General Cycling Discussion - Have You Been Hit? Will you Be?

I read in a magazine a few weeks ago, that are two groups of cyclists, the ones that were hit by a car and the others that will be hit by a car.

This was posted on another area of the forum. Who believes this?

To further clarify the poll question the question is....If every cyclist that has never been hit continued to ride for the rest of his/her life, would they eventually get hit? Obviously there are variables but the poll addresses the notion that every cyclist will get hit someday if they ride long enough.

Based on the wording of the poll I voted no.

I'd guess about 40 - 50% of all cyclists will be hit by a car eventually. Of these I'd guess 20% will be hit hard enough to knock them to the ground. Just my .02.

I have been hit, but i know that there are riders who do not ride on roads(avid mountain bikers). Scared me more than anything else, but I was coming down a road past a parking lot and a lady was being an idiot on her cell phone, didn't look and just went. Slammed me with the front of her car, I went flying, bike was run over, but not damaged.

The wording makes me vote 'no'.

I would highly doubt that 40-50% of all people who ride bikes will eventually be hit by a car. A reasonable proportion of those who ride on the footpaths might be...

The wording makes me vote 'no'.

I would highly doubt that 40-50% of all people who ride bikes will eventually be hit by a car. A reasonable proportion of those who ride on the footpaths might be...

I haven't seen a whole lot of cars on the footpaths I travel. Generally only a service vehicle or a police patrol. They are always extremely careful of path users.

No vote for me too. I've been hit and one of my friends has been hit (his fault) but I don't think Everyone will be. In fact I know more riders that were not hit than were. And of course this doent include those riders that chose to ride off the road to avoid getting hit

Hit by a 11 year old girl coming down her driveway,full blast,not looking right into the street and into my rear wheel. Her dad said she's done this before and i should pay half the cost to fix because i was most likly not watching where i was going or i would have gotten out of the way.

I haven't seen a whole lot of cars on the footpaths I travel. Generally only a service vehicle or a police patrol. They are always extremely careful of path users.
My point wasn't really about cars actually on the footpaths. More that drivers don't tend to be watching for cyclists on footpaths when coming out of driveways and intersections, thus increasing the chances of the cyclist being hit.

I haven't been hit by a car. I ran into a parked car once. I was young (about 25) and alcohol was involved. If I believed that I would be hit eventually, I would stop cycling. That would mean that I never got hit by a car. (Does that make any sense? I don't think so.)

Speaking as someone who's been hit 3 times in 20 years, you might think I'd answer yes. Unfortunately, you'd have to be in a very, very, very, small demographic to fit into my model.

Thus, I would want to read the article and see what the author cites as his data and the basis of his analysis before passing judgement on his theory / claim.

My purely skeptical side suggests, he's merely taken an old motorcyclists adage that goes, there are two types of motorcycle riders: Those who've gone down and those who will go down. In more recent years, a lot of bicyclists who ride off-road or who race on the road have adopted the same credo, i.e., if you ride long enough and hard enough you will eventually go down. It is a reach to extrapolate this into the likelihood of being hit by a car.

Therefore, the first question regarding the claim would be to narrow down the population. Is it the purported 99 million cyclists that USA Cycling mentions on its Web site, the 42 million cyclists that Bicycle references in it's data, or only the 24.6 million adult cyclists (including some 5.5 million off-road riders)? Or, is it the 4.2 million "core enthusiasts", a number that has purportedly grown from a mere 870,000 in 1990 to some 3.7 million in 2000, and then to the current 4.2? Or, perhaps it's the folks who buy what Bicycling claims to be 405,000 issues a year? How about the League of American Bicyclist's 40,000 members which, according to insiders, is really more like 20,000 with a factor applied for "family" memberships that raises it to 40k. Anyway, you get my point...

Another way to look at it is via fatalities. From 1994 - 2002, some 6,815 cyclists were killed by motorists. While that's a horrible statistic, consider if you will that some 46,482 pedestrians were killed during that same period of time. Now, as bad as that is, consider that in that same period of time some 322,306 motorists and passengers were killed?

So, if you look at the numbers, if you accept the 42 million cyclists, you are more likely to be killed riding a bicycle than you are as a driver or passenger in a motor car. However, if you use the 99 million figure cited by USA Cycling, your 1/2 as likely to be killed riding a bicycle than you are riding in a car.

Bottom Line: What's the data behind the claim? Without it, it's a meaningless statement and any accompanying message or conclusions should be highly suspect until such time as the data can be looked at objectively.

meh. I'm not worried.

I was hit by a car on March 11th. But I certianly don't think it is an eventuality for every rider. If I did, my kids and wife would never be allowed to get on a bike!

