Advocacy & Safety - As Safe as Driving a Car?

Proposal: In general, all other things being equal, an experienced cyclist riding a bicycle in car traffic, using normal car lanes, riding legally and defensively, is in no more danger of having a collision than a car driver.

Caveats: Excluding interstate highways and similar roads
"Legally" includes properly dressed and equipped for the conditions, including darkness (reflective material and lights)
This is saying nothing about personal safety in the event of a collision, only chances of getting into one in the first place.

Negative factors:

Bike is harder to see due to smaller size, and being less expected


Positive factors:

Bike is easier to maneuver due to smaller size

Oops, didn't read the whole quote before voting. I said disagree, because I was reading danger as danger of injury. If you intend it to be danger of a collision then I would change my vote to agree.

This sub forum is a little danger obsessed IMO.

I think it is likely to be as safe per hour of travel, but probably not per mile. The longer travel time per mile increases the chances of a cyclist engaging in risk taking, which tends to be normalized according to activity time rather than distance covered.

I think it is likely to be as safe per hour of travel, but probably not per mile. The longer travel time per mile increases the chances of a cyclist engaging in risk taking, which tends to be normalized according to activity time rather than distance covered.

Which makes it the same as driving a car....

http://www.majordickwinters.com/phpBB2/images/smiles/102.gif
Your guess is as good as mine or anybody else's guess with all these vague undefined bolded font parameters.

Anybody for guessing if the center of the moon is made up of green cheese?

Are you trying to suggest that riding my tredly ain't safe?

I agree in principal, but reality is another thing. Stupid actions by aggressive motorists tend to negate the principal.

And unfortunatly, the results to the cyclist, of even a minor fender bender, can be quite serious.

This sub forum is a little danger obsessed...

That would address the SAFETY portion of Advocacy & Safety, I think.

That would address the SAFETY portion of Advocacy & Safety, I think.
The other portion is obsessed with Bike Lanes, Cyclist "Training" and/or Ideology

My feeling is that its much easier for me to avoid accidents and avoid other peoples mistakes in my bike than in my car.

All I know is I don't have people going out of their way to collide with me when I'm driving a car or motorcycle.

Oops, didn't read the whole quote before voting. I said disagree, because I was reading danger as danger of injury. If you intend it to be danger of a collision then I would change my vote to agree.

Almost the same for me. Only difference is I was a little more careful and voted 'correctly'. However if we are talking about chance of injury I would reverse my vote.

Anything is possible.

This sub forum is a little danger obsessed...
That would address the SAFETY portion of Advocacy & Safety, I think.

yeah, but it doesn't do too much for the advocacy part.

Not only is there little context in place with these concerns, there's not much discussed about how the best way we can behave to avoid things to be safer.

Reading many of these postings it seems there's just a bunch of people who panic and worry and are cyclings worse avocates because they would scare anyone off two wheels.

I hestiated and was going to vote agree, but didn't and voted impossible to generalize.

The reason is that one can apply safe driving principles to motor vehicles as well and drive a car with the care, alertness and situational awareness as one does when driving a bicycle. One can also avoid the more dangerous streets, take back ways, etc.

Al

I won't generalize beyond my own experience so I'll just say that on my routes, riding my bike compared to driving my car, I feel less likely to be in a collision on my bike than in my car. It's more maneuverable and I can see and hear better on my bike.

It is impossible to generalize, but cyclists are people just like motorists and are subject to the same mistakes that lead to injuries.

If someone is concerned that a cyclist is more vunerable than a motorist to injury, they should look closely at motorists and their injuries. They're not better off.

Commuters makes up only about 5% of all cyclists here and BC has a 2% level of commuter cyclists while at the same time all cyclists are involved in only 1% of traffic collisions.

I had an old Stats Canada report that showed for every 100,000 motorists, 10 died, while for every 100,000 cyclists only 1 died.

I'm sure everyone is well aware of the Fatality Analysis Reporting System, a database of transportation crashes maintained by a branch of the US Federal government that shows the number of fatalities per 1,000,000 exposure hrs. for motor vehicles is twice that as for cyclists.

These numbers include all those (approx.) 80% of cyclists who were doing the most silly things on bicycles leading up to their injuries or deaths, like riding on the wrong side of the road, riding drunk etc. etc.

You'd have to define "safe" here as well. I don't think it's too "safe" if you make a mistake and have the potential to take several others to the grave with you too.

I don't think it's too "safe" to get around in a way that does nothing but decrease health as opposed to getting around on something that increases health.

