Advocacy & Safety - Cycling is dangerous!

Based on some statistics, cars and bikes each carry a certain risk of death. According to those numbers, a motorist is exposed to a risk of death equal to about .47 per million driving hours. That means about 47 deaths per hundred million driving hours. A cyclist's risk is about .27 per million cycling hours, or 27 deaths per hundred million cycling hours.

Since a commuting cyclist takes roughly twice as long to cover the same distance as a motorist, the risk of death for both is about the same. This risk represents all cyclists, from child to club cyclist.

There is one factor that changes the whole picture, tipping the scales greatly in favor of bicycle commuting as significantly safer than driving a car: training in effective cycling.

Of course, who would believe that cycling is safer than motoring?
Most people still feel safer driving than flying a commercial airline, even though the risk of death per million flying hours is far less than either cycling or driving.

That's a good point, Pete. Bicycling is more dangerous than automobile transport - at least in a world where the two are mixed together on the same streets.

I just crashed again tonight and realized how the simplist crash gives some major pain to the cyclist.

It occurred to me that in the perfect world of all bikes and few cars, there would probably be less vehicle fatalities, but more minor injuries than we see in today's automobile society.

Originally posted by Pete Clark
Based on some statistics, cars and bikes each carry a certain risk of death. According to those numbers, a motorist is exposed to a risk of death equal to about .47 per million driving hours. That means about 47 deaths per hundred million driving hours. A cyclist's risk is about .27 per million cycling hours, or 27 deaths per hundred million cycling hours.


I think the statistics would vary across different cyclists. I ride 15,000 km per annum and I'm still here. Conversely, the imbecile I saw in Surfers Paradise today riding against the flow of traffic and not watching where he was going is unlikely to be around much longer.

Chris

Mike!

Your quick recovery is of the greatest importance! :thumbup:

Don't forget, overall, cycling is actually safer for experienced cyclists than motoring. So keep spinning!

Pete

It's true that a portion of the cycling public does not give a rats a$$ about being concerned, responsible and SAFE riders. This skews the aformentioned statistics in a way that makes it seem more dangerous than it really is.

Every biker should be aware of the traffic and conditions. Never assume a four wheeler will yield when their supposed to, turn when they're signaling or that they won't turn when they're not signaling.

Of course the talk of four wheelers doesn't apply to off-roaders but the basic concept of defensive riding and knowing your and your bikes limitations applies across the board.

Moose

Moose,

The last time I heard the term, "four-wheelers," it was used by truckers. Truckers think "four-wheelers" are not quite baked.

"Two-wheelers" in my opinion have more skill (who ever heard of a "four-wheeler" assaying the effect of a headwind, hill, or timing a traffic light?) I frequently frustrate motorists by appearing mysteriously at the next light after they thought I was "down for the count." :)

I did pick that up from trucker lingo, I'm not aware of the proper cyclist slang for "autombile". Does one exist? If not we should dedicate the rest of this thread to making one up. :D

How about "roadhogs" (ok, not immensely creative, but what do you expect from a moose?)

Originally posted by Moose
I did pick that up from trucker lingo, I'm not aware of the proper cyclist slang for "autombile". Does one exist? If not we should dedicate the rest of this thread to making one up.

Calling jramsey--here's an opening for another of your creative list-making ventures...

Several members of the San Diego County Bicycle Coalition refer to motorists as "cagers," i.e., those who travel about in steel cages.

Although I generally concur with Pete's post regarding safety, both my wife and one of my cycling friends have challenged this analysis, on the grounds that effective cyclists also tend to be defensive motorists. Just as cycling is safer for me than for the average rider, driving is also safer for me, a conservative, defensive motorist with a clean 35-year record and a 6-airbag midsize car with a high safety rating (VW Passat station wagon), than it is for the average motorist. However, Pete's primary point, that responsible, lawful vehicular cycling is far safer than the public perceives it to be (see, for example, www.yes-but.net), needs to be publicized far and wide, since morbid fear of traffic deters many potential cyclists. When well-meaning friends tell me cycling is dangerous, I reply that any form of transportation carries risk. In the interest of minimizing that risk, I advocate stricter standards for obtaining and retaining a driver's license, coupled with traffic calming measures and bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly road design.

