Vehicular Cycling (VC) - The danger of the road

This may not seem VC oriented yet, but bear with me...

Is driving a car an inherently dangerous activity that we acept as a way of life seeing as how there are 1000 pound plus vehicles careening along with less then 10 feet between you at 55+ mph and 43,200 motorists die a year?

By way of this definition
in·her·ent
Existing as an essential constituent or characteristic; intrinsic.

I think it's a good question.

I have a couple points.

Dangerous is relative. Although, that driving a lot is more dangerous then only driving a little, and probably more dangerous then things like walking, taking public transportation, and bicycling responsibly (not drunk, lights at night, right direction, following traffic signals, and not zooming down the sidewalk).

So compared to these alternative activities, I think it's fair to call driving "dangerous".

The next point is "inherently". Essential, intrinsic (inseparable, I might add)... I don't see why it has to be the way it is. I think that in the future, we can improve safety systems, etc., and reduce driving mortalities to at least as low as the alternatives. So it is not an inseparable, intrinsic part of driving, IMO.

But to get on the road in an automobile today, i think you can reduce risks, but I believe you will still on average have a higher risk of mortality then the alternatives. So at the current state, I believe the statistical dangers of driving are not avoidable, only reduceable to level still higher then the alternatives.

So based on my statements, how should I vote?

I voted based on my opinion that just about any normal activity is not inherently dangerous, provided that one takes the proper precautions. I exclude from "normal activity" things like space travel and climbing Mount Everest. "Safe" is only relative. If you look at everything that could go wrong, there's not much that could be labeled safe (my computer monitor could blow up and kill me right now for instance). When there are many small things that could go wrong, any one of which would lead to your death, that's where I start calling something dangerous. It gets more difficult as you start looking at the in-between activities but I place things like driving and cycling quite close to the safe marker.

Zeytoun, I don't want to say which way you should vote on it - but the way I see the inherent coming into it is due to the fact that yes, I personally can do everything to protect myself, but I am one of MANY drivers out there, anyone of which may not have had his brakes checked recently, is reaching for a dropped cigarette, etc. I am also NOT saying that calling it inherently dangerous means you should be scared to drive on the road - just an acknowledgement of the risks we take everyday (if you dirive a car/truck) when we interact with others on the highway.

I think the accident and death statistic reveal its nature as a dangerous activity. Add to that the amount of road kill, the destruction of habitat to build roads, the destruction of communities to build freeways, the destruction of the natural environment in the creation of the chemicals and materials to build cars and the destruction of the environment, wars and political corruption required to use them. Yep, it's intrinsically dangerous.

driving inherently dangerous, yes. I believe the statistics show EVERY driver WILL get into an accident during their driving 'career.' Yes, it IS inherently dangerous if everyone will encounter a fender bender or collision or single car accident once while driving.

Over 90% of all traffic accidents are avoidable. The carnage we see on today’s roadways is the result of people simply not following the rules. The combination of blatant disregard for the rules to just poor diver training makes driving a dangerous activity but I don’t think it is inherently dangerous.

But I do think there is a major problem that our society accepts traffic fatalities and accidents as simply a cost of doing business to keep America moving and has made concessions under the disguise of promoting moving at the cost of public safety yet if you would look closely at all theses concessions they don’t help keep America moving at all and I would say that they are having the very opposite effect then what they are intending.

Over 90% of all traffic accidents are avoidable. The carnage we see on today’s roadways is the result of people simply not following the rules. The combination of blatant disregard for the rules to just poor diver training makes driving a dangerous activity but I don’t think it is inherently dangerous.



Following the rules... job number one... amazingly if motorists followed the rules, then vehicular cycling would work wonderfully... however, as long as some drivers have a "mine" mentality and chose to do selfish things, then cyclists have to do what it takes to be safe out there.

Is driving inherently dangerous... why do you think a license is required?

Is driving inherently dangerous... why do you think a license is required?

Good point but we also license pilots to keep flying relatively safe as flying would be very dangerous if everyone was allowed to fly and do whatever they thought best.

