Hard question

[Pete Clark]

It occurred to me (in the face of a seemingly neverending discussion that revives itself from time to time, namely, "How dangerous is cycling in traffic?") that we talk about statistics a lot.
Then I wondered about the really difficult question: "How many of our members on Bikeforums have died in a car/bicycle accident?"

This is a hard, delicate question, almost inappropriate to ask.

It might also be hard to answer, since in the case of one of us being killed, we might never know what happened unless a friend of theirs posted the sad news.

[closetbiker]

I know of none, but I'm sure the must be some.

How about anyone know any one die in a car to car collision? I'll bet there would be more.

[Pete Clark]

Now that I re-read my post in light of your comment, not only would it go without saying that deaths in car-car collisions would be more frequent than bike-car collisions, but it makes my post seem that much more negative toward cycling.

But the thought did occur to me. Perhaps I was hoping there was
some proof among us (by our continued presence, alive and well on this forum) that cycling is indeed a very safe way to get around.

I also wonder, why do motorists always harp on the apparent unprotectedness of cyclists? Being in a car during a crash would be like being a frog inside a beer can that some college boy smashed against his forehead.

[closetbiker]

Or, to put a positive spin on things, how many know others who have managed to live a better quality (and possibly longer) life through the benefits of regular exercise?

My example would be my Dad and my father in law.

My dad has been active his whole life (a pro hockey player 'till 35, the a pro ref 'til 55 and always - even now at 73 - a old timer hockey player) and he looks like a robust 50 year old. My father in law, inactive his whole life (office worker, smoker, social drinker) is 67 and he looks and acts like he's 85.

[Chris L]

Originally posted by Pete Clark
But the thought did occur to me. Perhaps I was hoping there was
some proof among us (by our continued presence, alive and well on this forum) that cycling is indeed a very safe way to get around.

It might provide the proof that cycling is a safe way to get around if it's done properly. A lot of cyclists I see around here don't do it properly for various reasons (riding against traffic, not watching where they're going, riding on the footpath etc). One thing that never makes the "safety" statistics is what was the person who was killed actually doing at the time.

[closetbiker]

Originally posted by Chris L
One thing that never makes the "safety" statistics is what was the person who was killed actually doing at the time.

You bet! I always say it's behaviour, regardless of the activity, that leads to results!

[FOG]

I make my living analyzing transportation safety isues, and believe it or not there really are no hard and fast answers to a question like "how safe is cycling," largely because we need to put it into some context of exposure. Let me give some examples:

Total property and injury risk (including fatalities) per:
(a) vehicle mile traveled
(b) passenger mile traveled
(c) vehicle hour
(d) air-line (as a crow flys) passenger mile
(e) urban highway passenger mile

It is easy to see how the relative risk would vary because different modes have different passenger loadings, speeds, circuity and location of use. For example, it would be misleading to compare bicycle safety to automobile safety and include exclusive rights-of-way for automobiles and bike trails for bicyclists, because exclusive use tends to be relatively safer, but autos spend proportionally more miles on limited access highways than bikes do on exclusive use bike trails.

A safety analysis would also need to consider offsetting safety impacts, such as reduction in health risks because bicycling provides healthy exercise, and reduced pollution.

That said, I think cycling, powered or unpowered, tends to be riskier per passenger mile than auto travel, and while it would be nice if others modified their behavior to make us safer, it is easier for us to modify our own behavior to mitiigate risks.

[ngateguy]

Originally posted by closetbiker
Or, to put a positive spin on things, how many know others who have managed to live a better quality (and possibly longer) life through the benefits of regular exercise?

My example would be my Dad and my father in law.

My dad has been active his whole life (a pro hockey player 'till 35, the a pro ref 'til 55 and always - even now at 73 - a old timer hockey player) and he looks like a robust 50 year old. My father in law, inactive his whole life (office worker, smoker, social drinker) is 67 and he looks and acts like he's 85.

Using my dad as an example at my age (46) lead a life of a sedentary academic (Clergyman) he had already been in the hospital a couple of times for phlebitis(sp) and angina he was diagnosed with high blood pressure and diabetes I remember his medicine chest was full of prescription drugs and he looked old. More importantly he became old I was tested for diabetes at the time was told I was border line and I was only 20 still it took me 15 years to change my life style. Now at 46 I have only one prescription and it is not for health related issues (I have ADD) I am fit full of energy obnoxious (I guess that has nothing to do with health :) ) and I refuse to grow up! before the grey set in no one would guess my age right. I attribute this to cycling it saved me from the same fate as my father

[Inoplanetyanin]

Perfect provided information. Real professional answer.
I absolutely agree with everything said above and would like to add something. When I was motorcycle rider, I heard that for the same amount of miles traveled by motorcycle compared to car, it is 17 times more likely to be killed being on the motorcycle.

