Advocacy & Safety - Just how dangerous IS cycling?

Okay - here's what I wanna know:

How much MORE dangerous is cycling than driving from a per capita standpoint?

That is, what PERCENTAGE of cyclists are injured/killed compared to drivers?

What we have to correct for is this: ONLY injuries/fatalities to DRIVERS vs cyclists can be included, and not others injured BY drivers.

I wanna know how much more dangerous it is to be the operater of a bicycle than a motor vehicle.

It depends which dangers you consider. Danger of death do to automobile collision? Danger of death due to heart disease? Danger of death due to either automobile collision or heart disease?

It's difficult to say what the risk of death is due to automobile collision for cyclists because it's difficult to say how many cyclists are out there. Motorists are easy to count because they need to register. Cyclists are hard to count unless they are dead. More bicycles were sold than automobiles in 2007, yet we all know that there aren't more cyclists than motorists on the road.

You are assuming it IS more dangerous to ride a bike than ride in a car?

Typical common statistics claim that the injury and fatality rates for competent cyclists are comparable to those for average motorists. I am arguably safer in my VW Passat wagon (unblemished driving record since 1971, five-star NHTSA crash test ratings) than on my bicycle, but this does not factor in two significant additional factors -- the immense health benefits of aerobic exercise, particularly cycling, and the social responsibility to minimize my contributions to traffic congestion, resource depletion, and greenhouse gas emission.

What does your definition of "injury" include? Would it include road rash? Sunburn? Allergic reactions due to insect stings?

In Toronto, the city's bike committee, Toronto Police Services and most independant cycling advocates agree that there are about 400,000 daily adult cyclists during the peak 26-week season and as many as 10,000 year-round cyclists with varying numbers in between during the off-season, depending on weather (often through April, September and October there are approx 300,000). Over a year, there are about 12 million total cyclists on the roads. Only about 1,000 incidents are reported each year. Advocates suggest there may be as many as 5 times that amount that go unreported. Assuming that they went unreported because the incidents were minor or inconsequential, that would mirror the official study that shows that only 3 deaths occured in 2007 and less than 50 serious injuries. The vast majority of car-bike interactions resulted in minor or no injuries or damage whatsoever. It would seem that cycling is exceptionally safe, as a result.

In fact, the statistics show that cycists, in spite of their numbers, rank third in 'vulnerable' users of the road, well behind pedestrians (29 fatalities in 2007) and scooter/motorcycle operators (4 fatalities).

What do those numbers really mean though? There are about 400 million cars on the road in Toronto during an average year, compared to 12 million cyclists, but there are probably 1200 million pedestrians.

Generally, assessments are made by calculating how many hours are spent riding a bike versus driving a car. However, an arguably better assessment is achieved by studying how many miles (kilometers) are travelled. Cyclists have a significantly higher liklihood of fatality based upon distance---almost double the risk that motorists face, but to be fair, both numbers are very low: 0.039 - cyclists and 0.016 - motorists. But for hours spent, the trend flip-flops with 0.26 for cyclists and 0.47 for motorists (source: http://www.raisethehammer.org/index.asp?issue=2007/09/09)

The first good page on this subject I read was here

http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/health/risks.htm

He sums up by saying,
it seems that bicycling is less dangerous or no more dangerous per hour than driving a car, and since motorists spend more time driving, the lifelong risk of the average motorist is two to four times greater than that of the average cyclist without the 20X compensating health benefits of cycling. In addition, motor vehicles kill over five thousand pedestrians each year while bicycles kill at most one or two...Putting all this together, a person who chooses a bicycle over an automobile for daily travel and who obeys the traffic laws and uses care at all times will experience greatly improved health and a greatly reduced risk of death as a result. Thus rather than being dangerous, cycling greatly reduces major health risks.

I like this page too

http://neptune.spacebears.com/opine/helmets.html

where the author breaks down some numbers and says,


Too many numbers? There are two important points to take away from all this talk of fatality and injury rates:

1. On a per-mile basis, the odds of being killed or sustaining a serious head injury while riding a bicycle are about the same as the odds of being killed or injured while out for a walk.