And isn't that the perspective lacking here n the first place? People worrying about the 4% (or about 109,000) of deaths (almost half of which are automobile deaths) from the result of accidents as opposed to the millions of death due to diseases (in the USA - source: Time magazine cover story Dec 4/06) that cycling can do much to reduce.

I'd say it's risky not to ride a bike.

For the stipulations presented, there is no way to make an objective determination. The recorded statistics in the US, at least, do not include enough information regarding bike collisions to limit the data to this narrow subset. In addition, a high percentage of low speed collisions, where injuries are minimal, are not reported or included in the statistics.

That leaves us with individual opinions. However, my experience is that people regularly engaged in a particular activity tend to significantly underestimate the risks associated with that activity, whereas people not engaged in the activity tend to greatly overestimate the risks. So, the individual opinions expressed here would likely trend toward underestimating the risk of cycling (per mile, per hour, per lifetime, per whatever).

BTW, the question, as stated, did not impose similar constraints upon the motorist that was placed upon the cyclist. i.e., experienced, obeying traffic laws, and driving defensively. Nor, BTW, did the question define what "experiencd" or "defensively" entails. I, for example, many kids have been riding a bicycle for over 10 years by the time they are 16 years old. Would that make them more, or less "experienced" than a 45 year old cyclist who took had been riding for the past 5 years?

Keeping up with traffic speed in a car or on a motorcycle helps a lot.
Any slow moving vehincle on the road is going to run into problems with being passed all the time and people being impatient. This includes bikes, car, trucks, tractors, anything that is slower than the flow of traffic.

This is related to the idea I came up with several months ago here that driving a motorcycle in the manner one drives a bicycle can be safer than a bicycle. Of course no one does this so the statistics are such that motorcycles are one of the more accident prone vehicles on the road.

Benefits of motorcycle over bicycle:
-Rider can wear more effective head and body protection
-Brighter and more effective front and rear lights
-Slightly larger profile
-Added mass and larger tires make it less prone to accident from debris or bad pavement (at matched bicycle speeds)
-Power to accelerate out of dangerous situations
-Better stopping distance at matched speed

Disadvantages:
-Perhaps field of visions and/or hearing are less than on bicycle ?
-Power and speed capability can be used to with risk of a more severe accident
-Somewhat less maneuverable, especially at low speeds.

The idea is that if one doesn't use the speed/power (except for emergencies) the motorcycle could be safer than a bicycle. That of course would mean not riding over 25mph unless this decreases the chance of accident in proportion that counters severity if one does occur. For sake of arguement one could simply never drive it over 25-30mph and deal with the same SMV challenges as a bicycle presents. The other factor would be route choice - the assumption would be that the motorcyclist would choose the same routes as a bicyclists. (i.e. not use freeways, choose back routes vs. arterials)

Its up to the rider of course and that is the weak point. No one could have the discipline to ride a motorcycle in such a manner. But it could be done, in which case would a motorcycle be a safer vehicle choice?

Al

Being slower cuts both ways in terms of safety. The number of interactions with same direction traffic is higher, but your ability to predict and avoid the more problematic crossing hazards is much better at lower speeds. It's probably close to a wash.

Similarly, and as pointed out earlier, the lower sensory cognitivity of a cyclist compared to a car is probably more or less balanced out by an improved ability to maneuver and avoid.

Commuters makes up only about 5% of all cyclists here and BC has a 2% level of commuter cyclists while at the same time all cyclists are involved in only 1% of traffic collisions.

I had an old Stats Canada report that showed for every 100,000 motorists, 10 died, while for every 100,000 cyclists only 1 died.



Statistics are a funny thing... compare the milage covered by each of those groups of 100,000 and then tell me what the injury rates are.

I find I'm far safer feeling if I'm keeping pace with city traffic than say pokin' along. I find I'm having more fun when I'm faster though...:D

Similarly, and as pointed out earlier, the lower sensory cognitivity of a cyclist compared to a car is probably more or less balanced out by an improved ability to maneuver and avoid.

Again meaning that the cyclist must be a skilled enough athete to "maneuver and avoid." Skills and training that are not possed by the majority of cyclists (based on the fact that the majority of cyclists are not trained and tend to be low milage "weekend" riders as recognized by many agencies that have conducted studies).

High milage experieced cyclists represent the minority of cyclists on the road (even Forester recognized this).

I think that one should compare per mile safety if comparing transportational cycling to transportational motoring and compare per hour safety if comparing recreational/fitness cycling to other recreational/fitness activities.

Al

In general and in principle, speed differentials make on-road situations more dangerous. Where I ride, there are significant speed differentials between me and other road users, therefore, there is a hightened risk of collisions involving myself and another road user.