Originally posted by John E
However, Pete's primary point, that responsible, lawful vehicular cycling is far safer than the public perceives it to be (see, for example, www.yes-but.net), needs to be publicized far and wide, since morbid fear of traffic deters many potential cyclists.

Oh no, not this Arek guy again. He really is a grade-A tosser (Joe, I am not flaming John E, Arek is the guy who runs the URL above). Someone should tell him that life is dangerous, and that with his view on the world, one would never leave their house. Well actually, one would never enter their house either, since most accidents happen in the home.

Guess that mean's I'm gonna die! Well, aren't we all.


Originally posted by John E

When well-meaning friends tell me cycling is dangerous, I reply that any form of transportation carries risk. In the interest of minimizing that risk, I advocate stricter standards for obtaining and retaining a driver's license, coupled with traffic calming measures and bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly road design.

Personally I'm getting sick of all the bullsh*t about the car being the only safe mode of transport in existence. It's utter crap. I have often ridden the nearby Burringbar Range without any incident whatsoever, while many motoring primates there have made themselves available to natural selection on many occasions. As I said above, I ride in excess of 15,000 km/year and I'm still alive.

If cycling is dangerous, I must be indestructable or something :D

Chris

Chris, it's funny (:D)--I had a look at the Arek website today, and as I stumbled out clutching my throat, I was thinking, "With an outlook like that, you'd never leave home!" And here you come along saying the same thing.

Good heavens! Life is full of risk and nothing enjoyable is obtainable without peril of some sort. Birth in itself is a death sentence!

As a song--pretty sure it's a Bob Dylan one--has it, "I'd rather die happy than not die at all." :dance:

Originally posted by JonR
Chris, it's funny (:D)--I had a look at the Arek website today, and as I stumbled out clutching my throat, I was thinking, "With an outlook like that, you'd never leave home!"


But what would someone do. I mean, I have seen statistics which say that most accidents that occur happen in the home. The only way to avoid danger is to kill yourself, which kind of defeats the purpose of avoiding danger in the first place.

As someone on another forum once said: "All deaths are inevitable, I'll get there my own way thanks."

Chris

Even if cycling is as safe as, or somewhat safer than, motoring, which I agree it probably is, there is ample room for improvement. Larry Mahr, a safety-conscious, experienced, lawful vehicular cyclist and valued friend of several San Diego County Bicycle Coalition members, was killed recently by a motorist who had "drifted" into the bicycle lane on Kearney Villa Road, a popular bicycle commuting route. Past experience tells me that, unless drugs or alcohol are involved, this careless driver will receive only a very mild punishment. In Northern California, CeCe Krone's drunk driving killer, Michele Young, received a 7-year prison sentence, over the protests of the public defender, who said, "What more do these people want? They just sent a 50-year-old housewife to jail!" Under California law, Michele could be out on parole and back on the road in less than 3 years, despite her two drunk driving convictions.

The situation is much better in the U.K. and perhaps in continental Europe or Australia as well, but across most of the United States, standards of driver education, competency, attitude, and attention are far too low. The directory of the California Department of Motor Vehicles was quoted to the effect that his bureau would not dare raise the standards for obtaining and retaining a driver's license because of the "impact on the Southern California lifestyle." The impact on the lifestyles of Larry Mahr and his wife and kids is pretty obvious to me.

Originally posted by JonR
As a song--pretty sure it's a Bob Dylan one--has it, "I'd rather die happy than not die at all." :dance:

The Band W.S. Walcott Medicine Show. Great song, excellent words.

I also read Arek's rant on bicycling. Amazing. People can rationalize any bizarre viewpoint.

What's next?

Oxygen - Bad for You
Walking - the Route to Certain, Painful, Death

Jonathan

I have a lot of respect for John E.

Good to have you posting valuable information here, John.

:thumbup:

I have heard recent talk in one particular Australian state about introducing a clause into driver disqualifications that basically means a disqualified driver will still be able to use their car to drive to work. Doesn't this kind of defeat the purpose of a disqualification in the first place?

I, too, respect John E's posts that I've read both here and on other forums. Generally he makes a lot of sense.