2. On a per-capita basis, the odds of being killed while riding a bicycle are nearly the same as the odds of being killed by a bolt of lightning (this author has, in fact, been struck by lightning -- albeit indirectly -- so he is well aware that "extremely improbable" is not quite the same as "impossible"); the odds of sustaining a serious head injury while riding a bicycle are about half the odds of sustaining a serious injury while out for a walk.

and a side point...

Being drunk really screws up your ability to do anything right.

The first good page on this subject I read was here

http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/health/risks.htm

He sums up by saying,

I like this page too

http://neptune.spacebears.com/opine/helmets.html

where the author breaks down some numbers and says,


Sadly, the very page where you cited as "the first good page" was authored by a guy that was killed by a drunk driver.


Sort of puts a different perspective on the whole safety issue, eh?

This is such a hard question to answer. OK we can find statistics on a national basis, state basis and even city basis, but they are all averages that do not take into acount any of the following:

Rider experience, traffic skills
Roads taken by the cyclist, traffic levels
Time of day
Protective equipment, lights etc.

Of course there is risk associated with riding a bike. Our perception of these risks is unique to each of us based on our riding experience and environment. Either we ride, reasoning that these risks are not sufficient to deter us, or we choose not to ride.

Ed

Sadly, the very page where you cited as "the first good page" was authored by a guy that was killed by a drunk driver.


Sort of puts a different perspective on the whole safety issue, eh?

Yeah. It shows the importance of fighting drunk drivers. The bike wasn't the problem. The drunk behind the trucks wheel was.

His death doesn't negate any points he's made does it?

The first girl I ever kissed;
My best friend from middle school;
My wife's favorite uncle;
My brother-in-law;

Would all say riding a bike was safer than driving a car,






-If they hadn't all been killed in car accidents.

Okay - here's what I wanna know:

How much MORE dangerous is cycling than driving from a per capita standpoint?

That is, what PERCENTAGE of cyclists are injured/killed compared to drivers?

What we have to correct for is this: ONLY injuries/fatalities to DRIVERS vs cyclists can be included, and not others injured BY drivers.

I wanna know how much more dangerous it is to be the operater of a bicycle than a motor vehicle.
It's hard to nail down, but my quick pick is that:

1) Riding a bike can make you more likely to get injured due to falls.

2) The risk of death per trip could be about the same.

3) The health benefits of cycling are so great that they outweigh any risks, making cycling safer overall.

4) The more you know about safe cycling, the safer you'll be, just like the more you know about safe driving, the safer you'll be.

Sadly, the very page where you cited as "the first good page" was authored by a guy that was killed by a drunk driver.


Sort of puts a different perspective on the whole safety issue, eh?

Yeah, it indicates that driving drunk is more dangerous than cycling. Mostly to others, of course, but nevertheless...

Generally, assessments are made by calculating how many hours are spent riding a bike versus driving a car. However, an arguably better assessment is achieved by studying how many miles (kilometers) are travelled. Cyclists have a significantly higher liklihood of fatality based upon distance---almost double the risk that motorists face, but to be fair, both numbers are very low: 0.039 - cyclists and 0.016 - motorists. But for hours spent, the trend flip-flops with 0.26 for cyclists and 0.47 for motorists (source: http://www.raisethehammer.org/index.asp?issue=2007/09/09)

Just to argue the other direction --

To me, it makes sense to compare driver-hours and cyclist-hours versus distance traveled. Although it seems like people judge their trips (whether by bike or car -- or bus or train, too) based on distance, they're really thinking about how long it'll take. People around here are willing to travel at another time of day in order to avoid the rush hour; their trip won't be any shorter distance-wise, but they'll spend less time in transit and feel less frustrated.

I'd guess that people will be comfortable spending up to half an hour -- at most -- to get someplace where they want to go (a work commute doesn't exactly count, then.. ;) ). I'm talking about the grocery store, restaurants, movie theaters, etc. Whether they're on a bike or in a car, they'll spend roughly the same amount of time doing roughly the same thing.

Both a motorist and a cyclist would spend the same amount of time in transit, then -- but, usually, the motorist will travel much farther just because their car moves faster. That'll skew statistics that rely on mileage traveled.

Wow - GREAT responses all!

It kind of reflects what I've come to believe, which is that despite our strong sense of vulnerability & profound awareness of the general insanity of kar kulture, biking is, on any measurable level, not significantly more dangerous than driving a car.

Yikes.

This IS a bicycling forum, ya?