It's not a reason to not ride; rather, it is a reason to engage in risk management; i.e. wearing protective equipment, learning safe riding techniques, being the most defensive person out on the road, etc. I tend to live by the rule of thumb that ignorance is never an asset, and I disagree wholeheartedly with some cycling advocates who are insistant in the belief that any admission of danger in cycling will be counterproductive from an advocacy standpoint. There are ways of mitigating risk in cycling, but to convince people to use these methods and indeed, even to debate the usefulness of these methods, we must first detail out the risks associated with cycling.

Proposal: In general, all other things being equal, an experienced cyclist riding a bicycle in car traffic, using normal car lanes, riding legally and defensively, is in no more danger of having a collision than a car driver.

Caveats: Excluding interstate highways and similar roads
"Legally" includes properly dressed and equipped for the conditions, including darkness (reflective material and lights)
This is saying nothing about personal safety in the event of a collision, only chances of getting into one in the first place.


If car drivers are also driving legally and defensively, the level of safety is the same, since it is zero for both. Car drivers risk of serious injury or death is higher because their accidents usually happen at much higher speed.

Again meaning that the cyclist must be a skilled enough athete to "maneuver and avoid." Skills and training that are not possed by the majority of cyclists (based on the fact that the majority of cyclists are not trained and tend to be low milage "weekend" riders as recognized by many agencies that have conducted studies).

High milage experieced cyclists represent the minority of cyclists on the road (even Forester recognized this).
I don't think anyone is disagreeing with the point that unskilled cyclists are in more danger riding in traffic (including in bike lanes, side paths and on bike paths that intersect roads, driveways, alleys, etc.) than are most motorists. The OP stipulated this was about experienced/skilled cyclists.

In general and in principle, speed differentials make on-road situations more dangerous. Where I ride, there are significant speed differentials between me and other road users, therefore, there is a hightened risk of collisions involving myself and another road user.
But the higher speed differentials only apply to the speed differentials between the cyclist and same direction traffic. The speed differentials are proportionally lower for cyclists with oncoming and cross traffic, which poses the greater danger.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with the point that unskilled cyclists are in more danger riding in traffic (including in bike lanes, side paths and on bike paths that intersect roads, driveways, alleys, etc.) than are most motorists. The OP stipulated this was about experienced/skilled cyclists.

I am simply poining out that "experienced/skilled cyclists" actually represent a minority of cyclists out on the road.

I am simply poining out that "experienced/skilled cyclists" actually represent a minority of cyclists out on the road.
Why are you pointing this out?

Statistics are a funny thing... compare the milage covered by each of those groups of 100,000 and then tell me what the injury rates are.

Behavior is a funny thing... compare what each was doing prior to their injuries and tell me just what my chances are of avoiding an injury by my behavior when I'm riding.

I am simply poining out that "experienced/skilled cyclists" actually represent a minority of cyclists out on the road.

I'd agree and I'd bet they share a much smaller portion of riders involved in injuries than others.

But the higher speed differentials only apply to the speed differentials between the cyclist and same direction traffic. The speed differentials are proportionally lower for cyclists with oncoming and cross traffic, which poses the greater danger.

and intersecting traffic collisions make up the majority of collisions.

But the higher speed differentials only apply to the speed differentials between the cyclist and same direction traffic. The speed differentials are proportionally lower for cyclists with oncoming and cross traffic, which poses the greater danger.

Actually, the slower speed of the cyclist probably poses more danger with respect to oncoming and cross traffic because it makes the cyclist's speed hard to judge from the faster moving car due to the lack of visual indicators and the offset between their lines of travel. This is probably why oncoming and cross traffic (or more properly, crossing and hooking traffic) pose the greatest threat to a cyclist.

Cars are constantly misreading closing speeds of bikers doing road speeds. When they carve the left hand turn as you approach the intersection, and if the cyclist didn't jam on the breaks then someone, not the driver, would have been killed. I will push that envelope(waaay experienced ...don;t try this at home) and force them to stop in the intersection ..jamming up all car traffic and I will proceed in front of said offender while giving him the look, while singing .. "if you can't complete the turn safely don't start it." So willing to throw themselves in front of my bike but if I was a half a block away in a car they wouldn't dare ...just in case.

Actually, the slower speed of the cyclist probably poses more danger with respect to oncoming and cross traffic because it makes the cyclist's speed hard to judge from the faster moving car due to the lack of visual indicators and the offset between their lines of travel. This is probably why oncoming and cross traffic (or more properly, crossing and hooking traffic) pose the greatest threat to a cyclist.
So cross traffic is a higher threat to bicyclists than to motorcyclists? Because bicyclist speed tends to be lower? Is that what you're saying? Do you really believe this?