You're asking me to predict the future? I don't even know what I'm having for dinner tonight.

I've never been hit, but i've had a few close calls. Despite requests, no one calls me lucky.

I have been run off the ride by a car before, but never hit. I have had a young cyclist run into MY car though! Luckily, he was not hurt!

I was hit by a cyclist once. My mistake-- stepped off the curb without looking in Eugene, Oregon. No harm to me, cyclist or bike, thankfully. Guy was really nice about the whole thing.

I ride with a lot of traffic. Every day is a chance to get hit. In the past several hundred rides, though, I don't recall a close call. It is worth learning how to ride defensively, never trust turn signals, always expect the car pulling out may not see you, swallow your pride and wear a helmet mirror, turn on on the tail-light and use the headlight as much as possible. Finally, don't forget that people get seriously hurt all the time when hit by cars-- while driving cars.

By the wording I voted "no" ,though I have been hit twice by cars & side swipped by the 'vercene' overhang of a truck trailer on a roundabout ! But I do think that every one who cycles average to + distance in all weathers will eventualy have a crash of some kind though hopefully not with a car or truck ! eg: ice , wet leaves ect on the road ,even being unable to unclip fast enough in an emergancy.

I voted no. Even though I have been hit by a car. It was partially my fault, did something stupid.

But I do not think that every cyclist will eventually be hit by a car.

I've been hit twice and I voted no. However, after reading some responses I'm reconsidering my vote. All considered, the cyclists to accident ratio in this thread is about 1:1 currently. :(

I voted yes, mainly for the same point that Moonshot made. While Mark points out that the statistics can be rather indefinite, the bottom line is, statistics or no, too many bicyclists who I know have been hit. Take this forum, the typical participant is a serious biker who is therefore probably safer than the average biker, yet the crash rate of our members is shocking. In the few years that I have been here, amost every road rider has reported at least one hit. I know we like to throw out numbers that suggest it is safe, but take a roll call around here. The counts are just too high to be able to say it is safe.

That said, I rode today, and I'll ride tomorrow. I love it too much to quit, but the accident rate does concern me. I believe a rider can do a lot to avoid accidents through constant awareness. Its worked for me for 30 hit free years, but through the close calls that I have had and the reports that I hear from others, I can't keep but wondering if my time is coming too.

I haven't seen a whole lot of cars on the footpaths I travel. Generally only a service vehicle or a police patrol. They are always extremely careful of path users.

I have.

However, what I haven't seen is a footpath that stretches uninterrupted from point A to point B, with no road crossings, when the two are more than 150 metres apart.

I've been hit five times. I copped four in two years in 1997/99 -- the worst I ever had was a broken spoke. However, I don't think it will happen to everyone. I have noticed that the likelihood of being hit by a car decreases dramatically everytime I leave the urban area of the Gold Coast (and yes, that includes riding in Brisbane, Melbourne, Adelaide and everywhere else I've been).

Years ago I read a bike commuting article with some good advice: on your commute, you're mostly surrounded by car drivers who are also on their commute. The last thing they want to do is screw up their commute by hitting you. Smile at them. Fit in. Stop at lights, etc. You'll likely start noticing the same cars and drivers, same people out at bus stops, and same people walking their dogs, etc. If they smile back, keep it up. All in all, even if they don't know your name, they're going to help out if you get in trouble. They'll also begin to expect you and be more aware of you and perhaps even other cyclists.

I think I internalized this advice, because I now realize that I see a lot of the same people each day on my commute, and we normally nod or smile and acknowlege each other.

I have.

However, what I haven't seen is a footpath that stretches uninterrupted from point A to point B, with no road crossings, when the two are more than 150 metres apart.

I went from point A to point B and back today for a 17 mile ride and didn't cross one road. I could have gone another 40 miles one way with crossing just one road.

While Mark points out that the statistics can be rather indefinite, the bottom line is, statistics or no, too many bicyclists who I know have been hit. Take this forum, the typical participant is a serious biker who is therefore probably safer than the average biker, yet the crash rate of our members is shocking. In the few years that I have been here, amost every road rider has reported at least one hit. I know we like to throw out numbers that suggest it is safe, but take a roll call around here. The counts are just too high to be able to say it is safe.

My point exactly; what is the population being referred to in the article and how might it be skewed? Among cyclists who log 5-10k miles a year on public roads, the probability of an encounter with a car is indeed far greater than for a cyclist who rides on a bike path or who sticks to rural roads for social and/or recreational charity rides. Thus, the amount of riding, where you ride, when you ride, and even what you ride may play into the data... much the same as it does for motor vehicle accidents.

