Advocacy & Safety - Bicyling is safer than driving - yahoo

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070508/hl_nm/risks_dc;_ylt=AornsjzuASgR3_r1L7RBdpjMWM0F



bicyclists face a death rate of 2.1 per 100,000 people a year


Car and light truck travel has a 0.7 fatality risk per 100 million miles or 11 per 100,000 people per year, compared to 450 for motorcycle travel and 1.3 for using a cell phone while driving.


So summary of rate of deaths/100,000 people

cycling 2.1
Car/light truck 11
motorcycle 450
Car/truck using cell phone: 12.3

5 x safer. That is significant.

Feel free to share this with those who fear cycling because it's "unsafe"

It makes me glad that I've decided to sell my motorcycle. :eek:

Very interesting stats for sure.


... Brad

Question for you...

Is the cycling death rate 2.1 per 100,000 people based on 100,000 cyclists, or 100,000 general population (a few of who cycle, but the vast majority do not)?

Because that would make a huge difference in the results.






http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070508/hl_nm/risks_dc;_ylt=AornsjzuASgR3_r1L7RBdpjMWM0F






So summary of rate of deaths/100,000 people

cycling 2.1
Car/light truck 11
motorcycle 450
Car/truck using cell phone: 12.3

5 x safer. That is significant.

Feel free to share this with those who fear cycling because it's "unsafe"

For transportational cyclists the metric should to be fatality per mile - and compared to other transport modes per mile.

For recreational cyclists the metric needs to be fatality per hour - and compared to other recreational/athletic activities.

Al

For transportational cyclists the metric should to be fatality per mile - and compared to other transport modes per mile.

For recreational cyclists the metric needs to be fatality per hour - and compared to other recreational/athletic activities.

Al

What Al said!

Always compare apples ot apples.

By the stat in the original post Lion taming and ordinance disposal are far safer than either driving or cycling.

When people refer to something being "safer", why do the statistics always use deaths as a measurement? I wish I could see more statistics that included injuries with a variety of severity levels. I realize injury data is harder to come by, and severity levels muddy up objectivity a bit. But while a relatively small number of cyclists die as a result of accidents, I'll be willing to bet that many avid cyclists are injured, sometimes severly, and I'd like to see those statistics before I can truthfully say the cycling is "safe".

You never studied stats, did you?

It makes me glad that I've decided to sell my motorcycle. :eek:

Very interesting stats for sure.


... Brad

Now you know why the insurance rate on that thing was so high. Especially if there was a letter "R" behind some numbers in the model name.

Now you know why the insurance rate on that thing was so high. Especially if there was a letter "R" behind some numbers in the model name.

Oddly enough, the insurance rate on my motorcycle is only about $50/month. That may seem like a lot to some, but considering I'm young, male, (these are considered synomymous with hyperactive and homicidal) and only held my license for two days before signing up, I'd say it's pretty reasonable. :)

Of course, maybe the fact that it's an old sub-500cc standard bike instead of a Hayabusa has something to do with it...

For transportational cyclists the metric should to be fatality per mile - and compared to other transport modes per mile.
Actually, if a reasonable argument can be made that driving a car for transportation statistically leads to increased travel distances, and/or that riding a bicycle for transportation does the opposite, the per-mile consideration needs to be set aside. Potentially with notation referring to the exclusion, but not necessarily. If it is included, a sound argument needs to be made in support of inclusion, comprehensive work needs to be done to nail down the effect; as accurately as possible because this additional variable will compound any current discrepancy, and the effects of inclusion vs exclusion of this additional material would need to be outlined individually.
Unfortunately, the study is barely cited on the Yahoo page. Off to Reuters.
Nothing more there, but there is that token "Health Affairs" mention. Must be what qualifies as an in text citation for professionals; two words short of plagiarism. Google... And here's the abstract. (http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/abstract/26/3/636) Need a password for the full text, bah! Off to the college website, hee hee, free scholarly reference material for me, the evening student... Double bah! They don't have the May/June publication online yet! Slackers! :D
Oh well, it'll be up soon enough if the orderly row of Health Affairs publication dates is any indication. It'll be interesting to see who they cited and how the odds were stacked.