I believe that cycling IS dangerous, and sometimes it is VERY dangerous, (riding here in LA) but we either understand that and accept the compromise, or back off, change the riding area, style and so forth.
There are many families in which parents don't let their kids ride a bicycle at all, because of the fears of injury.

We should THINK and ride as SAFE as possible!

[ngateguy]

Originally posted by Inoplanetyanin
[B
We should THINK and ride as SAFE as possible! [/B]

Amen brother!

[Chris L]

Originally posted by Inoplanetyanin
I believe that cycling IS dangerous, and sometimes it is VERY dangerous, (riding here in LA) but we either understand that and accept the compromise, or back off, change the riding area, style and so forth.
There are many families in which parents don't let their kids ride a bicycle at all, because of the fears of injury.

That said, I think cycling tends to attract a lot of unnecessary scaremongering, perhaps more so than any other activity in existence. Every activity carries risk - even being a couch potato. There seem to be statistics both for and against the safety of cycling - I come back to my earlier point: Any activity will be inherently dangerous if it is not done properly.

Only this week I had someone tell me that my little corner of the world was the most dangerous place to cycle in the entire world (I'm not making this up!). Yet I generally ride without fear.

I'm not saying I ride recklessly or aggressively, nor do I think it's particularly sensible to do so. I'm merely pointing out that I generally don't take the approach of "I may not make it home" from every ride that I do. I honestly believe such an attitude would prevent me from concentrating on the task at hand (i.e. the ride itself), and would probably put me at considerably greater risk than I already am.

[uciflylow]

www.utm.edu/~jclark/trails/green.shtml (http://www.utm.edu/~jclark/trails/green.shtml)

This is one example! I ride this same strech of road and don't think anything of it. Just last week there was a ride from Martin to Nashville to the state capitol, about 140 miles, to ask for funding for the perposed greenway.

I don't see bicycling as any more dangerous than anything else we do. You take a chance when you get out of bed in the morning, you house could burn down on top of you if you don't get out of bed for that matter! I know bicycling pays back in more ways than can be counted both on a personal level and on society.

[closetbiker]

When Chris L says, cycling is a safe way to get around if it's done properly, and uciflylow says, I don't see bicycling as any more dangerous than anything else we do, I wonder if a cyclist gets into an accident, why don't we ask (as Chris L does), what was the person who was killed actually doing at the time? I would think some one who analizes accidents for a living would dig into the how and why collisions occur.

If an auto drives through a red light or the driver has a 1.05 blood alchohol level we don't say the car is the problem, we fix the abhorant behavior. Why is it we say the bicycle is a danger when the rider rides on the wrong side of the road or runs a red light?

That said, an abhorantly poor driver can kill more from his actions than a similarily poor cyclist.

So back to the original query, I know of many deaths personally from autos but none from cycling.

[Pete Clark]

Originally posted by FOG
I make my living analyzing transportation safety isues...

That said, I think cycling, powered or unpowered, tends to be riskier per passenger mile than auto travel...
FOG, would you please provide supporting evidence for this claim?

(A driver travelling one mile might be safe for 60 seconds. A bicyclist travelling one mile might be safe for 4 minutes.

Also, lumping "powered" and "unpowered" cycling together sounds like you are putting motorcycles in the same category of risk as bicycles. Motorcyclists can have a risk of fatality as much as 300 times that of cyclists.

[closetbiker]

Originally posted by FOG
A safety analysis would also need to consider offsetting safety impacts, such as reduction in health risks because bicycling provides healthy exercise, and reduced pollution.

I trust that the British Medical Association does a good job in it's research and I'll tend to beleive them when they come out and say that the benefits of cycling outnumber the risks of cycling by a factor of 20 to 1.

[MattC]

Well I sold my motorcycle to get back into cycling so I figure it probably saved me from myself. I never could keep the throttle closed.