Thus, the real question becomes, "Is riding a bicycle any less safe than walking or operating a motor vehicle?" Given the number of people killed each year engaged in all three activities, it's fair to suggest that there is a degree of risk involved in all three activities. As to why the members of this list seem to have a high incident of crashes may have more to do with the nature of discussion lists. Consider if you will, there are over 10,000 members of this list; have 5,000 reported being hit by cars? Or, is it a much smaller number which will invariably graviate towards discussion threads like this one and creates a feeling that a lot more members of the forum have had vehicle encounters than the actual percentage might indicate?

Again, I would just urge folks to get a firm grasp on the data used to support articles, claims, statistics, etc... before putting too much stock in them. Junk science and statistically invalid but "sensational" stories abound in our world today, much of it due to the internet and the lack of due diligence applied to information posted to it.

Twice

I voted yes, mainly for the same point that Moonshot made. While Mark points out that the statistics can be rather indefinite, the bottom line is, statistics or no, too many bicyclists who I know have been hit. Take this forum, the typical participant is a serious biker who is therefore probably safer than the average biker, yet the crash rate of our members is shocking. In the few years that I have been here, amost every road rider has reported at least one hit.

On the other hand, it also says something about the myth that every hit will be a fatal one -- or even a serious one. People who claim cycling is dangerous generally claim that a bicycle doesn't offer any protection in a crash. I have to wonder if the slower speed of travel has the effect of mitigating the seriousness of the crash in response. I guess what I'm asking here is just how seriously we should take the crashes that have no consequences to speak of. I know for a fact that many car accidents that leave nobody injured are forgotten immediately. Should our policy really be any different?

On the other hand, it also says something about the myth that every hit will be a fatal one -- or even a serious one. People who claim cycling is dangerous generally claim that a bicycle doesn't offer any protection in a crash.

This gets back to the original thesis of the author and wanting to know more about the article. What point was he trying to make and what data was he using.

Bicycle accident stats are often times misunderstood or misused, sometimes by accident, sometimes out of ignorance, and other times to support an agenda. A good example is in the area of accident frequency vs. severity. Well-meaning safe cycling instructors will often times note that while many new cyclists are most fearful of being hit from behind by a motorist, statistically they are far more likely to be hit by a car pulling out or turning in front of them. However, guess which of these two accident scenarios is far more likely to result in serious bodily harm or death? Yup, the rear-ender. Thus, while the frequency of a rear-end collision is lower, the result is far more severe.

Thus, as you note, low-speed accidents on bicycles can be analogous to the majority of "fender benders" that occur with cars, albeit sometimes being a bit rougher on the cyclist. My three collisions with cars all had impacts where the speed at the time of contact was below 15mph and where I was cut-off: pretty good bruises and scrapes but no broken bones, concussions, or other serious injuries that requried an ER visit. Now, if you're hit from the side, such as in the case of a child who rides out of a driveway and into the street, or for an adult cyclist being t-boned by a car entering the road from an alley, at an intersection, or are turned on top of, the results are usually quite different and often times quite serious or fatal as the likelihood of ending up under the car is greater.

More information regarding cyclist fatalities in the US are avalable here ('02 data displayed by default):
http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/finalreport.cfm?title=People&stateid=0&year=2002&title2=Pedalcyclists

Today marks my second hit in a month - in fact, they were EXACTLY a month apart. Today also marks the last day I use the bike lanes during my commute - both times, I've been hit by drivers who swerved into the bike lane at high speeds without looking.

I was hit once by a rather large car (a Grand Vic). After the ambulance checked me out and I signed the release form (I was cut and bruised but not broken), the guy who hit me took me home. He was more shook up than I was. The look on my wife's face when we pulled up was priceless! She was scared, puzzled, and relieved at the same time.

Twice

Were either of them fatal?

Having been in a few safety classes for work, one of the things they teach is to focus on the frequency of accidents, not the severity. Frequency is usually controlable, severity is not. The best way to have fewer sever accidents is to have fewer accidents period. I think this is very true for bikes. Once an accident starts it is very difficult to limit its severity. An inch or a second can be the difference between a glancing blow and being run over by a wheel and crushed under the vehicle.

People in the minor accidents live to post about them, those who die don't.

Bicycle accident stats are often times misunderstood or misused, sometimes by accident, sometimes out of ignorance, and other times to support an agenda. A good example is in the area of accident frequency vs. severity. Well-meaning safe cycling instructors will often times note that while many new cyclists are most fearful of being hit from behind by a motorist, statistically they are far more likely to be hit by a car pulling out or turning in front of them. However, guess which of these two accident scenarios is far more likely to result in serious bodily harm or death? Yup, the rear-ender. Thus, while the frequency of a rear-end collision is lower, the result is far more severe.