I think crossing traffic poses the greatest threat to cyclists mostly for the same reasons crossing traffic poses the greatest threat to all road users.

To a certain limited extent the lower speed of cyclists may indirectly play a part, mostly with respect to encouraging cyclists to use space for through movements at intersections normally used only for turning movements by others, thus often making their presence less expected and more likely to be overlooked.
With respect to same direction crossing traffic (i.e., the right cross threat), the higher speed differential does make the cyclist more vulnerable. But the lower absolute speed, and thus the lower differential with oncoming and cross traffic, makes those conflicts that much easier to avoid.

Cars are constantly misreading closing speeds of bikers doing road speeds.
Constantly? That used to be consistent with my experience too. Then I discovered that the "misreading" was mostly caused by overlooking my presence altogether mostly related to the fact that I was riding where they weren't paying nearly as much attention - off to the side. Now that I'm careful to ride where drivers tend to be focused, I can't remember the last time a motorist misread my speed. If anything, once you have captured their attention through conspicuous lane positioning, they tend to err on the side of caution and give you more time/space than necessary.

Actually, the slower speed of the cyclist probably poses more danger with respect to oncoming and cross traffic because...

and one would have to agree in many city situations there is not much difference in speed between a cyclist and a motor vehicle.

There are just too many particular variables to detemine safety beyond a best guess as to why a collision occured and looking at the raw numbers of cyclists and motorists hurt in collisions and the number of cyclists and motorisists on the road at any given time.

Sorry HH I'll have to disagree there, as I'm in the position in the on-coming curb lane. Exactly where a driver making a left across those two oncoming lanes needs to be looking. To not see me at this particualar intersection is to admit to careless driving. No excuses for missing me, they just misread my speed and we end up nose to nose, or they proceed with absolute impunity safe in the knowledge that I'll be the only one injured in a collision given rise to their assumption of me backing off.

It's not an I didn't see you issue, it's either I have no experience reading on coming speeds as it pertains to bikes because I regard them as inconvenient toys. OR I have no regard whatsoever for you, your being there first, or in the fact you are on the roadway/intersection at all. The whole how dare you get in my way mentaility. We're talking about city traffic here nothing arterial.

It's getting to the point I see drivers carving oncoming lanes on turns in order to not have to wait for a ped crossing the street, it's shameful really.

Sorry HH I'll have to disagree there, as I'm in the position in the on-coming curb lane. Exactly where a driver making a left across those two oncoming lanes needs to be looking. To not see me at this particualar intersection is to admit to careless driving. No excuses for missing me, they just misread my speed and we end up nose to nose, or they proceed with absolute impunity safe in the knowledge that I'll be the only one injured in a collision given rise to their assumption of me backing off.

It's not an I didn't see you issue, it's either I have no experience reading on coming speeds as it pertains to bikes because I regard them as inconvenient toys. OR I have no regard whatsoever for you, your being there first, or in the fact you are on the roadway/intersection at all. The whole how dare you get in my way mentaility. We're talking about city traffic here nothing arterial.

It's getting to the point I see drivers carving oncoming lanes on turns in order to not have to wait for a ped crossing the street, it's shameful really.
I really believe there is a "self-fulfilling prophecy" factor involved here.

Cyclists like you, Gene, Diane, etc. who believe disdainful stuff about drivers in general like either [they] have no experience reading on coming speeds as it pertains to bikes because [they] regard [bikes] as inconvenient toys. OR [drivers] have no regard whatsoever for [cyclists], [cyclists] being there first, or in the fact [the cyclists are] on the roadway/intersection at all most likely reflect these beliefs in your own behavior and body language, and the drivers in turn behave accordingly. Thus your experience confirms your disdainful beliefs about drivers.

Cyclists like me on the other hand believe that drivers are human beings who are just trying to get whereever they are going, hopefully without incident, and this belief, understanding and respect is most likely reflected in our behavior and body language, and the drivers in turn behave accordingly. Thus our experience confirms our generally positive and respectful beliefs about drivers.

Of course there are always exceptions. But again, it's all about perspective. For you, the courteous driver is the exception, which you discount as such. For me, even the occasional driver who overlooks me is expected and accepted as no big deal. Only the extremely rare one who intentionally threatens me or acts aggressively towards me is the exception, and is discounted as such.

I'll take my perspective and experience any day. YMMV.

Why are you pointing this out?

Well for one thing this thread is based on safety of cyclists but is limited to "experienced cyclists."

