Living Car Free - Is cycling really that dangerous?

I don't know about you, but I'm getting kind of tired of hearing about how dangerous cycling is. I've talked to a lot of people, including members of my immediate family, who claim that cycling is inherently much more dangerous than any other form of transportation; in addition, it's not hard to read, on any news site, hundreds of comments about the dangers of cycling, written largely by people who have, in fact, not actually been on a bike since childhood, if ever. In the meantime, 50,000 people die in the US every year in auto accidents.

I've decided to do a not-very-scientific analysis of the relative dangers of cycling and driving. To keep it simple, I've restricted myself to fatalities. There are about 190,000,000 registered drivers in the US, as of 2007, the most recent year for which I could find statistics by googling impatiently. There were about 50,000 fatalities due to auto accidents in the same year. Fifth grade math quickly reveals that, if you drive a car in the US, you have a 1:3800 chance of dying in a car accident in any given year, if you ignore individual mileage, which I have done.

Cycling is much more problematic. The problem isn't the number of fatalities; that's well-known. In 2007, again the most recent year for which I could find data, there were 697 bicycle-related deaths (over 100 of which occurred in Florida). The problem is figuring out the total number of cyclists. I've encountered wildly different figures: the US Census Bureau estimated in 2000 that there were 750,000 bicycle commuters in the entire US. This number is obviously too low. The League of American Bicyclists claims 6.5 million cyclists in the US. This number may be correct, but I suspect they counted people who own bikes but don't ride them. I recently read in the Seattle Times that the number of bicycle commuters in the US in 2008 numbered 3.2 million in 2008, partly due to an increase in oil prices, and partly due to widespread frustration with traffic. I'm going to go with that figure, for no other reason that it accounts for the recent dramatic increase in bike traffic since 2000, but doesn't count people who don't ride regularly. According to these figures, then, if you ride a bike to work, you have a 1:4500 chance of dying in the next year due to your transportation choice.

So, according to my figures, which admittedly are not at all rigorous, it's actually quite a bit safer to ride a bike than to drive a car.

Comments, suggestions, vitriolic criticisms?

I am in agreement about hearing about *edit* HOW dangerous it is (if not only for the fact that I think it jinxes me, but who said this was scientific?). I pick my spots to be "dangerous" and ride outside of laws, and pick where I am as safe as possible. There are inherent dangers in leaving home, but I hardly feel in danger on a bike, except for that one time on Market St. in San Francisco.

I have read that there are between 25 and 40 million cyclists in the US. But like you I am not sure how active all of them are.

I hear the same things expressed by friends and family about how they worry about how safe cycling is. Normally I don't pay much attentinon. However today I decided to ride my road bike to a friends house for a small group meeting about 7 pm. I left the meeting about 8pm and there was some concern expressed about me riding home in the dark. I told them I had lights and promised to call when I got home. But to be honest it was false bravado on my part because once on the road I was concerned with not being able to see as well and not being seen as well as I would like. Traffic was relitively light but every time a car came up behind me I had mixed emotions. I like seeing the road better because of the extra light but I would tense up wondering how close they were going to come to me.

But to put some perspective to my fears, I haven't done a night ride in maybe 19 years.

One factor which skews the comparison is the distance travelled. A motorist will usually log a lot more distance than a cyclist. So it's possible that the risk per mile or per kilometre is higher on a bicycle. I have no way of knowing this as I don't have such statistics.

It's also important to remember that driving a car and riding a bicycle are treated completely differently.

Driving a motor vehicle requires a testing process with written and practical components. In some areas, a probationary license or graduated license system is also in place. Cyclists do not need to go through a training or licensing process. There's no mandated training course, no written tests, no road tests.

A motorist in a car or truck is surrounded by plenty of steel. There are seatbelts and in later model vehicles there are airbags. Cyclists don't usually have armour and a lot don't even use helmets.

Further increasing the risk for cyclists is a lack of knowledge or understanding among motorists in some areas. In some areas, where cycling is part of the culture, motorists know how to act around bicycles. But there are other areas where ignorance or even hostility on the part of motorists presents a hazard to cyclists.