:D

(EDIT NOTE: This post was in reponse to what I felt was a pretty harsh reply by iltb-2, who has now deleted that post, and is responding - once again harshly, I feel - to my response to his post that no longer exists `cause he deleted it... Is this what they call "crazy-making? Have a cookie, iltb-2!) :)

THANK YOU, MAKEINU! (I JUST READ YOUR POST BELOW ABOUT ILTB-2! (THE CRAZY-MAKING POST DELETION IS A FAVE METHOD OF TROLLS TO MAKE OTHERS LOOK FOOLISH, SO THAT MAKES SENSE NOW!)

Yikes.

This IS a bicycling forum, ya?

:D

Yes. But not a necessarily a support group for Woodstock Wannabes or Counter Culture Cultists who think all bicyclists share their views (or should share them.) You might find the Living Car Free contingent more to your liking.

Yeah. It shows the importance of fighting drunk drivers. The bike wasn't the problem. The drunk behind the trucks wheel was.

His death doesn't negate any points he's made does it?

Well, Ken is another statistic. I wonder how he would figure that into his work.

And the drunk is probably still alive. Hopefully in jail... but the way these things tend to work when cyclists are involved, even that is not assured.

Yikes.

This IS a bicycling forum, ya?

:D

Just a heads up for you, new guy. iltb-2 has a long history of trolling bike forums, both here and elsewhere. The moderators have tried banning him (account bans, IP bans, the whole enchilada), but he's so crazy and obsessed that he keeps sneaking his way back in.

Needless to say if you want him to go away (like everyone does) then you'll have to make an individual effort and add him to your ignore list like I'm going to do right now.

P.S. The reason I didn't have him on my ignore list already because last I encountered him his user name was "I-Like-To-Bike". I didn't realize he was now using iltb-2, but it's obvious that it's him because he always blathers the same off topic nonsense of the "selfrighteous" "contingent" of "group thinkers" (these are favorite terms of his), with vague references to hippies such as "Woodstock Wannabes" or "Counter Culture Cultists" (these terms change from post to post). Combined with the new user name (iltb-2 instead of I-Like-To-Bike) and little caption "Still Around", it's obvious that it's him, crazy as ever and desperately obsessed with trolling any and every post.

Yikes.

This IS a bicycling forum, ya?

:D

Yep, I think you're right.

;)

Well, Ken is another statistic. I wonder how he would figure that into his work.

And the drunk is probably still alive. Hopefully in jail... but the way these things tend to work when cyclists are involved, even that is not assured.

Just like the second page's author (who is well aware that "extremely improbable" is not quite the same as "impossible"), Ken did figure in the deaths to cyclists caused by drunks, so I don't think he would have changed his page one bit (if he could).

His page had an update on the trial. Over a year later, the case over Ken's murder finally went to trial. Jimmy Don Rodgers pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 20 years. Neither Ken's son, sister, nor brother wanted him to be punished as revenge, but were concerned that he might kill someone else if he were released. He may possibly be released in a year under very strict probation conditions, but if he fails any condition he will return to prison for the rest of his sentence.

Wow - GREAT responses all!

It kind of reflects what I've come to believe, which is that despite our strong sense of vulnerability & profound awareness of the general insanity of kar kulture, biking is, on any measurable level, not significantly more dangerous than driving a car.

I considering the danger of cycling to involve the way in which one cycles (and that includes looking out for those who are not careful and avoiding them as you often can).

Check out this report on the death of cyclists.

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

At the bottom, there are brief descriptions as to what the circumstances were that led to the deaths. I think any reasonable adult could have avoided the vast majority of them. If you could eliminate those tragically avoidable (stupid) deaths, there hardly would be a death toll at all. The fact that even if you include these incidents, and then consider just how many people ride, and the benefits still outweigh the risks, I'd have to wonder why all those people are taking the (by comparison) huge risk of driving everywhere.

Another comment about the "danger of cycling". I think it's a bit unfair to attribute cyclists who happened to die cycling to the danger of cycling.

After all, when motorists die it is usually the result of collision with motorists. When cyclists die it is also usually the result of collision with motorists. Obviously the dangerous activity is driving a motorized vehicle. To separate out whether the perpetrator of this dangerous activity just so happens to also be the victim is nonsense.