Interestingly, they're also both preventable by the same means. I would also question whether being rear-ended is really so much more likely to be severe. Being hit from the side can often knock a cyclist suddenly into the path of an on-coming vehicle. The only difference being that in this scenario, the on-coming vehicle has absolutely no time to react. At least if I'm out there claiming the lane, I'm visible to the traffic behind me, and thus giving myself (and them) a chance.

Maybe I need to quantify the statistics...

33% of pedalcyclist fatalities in 2002 (the most recent year reported in FARS) occured at intersections; 67% (444) occured at non-intersections. 84% of pedalcyclist fatalities (528) were caused by front-end impacts.

Thus, while the frequency of rear-end (and head-on) collisions may be lower, it doesn't mean they are less of a risk once severity is factored-in. And, the severity of rear-end or head-on collisions cannot be reduced by instructing cyclists to take actions that could reduce the frequency of accidents at intersections since they are unrelated.

In the realm of risk management the primary objective is to reduce the likelihood of a catastrophic event first, and then to address the less severe and perhaps even more frequent risks second. Although we lost one of our friends to an intersection accident and saw another put into the hospital for several months followed by what is still on-going PT two years later, the situations that have sent more of our friends to the hospital or ended their lives involved being hit from behind (or head-on) by motorists.

The point of my comments on cycling instructors or free-agent bicycle safety advocates focusing on "freqency" vs. "severity" was made in an effort to suggest that the statistics can unintentionally lead to the wrong assumptions and conclusions, i.e., you're less likely to be hit from behind so riding along a rural road is not as risky or unsafe as riding through an intersection, which is often time the message.

Yes, there are some situations where event frequency can be lowered and have a net result of lowering the severity purely on the law of averages. However, it assumes there is a linear relationship between frequency and severity. In regard to what we know about car-bicycle collisions, the strongest, direct linear relationship is that head-on and rear-end collisions tend to result in more fatalities than the left and right hook that tend to receive a disproportionate amount of attention. Clearly, for urban cyclists, the likelihood of collisions at intersections is a higher probability than in rural areas, whereas the opposite is true for head-on and rear-end collisions. As for lowering the frequency of a rear-end or head-on collision, there are only a few things that a cyclist can do, e.g., using a rear-view mirror to remain more aware of traffic approaching from behind, making themselves more visible through bright clothing or flashing tail lights (day and night time), and lane position. However, they are actions that can, as you note, make the difference between a glancing blow or a fatal impact.

So, once again, the one area where education is not being applied and where it needs to be is the motoring public. While often times a cyclist is as much to blame for an accident as a motorist, the number of motorist-caused accidents far exceeds those caused by the actions of a cyclist. So, once again, cycling advocates can spend all day holding classes for cyclists and creating "bicycle facilities" for cyclists, none of which address the real problem which is and remains issuing driver's licenses to people who are not adequately qualified or trained to operate motor vehicles, inclusive of training that teaches motorists that eating, talking on phones, engaging or scolding children, or fiddling with on-board navigation or entertainment systems is not their primary focus when operating a vehicle.

The latter brings me 360 degrees back to my original post which asked the question that was never asked regarding the nature of the article and statistics. What message was the author trying to convey? Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt in cyclists in an effort to move more of them off of our roads? Angst to feed the anti-car crowd? Increased awareness by cyclists in an effort to make them take steps to sharpen their skills? Or?????

In the mean time, all of these posts are interesting but the lessons to be learned are somewhat vague.

Years ago I read a bike commuting article with some good advice: on your commute, you're mostly surrounded by car drivers who are also on their commute. The last thing they want to do is screw up their commute by hitting you. Smile at them. Fit in. Stop at lights, etc. You'll likely start noticing the same cars and drivers, same people out at bus stops, and same people walking their dogs, etc. If they smile back, keep it up. All in all, even if they don't know your name, they're going to help out if you get in trouble. They'll also begin to expect you and be more aware of you and perhaps even other cyclists.

I think I internalized this advice, because I now realize that I see a lot of the same people each day on my commute, and we normally nod or smile and acknowlege each other.

That's how it got for me last year. A lot of the same cars got used to me commuting. Some would even roll down their windows and talk to me at the stop lights.

So, once again, the one area where education is not being applied and where it needs to be is the motoring public. While often times a cyclist is as much to blame for an accident as a motorist, the number of motorist-caused accidents far exceeds those caused by the actions of a cyclist.

I could be wrong, but I think this is a repeating theme here.

Just how could we do this better?

