Advocacy & Safety - city with most cycling deaths

Hi, I'm trying to find some statistics on which US city has the most cycling fatalities (both total and per-capita). I can't find any numbers from the last year on google, only from the late 90's and early 00's. Would anyone be able to point me in the right direction? Thanks.

Per miles cycled? Per number of cyclists?

I don't have any current data, but this provides some discussion./thought on how to interpret rates:
http://www.mcdot.maricopa.gov/bicycle/issues/IPfatality.pdf

Al

cool, I'm mainly looking for which city has the most cycling deaths each year... period. A per-capita number would just be nice for comparison's sake.

New Haven CT :p

I don't know about cities, but Florida has the worst per capita cycling deaths, where raw numbers is I believe California. But Cali has something like ten times the population of Florida.

If I had to guess in pure numbers, it would probably be New York City.
But in terms of per capita, I'm guessing New York City, Philly, Chicago or Portland, OR.

EDIT: What I meant to guess was: Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, Miami-Hialeah, Phoenix, Fort Lauderdale- Hollywood-Pompano Beach and Orlando. ;)

Seriously, Phoenix and all those Florida places? Wow!

But in terms of per capita, I'm guessing New York City, Philly, Chicago or Portland, OR.
Would you change your guess if you had 1995-1998 actuals?
http://www.ewg.org/reports/bikes/congress.html

"Among large metropolitan areas, Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, Florida had the highest per capita bicyclist fatality rate -- 9.3 bicyclists per million. Other large metropolitan areas with bicycle fatality rates more than twice the national average included Miami-Hialeah (7.7), Phoenix (7.7), Fort Lauderdale- Hollywood-Pompano Beach (7.7) and Orlando (7.1)."

Al

Current data by county can be found here.
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-30/ncsa/STSI/USA%20WEB%20REPORT.HTM

However it is not easily pulled/organized/sorted by pedalcyclist, for example here is the county rate for AZ:
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-30/ncsa/STSI/4_AZ/2005/4_AZ_2005.htm#CTY_MAPS9

Al

But in terms of per capita, I'm guessing New York City, Philly, Chicago or Portland, OR.
You're a freaking idjit, anything to advance your personal crusade against bike facilities in general and Portland in particular; and although I see your own personal biases and inferiority phobia extends to major northeastern metropolitan areas, I see you also left Boston off your list. But anybody that knows anything about this subject would have immediately put Florida at the top of the list.

It makes sense that Florida would be high. One factor is probably the number of hours that people can ride. I am sure a place like Michigan is really low - perhaps snow on the road for most of the year. The other factor is all the people who live in Florida who shouldn't be driving.

I don't know about cities, but Florida has the worst per capita cycling deaths, where raw numbers is I believe California. But Cali has something like ten times the population of Florida.
Interesting - Florida and California. Another response had a link that verified Florida a few years back. My first thought is that it would be an area with more inclement weather. However it's probably the fact that more people cycle throughout the year, that increases these numbers.

bad drivers in big cars is what makes Florida so dangerous. Who actually wants to cycle in 90 degree 90% humidity weather? I'm pretty sure more people cycle year-round in the Pacific Northwest than in Florida.

They'll give anyone a license here, for $20. And it shows.

As far as "Who actually wants to cycle in 90 degree 90% humidity weather?" well, sometimes you just suck it up and ride.

Riding around Miami is actually a lot of fun.

bad drivers in big cars is what makes Florida so dangerous. Who actually wants to cycle in 90 degree 90% humidity weather? I'm pretty sure more people cycle year-round in the Pacific Northwest than in Florida.

Southern Florida has a huge immigrant population and some very dense, flat cities, many of which are beach towns with weather that, most of the time, worst case will only leave you sweating (as opposed to frozen). My guess would be that the majority of cycling deaths happen there as opposed to the more spread out areas of western Florida.