It's like leaving a gun unsecured and unlocked in your home. Although doing so may make you less likely to die yourself, it also increases the chances that your family might be injured in a gun accident or the chance that you accidentally shoot an innocent, etc, etc. Things are dangerous when they kill people, not just when they kill the owner.

Considering only the exposure to danger experienced by the owner, even at the expense of danger to others is just plain selfish. The fact that, even within this biased perspective, cycling still fairs about even with motoring only highlights just how selfish motoring really is. The truth is that motoring is overwhelmingly more dangerous. It's like waiving around a locked and loaded gun in public with your finger on the trigger. Although you may or may not hurt yourself doing it, you have a damn good chance of hurting someone.

Motoring is dangerous because motorists are a danger both to themselves and to the people around them.

Just a heads up for you, new guy. iltb-2 has a long history of trolling bike forums, both here and elsewhere. The moderators have tried banning him (account bans, IP bans, the whole enchilada), but he's so crazy and obsessed that he keeps sneaking his way back in.

Needless to say if you want him to go away (like everyone does) then you'll have to make an individual effort and add him to your ignore list like I'm going to do right now.


Thanks for the heads-up on the ignore list - you're my first!

I know it isn't going to happen most likely, but if there were no cars, what would the death statistics be like? Or, if those who drove cars realized it was a privelege, not a right and gave others the right of road too - include pedestrians.

Living here has really driven this home since in our small community, have a vehicle does not mean you own the road but you have to share it with everyone else. As someone said, it isn't cycling that is dangerous - it is the motorists.

Re- The ignore list comments.

I never understood the reason for putting a member on your ignore list. Can't you still just ignore them even if you can see their silly posts?

Re- The ignore list comments.

I never understood the reason for putting a member on your ignore list. Can't you still just ignore them even if you can see their silly posts?

You're a better man than I. Some of us have tempers.

Call me simple, but I know of only one mortality statistic that applies to every person and situation.

If a person continues riding year after year he or she will certainly die. I advocate riding because it enhances the time before our inevitable deaths and advocate safe riding because it reduces the chances of those good years being cut short.

Needless to say if you want him to go away (like everyone does) .

Speak for yourself.

Well, I caught this one late.

Remember the bicycle fatality statistics include everyone killed on a bicycle. That includes people riding against traffic, riding at night without lights, jaywalkers on bikes. I believe that the inept & casual cyclists account for the majority of the cycling fatalities. But I believe the responsible recreational cyclists account for the large majority of the miles ridden.

I used to belong to a large cycling club in MI. They put on DALMAC which is a multiday ride of 2000 riders going 400 miles each. In 20 years, there was one fatality on the tour and that cyclist was off his bike and off the road and even off the shoulder (he was killed by a drunk driver who missed the curve). In those 20 years, the DALMAC riders accounted for 8,000,000 road miles. I believe if you check the records of any of the large bicycle tours, you will find similar safety records.

These data lead me to conclude that cycling responsibly is probably significantly safer than driving (at least for the average driver). Of course, the driver statistics are polluted by drunk drivers, road rage drivers, careless drivers, cell phone drivers, drivers who are napping and so on. If you drive and avoid those high risk behaviors, your actual risk while driving is probably much lower than the average population.

Call me simple, but I know of only one mortality statistic that applies to every person and situation.

If a person continues riding year after year he or she will certainly die. I advocate riding because it enhances the time before our inevitable deaths and advocate safe riding because it reduces the chances of those good years being cut short.

we all do die, but some of us die earlier than others. Seems cyclists live longer.

Of course, the driver statistics are polluted by drunk drivers, road rage drivers, careless drivers, cell phone drivers, drivers who are napping and so on. If you drive and avoid those high risk behaviors, your actual risk while driving is probably much lower than the average population.

Good point. With over 25 years of accident and citation free driving, I don't consider it to be all that dangerous either. Safety in both cycling and driving depends mostly on technique and vigilance.

... I believe that the inept & casual cyclists account for the majority of the cycling fatalities. But I believe the responsible recreational cyclists account for the large majority of the miles ridden...

one of my favorite stats (here in BC) is that commuter cyclists make up 2% of all traffic, yet all cyclists are involved in only 1% of traffic collisions.