[nathank]

Well I sold my motorcycle to get back into cycling so I figure it probably saved me from myself. I never could keep the throttle closed.

i sold my motorcycle about 4 years ago b/c it just sat in the driveway and i always rode one of my bicycles...

although 8 years before that my bicycle was stolen and i bought a motorcycle --- only 4 years of my life have i not been a cyclist: age 16-18 (b/c driving was "cool" and cycling wasn't) and when i bought the motorcycle instead of a bike (age 20-21)

but yeah, i did a lot of dangerous motorcycling and bicycling is FAR less dangerous ---- you are less in the proximity of cars (riding on the shoulder) and travel at MUCH lower speeds -- particularly me as i was VERY heavy on the throttle and drove fast (at my worst i got 12 tickets in 18 months and usually rode double the speed limit, especially on curvy roads)

[khuon]

Whenever people talk about transportation safety, they always point at air-travel as being the safest. In an article I read in Flying a few years ago, the author takes the stance that it is wrong to consider flying to be safe. In actuality flying has less margins for error than driving. When one says that something is safe then one assumes that there are no inherent risks. The author's premise was that safety is actively and dynamically influenced by risk management. Very few things in this world are safe... everything is risky. It's all about risk management. Pilots are taught this early on and the issue of safety is a paramount fundemental in aviation. We as cyclists get exposed to greater risk while at the same time have less passive safety protection than most other road users. Therefore, we must be more active in our risk management. To a pilot, the forces of mother nature are a powerful thing and to us cyclists, the force of a 2-ton vehicle moving at 60MPH is also quite powerful. We must learn to respect and take into account that we have less a margin for error.

[Pete Clark]

Originally posted by khuon
Whenever people talk about transportation safety, they always point at air-travel as being the safest. In an article I read in Flying a few years ago, the author takes the stance that it is wrong to consider flying to be safe.

The author's premise was that safety is actively and dynamically influenced by risk management. Pilots are taught this early on and the issue of safety is a paramount fundemental in aviation. We as cyclists get exposed to greater risk while at the same time have less passive safety protection than most other road users. Therefore, we must be more active in our risk management. To a pilot, the forces of mother nature are a powerful thing and to us cyclists, the force of a 2-ton vehicle moving at 60MPH is also quite powerful. We must learn to respect and take into account that we have less a margin for error.
Very well put. I agree, and many knowledgable cycling advocates
would agree that the cyclist has perhaps the most control over his/her risk management when it comes to risk factors. Our choices determine our risk.

As for flying, a distinction should be made between airiline flying and private flying. Private flying is much more dangerous for numerous reasons, one of which is the altitude at which private planes fly (among other things.) Airline flying, despite recent public aversion to it, is probably the safest way to travel.

[Brian Ratliff]

Originally posted by Inoplanetyanin
...
I believe that cycling IS dangerous, and sometimes it is VERY dangerous, (riding here in LA) but we either understand that and accept the compromise, or back off, change the riding area, style and so forth.

...

We should THINK and ride as SAFE as possible!

Herein lies the problem. What is safe? What is dangerous?

Amid all the talk of actions and margins of error, we must realize that the risks we take in cycling is coupled with the training we have had. When I was in highschool, just starting to ride the five miles to the swim pool on a highway, the ride was more hazardous to me than now, many years and much experience later. In my experience, driving a car carries a much steeper learning curve than riding a bicycle in traffic. Most of us here on the forum probably have not had an effective cycling course or anything equivilent. We have learned by experience and advice from others. With a car, one has to take lessons for a year and then is only given full priviledge of the road a couple years after that. Even if this were not required by law, I know I was not comfortable in a car that first year I was driving.

All this suggests to me that driving carries more risk than cycling, at least in the early years of the learning curve.

(sorry, I am sure I had a point in all this, but it all turned out random :p )

[Inoplanetyanin]

Originally posted by MattC
Well I sold my motorcycle to get back into cycling so I figure it probably saved me from myself. I never could keep the throttle closed.

Same here. Sold it this summer.
I felt really bad, running at night, in the rain, on the interstate at 70 mph between the trucks on bumpy roads... It was taking chances everyday... Had no choice.

More bikers die from running into something or falling then when something runs into them, the only problem for a cyclist
http://www.angelfire.com/al2/misha18male6/images/bicycle_speed.jpg

[Michel Gagnon]

Originally posted by FOG

It is easy to see how the relative risk would vary because different modes have different passenger loadings, speeds, circuity and location of use. For example, it would be misleading to compare bicycle safety to automobile safety and include exclusive rights-of-way for automobiles and bike trails for bicyclists, because exclusive use tends to be relatively safer, but autos spend proportionally more miles on limited access highways than bikes do on exclusive use bike trails.