The cyclist's own skill level is also a factor to consider. A beginner with little or no knowledge of how to safely ride in traffic is at a serious risk, particularly when riding on high traffic roads. For such a cyclist, riding a bike is a dangerous and frightening experience. These are the ones who will ride against traffic, ride on the sidewalks or run stop signs and red lights. For a cyclist who follows traffic rules and understands how to behave on the roads, the risk is much lower.

I'm not suggesting we need a licensing system for cyclists or mandatory safety training, but I would like to see bicycle safety instruction offered and promoted. This could include a free training session through a local bike shop for new customers or it could include free or low-cost training hosted by a community college, a parks and recreation department or a police station. Where I live, there's a cycle training component taught to Grade 3 students, teaching them how to ride safely on the roads. It's a good start but more needs to be done. Under the control of a competent and careful rider, bicycling is a safe and efficient method of transportation.

"Is cycling really that dangerous?"

No, it isn't.

It is strange that deaths from auto accidents happen all the time and seem to be accepted as part of the risk of daily life.

I tell people that if it's in the news, don't worry about it. The very definition of "news" is "something that hardly ever happens." It's when something isn't in the news, when it's so common that it's no longer news -- car crashes, domestic violence -- that you should start worrying.
-- Bruce Schneier


(from http://www.schneier.com/essay-171.html)

I crashed recently on the bike and had more than one person ask me if I was going to give up riding.

I don't remember anyone asking me if I was going to give up driving after I had an auto accident.

DOT calculates that commute miles by bicycle at .4 percent of total miles traveled in the US, and according to my math, at 697 cyclist deaths would equate to approximately 175,000 motorist deaths. So if one factors in miles ridden to miles driven, cycling would seem to be the more dangerous mode of transportation when comparing a motor vehicle to a bicycle.

A recent DOT study looking at the entire population of Motorcyclists in the USA (Newbies, drunks, sport bikers with death wish, commuters, etc) determined that the death rate per mile is a little more than 30 times higher than for automobiles.

I have about 180,000 miles of bicycling miles and about 10,000 miles of motorcycles over the past 30 odd years, and my seat of the pants, SWAG is that bicycling is maybe 5 to 10 times safer than street motorcycles. Ok, so this makes it about 3 to 6 times more dangerous than driving a car, ON A PER MILE BASIS. Many people drive 10,000 miles per year and ride 2000 miles per year. Using my assumed bicycling death rate, the total risk in a year is roughly the same for driving as riding....

Total risk is equal to your exposure (miles ridden or driven) times your expected proboability of death. People with a lot of experience are less likely to do some stupid and cause our own death, but the high amount of exposure means lots of chances to be run over from behind. Generally speaking most Bicycle fatalities involve being hit by a vehicle.

You place your bets, and then throw the dice...thats life... and somtimes death

Deaths per mile travelled is not really a valid comparison. Deaths per trip would be more sensible, and I read some time ago in New Scientist magazine that if you ran the numbers per trip, not per mile, aeroplanes were no longer the safest form of transport - I think trains came out on top, then planes, then bicycles, then cars, and motorcycling last.

Hearing cyclists talk about the dangers of cycling is like hearing weather enthusiasts talk about tornadoes. Watch all ten volumes of Great Tornado Chases and you'll never go outside in the rain again. ;)

Last time I checked cycling was about 1.5x more dangeous per vehicle mile. However, it has been hypothesized that the average cyclist logs less miles than the average automobilist (I made that word up). Also, these numbers do not take into consideration the health benefits of cycling.

Also, these numbers do not take into consideration the health benefits of cycling.
It is often said that cycling is a low-impact sport. However, when you do have an impact...

The death statistics for "cyclists" is skewed upward.

You really want to know how many adult law-abiding cyclists are killed a year.

The largest single group of bicyclists who are killed each year are children. If you ride like an eight year old, you should keep them in your figure. If you never ride at night (a sub-set skewed by scofflaw cyclists without lights) those shouldn't be in your statistical sample either.

Ultimately, riding with best practices reduces or eliminates your exposure to many common hazards. Doing so will doubtlessly reduce your risk to below that of taking a shower.

In the end, humans have very poor risk assessment abilities.

DOT calculates that commute miles by bicycle at .4 percent of total miles traveled in the US, and according to my math, at 697 cyclist deaths would equate to approximately 175,000 motorist deaths. So if one factors in miles ridden to miles driven, cycling would seem to be the more dangerous mode of transportation when comparing a motor vehicle to a bicycle.

