around these parts - and I have seen other places worse than this.
Edit: and if you think that SUV is going to protect you when you hit something at 80+, I got some beachfront in AZ I'll sell you.
Around here, people would like to find a freeway where they could actually GO the speed limit. At rush hour anyway.
Around here, people would like to find a freeway where they could actually GO the speed limit. At rush hour anyway.
That's because you have ONLY ONE freeway! LOL!
I thought "rush hour" was 7/24 between SB and Ventura anyway.
I'd love to find a freeway around here where one can drive the speed limit in the slow lane and not get tailgated.
You ain't kiddin'. I used to car commute in North Jersey on I-80 for 35 miles each way. It was 100% guaranteed to be tailgated at the speed limit no matter what speed or traffic density, or which lane a "slow" motorist took.
Around here, people would like to find a freeway where they could actually GO the speed limit. At rush hour anyway.
I hear that. We have backups here at key interchanges all the time, but the norm everywhere else is bumper-bumper doing 60-80+, depending on what lane you are in. I'd hate to see some of the motorcyclists I saw in LA and parts south try riding the lines and splitting lanes here like they do there...if someone didn't hit them by accident, someone would surely hit them on purpose.
I have always loved driving, but coming back here I have pretty much learned to hate it. I fully understand why motorists get impatient and even rude with cyclists around here, becuase after the stress of dealing with rush hour traffic on the freeways and slow-moving parking lots on the formerly rural roads that are now forced to support suburban traffic, they are already pretty stressed out when they come upon some schmuck like me on a bike.
You ain't kiddin'. I used to car commute in North Jersey on I-80 for 35 miles each way. It was 100% guaranteed to be tailgated at the speed limit no matter what speed or traffic density, or which lane a "slow" motorist took.
Oh man, Newark has got to be the worst place to drive that I have ever been...not to mention being just a craphole in general. NYC and Long Island were tame compared to Newark.
I fully understand why motorists get impatient and even rude with cyclists around here, becuase after the stress of dealing with rush hour traffic on the freeways and slow-moving parking lots on the formerly rural roads that are now forced to support suburban traffic, they are already pretty stressed out when they come upon some schmuck like me on a bike.
Exactly the same feeling I get hereand same situation. Phx-metro is the 5th most congested city in the US and most of that congestion is on the freeways at rush hour when traffic is often slowed to a near stop. I've never had to deal with it though as I bike to work (and opposite rush hour flow). I pass over a freeway bridge (I-60) and can see cars parked on it every day.
Al
Oh man, Newark has got to be the worst place to drive that I have ever been...not to mention being just a craphole in general. NYC and Long Island were tame compared to Newark.
One good point (probably the only one) for Newark was that it was lot easier to get in and out of the airport then JFK.
In response to the OP...
I always thought that, mile for mile, freeways were the safest roads to travel on, due to the lack of intersections.
Previous -
Top -
Next
Copyright 1999 - 2007
BikeForums.Net - All rights reserved.
Common bike forum topics in clue bicycles, cycling, mountain biking,
cycling jerseys, shorts, socks, shoes and bike equiptment selection.