That said, I think cycling, powered or unpowered, tends to be riskier per passenger mile than auto travel, and while it would be nice if others modified their behavior to make us safer, it is easier for us to modify our own behavior to mitiigate risks.


FOG, You state very good points to which I could add a few.

I don't think there even are enough exclusive bike right of ways to get significant statistics from them. Most if not all off-road paths are multi-use in theory and practice (especially in cities), and almost none has segregated intersection design similar to that of motorways.

There are even yet other ways to do comparative studies and in many cases, to select the most adequate technique, one should consider the motive of the journey. Here are a few examples of what I mean.

-- Commutes The proper comparison would be # of accidents per 100 000 commutes. The idea is that people who plan to walk, cycle or use public transit will purposely find a house closer to work. Once the house is bought, what counts is to be able to commute safely until one reaches retirement...

-- Holidays Typically, one decides to do a 4-week tour (change the length to suit). By car, one would do a cross-country tour; by bike, one would do a cross-province tour. Again, what counts is to get 4 safe weeks.

-- Joy Rides. Whether one rides by car or by bike, if one plans to relax while driving/cycling, then it's definitely the number of hours that count.

Regards,

[Chris L]

Just to further emphasise the point about the scare-mongering that goes on re: cycling. I will point out that I live in the official skin-cancer capital of the world. In fact, although I don't have statistics to back this up, the likelihood is that in the last year, more people have died from skin cancer around here than have been killed by cycling for all time. However, what I don't see is the many many newspaper editorials and so on rambling on about the "dangers of sunbathing". Yet I see them go on about the "dangers of cycling" all the time (or at least I did when I actually used to pay attention to the news).

Why?

[Pete Clark]

Originally posted by Chris L
...the likelihood is that in the last year, more people have died from skin cancer around here than have been killed by cycling for all time. However, what I don't see is the many many newspaper editorials and so on rambling on about the "dangers of sunbathing".

Why?
For the same reason we don't say very much about driving, which kills tens of thousands of people every year.

People don't want to hear about the dangers of something they do everyday (and neither do businesses that make money from those activities.) They want to hear about the dangers of something someone else is doing.

[khuon]

Originally posted by Chris L
However, what I don't see is the many many newspaper editorials and so on rambling on about the "dangers of sunbathing". Yet I see them go on about the "dangers of cycling" all the time (or at least I did when I actually used to pay attention to the news).

What irks me about the media is when they use scare-tactics to generate sensationalism. I am just as annoyed by someone going on and on about something being inherently dangerous as someone going on and on about something being inherently safe. Nothing good comes of it. I don't mind it if the media alerts people to certains risks and then goes on to talk about ways to mitigate that risk. That is useful advice. In the case of sunbathing, many reports conclude with something to the effect of "be sure and wear proper sunprotection such as sun screens and hats." However, I keep seeing stories about how people who cycle will have their wee-wee falling off within a month or something equally inane. At the end of those stories, there's no helpful advice. There's not even a blurb about how one should get properly fitted and/or tips on how to adjust one's saddle. There are no pointers to assist people in finding further information or help. I'll bet that if the media ran news stories about cycling safety and pointed people to bike clubs and local bike shops as places for which to gain information, you'd also see a decline in the sales of *-Mart bikes and people riding the wrong way at night and an increase in cycling in general as well as properly assembled and adjusted bikes. As I said before, every activity presents a certain amount of risk. If someone wants to tell me it's dangerous then they should also be willing to tell me why and how I can go about it more safely. Most of us can learn. We tell children who can't learn within a reasonable amount of time to simply stay away from a hot oven. We tell those that have the capability to use the knowledge to approach a hot oven with care and to wear oven mitts when pulling the baking pan out of it.

[FOG]

There are really two issues here- the first is a question of how to measure risk- the second is a question of how to manage risk.

mgagnonlv is correct in saying that risk ought to be mesured by activity, but no one really wants to place the incredible burdens it would take to get accurate data on the issue. do you really want to have to check in with your mileage every time you cycle, I sure don't. I know we could try sampling and other techniques, but the real issue is that the data is very costly to acquire, either in resources or freedoms.