That's all cyclists, as in all those kids and people who do not commute. Those types that ride drunk, on the wrong side of the road, no lights, etc., etc. and these types are also the types that do not ride much at all.

if you consider the number of miles commuters put in compared to these much larger in numbers recreational cyclists and also consider the much fewer in number racing cyclists that put in probably much more miles than the commuter cyclists, I can make an educated guess that the percentage of commuter cyclists involved in traffic collisions is probably a full third lower than that 1% of cyclists involved in collisions with 2% of the commuter traffic that we make up.

The first good page on this subject I read was here

http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/health/risks.htm

..,

Interestingly, Kifer also did a survey that he put up on his site that showed the risk of injury for cyclists per-mile-traveled is far, far greater than that for drivers. It was cool of him to post the data even though it contradicted his assumptions and biases. Other more involved research shows the same results, that injury risk from cycling is not even in the same league as injury risk from driving. So I believe any sane analysis would have to conclude that cycling is indeed more dangerous than driving.

Considering only fatality risk gives a massively skewed view of the danger of cycling. Deaths are rare, but cycling injuries are relatively common. The risk of receiving some sort of injury that requires medical attention while cycling is something like 1200 times the risk of dying in an accident while cycling, and about 15-20 times more likely than receiving the same degree of injury while driving. It should be obvious to anyone why this is so--cyclists have so many more possible modes of injury to contend with. The vast majority of cycling injuries are due to solo wipeouts, slip-outs due to sand or ice, smashing into potholes and wrecking, falling due to getting a tire caught in an expansion joint, just plain loss of control, etc.. These are all things that motorists don't have to worry about. And a solid car-bike collision that is inconsequential for the motorist is likely to injure the cyclist.

Considering just fatality risk, it is extremely difficult, perhaps impossible to determine relative risk of driving and cycling. Estimates of the fatality risk from cycling range from about half that of driving to about three times that of driving. The chart that is purported to be from Failure Analysis Assoc. (Exponent) can not be used for any serious purpose as it comes with no methodology whatsoever.

But there is a bigger picture than all this, and that's that cycling, as dangerous as it may be, comes with significant health benefits, unlike driving. It is exceedingly dangerous not to exercise.

I encourage everybody to get out and ride if they have the desire, but do so with an understanding of the risks.

Robert

Robert - if you read in the 50's forum, you will see that the majority of injuries are due to new users of clipless pedals when stopping in front of a pretty girl for the first time. :rolleyes:

One of the things that I have noticed and applied to my own riding is this: "Speed kills" I was recently reading a study that said (oh dear lord, I am going to mention helmets) that with MOTORCYCLES, the two things that matter most are speed (over 40 KPH) and drinking as far as fatalities. Helmets help prevent head injury but greatly increase neck injuries. (according to the study) What was interesting is the report was written for Insurance companies with a recommendation NOT to push for mandatory helmet use since they found it of little benefit. Now, if you are the one to hit your head, you might find it to have a lot of benefit - but riding slowly and sober will have much more effect.

Anyway - this is not to ignite yet another battle on helmets - but to point out the obvious. What speed you ride at has a lot to do with how dangerous it is.

There's no doubt, road rash is a bigger problem for cyclists than motorists, but that's a price I'd be willing to pay for the other benefits I gain from riding.

It's funny how there are so many who would not want to pay such a price, even if it improved their health.

(but then again, most people don't even want to sweat to improve their health)

It should be obvious to anyone why this is so--cyclists have so many more possible modes of injury to contend with. The vast majority of cycling injuries are due to solo wipeouts, slip-outs due to sand or ice, smashing into potholes and wrecking, falling due to getting a tire caught in an expansion joint, just plain loss of control, etc.. These are all things that motorists don't have to worry about. And a solid car-bike collision that is inconsequential for the motorist is likely to injure the cyclist.
As you point out there is a wide range of potential injuries and injury severities (including even no injuries) that could result from a bicycle crash/accident; a high percentage of them that are either insignificent, inconsequential or minor. Any reasonable person should look in askance at any bicycle accident "study," comparison, or "analysis" that draws/specifies its conclusions about relative risk/danger in terms of undefined "crash rates" or "accident rates" with no specification or evaluation of the crash/accident injury severities. Forester and his acolytes are notorious for this type of sophistry in their so-called "analyses" of bicycling risk/danger.