I was hit in a parking lot at a very low rate of speed by a motorists who had to have seen me, as he made a left in front of me... I do think the poll is exaggerated by maybe 50%. 40-50 % range sounds reasonable.... I do expect of those 80% would be minor. like mine..pray tell...just my guess.. but 45% over the decades......pretty high odds..... So I voted yes...

I could be wrong, but I think this is a repeating theme here. Just how could we do this better?

1. Reform the driver's license process such that applicants would be required to take at least 20 hours of mandatory motorist education & skills training from a certified driver's training firm that includes more emphasis on theory, the law, and behind the wheel activities that evaluate motor skills, reaction time, and judgement by subjecting students to demanding, high-risk situations.

2. Develop written tests and behind the wheel tests that are far more challenging and comprehensive, including evasive manuevers and a "Hogan's Alley" range where judgement can be evaluated. At present, I believe more applicants fail their behind the wheel tests because they can't even parallel park. Moreover, most 8 year olds are probably capable of passing the written test by merely taking a quick read of the typical DOT provided "idiots guide to passing the state driver's license exam" just moments before the test.

3. Raise the initial, one-time cost of an interstate (transferrable) driver's license to a level that is consistent with the importance of what it allows and operator to do, e.g., $1k - $2k to help fund driver's license program enhancements. Hey, if you can't afford the license you can't afford to drive. If it's that important to you, then give up the cell phone and cable TV for a year. If a motorist is NOT cited for traffic offenses or involved in an accident, periodic renewal would only be subject to an administrative update for changes in physical characteristics and photo.

4. Reform traffic laws to err on the side of license suspension or revokation when a motorist hits a pedestrian, cyclists or fixed object for meaningful periods of time, e.g., 1 year for a first incident unless serious bodily harm or a fatality result and successful completion of a 40 hour driver's training course (Note: 56% of traffic fatalities are single car accidents).

5. Revoke driver's licenses permanently for accidents that result in the death of a pedestrian, pedalcyclist, passenger or other motorist where significant mitigating circumstances aren't present, e.g., if a pedestrian or pedalcyclist walks or rides into the path of a motorist from between parked cars, etc... or if it was a secondary collision cause by a primary collision.

6. Revoke driver's licenses for meaningful periods of time for a first time DUI, e.g., 1 year automatic suspension with no exceptions or special provisions and mandatory training. 2nd DUI = 5 year suspension. 3rd DUI = gone for good. (Note: 40% of fatal accidents are still alchohol related; 77% of the fatal accidents that occur between midnight and 3am are alchohol related).

Obviously, there would be a lot of resistance to any of these provisions since, over time, a driver's license has become:
a. An entitlement, not a priviledge;
b. A necessity by virtue of the proliferation of personal transportation vs mass transit and the attendant urban sprawl it enables;
c. A major source of economic energy in the US economy (ever stop to think how many jobs exist to support the automobile).

On the road front, it would sure be nice if there were any reminders posted that bicycles are legal users of the road instead of "hazards". The adoption of the yellow and black diamond-shaped warning sign coupled with the yellow and black "share the road" sign are hardly devices that provide a positive message about cyclists or re-enforce the notion that bicycles are legal users of the road. My personal belief is that bicycle road rights demand a white and black regulatory sign.

Bike lanes should be eliminated all together since their presence can reinforce the belief by improperly educated motorists that bicycles are only permitted to ride in a marked bicycle lane or, in their absence, not permitted on public roads. After all, from the perspective of many motorists, that's why they're spending all that tax money on dedicated bike paths; to create a safe place for bicycles to be ridden.

Just some off the cuff ideas mind you. The list is not intended to be all inclusive or exclusive.

What about general education aimed at motorists to consider other road users (namely cyclists) as legitimate users of the road?

What about general education aimed at motorists to consider other road users (namely cyclists) as legitimate users of the road?

By "general education" do you mean PSAs, billboards, and bumper stickers? My personal opinion is, passive education is nearly worthless if you're trying to influence behavior. Sure, as a cyclist seeing those messages will make you feel as though something is being done, but that's because it's a message that reinforces what you already believe in. To your average motorist who doesn't think bikes belong on the road or doesn't take note of them, my guess is that general education either serves as a reminder that they don't think bikes belong on the road or is otherwise ignored.

As I did mention, I think the current "share the road" signs are marginally effective and perhaps send the wrong message. After all, it puts bicycles in the same boat as deer crossing signs, golf-cart crossing signs, and farm equipment. Granted, perhaps a "bicycle" is analogous to an Amish family's buggy in terms of having a right to use the road; but less pervasive by a large degree and normally confined to certain geographic locales. A bicycle, on the other hand, is as likely to be on any street anywhere in the US where it's not prohibited by law, which is still the exception and not the rule. Thus, should there be a bicycle & share the road sign on every stretch of road, warning motorists that they could encounter a bicycle? It's hardly a positive message in it's present context and even less of a reminder that pedalcyclists are legal road users with the same rights and responsibilities of the other legal road users.