So is the inherent problem of all the carnage on the road with just the act of driving or is the problem with the licensing? The balls back in your court.

Good point but we also license pilots to keep flying relatively safe as flying would be very dangerous if everyone was allowed to fly and do whatever they thought best.

So is the inherent problem of all the carnage on the road with just the act of driving or is the problem with the licensing? The balls back in your court.

Kind of backwards. There is enough danger in just using a 3000 pound vehicle with 10s to 100s of HP of power that the state (every state) requires the user to demonstrate reasonable capability to control the vehicle and to carry insurance... that to me says there is inherent danger in driving... period.

Now with a strict set of rules in place, driving should be fairly safe... as long as the rules are followed. Now considering the number of motorists and the distances traveled... the general public gets it right most of the time. However... we do have an inordinate number of deaths associated with driving that somehow just get swept under the rug as "part of the equation." Under any other circumstances such carnage would be fodder for some type of protest and political campaign... yet it is "just part of the equation."

Does it seem odd that we accept that carnage, yet whine about other instances of death so loudly... heck yeah.

Could the numbers of dead and maimed be reduced... heck yeah... but that means that every driving individual has to do a better job... and that is where the problem lies... most drivers are very willing to say... ah, the next guy can do it. And our legislators are not willing to pony up the funds nor change the requirements to make licensing stricter. "Everyone drives."

Look at the use of turn signals on the freeway... why doesn't everyone use them? Why doesn't everyone follow with a 2+second safe distance? Why don't drivers stop before turning right on red?

Little things can save lives... but that is not how driving is "sold" to the American public... it is sold as sexy and exciting... and people buy into that. In reality, it is inherently dangerous... which is why every driver has to have a license and insurance. If it were a safe activity, such as cycling... no insurance would be required.

EDIT: removed statement about road dead vrs war dead.

This thread begs the question, "Is cycling inherently dangerous?"

From here on, the usual posters will take their chosen side in the question, which is usually opposite one another, in a predictable pattern.

And so continues the circle of life.

This kind of hyperbole just makes you look like a fool.

For example:

Civil war: 600,000 casualties
WWII: 400, 000 casualties

The autophobia inherent in these threads is predictable, yet still funny.
Now here we agree totally!:D

This thread begs the question, "Is cycling inherently dangerous?"


Why?

What are your views about automobile driving?

The autophobia inherent in these threads is predictable, yet still funny.
You think it is funny; I think a discussion of degree of danger of any activity, with no concept/consideration of acceptable risk is silly.

You think it is funny; I think a discussion of degree of danger of any activity, with no concept/consideration of acceptable risk is silly.

That's the point of this poll mostly - discussion of an activity that a LARGE amount of everyday people do or, indirectly, an activity that a large amount of everyday people are being encouraged to do with the other LARGE group of people - if you jump into it while being told it is not inherently dangerous to some level then the activity just becomes even more dangerous.

This kind of hyperbole just makes you look like a fool.

For example:

Civil war: 600,000 casualties
WWII: 400, 000 casualties

The autophobia inherent in these threads is predictable, yet still funny.

You're right... I stand corrected. I will go back and take it out.

However, I believe the sum of all US soldiers killed in all wars is still less than the sum of all drivers killed on US freeways.

Based on the 1,000,000 soldiers you list above, plus 314,000 for Vietnam, 34,000 in Korea, and 307,000 in the Spanish American war, 115,000 for World War 1 and 4000 for the Gulf wars so far, gives us, about 1,774,000 dead US soldiers in various wars for a high estimate.

According to this site, however, only 627,047 US soldiers perished in the various wars. http://www.americanfamilytraditions.com/war_casualties.htm

What I can't seem to find are the numbers for hiway deaths over 20 years ago. But based on an assumption of 40,000 per year over 40 years (only back to '67), that gives us a number of 1,600,000 motorists killed on the roads.

This thread begs the question, "Is cycling inherently dangerous?"