Chris

If I may add to the discussion on whether cycling is safe. Amongst all that has been written regarding who is behind the handlebars, the cause of the accident, the interpretation of the laws and statistics and plain opinion what has not been mentioned is the health benefits that are accrued to the community as a whole. Sedentary lifestyles of which the car is partly to blame is killing the populations of the so called developed countries at ever increasing rates. This is being challenged by amongst others the British Medical Assoc. who have come out against the compulsory wearing of helmets but with the proviso that urban speed limits are reduced. The net health gain to the community by encouraging cycling far out ways the odd cyclist that is killed or injured through not wearing a helmet. The BMA in a report called "Cycling Towards Health and Safety" also calculated that the benefits of cycling out weighed the costs in life years by 20:1 i.e. for every one year of life lost through cycle fatalities twenty years are gained by increased health through exercise.
To quote Sam Tracey "Ride with Fury, Grace and Precision.
Ride On Tim

As a bicyclist, I often end up choosing roads that are safer than many automobile drivers would select. If I am going to the Chicago Loop, for example, I will use North Avenue rather than the Eisenhower Expressway. Some friends automatically think that the bicycle is less safe than a car, but I think I help out my own life span each time I avoid the worst of the expressways....

Originally posted by John E
Just as cycling is safer for me than for the average rider, driving is also safer for me, a conservative, defensive motorist with a clean 35-year record and a 6-airbag midsize car with a high safety rating (VW Passat station wagon), than it is for the average motorist.
This is at the heart of the whole problem, I believe. Both cycling and motoring carry a certain risk, but that risk is very dependent upon the individual's level of care, experience and skill.

Overall, cycling can be safer than motoring, particularly due to the excessive speeds and risk-taking motorists engage in almost instinctively. There seems to be a "pack mentality" among motorists, in which dangerous behavior is copied by other motorists.

On the contrary, cyclists serve as "traffic calmers."

Cycling, overall, will always be safer and superior to motoring, in my book. Having said that, be safe out there!

Originally posted by Pete Clark

On the contrary, cyclists serve as "traffic calmers."

That's me--a moving speed-bump.... :eek:

Ladies and gentlemen,

Life itself is dangerous. The mere act of being born serves no purpose other than to make your death inevitable. I'll get there my own way, thanks.

I guess the point I'm making is that some fool can claim any activity is dangerous if the participants do not take sufficient care. It really makes my blood boil when media tossers (my pet hate of the week) find some obscure, careless person and try to make a sweeping generalisation from that. It's a pretty weak argument in my view.

Chris

so biking is dangerous. anytime you're moving faster than you can walk, with big heavy things that travel MUCH faster than you can ever even dream of biking, you've got danger. but i prefer biking over driving because i feel so much more aware of what's going on around and within me. i can see and hear it all.

names for cars? when i was a kid, we'd call them 'oil'

Originally posted by automator
...i prefer biking over driving because i feel so much more aware of what's going on around and within me.
Biking is better.

First, a sincere thank you to Pete and Chris L for their kind words.

This thread illustrates that if everyone cycled and drove the way most of us do, overall traffic fatality and injury rates would decline significantly.

Bicycles are safe it is just that cars are endagering them.

Some of the perception of danger is F***ed up in my opinion. Large cars are rated safer but safer for who? IF the statistics took into account solely the number of fatalities cause by the car, motorcycle or bike running over somebody (which is not sillier than only taking into account drivers' death after all). One would get quite a different picture. If your vehicle only get others killed it is safe? Hmm. THat logic escapes me.:mad::confused:

However on the bleak side, things being as they are (i.e. us - warrior making the world a better place - being they prey of these large smelling beast that destroy they earth), I think that cycling may be even more dangerous than that: I would be suprised if there are that many fatalities in car accident in cities. I think most fatal accident happen on highways or on the interstate. Cyclists do not take the interstate (well they really shouldn't). I think that if the statistics only took into account hours of driving within city limits it would be very bad.

However, even though I know that not all commuters agree with it. I think that well design bike trails, as well as cycling path are also critical for our safety. Personally I like them.