Actually, if a reasonable argument can be made that driving a car for transportation statistically leads to increased travel distances, and/or that riding a bicycle for transportation does the opposite, the per-mile consideration needs to be set aside. Potentially with notation referring to the exclusion, but not necessarily. If it is included, a sound argument needs to be made in support of inclusion, comprehensive work needs to be done to nail down the effect; as accurately as possible because this additional variable will compound any current discrepancy, and the effects of inclusion vs exclusion of this additional material would need to be outlined individually.
Unfortunately, the study is barely cited on the Yahoo page. Off to Reuters.
Nothing more there, but there is that token "Health Affairs" mention. Must be what qualifies as an in text citation for professionals; two words short of plagiarism. Google... And here's the abstract. (http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/abstract/26/3/636) Need a password for the full text, bah! Off to the college website, hee hee, free scholarly reference material for me, the evening student... Double bah! They don't have the May/June publication online yet! Slackers! :D
Oh well, it'll be up soon enough if the orderly row of Health Affairs publication dates is any indication. It'll be interesting to see who they cited and how the odds were stacked.
Well I am comparing current situation to current - not some hypothetical statistical fantasy world where everything changes as society switches transport modes. My work, the grocery store, etc. did not suddenly become closer to home when I started to cycle - neither did the wilderness areas I visit on weekends.

Basically if I did use safety statics to help make a decision of what transport mode to choose for a given trip, I would want to use injury/fatality per mile.

Al

I always liked the statistic which claimed that death and serious injury rates for experienced transportation cyclists were comparable with those of motorists.

However, this unfairly compares an elite subpopulation of cyclists against the entire population of motorists. If we compare defensive, experienced, lawful, courteous, safe drivers against the best cyclists, I begrudgingly admit that the motorists are probably somewhat safer than the cyclists. With a clean driving record and a car with high statistical and crash test safety ratings (2001 VW Passat wagon), I have alot to live up to as a cyclist.

I always liked the statistic which claimed that death and serious injury rates for experienced transportation cyclists were comparable with those of motorists.

However, this unfairly compares an elite subpopulation of cyclists against the entire population of motorists. If we compare defensive, experienced, lawful, courteous, safe drivers against the best cyclists, I begrudgingly admit that the motorists are probably somewhat safer than the cyclists. With a clean driving record and a car with high statistical and crash test safety ratings (2001 VW Passat wagon), I have alot to live up to as a cyclist.
Yeah, I drive with the same focus on safety no matter what I am driving.
Al

I always liked the statistic which claimed that death and serious injury rates for experienced transportation cyclists were comparable with those of motorists.

However, this unfairly compares an elite subpopulation of cyclists against the entire population of motorists. If we compare defensive, experienced, lawful, courteous, safe drivers against the best cyclists, I begrudgingly admit that the motorists are probably somewhat safer than the cyclists. With a clean driving record and a car with high statistical and crash test safety ratings (2001 VW Passat wagon), I have alot to live up to as a cyclist.

Don't you think that's kind of backwards? I mean, it's like calling a serial killer "safe" because "serial killers don't get murdered (since they kill other people first)".

For transportational cyclists the metric should to be fatality per mile - and compared to other transport modes per mile.

For recreational cyclists the metric needs to be fatality per hour - and compared to other recreational/athletic activities.

Al

I second the motion.

Actually, if a reasonable argument can be made that driving a car for transportation statistically leads to increased travel distances, and/or that riding a bicycle for transportation does the opposite, the per-mile consideration needs to be set aside. Potentially with notation referring to the exclusion, but not necessarily. If it is included, a sound argument needs to be made in support of inclusion, comprehensive work needs to be done to nail down the effect; as accurately as possible because this additional variable will compound any current discrepancy, and the effects of inclusion vs exclusion of this additional material would need to be outlined individually.
Unfortunately, the study is barely cited on the Yahoo page. Off to Reuters.
Nothing more there, but there is that token "Health Affairs" mention. Must be what qualifies as an in text citation for professionals; two words short of plagiarism. Google... And here's the abstract. (http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/abstract/26/3/636) Need a password for the full text, bah! Off to the college website, hee hee, free scholarly reference material for me, the evening student... Double bah! They don't have the May/June publication online yet! Slackers! :D
Oh well, it'll be up soon enough if the orderly row of Health Affairs publication dates is any indication. It'll be interesting to see who they cited and how the odds were stacked.