From here on, the usual posters will take their chosen side in the question, which is usually opposite one another, in a predictable pattern.

And so continues the circle of life.

Why?
Because this is a cycling forum.

Because this is a cycling forum.

The OP question begs your question because this is a cycling forum? I'm not following you here.

Although I agree that danger is relative, so it's difficult to accurately answer as a Yes/No question, my line of reasoning in voting Yes was that if it wasn't, society would not have come to the conclusion that all vehicles should be registered and all drivers be licensed to ensure at least a minimum standard of competence. Imagine how much more dangerous it would be if these were not required!

People are dangerous. End of thread, thank you very much.

This thread begs the question, "Is cycling inherently dangerous?"

From here on, the usual posters will take their chosen side in the question, which is usually opposite one another, in a predictable pattern.

And so continues the circle of life.

Why?

Because this is a cycling forum.

The OP question begs your question because this is a cycling forum? I'm not following you here.
Oh, I agree that acknowledgement of the carnage on American roads is one of the largest subjects of denial we have. I've posted many, many times that if Americans took seriously the people killed in motoring crashes, the Vietnam War would pale in comparison (that war covered a decade, and was almost equalled by the annual fatalities on our roads today--of course the main difference is that we "choose" to drive, rather than being drafted into it.)

Why is this posted in a cycling forum, if not to compare cycling with motoring in some fashion? Hence, the danger of cycling is the recycled fear again.

Look at the thread title, eh?

People are dangerous. End of thread, thank you very much.

Very true, pretty much the reason that lead me to post this thread after I read this quote...


Riding in accordance with the rules of the road is not MY way.
It is, however, what allows cycling in traffic to not be inherently dangerous.

If driving is even slightly dangerous due to the fact that humans make some bone-headed and dangerous mistakes for many reasons then.....

Now I ride in heavy traffic daily as I'm sure many here do, but does anyone here tell themselves (or others) that doing so is not dangerous just because you follow the rules of the road? It is less dangerous I feel if you follow the rules, and I do have faith in my own abilities and observance of those around me, but it's still a risk I look forward to taking every day and the reason why I have a BIG problem with... well, nevermind, but suffice it to say. a super strong rider (not myself) who can hold their speed is much more safe in heavy 45+ mph traffic than someone who is not a strong rider and can't accelerate out of danger, etc. - not that they shouldn't ride in the road, but to tell them that doing so makes the activity inherently NOT dangerous?! well, I don't want them advocating to my family :(

Hence, the danger of cycling is the recycled fear again.

Look at the thread title, eh?

Recycled fear is far from the reason I posted this - cycling is much safer then driving in my opinon as I sold my car years ago to go car-free and feel much safer then ever despite cycling more miles a year then I used to drive in a year, but it requires acknowledgement of the risks and some here say that following certain behaviors so that we interact on a VERY personal level with these same carange inducing drivers all but removes those same risks created by the average motorist... that is dangerous in my opinon, but please, have at it :)

Natelutkjohn, if you're saying that:

"...cycling is much safer then driving in my opinon as I sold my car years ago to go car-free and feel much safer then ever despite cycling more miles a year then I used to drive in a year,"

...how do you reconcile that with the thread title, "The danger of the road?"

Natelutkjohn, if you're saying that:

"...cycling is much safer then driving in my opinon as I sold my car years ago to go car-free and feel much safer then ever despite cycling more miles a year then I used to drive in a year,"

...how do you reconcile that with the thread title, "The danger of the road?"

Well, I do feel that cycling is safer then driving due to the fact that I have the choice to ride on the road, on trails, paths, in lanes, etc. But just because I feel I am in more control of myself then the cars around me doesn't mean that now the danger that cars present to themselves and others no longer exists for me when I place myself in between merging and lane changing cars at 45+mph - I also said the line after that one you quoted
it requires acknowledgement of the risks as there defintily are areas of my communte now and in the past that I feel were MUCH more dangerous for me to be doing on a bicycle then in a car - those sections though are few but memorable

Does it seem odd that we accept that carnage, yet whine about other instances of death so loudly... heck yeah.
Part of this debate is on our definition of inherently. Does it mean naturally or innately or does it mean unavoidably. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/inherently

If all this carnage is unavoidable then society goes that’s a shame but we need mobility. If we make a point that the danger is innately in the design then we have also opened the door for the acceptance of this carnage. In a recent traffic safety task force meeting a state official pointed out two European cities that have made a 50% or greater reduction in traffic fatalities. I think we are going to see more attention to the fact that traffic fatalities are avoidable in the upcoming years.