Anyway, again, if you want to change behaviors you can't get there by being passive and you'll note that the approach to licensing is not bicycle specific. It's aimed at getting bad drivers off the roads since, statistically speaking, there are still over 3 million reported motor vehicle accidents a year that result in the death of over 40,000 motorists, passengers, pedestrians, and pedalcyclists. Addressing only the bicycle is addressing less than 2% of the problem.

I've never been hit. Most of the roads I ride are very rural and I see very little traffic though, I don't hardly even get harassed by motorists on these roads.

Statistics from NEISS and NSGA (http://www.nsga.org/public/pages/index.cfm?pageid=1)

Participant-based Injury Rates for Selected Sports, 1998

Injuries per Thousand Participants

Basketball 21.2 Football 20.7 Bicycling 11.5 Snowboarding 11.2 Skateboarding 8.9 In-line skating 3.9




The following facts are based on analysis of data from the U.S. Department of Transportation's Fatality Analysis Reporting System:

687 bicyclists were killed in crashes with motor vehicles in 2000. This is 8 percent fewer than in 1999 and down 32 percent since 1975.
Bicycle deaths are most likely to occur in summer. Deaths are most likely to occur on Fridays. The peak time is 3-9 pm.
Ninety percent of bicyclists killed in 2000 reportedly weren't wearing helmets.

Injuries per Thousand Participants

Basketball 21.2 Football 20.7 Bicycling 11.5 Snowboarding 11.2 Skateboarding 8.9 In-line skating 3.9


Unfortunately, "injuries" is a pretty vague term -- could be anything from grazing the skin to breaking bones -- and how many of these go unreported?

The following facts are based on analysis of data from the U.S. Department of Transportation's Fatality Analysis Reporting System:

687 bicyclists were killed in crashes with motor vehicles in 2000. This is 8 percent fewer than in 1999 and down 32 percent since 1975.
Bicycle deaths are most likely to occur in summer. Deaths are most likely to occur on Fridays. The peak time is 3-9 pm.
Ninety percent of bicyclists killed in 2000 reportedly weren't wearing helmets.


The Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute needs to update it's data for '02. Their source is the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety which has published a nice summary of the data on it's Web site, including some very interesting analysis: http://www.highwaysafety.org/safety_facts/fatality_facts/bikes.htm

With regard to this forum, let me once again make the point that the numbers by themselves do not tell the whole story. You must drill down and look at the details before you can make too many assumptions. The statistic on helmet wear is a very telling one along with another one that, when coupled with the helmet use stat, may remind you that not all cyclists ride for the same reasons:

* Eighty-five percent of bicyclists killed in 2002 reportedly weren't wearing helmets.
* Twenty-three percent of bicyclists killed in 2002 had a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.08 or greater.

I'm not sure about y'all, but it's seldom that we head out for a ride where the lunch time stop includes a brewski. Here's another interesting statistic:

* Older bicyclists represent a larger percentage of bicycle deaths than in the past. Seventy-six percent of 2002 bicycle deaths were riders 16 years and older. This compares with 32 percent of bicycle deaths in 1975.

The shift probably has more to do with the decline in youth ridership and the increase in adult ridership. Which, overall, may also be part of the bigger picture regarding the drop in cyclist fatalities. And, that's another area where some additional numbers need to be looked at before forming an opinion as to whether or not bicycling is becoming more hazardous or not. As was noted in the '00 data cut and pasted from the Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute's website, statistically, 32% fewer cyclists were killed in '00 compared to 1975. While the number of cyclists killed in '00 did drop some 8% from '99 and 9% from '02 to '01, there was a blip in '01 where the number of cyclist fatalities went up 6%. But, contrast this to what I mentioned earlier regarding Bicycle Magazine's (albeit dubious) data which suggests that the number of core cycling enthusiasts has grown from 870,000 to over 4,000,000 since 1990 (that's a 332% increase).

However, what's more interesting to note is that, regardless of WHY fewer cyclists are being killed each year, FEWER cyclists are being killed each year. Pedestrian, passenger, and driver fatalities have also been declining each year despite and in contrast to the continued increase in the number of licensed motorists, registered vehicles, and miles driven each year. In many respects, the way cars and roads are designed has played a huge role in reducing fatalities, e.g., air bags, crumple zones, and increased use of crash barriers and impact absorbers. However, few of these devices can do much to lessen the impact to a pedestrian or cyclist.