On the issue of how to manage risk I would say, having read somewhere in the tens of thousands of accident reports, that the best guarantor of safety is a safe attitude. Wearing a helmet reduces risk at almost no cost. Likewise, wearing visible clothes, and then still operating your bike as if you were the invisible man are low cost, high impact safety measures. giving yourself a greater safety margin when you are fatigued will help. So will deciding not to ride when the conditions look unsafe for your level of skill, health, fatigue and fitness. I am a private pilot (I don't work for FAA though), and I have always lived by the rule that it is better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air than in the air wishing you were on the ground. I think you all know the kind of measuresI am talking about.

I guess we could try to modify the automobile operators' perception of bicycles, but don't hold your breath until that happens. Trust your own good judgement to keep the risk in an acceptable range.

[Pete Clark]

Originally posted by FOG
On the issue of how to manage risk I would say, having read somewhere in the tens of thousands of accident reports, that the best guarantor of safety is a safe attitude. Wearing a helmet reduces risk at almost no cost. Likewise, wearing visible clothes, and then still operating your bike as if you were the invisible man are low cost, high impact safety measures. giving yourself a greater safety margin when you are fatigued will help. So will deciding not to ride when the conditions look unsafe for your level of skill, health, fatigue and fitness.
I agree with all of the above.

I guess we could try to modify the automobile operators' perception of bicycles, but don't hold your breath until that happens.
I don't think we have any choice but to insist that motorists, indeed all road users, modify their perception of cyclists as legal vehicle operators entitled to the same level of respect as all other vehicle operators. This is foundational to our safety on the road.

If a motorist does not know that cyclists belong on the road, how do you expect motorists to know how to deal with cyclists on the road?

One of the most important safety factors on the road is how easily drivers can predict my moves. That's why we stop at signals, yield right-of-way, signal turns, obey speed limits and look for eye contact.

If motorists don't see us as belonging on the road, they also may not know how to predict our moves.

No, it's very dangerous indeed if motorists remain uneducated about cyclists.

[khuon]

Originally posted by Pete Clark

One of the most important safety factors on the road is how easily drivers can predict my moves. That's why we stop at signals, yield right-of-way, signal turns, obey speed limits and look for eye contact.

If motorists don't see us as belonging on the road, they also may not know how to predict our moves.

Agreed. I try and look at road rules as protocol. It's easy to anticipate that someone adhering to the rules of the road on a bicycle will continue to adhere to those rules and thus can and should be treated like any other vehicle on the road. When people see a cyclist not following the rules as everyone else, they're not sure what to make of it. The cyclist becomes an unknown and their minds immediately have to throw an exception... one which they may not be well adept at handling.

[Michel Gagnon]

Originally posted by Chris L
Just to further emphasise the point about the scare-mongering that goes on re: cycling. .... However, what I don't see is the many many newspaper editorials and so on rambling on about the "dangers of sunbathing". Yet I see them go on about the "dangers of cycling" all the time ...


Different world, I guess, because I would state exactly the opposite happens here in Québec.

About cycling: we rarely see anything on cycling, period. However, when we see something, it's either about a nice bike trip (in the travel section), a nice bike trail, new equipment, etc. Most articles cater to the "leasure" aspect of cycling: IOW, pack and take your bike, do a nice tour in a picturesque area with low-mileage days, either on bike trails or on very-low-traffic roads (preferably signed as bike routes). We will see a flurry of articles with each of the events promoted by Vélo Québec (http://www.velo.qc.ca) this Summer, whether it's the day-long Tour de l'île (a 48-km "parade" in closed streets), the longer 1- or 2-day rides or the Grand tour, a 10-day road trip in Québec.

On one or two years ago, there was a short Wear-your-helmet "safety" campain with little substance. Stay right, but we won't tell you how to behave in traffic.

When there is a collision -- especially one with serious or deadly consequences --, I think we get a relatively fair report of the event (drunk driver, unlit cyclist, wrong way cycling, truck without brakes, etc.) but little beyond that. I'm not really thinking about punishing more for what happens as there is a bit done already (not enough, as the car is still the most acceptable tool for murder), but I'm actually thinking in terms of lessons for the community. Many of these collisions could be used to remind car drivers and cyclists of their rights and obligations: respect for others, safe passing distances, lighting, etc.