I don't think a safety comparison based on mileage is a fair one; cyclists typically don't ride as far as motorists drive. A fairer comparison would be to compare fatalities per total hours of use. A cyclist who does 30 miles round trip on their daily commute is riding for a good two hours; a car driver can do an 80-100 mile round trip commute in the same time, if they're unfortunate enough to have to endure such misery. Despite the big difference in mileage, both the cyclist and driver are on the road for the same amount of time, and during that time, they're both exposed to some degree of risk.

My gut feeling is that, because drivers tend to be more complacent about their safety than almost all experienced cyclists, and because they're usually traveling at much higher speeds, driving a car is inherently more dangerous than bicycling. (Every day, I see a large percentage, maybe half, of all drivers texting, drinking coffee, eating, fussing with kids in the back seat, etc., all while driving at full speed. I hardly ever see cyclists do this.)

I'm not saying that bicycling is totally safe; no mode of transportation, including walking, is totally risk-free. I'm just annoyed that the perception that bicycling is too dangerous is spread most vigorously by people who aren't in any kind of position to have an informed opinion on the subject. I'm also annoyed, kind of angry really, that very few non-cyclists seem able to notice the fact that the only reason that cycling poses any kind of risk at all is because cars keep crashing into things, including people on bikes.

I'm confident in my own cycling abilities. I'm able to ride safely and efficiently in almost weather conditions I'll face here. I'm not all that confident in some of the other road users. Some cyclists — thankfully only a few — ride against traffic. Some motorists are impaired by alcohol or drugs. Some just don't concentrate.

The motorists on the roads are up against all the same factors, but there's one difference. On the bike, I'm mostly unprotected. I wear a helmet (which is the law here) but in an accident, I'll end up a lot more injured than a motorist.

There are some risks we as cyclists will face every time we go for a ride. I've taken every reasonable precaution, but I can't make the risks go away entirely. The best I can do is to minimize the risks.

Anyone with a seatbelt & airbag can easily walk away from a 25mph collision (with a wall or another car). If you're on a bike and have a 25mph collision with a wall or a car, chances are you'll probably end up needing medical attention.

A car has a shell that protects you. On a bike you have your bones protecting your organs.

So, yes....riding a bike is much more dangerous. If you don't think so, you're pretty much a dumbfack. Just sayin.

Wow, did you not read this post or are you just talking out of your facking ***?

I read the OP's post and replied.

PS - I have royalties on the work "fack". Make up your own word next time.

I didn't read your original post, because I can't find it, but apparently you claim that driving is safer than riding a bike, because when you run into things at high speeds, it's better to be surrounded by a protective shell of sheet metal. In the case of driver vs bicyclist accidents, I agree with you. However, car drivers have two disadvantages as far as safety is concerned:
1. They go a lot faster than bikes.
2. A large percentage (not all) of drivers are not very aware of what's going on outside their vehicle; this is simply not the case with almost all experienced adult bicyclists. In addition, there are more cars than bikes on the road. This means that when a driver runs into something at high speeds, it's more likely to be another car, in which case the advantage of being encased in steel totally disappears.

The whole key to safety, in my opinion, is to not run into things in the first place. In this area, bikes are superior to cars. In fact, the only thing that makes bicycling at all dangerous is the possibility that an inattentive, or possibly homicidal, driver will mow the occasional bicyclist down. In other words, bikes aren't dangerous at all; cars are.

BTW, you do not, in fact, own the copyright (royalties is not the right term) to the word "fack." It's common usage among large segments of drunken English-speaking peoples across the globe, particularly those descended from Celts, and does not belong to you.

I think pretty much all studies indicate cycling is at least 2x more likely to result in an accident per mile than is driving. Generally, I feel safe enough when I ride, but I'd ride much more often if I felt safer. In other countries (and in a few cities here), that need for safety is addressed by separate infrastructure for bikes. I certainly feel far safer on the parts of my route that allow me to use the MUP than I do on the parts that require me to ride on the road.

The whole key to safety, in my opinion, is to not run into things in the first place. In this area, bikes are superior to cars. In fact, the only thing that makes bicycling at all dangerous is the possibility that an inattentive, or possibly homicidal, driver will mow the occasional bicyclist down.
Well said.