All of this brings us back once again to the question that "Ranger" (who started this thread) hasn't responded to, which is in regard to more details regarding the quoted statement with it's sensational claim that was the premise for this poll to begin with. Ranger, did you happen to ask 'Charlie21' for more details regarding the comment he cited or did you just accept/reject it on face value? I'm not being mean-spirited in this line of questioning, just probing to understand your motivation for polling to find out where readers on the forum fall on the topic.

While this may all seem like I'm flogging a dead horse, the point of putting all this data in front of you as readers of this thread is to make you think about why you "feel" the way you do with regard to how safe you are on the road and to ask if your experiences are consistent with the actual statistics. Much of what has been written over the years regarding cycling continues to make the point that roads are unsafe for bicycles in an effort to obtain federal funding for "bicycle facilities". If you value your access to safe accommodations on public roads you should cast a wary eye towards those efforts as they do not serve to further your interests and siphon-off limited resources that were originally pursued and intended to be put to use on "transportation infrastructure" instead of "recreational use". Underlying these efforts is the bicycle industry which is only concerned about selling bikes to as many people as possible. Current trends indicate that the greatest potential for growth is in the "comfort bike" segment which has a direct relationship with the growth in numbers and popularity of segregated bicycle facilities and MUPs.

Bottom Line: Question what you read or hear before forming too many opinions based on face value. The mis-use of data and/or sloppy reseach and unfounded, sensational statements make up the vast majority of what makes it way to our eyes and ears. Don't be an unwitting surrogate who perpetuates the flow of substandard and faulty information or "opinions" packaged as facts. Also, be on guard against "group think"; it is an easy trap to unwittingly fall into. Discussion forums are rampant with "group think".

However, what's more interesting to note is that, regardless of WHY fewer cyclists are being killed each year, FEWER cyclists are being killed each year.

It would be interesting to compare the drop in cyclist fatalities with the drop in fatalities as a result of violent crime, given the recent studies that seem to indicate that violent assaults aren't dropping in frequency nearly as quickly as effective treatment is improving... That is: Are we dying less often because safety precautions or driver education are effective, or because emergency medical treatment is saving a higher percentage of injured cyclists?

-chris

I would guess that, like most things that change over time, there are a multitude of factors involved, to include as you correctly note:

1. improvements and greater coverage in first responder care,
2. improvements and increased numbers of trauma centers,
3. more cyclists wearing helmets,
3. changes in ridership demographics,
4. and a myriad of other things.

However, the number of reported injuries continues to drop in parallel with fatalities.

What drivers training need emphasize..cyclist are on the road and we have rights..Some motorists, I think they think- they can do anything they please to us and there are no legal consequences.
But then some police attitudes. Maybe they are right?

By "general education" do you mean PSAs, billboards, and bumper stickers?

No, I mean requiring future drivers that are studying to pass the drivers tests to be aware that cyclists are entitled to use the road, are out on the road and to treat them with the respect due to them.

We have this education here in BC and it's helped but I still think the lack of enforcement of traffic laws is the Achilles heel for road users. Many who drive would never drive the way they do if they had a examiner in the car with them. The drivers who have licences have shown an examiner that they can drive correctly, but now that that observation is gone, they drive very differently.




the real question becomes, "Is riding a bicycle any less safe than walking or operating a motor vehicle?"

I guess the real answer would depend on how the individual riding, walking or driving manages to drive, walk or ride in a safe manner.

Most cases I've read on traffic accidents show that there were many mistakes made that led to the accident. Drivers fail to yeild right of way, walkers jaywalk and cyclists ride on the wrong side of the road. Sometimes, all of these things happen at the same time.

If one is aware and behaves correctly in a situation, the chances of an accident greatly diminish.

These lump sum stats sometimes require more digging into to find,

it's not what you do, but how you do it.




The following facts are based on analysis of data from the U.S. Department of Transportation's Fatality Analysis Reporting System: * Ninety percent of bicyclists killed in 2000 reportedly weren't wearing helmets.

This is a stat that needs more investigation. As I've posted before, we have a mandatory, all ages helmet law up here in B.C. that has been in place or a number of years and a helmet wearing rate of (about) 72%. Our monopoly insurance company (ICBC) has been keeping track of our accidents. Part of this involves cyclists who receive head injuries. For the years that they have been keeping this statistic, there has been a difference of 10% or less between those receiving head injuries who were wearing helmets and those who were not. In the last 3 years ('00-02) ICBC has reported there have been 15 deaths of cyclists in B.C. 7 wore helmets, 8 didn't.