By contrast, every year we get 2 or 3 intensive campains stressing the dangers of sun exposure. The Canadian Association of Dermatologists has succeded in putting journalists in a state of panic, so they throw such a hysterical message (never go out without full clothing, use FPS 60 minimum, etc.) that people don't listen that closely. I'm not negating the dangers of too much sun exposure, but "too much" has to relate to the individual and his/her activities. Yet the articles we get look fairly close to some U.S. articles where a reporter "experimented" 1-month bike commuting and was so afraid of cars that he cycled in the fields or on sidewalks.

[Chris L]

Originally posted by mgagnonlv
Different world, I guess, because I would state exactly the opposite happens here in Québec.

About cycling: we rarely see anything on cycling, period. However, when we see something, it's either about a nice bike trip (in the travel section), a nice bike trail, new equipment, etc. Most articles cater to the "leasure" aspect of cycling: IOW, pack and take your bike, do a nice tour in a picturesque area with low-mileage days, either on bike trails or on very-low-traffic roads (preferably signed as bike routes). We will see a flurry of articles with each of the events promoted by Vélo Québec (http://www.velo.qc.ca) this Summer, whether it's the day-long Tour de l'île (a 48-km "parade" in closed streets), the longer 1- or 2-day rides or the Grand tour, a 10-day road trip in Québec.

On one or two years ago, there was a short Wear-your-helmet "safety" campain with little substance. Stay right, but we won't tell you how to behave in traffic.

By contrast, every year we get 2 or 3 intensive campains stressing the dangers of sun exposure. The Canadian Association of Dermatologists has succeded in putting journalists in a state of panic, so they throw such a hysterical message (never go out without full clothing, use FPS 60 minimum, etc.) that people don't listen that closely.

I think it's important to distinguish between the different forms of media here. We also get intensive campaigns about sun exposure from the government and special interest groups, however, this is just advertising. On the other hand, the anti-cycling articles are not. These are editorials and other articles written by journalists (who haven't bothered to do any research) that appear under major headlines.

The distinction is that the anti-cycling articles and so on appear as "news" while the others are clearly defined as advertising by special interest groups. Which do you think people will pay more attention to? To be fair, their coverage of actual incidents (most of the articles do not relate to specific incidents) is reasonably balanced most of the time.

However, as far as they're concerned, it still reflects on cycling as being "dangerous" and they like to make people think they have a duty to "warn" the community about it with editorials and other articles, even when there's no incident to report. Yeah, right. Let's see them start "warning" people about other activities that are more inherently dangerous than cycling...

Oh, sorry, I forgot. They're too busy promoting their sponsors to do that.

[supcom]

Originally posted by Pete Clark
FOG, would you please provide supporting evidence for this claim?

(A driver travelling one mile might be safe for 60 seconds. A bicyclist travelling one mile might be safe for 4 minutes.

Also, lumping "powered" and "unpowered" cycling together sounds like you are putting motorcycles in the same category of risk as bicycles. Motorcyclists can have a risk of fatality as much as 300 times that of cyclists.

If you accept:

1. In the average mile of bicycling you will have more opportunities for a collision with an automobile than does an automobile travelling down the same stretch of road. Remember that the bicycle will be overtaken more often by automobiles travelling in the same direction than a motorize vehicle.

2. In any collision between two vehicles, a bicycle rider has a higher risk of injury and a higher severity of injury than a driver of an automobile would in a similar collision.

3. The frequency of mechanical failure or road hazard causing a rider to have impaired control of the bicycle is greater per mile than an automobile.

Then it stands to reason that the cyclist has a higher risk of injury per mile than the automobile driver for any particular stretch of road.

[closetbiker]

Originally posted by Chris L
what I don't see is the many many newspaper editorials and so on rambling on about the "dangers of sunbathing". Yet I see them go on about the "dangers of cycling" all the time

Why?

My bet is it enables criticism of disliked groups (those damm cyclists taking up all the roads!) as I posted on my Culture of Fear post.

If I remember right both you and I have posted on the unfair (in many) ways in which cyclists are treated.

What would anyone have against the sun? Everyone hates a rainy day but we all love "fun in the sun"!

Sure it causes cancer, and cycling is health enhancing, but few exercise and many want sunny days.

[FOG]

Originally posted by Pete Clark
FOG, would you please provide supporting evidence for this claim?

(A driver travelling one mile might be safe for 60 seconds. A bicyclist travelling one mile might be safe for 4 minutes.