I think pretty much all studies indicate cycling is at least 2x more likely to result in an accident per mile than is driving.

What studies?

What studies?



The 1997 Traffic Safety Facts puts motor vehicle deaths at .016 per million miles traveled, and bicyclist deaths at .039 per million miles traveled.

0.39 per million miles? So I'd have to cycle more than 3 million miles before I get killed? Even if I cycled as far every year as a car drives, I'd have to be cycling for 150 years before anything happens. Sounds safe enough to me!

0.39 per million miles? So I'd have to cycle more than 3 million miles before I get killed? Even if I cycled as far every year as a car drives, I'd have to be cycling for 150 years before anything happens. Sounds safe enough to me!


That's great!, according to your math, I would have to drive over 6 million miles before I get killed. I would have to be driving over 400 years( at 15,000 miles a year, and I only drive a small fraction of that) before anything happens to me as well. Sounds like driving is safe enough for me too!

Everyone dies so go ahead and tear it up on the bike at least you will go out doing what you enjoy.

I have exposure time and miles--maybe I should quit while I still have my life! :rolleyes:

What studies?

The same ones linked whenever these "cycling is safer than driving" threads are made.

The same ones linked whenever these "cycling is safer than driving" threads are made.

This isn't very helpful. My question, "what studies?" is a sincere one, not rhetorical.

The 1997 Traffic Safety Facts puts motor vehicle deaths at .016 per million miles traveled, and bicyclist deaths at .039 per million miles traveled.

It should be possible to fairly accurately track auto miles per year. How do you track bicycle miles? How do you even begin to guess?

The same ones linked whenever these "cycling is safer than driving" threads are made.

Post a link to one of these threads.

So, according to my figures, which admittedly are not at all rigorous, it's actually quite a bit safer to ride a bike than to drive a car.

Comments, suggestions, vitriolic criticisms?Check out (or if data isn't present make a reasonable assumption regarding) fatalities per mile. Here's (http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/health/risks.htm) a decent overview IMO. As usual it's more about how someone drives/cycles/walks than that they drive/cycle/walk.

I'm not saying that bicycling is totally safe; no mode of transportation, including walking, is totally risk-free. I'm just annoyed that the perception that bicycling is too dangerous is spread most vigorously by people who aren't in any kind of position to have an informed opinion on the subject. I'm also annoyed, kind of angry really, that very few non-cyclists seem able to notice the fact that the only reason that cycling poses any kind of risk at all is because cars keep crashing into things, including people on bikes.

Very well put. Americans in particular exaggerate the risk of every activity except driving--and they greatly underrate the risks of driving. It's pure stupidity.

I didn't read your original post, because I can't find it, but apparently you claim that driving is safer than riding a bike, because when you run into things at high speeds, it's better to be surrounded by a protective shell of sheet metal. In the case of driver vs bicyclist accidents, I agree with you.

The idea that the car is a protective shell seems to make sense. However, the shell of the car is often what actually kills the occupants, like when they hit the steering wheel, the dashboard or the windshield.

Modern cars--with airbags and crumple zones--are much better at protecting the occupants than older cars were. Unfortunately, the newer cars are also much more deadly (because they're heavier and faster) when they hit somebody or something else. Also, the fact that the occupants feel more protected probably makes them drive more recklessly.

It should be possible to fairly accurately track auto miles per year. How do you track bicycle miles? How do you even begin to guess?


Probably through surveys like this one (http://trb.metapress.com/content/wq87468051446611/)

The idea that the car is a protective shell seems to make sense. However, the shell of the car is often what actually kills the occupants, like when they hit the steering wheel, the dashboard or the windshield.

Modern cars--with airbags and crumple zones--are much better at protecting the occupants than older cars were. Unfortunately, the newer cars are also much more deadly (because they're heavier and faster) when they hit somebody or something else. Also, the fact that the occupants feel more protected probably makes them drive more recklessly.

I've read somewhere -I wish I could remember where- that this is actually a verifiable phenomenon: since the invention of crumple zones and airbags, there has been a very noticeable increase in fatal accidents caused by pathologically aggressive drivers. (Of course, the trend may also just be the result of a culture that has produced larger and larger numbers of people who just don't give a sh*t about others, or denser, more frustrating traffic, or increased average horsepower, or any number of other possibilities.)