On a side note I take my daughter (now 12) to B2WD which means riding in busy rush hour downtown traffic. In previous years I got a lot of looks like how could I put my child at risk, this year we got a lot of thumbs ups. Attitudes are changing and that’s cool.

Anyway I think we are in agreement that something needs to change about society’s attitude about motorV travel and I have really enjoyed reading your posts. I think a part of the problem has been the over stress of safe crashing (bike helmets, seat belts, air bags…) over preventing accidents in the first place.

The reason our roads are perceived as dangerous has nothing to do with the design of the roads or vehicles that use them - it has to do with the attitudes of people who use them. This cannot be mitigated nor improved by safety features (seat belts, helmets, air bags) or laws (speed limits, etc) because people get even more looney when they think the safety features will save them from their own looniness, and ignore the laws to the point that government only makes a token effort to enforce them.

There is the dichotomy - everyone agrees the roads could be safer, until it comes down to them modifying their own behavior or being inconvenienced in an effort to do so.

Chipcom, I agree with you except on the point of laws. I feel the reason why laws are only marginally enforced is because of societies attitude. If you call the police about a flasher in your neighborhood you’ll get tons of attention on the problem, call about speeding in your neighborhood and you'll get excuses why they can’t deal with it. What makes flashing more of a problem to society then speeding especially since there are so few flashers? The answer to that I think is where the real problem lies.

Chipcom, I agree with you except on the point of laws. I feel the reason why laws are only marginally enforced is because of societies attitude. If you call the police about a flasher in your neighborhood you’ll get tons of attention on the problem, call about speeding in your neighborhood and you'll get excuses why they can’t deal with it. What makes flashing more of a problem to society then speeding especially since there are so few flashers? The answer to that I think is where the real problem lies.

The trouble is, any law that is pretty much ignored by the majority of the population is kind of hard to enforce effectively. Government and law enforcment has pretty much given up on enforcing speed limits...they just don't have the resources to stop and cite everybody, which is why you can get away with 10-25mph over on most highways. I wish they would focus more effort on speed enforcement in residential areas and non-freeway arterials - screw the freeways.

you pretty much have to force people in their cars to slow down, through engineering (traffic calming), heavy enforcement (speed traps), or some other method. cops can't be everywhere. speeders are everywhere. it's a way of life for drivers. go as fast as you can get away with.

you pretty much have to force people in their cars to slow down, through engineering (traffic calming), heavy enforcement (speed traps), or some other method. cops can't be everywhere. speeders are everywhere. it's a way of life for drivers. go as fast as you can get away with.
Give an inch, take a mile. When motorists do what they want, it becomes expected. We live in a culture of motoring that has no clue whatsoever that cyclists need their functional space on the road, which can often mean THE WHOLE LANE. Get over it, Little-Old-Lady-From-Pasadena. (Go Granny, go Granny, go Granny, go! :) )

The trouble is, any law that is pretty much ignored by the majority of the population is kind of hard to enforce effectively. Government and law enforcment has pretty much given up on enforcing speed limits...they just don't have the resources to stop and cite everybody, which is why you can get away with 10-25mph over on most highways. I wish they would focus more effort on speed enforcement in residential areas and non-freeway arterials - screw the freeways.
Right the first step is to gain social acceptance of enforcing the laws. Maybe something like this that would be aired during prime time might help: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-izycNgKsyA

I agree that freeway speed limits are over enforced but it seems that the social stigma is on recklessly wasting gas over recklessly endangering lives.