Thanks for the pointer. My wife gets Health Affairs.

It makes me glad that I've decided to sell my motorcycle. :eek:

Very interesting stats for sure.


... Brad


A friend of mine was killed last year on her motorcycle. This was just one year after she was in a serious accident on her motorcycle that had her disabled for more than 6 months. She had only been riding again for a month when she was killed. My uncle-in law lost a leg in a motorcycle accident 30 years ago. And my grandfather in law also lost a leg in a motorcycle accident during the war. Those things are dangerous.

I seen two motorcyclists a few weeks ago doing stunts on the highway at 70 MPH in heavy traffic. They would lift their right foot off the peg and swing it over to the left side of the bike and touch it on the ground. The bikes got quite squirrelly several times. (one even changed lanes in what appeared to be unintentionally) I backed off quickly and they eventually started threading through traffic at high speed. Being so early in the season, I doubt they make it through the whole year.

I seen two motorcyclists a few weeks ago doing stunts on the highway at 70 MPH in heavy traffic. They would lift their right foot off the peg and swing it over to the left side of the bike and touch it on the ground. The bikes got quite squirrelly several times. (one even changed lanes in what appeared to be unintentionally) I backed off quickly and they eventually started threading through traffic at high speed. Being so early in the season, I doubt they make it through the whole year.

Yea Motorcycle riding is a classic for stats being of low value in evaluating your safety. A huge percentage of the 'danger' involved is this kind of activity, not something inherent in the mode of transport.

Just this month I've seen a pair of motorcyclists weaving through traffic going 35 on surface streets at about 60. The first had the ability, the second did not and was to timid, resulting in waiting too long and making it even more dangerous. The other thing I wsaw was even farther out. A guy braked so that the rear wheel came off the ground, not a little off the ground, enough that the bike looked to be almost 90 degrees. This was not an emergency stop, just showing off.

A month of so ago I was passed in same lane by a motorcyclist doing a wheelie for a good 200yrds. A week later I was driving under a railroad underpass and motorcyclist was doing similar wheelie.
Last week leaving dinner a motorcyclist was very agressively weaving thru 40mph traffic at ~60mph, cutting folks off with inches to spare (including me), then ran a very cold red light making left turn intentionally swerving between two oncoming vehicles.

There are of course lots of responsible motorcyclists too.

A friend of mine was killed last year on her motorcycle. This was just one year after she was in a serious accident on her motorcycle that had her disabled for more than 6 months. She had only been riding again for a month when she was killed. My uncle-in law lost a leg in a motorcycle accident 30 years ago. And my grandfather in law also lost a leg in a motorcycle accident during the war. Those things are dangerous.

I've been riding motorcycles since I was 18 and my mom couldn't tell me no anymore. I'm 30 now and have never been in an accident on a motorcycle. Will I die or loose a leg someday? Perhaps, but I enjoy riding motorcycles and I firmly believe that not living is worse than dying. If you could take inexperience and recklessness out of the equation I think you'd find that riding a motorcycle is much safer than people seem to think. I would really love to see a study that excluded motorcyclists and automobile drivers that had less than a year of experience and/or were riding/driving recklessly. That would be a much better indicator of how dangerous riding a motorcycle is.

Well I am comparing current situation to current - not some hypothetical statistical fantasy world where everything changes as society switches transport modes. My work, the grocery store, etc. did not suddenly become closer to home when I started to cycle - neither did the wilderness areas I visit on weekends.

Basically if I did use safety statics to help make a decision of what transport mode to choose for a given trip, I would want to use injury/fatality per mile.

Al


I disagree - for two periods of my life, transportation options have been limited:

For six months in the mid-90's I was unemployed and walked only (did not use transit)

For the 12 years since I have been car-free in Toronto, and Car light in calgary.

I can tell you for a fact that in comparison to my previous, suburban life in toronto, switching to walking mode did effectively make the stores closer to me, and definitely reduced my travel distances. When walking, anything within 5-10km was fair game for a day's outing, whereas while driving anywhere within 40 km was typically within my range. As a cyclist, no qualms about 5-15 km commutes, and anywhere within 30-40 km is within a reasonable range for me for an errand/outing.