Originally posted by PapeteeBooh
Some of the perception of danger is F***ed up in my opinion. Large cars are rated safer but safer for who? IF the statistics took into account solely the number of fatalities cause by the car, motorcycle or bike running over somebody (which is not sillier than only taking into account drivers' death after all). One would get quite a different picture. If your vehicle only get others killed it is safe? Hmm. THat logic escapes me.:mad::confused:


Unfortunately, most folks are pretty stupid. They tend to believe what they want to believe, and basically the maggots who work in advertising and the media want people to believe that "you are the only person in the world and everyone else is out there to get you" and unfortunately that's what most folks want to believe as well. Hence their perception of safety only relates to what happens to them and nobody else.


Originally posted by PapeteeBooh

However, even though I know that not all commuters agree with it. I think that well design bike trails, as well as cycling path are also critical for our safety. Personally I like them.

They probably would be, but I'm yet to see a well designed off-road path anywhere! I mean, what the designers of these things forget is that cycle commuters still have to get to work on time like everyone else. It's just too hard to do that on the paths we have around here. Hence, I use the road.

I honestly believe the only purpose served by off-road paths is a place to teach children how to ride. Apart from that, they're useless.

Chris

Originally posted by PapeteeBooh
Bicycles are safe it is just that cars are endagering them.
I agree. This is obvious!


...If your vehicle only get others killed it is safe? Hmm. THat logic escapes me.:mad::confused:
I agree again. Why is it that with all the emphasis on safety these days, such as reinforced frames, air bags, safety belts, brakes, tires that don't go flat right away after puncturing, etc., somehow this part goes unmentioned? Pedestrian fatalities are far more numerous than cycling fatalities. Does that make walking dangerous? :confused:


...us - warrior making the world a better place - being they prey of these large smelling beast that destroy they earth...
Yes, large stinking beasts that destroy the earth. How perfect!

:thumbup: ;)

Originally posted by Pete Clark


Pedestrian fatalities are far more numerous than cycling fatalities. Does that make walking dangerous? :confused:


Yes, walking is dangerous! We should never walk anywhere again. Instead you should get into a massive, huge (but safe) truck to cover the ten metres you need to in order to get your mail! That's it! Nobody should ever walk again!

Chris

Originally posted by Chris L


Yes, walking is dangerous! We should never walk anywhere again. Instead you should get into a massive, huge (but safe) truck to cover the ten metres you need to in order to get your mail! That's it! Nobody should ever walk again!

Chris

A pretty marketable idea! I'll go see Ford tomorrow to suggest them to build so specilialized car designed to protect you while going to get your mail in then morning.

Damn, ahmo get me a tank. Blow enny won off da rode.

In my town there were 5 cycling fatalities, and 4 of them involved pickup trucks or SUV's. There are too many people in machines that they can't handle. While vehicles have gotten wider and taller it seems to me that lanes have gotten narrower. And bicycle lanes are free parking spaces.

This afternoon I was taking it easy after a ride looking at a bike catalog in my bedroom and I heard a sound like my garage door opening.I looked in the garage and the door was closed.I looked outside and there was a neighbor's Jeep Cherokee in the road looking bad.He had run over 2 mailboxes and hit a lightpole and broke it in half.The guy was saying "I don't know what happened".I live on a residential street where the speed limit is 30mph but there are so many kids playing and riding bikes you have to be nuts to go that fast.There is no way this guy was doing 30mph,the light pole was a good 40 feet from the mail boxes.Doesn't know what happened,dumbass.You know what really burns me up is the cops never even gave him a sobriety test,I was keeping an eye out for it.

A book I was reading on Chicago history described the notice that was put out to motorists when driver's license tests were first put into effect. Among the various rules that the drivers had to follow was one that stated that motorists were not to exceed 8 miles per hour.

But even with a posted speed limit of 8 miles per hour, the first automobile accident fatality happened less than a year later....

Originally posted by Paige
This afternoon I was taking it easy after a ride looking at a bike catalog in my bedroom and I heard a sound like my garage door opening.I looked in the garage and the door was closed.I looked outside and there was a neighbor's Jeep Cherokee in the road looking bad.He had run over 2 mailboxes and hit a lightpole and broke it in half.The guy was saying "I don't know what happened".I live on a residential street where the speed limit is 30mph but there are so many kids playing and riding bikes you have to be nuts to go that fast.There is no way this guy was doing 30mph,the light pole was a good 40 feet from the mail boxes.Doesn't know what happened,dumbass.You know what really burns me up is the cops never even gave him a sobriety test,I was keeping an eye out for it.