(look up ICBC.com, go to library, then research, traffic collision statistics, pick a year and go to bicycle collisions)

Now maybe it's just in this province where this 50/50% is true, but I don't know. It doesn't jive with common sense that the 90/10% claim is true. Maybe in the area of study, fewer than 10% of cyclists wear helmets so any deaths would reflect that. You could go to Denmark and despite finding the safest record for cyclists in the world that in the (few) deaths of (the very many) cyclists, that none of them wore helmets because no one wears helmets in Denmark. There are many areas that have much higher rates of wearing helmets and also may more deaths from head injuries to cyclists in the area that helmet wearing is higher. There would still be nothing to understand how those deaths could have been prevented if we primarily focused on helmets. You would have to investigate the circumstances of the accident to do that. It would seem that is what they do in Denmark and their record of safety for cyclists reflect that.

Stats like this lead us away from trying to prevent accidents to trying to reduce the effects of accidents.

From eliminating behavior that leads to accidents to hoping that the accident we have won't hurt as much.

IMHO, I think an accident prevention is the more important goal to acheive.

No, I mean requiring future drivers that are studying to pass the drivers tests to be aware that cyclists are entitled to use the road, are out on the road and to treat them with the respect due to them.

I think we are in agreement here, as this falls under better training and more difficult testing as a prerequisite for a drivers license.


We have this education here in BC and it's helped but I still think the lack of enforcement of traffic laws is the Achilles heel for road users.

No doubt; law enforcement officers are often times less informed about the laws pertaining to bicycles than most semi-serious cyclists. But, enforcement is a double edge sword as it begs questions regarding licensing and registration requirements for bicycles, issues related to points being applied to driver's licenses, insurance premiums, and just the back-lash from cyclists being "hassled". I would opine that there are very few club rides or group rides where traffic laws are broken (yes, guilty as charged). Of course, that begs other questions regarding applicability of laws to bicycles, etc... As it is today, most states and provinces probably have safety equipment requirements for "vehicles" that are applicable to bicycles and/or bicycle laws that are out of date.


I guess the real answer would depend on how the individual riding, walking or driving manages to drive, walk or ride in a safe manner.

No doubt. And just how many parents know how to properly walk or ride a bicycle on a public road? Too few to be sure.


Most cases I've read on traffic accidents show that there were many mistakes made that led to the accident. Drivers fail to yeild right of way, walkers jaywalk and cyclists ride on the wrong side of the road. Sometimes, all of these things happen at the same time.

Most certainly which is why even in light of the statistics I've been citing, the percentage of bicyclists that fit the definition of what comes to our minds (e.g., someone like "us") who are involved in accidents are only a portion of the annual statistics.


As I've posted before, we have a mandatory, all ages helmet law up here in B.C. that has been in place or a number of years ...

I'm hardly a helmet advocate. In fact, I find the data coming out of Australia to be some of the most interesting relative to the impact of mandatory helmet use on ridership and injury prevention. In short, ridership has dropped dramtically and the reduced injury stats don't track as is often times cited by the CDC, helmet advocates, etc....


You could go to Denmark and despite finding the safest record for cyclists in the world that in the (few) deaths of (the very many) cyclists, that none of them wore helmets because no one wears helmets in Denmark.

I'm not so sure cycling in Europe is necessarily the panacea of safety as is often suggested.
http://www.bikexprt.com/research/pasanen/helsinki.htm


IMHO, I think an accident prevention is the more important goal to acheive.

I think you're jumping around here and got sucked in by the helmet stats. Yes, education is important but it has to be administered in a way that causes the information regarding safe cycling and safe motoring with bicycles to be assimilated into all aspects of driver's training, testing, law enforcement curriculum and metrics (what do you think about police quotas for issuing moving violations to cyclists?), and how traffic systems are designed and controlled. Thus an integrated approach is required. However, what tends to happen is that the low-hanging fruit are picked and the difficult issues don't get addressed. That's why organizations like the League of American Bicyclists have jumped on the coat tails of the rails-to-trails and MUP advocates and tried to claim credit for their achievements in securing federal funding, etc.., going so far as to change the LAB charter to downplay education and local advocacy. LAB has been reduced to a lap-dog organization for the bicycle industry (who even have their own group, Bikes Belong) and part of the "wellness" lobby who pan for gold in the halls of Congress.

Less I digress.

You don't do nothing you die anyway!
Having said that I've got over a quarter million road miles under the belt, been hit seriously about 4 times. Each time the driver got a ticket.
The odds eventually catch up to you and at age 71 I'm still out a'pedalin' well over 100 miles a week.
Who me worry? Been there, done that!
Pedal on!