It makes sense that Florida would be high. One factor is probably the number of hours that people can ride. I am sure a place like Michigan is really low - perhaps snow on the road for most of the year ...

heh, I can see why you might think that. However, over the river from michigan (or across the lake, depending on your route) our climate is similar in southern ontario. We get snow for about 3 months a year and in many spots in the south of the province, it does not make cycling all that hard (lake effect snow belt areas aside).

Cheers.

I don't know about cities, but Florida has the worst per capita cycling deaths, where raw numbers is I believe California. But Cali has something like ten times the population of Florida.

Not hardly. California's estimated 2006 population was 36,457,000 while Florida's was 18,089,000. That makes Florida's population 49.6% of California's.

If I had to guess in pure numbers, it would probably be New York City.
But in terms of per capita, I'm guessing New York City, Philly, Chicago or Portland, OR.

EDIT: What I meant to guess was:Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, ;)

[/COLOR]

I was an adolescent in St. Pete. The driver's there made me a very safe cyclist. I had to be very aware at all times because the drivers weren't. Tampa was better.

Current data by county can be found here.
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-30/ncsa/STSI/USA%20WEB%20REPORT.HTM

However it is not easily pulled/organized/sorted by pedalcyclist, for example here is the county rate for AZ:
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-30/ncsa/STSI/4_AZ/2005/4_AZ_2005.htm#CTY_MAPS9

Al

Good thing I live in Tempe :-

I tend to think it has to do with sidewalk riding as one effect.

Very rural for cycling if you get past the sprawl. You can find Forest roads all over.

Weather

I tend to think it has to do with sidewalk riding as one effect.

Phx-metro cyclist-motorist collision stats 2001-2005:
-75% during daylight. Highest incidence 3-6pm workdays.
-Majority in marked and unmarked x-walks
-Majority involved side impact (primarily left) of cyclist
->50% not wearing helmets
-Majority listed as cyclist at fault
-28% of cyclists under 18yrs

Al

I got this interesting data:

Texas leads cycling deaths. Texas ranks 14th in number of cyclist fatalities per capita. (5)

Four states lead cycling deaths. Four states (California, Florida, New York, and Texas) accounted for 43% of bicycle deaths in 1999. (6)

Four states lead cycling deaths. Four states (California, Florida, New York, and Texas) accounted for 43% of bicycle deaths in 1999. (6)
I believe that these are the four most populous states as well. Some further checking would probably also lead to the conclusion that these same four states lead the nation in motorist fatalities as well.

I believe that these are the four most populous states as well. Some further checking would probably also lead to the conclusion that these same four states lead the nation in motorist fatalities as well.

I wouldn't be surprised if the states with the highest cycling deaths also have the highest auto deaths regardless of population. A dangerous place to drive is generally a dangerous place to ride after all.

Wow, I was going to jokingly say Tampa, FL. I can't say I'm surprised though, it's terrifying to ride on the road around here. Even walking isn't safe, I had a friend killed by a hit & run driver a few months ago, they still haven't found the POS that hit her.

I think you might have a problem finding reliable data on the subject.

First off, your basic question is ill defined. What exactly is a "cycling death?" Does anyone dying while cycling count regardless of the cause of death (freak aneurysm, lighting strike, old age, etc) or are we limiting the definition to only those deaths caused by participation in cycling (i.e. crashes, over exertion problems, etc).

Secondly, compiling death statistics is becoming more problematic as the causes of death become ever more specific (and often less useful). Not that many years ago old age was a cause of death but now the same death would be listed as pneumonia or whatever killed them first. Some localities list secondary or underlying reasons for the death but many do not and I'm not sure that cycling would ever be listed as a cause of death. Cycling itself doesn't really kill that many people ;) . This is readily shown through the causes of death in a car accident that kills a cyclist. The death certificate would list the specific cause of death (blunt force trauma, heart failure, or what ever finally did them in) and may list vehicular accident in addition. Cycling would likely not be listed at all. A search of such records listing would not really reveal that cycling was involved at all. Compiling cycling deaths from such reports would be pretty worthless as it is for many death statistics (Auto accidents are not listed as a cause of death either).