This all reminds me of something that happened to a friend of mine last year sometime. He heard a crash outside the front of his house and went to see what happened. It turned out to be a car that smashed into something, so he went to help the driver. For his trouble, he got a gobful of abuse from a drunken yob who seemed to think my friend was at fault because this yob couldn't drive for sh*t.

Chris

Here are some facts and statistics to throw into the fire. Important reading for everyone's health and safety.
http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/hfaq.html#A8

Here are some facts and statistics to throw into the fire.
Facts? Carefully selected statistics are nothing more than carefully selected statistics.

This FAQ was assembled by a group opposed to legislated helmet laws. Their presentation makes me immediately suspicious, as does their collection of "facts".

I'm not buying it. More nonsence than fact, imho.

Just my 2 cents worth.

I would just like the usual two questions answered: "who says" and "so what". They seem to be saying a lot of stuff about helmets that I've said for a long time. Those being, helmets will protect against some head injuries but offer no substitute for sensible cycling. So what? As I've said before, I'll utilise both forms of protection.

Chris

A Government report in Australia (or something like that) said :

'If motorcycles were invented today, they would be banned.'

Now, I'm not sure if pushbikes would be banned, but they would certainly be insured, licensed, and restricted to people over 16.

The fact that they are not is mainly due to historic accident more than anything else.

Originally posted by john999
A Government report in Australia (or something like that) said :

'If motorcycles were invented today, they would be banned.'



The same is probably true of railroads with at-grade crossings and perhaps even automobiles.

Me personally, I don´t wear a helmet, I just wear a bandana. But 2 days ago an inlineskater bumped into me and we both fell quite hard. For God´s sake nothing serious happened, but my Ultegra is a bit damaged and some parts have to be substituted. So now, I surely will buy a helmet next week or so, who knows what´s happening next. Those modern helmets are so light, you don´t even feel them much. I thought about this Met Stradivarius, not the cheapest though, but it´s light, it´s safe and it looks good.

Originally posted by Piratello
Me personally, I don´t wear a helmet, I just wear a bandana. But 2 days ago an inlineskater bumped into me and we both fell quite hard. ... So now, I surely will buy a helmet next week or so, who knows what´s happening next. Those modern helmets are so light, you don´t even feel them much.

Smart move! A helmet can make a big difference in a low-speed collision, particularly if your head strikes a curb.

Originally posted by John E

Smart move! A helmet can make a big difference in a low-speed collision, particularly if your head strikes a curb.

It can also make a difference if you land head first after falling off at 40km/h (I know!!!)

"Tall vehicles" SUV's or 4x4 pickups do produce different behaviors in their operators than passenger cars; a Ferrari or a Lincoln Town Car doesn't give it's operator the high and mighty feeling of a Chevy Subdivision or Ford Excretion. As for me, if I ever see someone vandalizing or breaking into a passenger car I'll call the cops--but if they're trashing or trying to steal an SUV I'll look the other way and whisper "mazel tov" under my breath as I walk away! Dominance devices aren't property that should be protected by the state.

Originally posted by Feldman
"Tall vehicles" SUV's or 4x4 pickups do produce different behaviors in their operators than passenger cars...Dominance devices aren't property that should be protected by the state.
Seriously, when driving I seem to notice a great number of pickups following too closely with the obvious intent to intimidate the driver in front of them into moving over or speeding up. Of course, I see this in small cars too, but the effect is less intimidating; small cars seem to be more likely to weave in and out like a bee.

One wonders the candlepower of some drivers' seat of consciousness when one witnesses such behavior, which I liken to a more instinctively driven, rather than reason-driven, life form.

Bananas, anyone?

I think many SUV drivers select these monstrosities for the same in-your-face reason that people play loud music, build McMansions in the suburbs, shout into their cellphones, or otherwise draw attention to themselves. Since so many of them lack even a qualitative understanding of the simple fundamental laws of basic Newtonian physics (no relativistic quantum electrodynamics Ph.D. required!), they also roll these "safe" vehicles with astonishing regularity.