I do deep dive wreck penetrations, JB has four combat tours and I think cycling is the most dangerous thing we do. (maybe it is where we ride?) Honolulu kills more peds than anyplace in the country. Bad drivers?

Makeinu, thank you for the heads up!

Also, thank you for this fantastic post:

"Another comment about the "danger of cycling". I think it's a bit unfair to attribute cyclists who happened to die cycling to the danger of cycling.

After all, when motorists die it is usually the result of collision with motorists. When cyclists die it is also usually the result of collision with motorists. Obviously the dangerous activity is driving a motorized vehicle. To separate out whether the perpetrator of this dangerous activity just so happens to also be the victim is nonsense.

It's like leaving a gun unsecured and unlocked in your home. Although doing so may make you less likely to die yourself, it also increases the chances that your family might be injured in a gun accident or the chance that you accidentally shoot an innocent, etc, etc. Things are dangerous when they kill people, not just when they kill the owner.

Considering only the exposure to danger experienced by the owner, even at the expense of danger to others is just plain selfish. The fact that, even within this biased perspective, cycling still fairs about even with motoring only highlights just how selfish motoring really is. The truth is that motoring is overwhelmingly more dangerous. It's like waiving around a locked and loaded gun in public with your finger on the trigger. Although you may or may not hurt yourself doing it, you have a damn good chance of hurting someone.

Motoring is dangerous because motorists are a danger both to themselves and to the people around them."

Closet, thank you for the BC cycling death report too!

But I have to say that on reading it, I was struck by its cager perspective.

In the very first incident cited, a boy is held at fault for riding his bike with insufficient care.

But from my (cycling) perspective (and that of the law), the operator of the truck that killed him was at fault.

If you have a license to operate an EXTREMELY dangerous, multi-ton motor vehicle, and you crush a child (on a bike or elsewhere), YOU - the driver - are most likely at fault.

Under the law, the driver has total responsibility to live up to the higher standard of care implied by his special license.

That this legal culpability is ignored by (cager) cops and DAs (and the cagers who I assume had the greatest say in the BC report) is the problem, and not cyclist behavior.

Also, it's LIVING motorists (& cager witnesses) whose testimony makes up the lion's share of such reports rather than DEAD cyclists.

But thank you again, Closet - I don't mean to de-rail!

Pat, as to the group rides you cite being safer, I do see this, whether in rides as you describe, or in a Critical Mass type sitch.

But again, I don't think it's about these cyclists being more responsible & not jay-cycling, etc. (CM, of course, often isn't about obeying the traffic laws, and I don't know of serious accidents or deaths occurring disproportionately on these rides.)

Rather, I think it's about safety in numbers.

In New York, it's the commuter cyclists riding legally with full visibility who are crushed by criminal cagers breaking multiple laws, not wrong-way riders & the like somehow asking for it by their bad behavior.

As for me, the last two times I was hit, I was riding 100% legally & in broad daylight.

In both cases, careless drivers swerved into & struck me mid-block. (No turns were occurring.)

I was in the bike lane.

As Makeinu so superbly said:

"Motoring is dangerous because motorists are a danger both to themselves and to the people around them"

& not (so I believe) because SOME cyclists are behaving foolishly & thus skewing the stats.

Cars = guns.

(But really, SUPER-guns, as they kill 10 times more people in the US every year than guns do...)

But again, I don't mean to de-rail!!!

Thank you for all of the incredible - and affirmative - responses!

As you point out there is a wide range of potential injuries and injury severities (including even no injuries) that could result from a bicycle crash/accident; a high percentage of them that are either insignificent, inconsequential or minor.

True, but there are so many cyclist wipeouts and mishaps that the more serious injuries pile up as well: collarbone fractures, wrist fractures, shoulder dislocation and tearing, broken ribs, broken teeth, lacerations of all sort, etc. Upper extremeties. There are some tens of thousands of collarbones snapped alone each year. That I have never snapped a collarbone I attribute to luck, weightlifting, and my early life's diet which consisted primarily of Coke and chocolate donuts.


Any reasonable person should look in askance at any bicycle accident "study," comparison, or "analysis" that draws/specifies its conclusions about relative risk/danger in terms of undefined "crash rates" or "accident rates" with no specification or evaluation of the crash/accident injury severities. Forester and his acolytes are notorious for this type of sophistry in their so-called "analyses" of bicycling risk/danger.