To counter this problem most cause of death statistics are compiled from ancillary data (e.g. police reports) because they are far more informative about what the victim was doing at the time of death and what general activity caused the death (such as falling off a cliff- also not a official cause of death). These reports will give insight to more serious accidents that involve the police but will utterly fail to account for other types of cycling deaths.

I think that this bit of trivia is beyond the capacities of the current system.

What you say is partially correct but wrong in critical places. The U.S. death certificate has blanks for multiple causes, and they are used with great regularity. Then there is an underlying cause of death as well. There is certainly a code for bicycle accident during transit: http://www.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/
Look up V10

So, for instance, a cyclist who dies in a collision with a car would have that listed as the underlying cause of death, and perhaps a crushed chest and renal failure in the MCD section.

Ari



First off, your basic question is ill defined. What exactly is a "cycling death?" Does anyone dying while cycling count regardless of the cause of death (freak aneurysm, lighting strike, old age, etc) or are we limiting the definition to only those deaths caused by participation in cycling (i.e. crashes, over exertion problems, etc).

Secondly, compiling death statistics is becoming more problematic as the causes of death become ever more specific (and often less useful). Not that many years ago old age was a cause of death but now the same death would be listed as pneumonia or whatever killed them first. Some localities list secondary or underlying reasons for the death but many do not and I'm not sure that cycling would ever be listed as a cause of death. Cycling itself doesn't really kill that many people ;) . This is readily shown through the causes of death in a car accident that kills a cyclist. The death certificate would list the specific cause of death (blunt force trauma, heart failure, or what ever finally did them in) and may list vehicular accident in addition. Cycling would likely not be listed at all. A search of such records listing would not really reveal that cycling was involved at all. Compiling cycling deaths from such reports would be pretty worthless as it is for many death statistics (Auto accidents are not listed as a cause of death either).

To counter this problem most cause of death statistics are compiled from ancillary data (e.g. police reports) because they are far more informative about what the victim was doing at the time of death and what general activity caused the death (such as falling off a cliff- also not a official cause of death). These reports will give insight to more serious accidents that involve the police but will utterly fail to account for other types of cycling deaths.

I think that this bit of trivia is beyond the capacities of the current system.

You're a freaking idjit, anything to advance your personal crusade against bike facilities in general and Portland in particular.

I might guess Portland on a per capita basis just because they have so many cyclists per capita.

Which brings up another point: per-capita cyclist deaths is a useless measure. Deaths per hour or distance of activity is much more useful number.

bad drivers in big cars is what makes Florida so dangerous. Who actually wants to cycle in 90 degree 90% humidity weather? I'm pretty sure more people cycle year-round in the Pacific Northwest than in Florida.

Nothing wrong with riding in 90 degree 90 percent humidity .Ii ride all the time on weekends and try and commute to work a few times a week . If you enjoy riding and love it nothing will stop you . Thats just me.

In all the places Ive lived/spent time in on the East Coast,
Florida drivers are absolutely the worst, hands down !
Makes Jersey look like Vt. !
Im quite sure the most rabid anti-lane antagonist would
be a little more open minded about them after a few miles
in any major S. Fl city.

Best would be Vermont, by far....
Most likely to be purposely assaulted would be Philly, Pa...
But Florida..a number of factors make this a very dangerous
place to be a cyclist :eek:

Has its good points though, A1A, etc......

I don't know about cities, but Florida has the worst per capita cycling deaths, where raw numbers is I believe California. But Cali has something like ten times the population of Florida.

Not true on populations. In 2005, CA had an estimated population of 36,000,000 and FL had an estimated population of 18,000,000.


As for fatalities, CA recently had 141 vs 132 for FL. That makes FL about twice as bad as CA per capita.

There is a reason for this though. FL has a tendency to take away drivers licenses of DUI offenders. Usually, this happens to men who are rather poor (a big surprise this, how many rich corporate lawyers lose their drivers licenses?). These guys then use bicycles as means of transportation often riding at night without lights sometimes while intoxicated.