Part of the problem is that today's automotive technology, particularly for luxury cars and large SUVs, thoroughly isolates the motorist from the environment, in the interest of "reducing driver stress." The motorist is lulled into the false sense of security that he/she is sitting in a room, enjoying a high-quality audio (and, cringe, coming soon ... video!) system.

Originally posted by LittleBigMan

Seriously, when driving I seem to notice a great number of pickups following too closely with the obvious intent to intimidate the driver in front of them into moving over or speeding up.

I actually have more problems with utes/pick-ups than with all other vehicles on the road combined. I don't know whether it's the advertising they get in this country or what, but this has been going on far too long to be just a coincidence.



Originally posted by John E
...(and, cringe, coming soon ... video!) system.


Please tell me this isn't true.

Originally posted by Fatal Justice
Please tell me this isn't true.

sorry to tell you chris, but you can get a vcr/dvd player installed in your vehicle for less then $200 (usd) and some luxury vehicles come with them standard!! :eek:

Originally posted by Fatal Justice


Oh no, not this Arek guy again. He really is a grade-A tosser (Joe, I am not flaming John E, Arek is the guy who runs the URL above). Someone should tell him that life is dangerous, and that with his view on the world, one would never leave their house. Well actually, one would never enter their house either, since most accidents happen in the home.

Guess that mean's I'm gonna die! Well, aren't we all.



Personally I'm getting sick of all the bullsh*t about the car being the only safe mode of transport in existence. It's utter crap. I have often ridden the nearby Burringbar Range without any incident whatsoever, while many motoring primates there have made themselves available to natural selection on many occasions. As I said above, I ride in excess of 15,000 km/year and I'm still alive.

If cycling is dangerous, I must be indestructable or something :D

Chris

:) Dear Fatal Justice & the rest ,

Arek's comments may be correct at certain instances but I can't and don't really agree whole-heartedly with what was written on www.yes-but.net/cycling_is_dangerous.html , whoever wrote it. :crash:

Cycling is definitely environmentally friendly since it does not create any major pollution except for the "frame rust" and the "tiny amount of oil" on the bike chains. On top of that, cycling is good for your leg muscles and overall general health. :)

However, I do agree that cycling on roads is getting dangerous nowadays especially in urban areas and countries in Singapore.
Many motorists are responsible for road deaths , some being druken and impatience drivers (Sometimes we even have road hoards).

It's the way we use the roads, generally speaking, cycling is safe if there are responsible road users ALL around, but hardly we see that in the country I live in. Many are very impatient with pedestrains and will sometimes will horn at you if you are slow & the motorists will try to get past you even before you have finished crossing the road.

We can't get rid of accidents totally since nowadays they are so common due to human errors and what the Bible describes the days we are living in are difficult times (1 Timothy 3:1-5), but we can minimise the chances of getting them by educating your kids, cyclists, and CONSTANTLY look out for errant drivers on the road.

Lastly , PRAY really Hard for God's peacful world to come where there are no accidents!
:beer:

Originally posted by Asia_biker

However, I do agree that cycling on roads is getting dangerous nowadays especially in urban areas and countries in Singapore.
Many motorists are responsible for road deaths , some being druken and impatience drivers

We can't get rid of accidents totally since nowadays they are so common due to human errors and what the Bible describes the days we are living in are difficult times (1 Timothy 3:1-5), but we can minimise the chances of getting them by educating your kids, cyclists, and CONSTANTLY look out for errant drivers on the road.

Lastly , PRAY really Hard for God's peacful world to come where there are no accidents!
:beer:

... and in the meantime, strongly advocate for stricter accountability for motorists.


Although this is not a theology forum, I recommend the writings and/or videotaped lectures of Professors Marcus Borg and Huston Smith to you.

Originally posted by John E


... and in the meantime, strongly advocate for stricter accountability for motorists.


Although this is not a theology forum, I recommend the writings and/or videotaped lectures of Professors Marcus Borg and Huston Smith to you.

Dear John,
Are their works copyrighted? Maybe you can publish some excerts here to share with all of us here?

Our lives are at stake under the shadow of this world now.
Every moment of our lives are so uncertain, I doubt any humans' lectures/philosophies can settle or solve them nowadays.