Also, lumping "powered" and "unpowered" cycling together sounds like you are putting motorcycles in the same category of risk as bicycles. Motorcyclists can have a risk of fatality as much as 300 times that of cyclists.

You are attempting to measure risk per unit of time, as your unit of exposure- nothing wrong with that- just not what I was getting at with passenger mile as unit of exposure. I have read estimates of the safety and, althought the estimates of bicycle mileage are suspect, they do have roots in traffic observations, so, when the fatality rates are orders of maginitude deifferent, the conclusion ends up inescapable.

I have not got the data in front of me now, but I would look for it in Highway Statistics, put out by Federal highway Administration, or some NHTSA publication.

[Chris L]

Originally posted by supcom
If you accept:

1. In the average mile of bicycling you will have more opportunities for a collision with an automobile than does an automobile travelling down the same stretch of road. Remember that the bicycle will be overtaken more often by automobiles travelling in the same direction than a motorize vehicle.

Which is all well and good, until you ask the question of just how common are bicycle/motor vehicle collisions. I think you will find that the majority of bicycle crashes are the result of simply falling off - which is unlikely to be fatal. I think you will also find that the majority of car crashes are the result of simply driving into things - which may very well be fatal. However, these aren't the sort of collisions that make the news and generate the media attention.

Originally posted by supcom
2. In any collision between two vehicles, a bicycle rider has a higher risk of injury and a higher severity of injury than a driver of an automobile would in a similar collision..

See my response to 1. above.

Originally posted by supcom
3. The frequency of mechanical failure or road hazard causing a rider to have impaired control of the bicycle is greater per mile than an automobile.

OK, this one I'm not prepared to accept as I have seen no evidence of it. However, if I did accept it I would ask the question of the degree of impairment. For example, if I break a spoke on the road, it is considered a mechanical failure and will cause a small impairment of control, but is unlikely to cause me to have an accident if I'm paying attention. I don't believe the same can be said for most automobile mechanical failures.

It also ignores the point that in the majority of cases, the bicycle mechanical failure will be easier to fix on the spot, thus eliminating the problem completely. Even though the failure has occurred, the consequences of it are likely to be vastly different.

What did they say about lies, damn lies and statistics?

[Max]

I, personally, know about only one cyclist, who was killed by the truck. I heard about it from my mother. It happened in late 1950s. She was my mom's friend in the sport cycling team.

My mom stopped cycling for big sport after this. I think that it was the mistake. She died when she was only 72. If she continued cycling, my guess, - she would live longer. Maybe not.

I saw with my own eyes 2 pedestrians killed by the car. One was the small boy. Laying on the shut-down by the police road, covered with the white sheet. Terrible.

I also saw one girl, about 10, who was hit by the red sport car and her head was heavily damaged. This girl was running across the street in the wrong place, when it happened. Some people brough a towel from a cafee to stop bleeding and a chair. I called her mother from my mobile, after I asked the number. Even more terrible.

I saw at least, 3 fatal car crashes with my own eyes. I know one family, where all 4 men died in the frontal crash of their Mersedes sedan with the big truck. The driver of the truck jumped out, but was also killed by his own truck, which was rotating on the road after collision. It happened this spring.

I also heard about a cyclist in my city, who lost both legs in the crash with a car last summer. But it could be an urban legend. I can not swear that this actually happened. We shall mention only cases, which we saw and can confirm from the direct knowledge, but not from mass media.

So I can not decide what is safer - driving or cycling. If taken "per se", I would say cycling is safer.

In any case, I do not believe official statistics.

[Pete Clark]

Originally posted by supcom
1. In the average mile of bicycling you will have more opportunities for a collision with an automobile than does an automobile travelling down the same stretch of road. Remember that the bicycle will be overtaken more often by automobiles travelling in the same direction than a motorize vehicle.
I disagree. Your supposition is that overtaking vehicles present a greater danger of a collision with the cyclist than any other type of collision. Overwhelmingly, the highest danger of collision exists at intersections.

2. In any collision between two vehicles, a bicycle rider has a higher risk of injury and a higher severity of injury than a driver of an automobile would in a similar collision.
In order for me to have a "similar collision" on a bike, I'd have to be travelling at car speeds, 40 - 85 mph. That's unlikely, to say the least.