Manipulating statistics is a great human tradition and nobody who wades into the morass of accident stats emerges squeaky clean. The type of manipulation/sloppiness you mention is just one of the myriad that has been employed by our friends over the years.

Robert

... and why I like to stick with fatalities instead of injuries

Considering only fatality risk gives a massively skewed view of the danger of cycling. Deaths are rare, but cycling injuries are relatively common. The risk of receiving some sort of injury that requires medical attention while cycling is something like 1200 times the risk of dying in an accident while cycling, and about 15-20 times more likely than receiving the same degree of injury while driving. It should be obvious to anyone why this is so--cyclists have so many more possible modes of injury to contend with. The vast majority of cycling injuries are due to solo wipeouts, slip-outs due to sand or ice, smashing into potholes and wrecking, falling due to getting a tire caught in an expansion joint, just plain loss of control, etc.. These are all things that motorists don't have to worry about. And a solid car-bike collision that is inconsequential for the motorist is likely to injure the cyclist.
I want to hear about your wipe-outs. :D

Johnny Knoxville wanted my autograph, but my hand was in a cast...

:beer:

... and why I like to stick with fatalities instead of injuries

But really fatalities leave so much out. I myself have been involved in three accidents... one of which put me in a hospital.

I doubt I am part of any bicycle accident statistics.

But really fatalities leave so much out. I myself have been involved in three accidents... one of which put me in a hospital.

I doubt I am part of any bicycle accident statistics.
Been to the ER, done that.

The biggest difference between fatalities and injuries is that a fatality would make cycling more difficult for me. ;)

I considering the danger of cycling to involve the way in which one cycles (and that includes looking out for those who are not careful and avoiding them as you often can).

Check out this report on the death of cyclists.

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

At the bottom, there are brief descriptions as to what the circumstances were that led to the deaths. I think any reasonable adult could have avoided the vast majority of them. If you could eliminate those tragically avoidable (stupid) deaths, there hardly would be a death toll at all. The fact that even if you include these incidents, and then consider just how many people ride, and the benefits still outweigh the risks, I'd have to wonder why all those people are taking the (by comparison) huge risk of driving everywhere.

The sentences in boldface easily apply to motorists, too. The only accidents I believe are faultless involve "acts of God"-type things like hitting a deer, having a tree or boulder land on the car, pipes falling off a semi trailer, etc. Every other accident is a result of human error of some kind, whether someone's drunk, is driving too fast for conditions, doesn't maintain their vehicle (bald tires/worn suspension/worn brakes/broken steering/blown lights) or doing the usual stupid things that we all know about.

So, yeah, it's the drivers that make driving dangerous.

Been to the ER, done that.

The biggest difference between fatalities and injuries is that a fatality would make cycling more difficult for me. ;)

I'm open to the possibility of an afterlife with lots of bike riding.

But really fatalities leave so much out. I myself have been involved in three accidents... one of which put me in a hospital.

I doubt I am part of any bicycle accident statistics.

It's possible that your particular incident(s) was tallied by the CPSC'S NEISS, National Electronic Injury Surveillance System, which is a sampling of, iirc, a few hundred ERs around the country. If your ER was part of the system, and the personnel involved recorded it correctly, your injury could be in there. The sample is used to make estimates about total annual ER and outpatient visits due to cycling injury (~one million per year in the US). This data is not incredibly detailed (there are letter codes to describe in the most general terms the injury, where on the body the injury occurred, whether the victim was admitted to the hospital, treated and released, etc.) but it is probably the most reliable and useful database in the entire universe of data pertaining to cyclists. Raw data from the sample ERs for a single year of cycling-related injuries is a stack of paper about ten feet high.

Robert

But really fatalities leave so much out. I myself have been involved in three accidents... one of which put me in a hospital.

I doubt I am part of any bicycle accident statistics.

I've been put in the hospital from cycling, hockey and football.

Recovered each time. None of them had any real impact to my life.

Some people freak out if they have any discomfort. Injuries are subjective. Fatalities are not.

Been to the ER, done that.

The biggest difference between fatalities and injuries is that a fatality would make cycling more difficult for me. ;)

Certain injuries could do that too... such as a broken back and paralysis of your legs.