The criteria for me is actually time: if I am walking, anywhere within a 30min -1hr walk is reasonable, if I am cycling, anywhere within 1-1.25 h cycle is reasonable, and driving anywhere within 30-45 min is reasonable.

For shopping, meeting friends, shopping and recreation, I stay more or less within these guidelines and choose my destinations on that basis.

I think if you as homeless people without cars, you will find they range within a much smaller area than an housed person with a car, similarly if you compare two housed families, one with a car and one without, living in the same neighbourhood, the family without the car will have significantly shorter distances in their typical range, but the time commitments to transportation will be similar.

At least, that is my personal experience. The grocery store that I go to depends on which transportation option I am using - if I am riding a bike, I will use a different grocery store, and yes it does suddenly become closer...

Yea Motorcycle riding is a classic for stats being of low value in evaluating your safety. A huge percentage of the 'danger' involved is this kind of activity, not something inherent in the mode of transport.

Just this month I've seen a pair of motorcyclists weaving through traffic going 35 on surface streets at about 60. The first had the ability, the second did not and was to timid, resulting in waiting too long and making it even more dangerous. The other thing I wsaw was even farther out. A guy braked so that the rear wheel came off the ground, not a little off the ground, enough that the bike looked to be almost 90 degrees. This was not an emergency stop, just showing off.


Yeah, there are a few idiots, but my friend that died had logged over 200,000 miles on her motorcycles and actually taught the safety course in PA for many years. She was very skilled and very safe. You just don't stand a chance when you get hit by a car going 90 mph.

Question for you...

Is the cycling death rate 2.1 per 100,000 people based on 100,000 cyclists, or 100,000 general population (a few of who cycle, but the vast majority do not)?

Because that would make a huge difference in the results.


It's not really clear because when it says, the riskiest profession was being a tree-feller, with 55 deaths per year or a risk of 357 deaths per 100,000 people a year, the impression is that for every 100,000 tree-fellers there would be 357 deaths. It seems that because there are fewer than 100,000 tree-fellers, there are only 55 deaths.

I once linked a Statistics Canada report on deaths and they phrased it, for every 1000,000 participants there were x number of deaths. The results were similar.

In any event, it's quite clear that cycling is a very popular pastime ansd a significant percentage of the population cycles at least some times through out any given year and the low numbers of cycling deaths shows it's relative safety.

I'd also add, it's not what you do, but how you do it. The vast majority of cycling deaths are easily preventable because basic safety rules have been ignored.

When people refer to something being "safer", why do the statistics always use deaths as a measurement?

because it is a pretty absolute measurement. There's no dispute on the condition as opposed to an "injury" which can be anything from a scrape to a coma.

Further, anything less than a death is highly unreliably reported. For instance, I was hit by a car and the police report stated I wasn't injured, but I had torn my left PCL that required surgery.

I always liked the statistic which claimed that death and serious injury rates for experienced transportation cyclists were comparable with those of motorists.

However, this unfairly compares an elite subpopulation of cyclists against the entire population of motorists. If we compare defensive, experienced, lawful, courteous, safe drivers against the best cyclists, I begrudgingly admit that the motorists are probably somewhat safer than the cyclists. With a clean driving record and a car with high statistical and crash test safety ratings (2001 VW Passat wagon), I have alot to live up to as a cyclist.

Fortunatly, deaths of cyclists are in such a small number that it may be possible to see the reports of the incidents from authorities so one can see what the circumstances were that led to the deaths.

BC did a study of deaths that avalible online

http://www.helmets.org/bcstudy.htm

(it's down the page a bit) where there are brief descriptions of the cases.

If you want good or depressing reading (depending on how you take such things) it's worth it to go through. I found 45 of the 64 deaths were very easily preventable. I mean, drunk riding, wrong side of the road, small children playing in traffic, riding without lights, running stop signs, death because the rider was severly visually impared, yet got out on the road. Stuff like that.

That leaves about 19 deaths over 8 years with about 1 million people cycling as a risk, but then again, I'd bet there were more than 19 people of those 1 million cyclists who may have had their life extended by the beneficial effects of regular cycling.