3. The frequency of mechanical failure or road hazard causing a rider to have impaired control of the bicycle is greater per mile than an automobile.
Not necessarily so. That depends greatly upon the resposibility of the cyclist (or motorist) in keeping their vehicle fully operational, and in operating their vehicle responsibly.

I'd rather lose control of my bicycle at 15 mph. and get road rash than lose control of my car at 70 mph. and roll over.

[uciflylow]

I personally know of 3 riders who have been killed, all where hit by an auto of some kind. One is the one I posted the link to earlier. The other two where preteen children. One of these was my cousions best friend who was killed right before his eyes, he rode out in front of the car, and the other was in the county where I work.
I work in the medical field, lab, and can not begin to tell the number of auto deaths I have delt with. Motorcycles too many to remember also, I have worked at the same place for 20 years BTW, and it's a rural county enviroment.

I have seen farm accidents, industrial, small airplane, and hunting accidents end in DEATH! I remember one young man who choked on a peice of gum while washing out a cement mixing truck. The weird thing is that his aunt died the same way last summer!!!:eek: Choked on a peice of gum, in a car waiting for her sister to come out of the grocery! Is this strange or what? How much risk is there just chooing gum?

[Max]

Comparing the dangers of driving and cycling, we shall not forget that whenever the driver hits the cyclist in most cases it creates serious troubles for the driver too.

My worst experience with the car happened due to my inattentiveness in abslutely safe situation. I forgot to look to the left before joining the empty (as it seemed to me) road and besides I took too much space for the turn. I was nearly hit by a red-brown car, which sneaked from the left.

[cbhungry]

In my 11 years in practice, I'm always the one to be called to pronounce DOA's (dead on arrival) whenever I'm on call for the hosptial and I've pronounced lots of people from car accidents but never a bicyclist. I've signed death certificates since I've established my practice of 15,000 patients for many reasons, including car accidents. I have a large proportion of cyclists in my group due to the fact that I cycle and I have yet to sign a death certificate related to biking. Of course I know this is error sampling, but bicycling is definately not the most dangerous activity to engage oneself in according to my own limited experience.

And Chris L, I just signed a death certificate for a 28 year old who died of malignant melanoma (came to me because of a enlarged lymphnode in her groin). I also have many newly diagnosed but luckily completly resected melanomas in my young 30 somethings who frequent tanning parlors. Heck, we aren't even the skin cancer capital of the world. (By the way skin cancer is the fastest growing cancer in the US with over one million new cases a year compared to breast cancer 48,000 new cases a year). Guess which one gets the better media coverage. In fact, I don't recall any media coverage on tanning booths....WARNING tanning booths are more dangerous than bicycling!!!!

[closetbiker]

Originally posted by uciflylow
I remember one young man who choked on a peice of gum while washing out a cement mixing truck. The weird thing is that his aunt died the same way last summer!!!:eek: How much risk is there just chooing gum?

Apparently, about 3,000 people a year die from choking (more than 3 times the amount of deaths on bicycles) and in Scotland, A Scottish council is being urged to introduce an immediate ban on chewing gum at all of its meetings. The call comes from Falkirk councillor William Buchanan amid fears that colleagues chewing gum in meetings "could be in danger" of choking to death. He pointed out: "Several months ago a local politician in Europe choked to death on chewing gum while trying to speak during debate."

from:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/2763879.stm

[Inoch]

I don't think there is really anyway,currently, to obtain the data needed. My feelling has always been, that cycling is inherently more dangerous, and more likely to result in biting the big one, than autos. If one could accurately corellate cyclists numbers to deaths I think it would be right in there with autos, planes, trains, and so on. Helmets, bright clothes, traffic laws, safe riding practices, etc. etc. all help us manage the risks. Personally, I've always figured I'd go out as a hood ornament myself:D somebody will be leaned over screwing with the stereo at just the wrong time. That said, it's time to go for a ride. bye;)

[FOG]

One statistic is well accepted- The death rate is constant- one per person. You might as well enjoy what time you have.

[closetbiker]

:rolleyes:

I'm sure we will all die someday, but let's not say what we do today won't effect what may happen to us tomorow.

Even if we accept that the death/injury rate is the same for cyclists as for motorists (and I trust the BMA, AMA, Harvard and Health Canada when they say that it's not), because of the nature of the exercise we get cycling, we live as (biologically, anyway) better funtioning people. Add to that the lack of collateral damage cyclists are responsible for, and we're way out in front!