As for the fatality rate of recreational road cyclists, I have the impression that CA is might be worse than FL. Like me, my brother is an avid cyclist. He knows a fair number of riders who ended up as cycling fatalities. I don't know any even though I belong to a couple of large cycling clubs. Of course, this is an impression based on no decent data. I don't know of any data base that tracks the accident rates of competent recreational cyclists.

It makes sense that Florida would be high. One factor is probably the number of hours that people can ride. I am sure a place like Michigan is really low - perhaps snow on the road for most of the year. The other factor is all the people who live in Florida who shouldn't be driving.

You have a good point here. I am an avid cyclist and have lived in MI and FL. I have ridden year round in both places. But functionally, the MI cycling season starts in April (for the hard core riders) and ends in September or October. In central FL it is year round. Cyclists in FL have twice the amount of cycling time to seek their demise as those in MI.

However, MI has a superior rural road net compared to FL. MI was part of the old Northwest Terr. It was set up on a grid system. MI has roads laid out in a grid and often there is a paved road going east and west or north and south every couple of miles. FL's rural roads tend to be far fewer and as a result have more traffic on them. I would think cycling in higher traffic densities increases one's risk to fatality. You are just giving more people a shot at you.

I might guess Portland on a per capita basis just because they have so many cyclists per capita.

Which brings up another point: per-capita cyclist deaths is a useless measure. Deaths per hour or distance of activity is much more useful number.

But since Portland did not come up high on any of the higher death per capita lists of cyclists (as poor as the stats are) perhaps that says something about Portland.

It's instructive to take a look at the causes and factors in bicycle crashes and fatalities. It's easy to blame bad drivers because we have all witnessed plenty of bad driving. But the stats don't necessarily play out that way.

Orlando Fatalities from 2003 & 2004 (http://www.metroplanorlando.com/site/upload/documents/Bicyclist_Crash_Study_OrlandoArea.pdf)

On page 10 it breaks down the 17 fatalities. "Only two of the crashes involved overtaking motorists, and those also involved intoxicated cyclists, and both were also at night. The bicyclist was at fault in all but one crash, in which a motorist left the roadway and hit the cyclist on the sidewalk."

On page 12 - "At Least 64.1% of All Bicyclist-Motorist Crashes Involved an Unsafe Choice on the Part of the Bicyclist " Not included in the report's list of unsafe choices is "riding too close to the curb," but this also can lead to overtaking errors, reduced visibility to crossing traffic and right-hooks. If they analyzed lane position, that percentage would probably be higher.

There are some lousy drivers in Orlando, no doubt. But even in a place with less than ideal traffic culture, cyclists still cause most of their own problems. Even crashes caused by motorists can be mitigated by cyclists understanding traffic dynamics, maintaining good lane position and learning simple crash avoidance skills.

The best method for making cycling safer is not infrastructure or even motorist education (though it would be nice!), it's actually cyclist education.

Current data by county can be found here.
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-30/ncsa/STSI/USA%20WEB%20REPORT.HTM


Al

Al,

This is interesting but also leads me to question the data. Broomfield county is not listed, so closest are Boulder and Jefferson. Jefferson shows a much lower rate than Boulder, but it also has about 1/10th the cyclists on the road.

Maybe good data just does not exist.

It makes sense that Florida would be high. One factor is probably the number of hours that people can ride. I am sure a place like Michigan is really low - perhaps snow on the road for most of the year. The other factor is all the people who live in Florida who shouldn't be driving.

These types of generalizations without statistical evidence to support them are meaningless. Toronto, for instance, is very similar to Detroit and Chicago (the 3rd largest US city): it is located on the Great Lakes, has a less-temperate climate and is Canadian which, to many Americans---though not all---means snow year-round (like Michigan---sheesh!). Yet Toronto has a cycling population of about 400,000 from May-Sep and varying numbers (although drastically increasing) through the winter for a total accumulative number of about 12+ million riders through a calendar year. Yet, with a population of 2.5 (official) million, we have just 3 fatalities (2007).

I would wager that most, if not all, smaller cities in the sun belt of the US that have the weather for cycling have a greater number of motorists than cyclists per capita than Toronto.