For another, many of your opinions are based on your views as an "experienced high milage cyclist" as are John Foresters... thus overlooking that the majority of cyclists out there, do not fit this mold.

While I too am an experienced high milage cyclist, I am trying to maintain a larger picture view based on what I actually on the road... and a lot of what I see is NOT experienced high milage cyclists.

I think that one should compare per mile safety if comparing transportational cycling to transportational motoring and compare per hour safety if comparing recreational/fitness cycling to other recreational/fitness activities.

Al

Exactly... comparing just sheer numbers of participants is not valid based on the actual time or milage of a particular activity.

Well for one thing this thread is based on safety of cyclists but is limited to "experienced cyclists."

For another, many of your opinions are based on your views as an "experienced high milage cyclist" as are John Foresters... thus overlooking that the majority of cyclists out there, do not fit this mold.

While I too am an experienced high milage cyclist, I am trying to maintain a larger picture view based on what I actually on the road... and a lot of what I see is NOT experienced high milage cyclists.
Let me try again... so what?

I mean, okay most cyclists on the road are not experienced/skilled high mileage cyclists. And therefore... what???

Edit: And Einstein's scientific opinions and theories are based on his views as a "highly intelligent scientist". Is this overlooking the majority of people out there "who do not fit this mold"? What is the relevance?

So cross traffic is a higher threat to bicyclists than to motorcyclists? Because bicyclist speed tends to be lower? Is that what you're saying? Do you really believe this?



I think he is saying (and this is where motorcycles too become involved) is that motorists have a hard time judgeing the speed and closing distances of smaller vehicles that are unlike the majority of vehicles they see on the road.

On the flip side motorists tend to give more "weight" to larger vehicles that may in fact be moving slower... but due to a larger size, the motorists tend to assume they are a greater danger.

Sorry HH I'll have to disagree there, as I'm in the position in the on-coming curb lane. Exactly where a driver making a left across those two oncoming lanes needs to be looking. To not see me at this particualar intersection is to admit to careless driving. No excuses for missing me, they just misread my speed and we end up nose to nose, or they proceed with absolute impunity safe in the knowledge that I'll be the only one injured in a collision given rise to their assumption of me backing off.

It's not an I didn't see you issue, it's either I have no experience reading on coming speeds as it pertains to bikes because I regard them as inconvenient toys. OR I have no regard whatsoever for you, your being there first, or in the fact you are on the roadway/intersection at all. The whole how dare you get in my way mentaility. We're talking about city traffic here nothing arterial.

It's getting to the point I see drivers carving oncoming lanes on turns in order to not have to wait for a ped crossing the street, it's shameful really.


+10. And that is a purely motorist issue that we as cyclists must go beyond simple "defensive driving" to overcome. Along the same lines hit and run accidents seem to be on the rise too... why? Could it be that same lack of regard for other road users?

I think he is saying (and this is where motorcycles too become involved) is that motorists have a hard time judgeing the speed and closing distances of smaller vehicles that are unlike the majority of vehicles they see on the road.

On the flip side motorists tend to give more "weight" to larger vehicles that may in fact be moving slower... but due to a larger size, the motorists tend to assume they are a greater danger.
Please review my discussion with Brian. He was contending that it is specifically because of our relatively slower speed that makes us more prone to crashes.

Edit: see post #37.

I really believe there is a "self-fulfilling prophecy" factor involved here.

Cyclists like you, Gene, Diane, etc. who believe disdainful stuff about drivers in general like either [they] have no experience reading on coming speeds as it pertains to bikes because [they] regard as inconvenient toys. [B]OR [drivers] have no regard whatsoever for [cyclists], [cyclists] being there first, or in the fact [the cyclists are] on the roadway/intersection at all most likely reflect these beliefs in your own behavior and body language, and the drivers in turn behave accordingly. Thus your experience confirms your disdainful beliefs about drivers.

Cyclists like me on the other hand believe that drivers are human beings who are just trying to get whereever they are going, hopefully without incident, and this belief, understanding and respect is most likely reflected in our behavior and body language, and the drivers in turn behave accordingly. Thus our experience confirms our generally positive and respectful beliefs about drivers.

Of course there are always exceptions. But again, it's all about perspective. For you, the courteous driver is the exception, which you discount as such. For me, even the occasional driver who overlooks me is expected and accepted as no big deal. Only the extremely rare one who intentionally threatens me or acts aggressively towards me is the exception, and is discounted as such.

I'll take my perspective and experience any day. YMMV.


<sarcasm on>Nice view... The world is as I see it, not as it really exists. <sarcasm off>