I've even noticed the same thing with myself on the bike. I almost always wear a helmet, but on really hot days I don't, because the danger from heat injuries trumps the danger from maybe falling on my head. On those few days I'm helmet-less, I tend to ride more slowly and cautiously. Objectively, I know it shouldn't change my riding, because a helmet isn't that much better than no protection at all, especially in a bike vs. car accident, but it does. Without a helmet, I just feel more vulnerable, so I slow down.

The 1997 Traffic Safety Facts puts motor vehicle deaths at .016 per million miles traveled, and bicyclist deaths at .039 per million miles traveled.
Those numbers look to be roughly consistent with the old Failure Analysis, Inc. thinktank for insurance company risk analysis which rated different activities based on fatalities per million hours. They put cycling at 0.26 deaths/million hours vs. car driving at 0.42 deaths/million hours and motorcycling at about 8 deaths/million hours. So bicycling compared to car driving is a little safer if looking at equal times for both activities and a little more dangerous if looking at equal distances. I'd consider somewhere in the middle to be the proper measure. I may spend a little more time riding my bike if going to work, but I'm also more likely to plan my bicycling transportation trips more carefully to minimize wasted distance. I.e. I'm far more likely to combine shopping trips and to pick stores that are nearby if riding my bike. So overall the risk of a fatal accident for cyclists appears to be pretty comparable to that of car drivers.

Cyclists do have a higher incidence of minor injury accidents. The less serious accident in a car just results in a dented fender while the cyclist would frequently at least have some road rash. OTOH, if the driver doesn't get equivalent exercise in some other form then he's more likely to suffer from a variety of health problems than the typical cyclist. Mayer Hillman's study for the British Medical Association concluded that the health benefits of cycling exercise result in 20 additional person-years of life (due to forestalling issues like heart disease) for every one person-year of life that might be lost due to cycling accidents.

Probably through surveys like this one (http://trb.metapress.com/content/wq87468051446611/)

Now we're talking. According to the data in the abstract, if I ride 5000 km per year for 40 years, and don't ride on sidewalks, I have a 7.4% chance of getting into an accident. Not a fatal accident necessarily, just any kind of accident at all. This seems fairly safe to me. (Of course, since it's an abstract only, I can't be sure where the data come from; they may have been as sloppy as I was in my original post, for all I know.)

I thought it was interesting that bike lanes turned out to be a very safe option, safer than MUPs by a significant margin...

The studies are interesting, useful in some ways, but all are flawed. It might be more helpful to assess your individual risk in a systematic manner.


Where do you ride? Find accident rates for all traffic in your area. Try to find patterns that indicate if one road or region has a higher rate than an alternative.

When do you ride? Night and weather conditions are big factors. Don't ride in bad conditions unless you have the proper training and equipment.

What type of infrastructure do you use? Sidewalks are more dangerous than streets or MUPs, in general. MUPs have high rates of accidents, but the accidents are probably less sever than those on streets and sidewalks. Well-designed bike lanes might make riding safer in some circumstances.

What is your competence level? Study and think about bike safety to increase your competence.

Is somebody trying to tell you something? If motorists are constantly buzzing you and yelling or honking at you, you might be doing something wrong. If you have a lot of close calls--or even just a couple--you are doing something wrong. Figure out what it is that you're doing wrong and quit doing it.

(Of course, since it's an abstract only, I can't be sure where the data come from; they may have been as sloppy as I was in my original post, for all I know.)

I thought it was interesting that bike lanes turned out to be a very safe option, safer than MUPs by a significant margin...

The study is available at: http://www.enhancements.org/download/trb/1578-12.PDF

The methods used to find survey respondents was heavily biased towards selecting only adult commuters, and only those commuters who were bicycling enthusiasts who had computer Internet access (in 1996) and were members of an Internet bicycle commuters mailing list or Internet forums where bicycle commuters might be found, or were readers of bicycling enthusiast magazines.

The limitations of the selected survey methods and distribution, and warnings about extrapolating the data to the general population of commuters are provided in the sections "Survey Limitations and Goals" and "Study Method."

There is zero applicability of this survey data to estimating the total number of miles ridden by American bicyclists.

The study is available at: http://www.enhancements.org/download/trb/1578-12.PDF

The methods used to find survey respondents was heavily biased towards selecting only adult commuters, and only those commuters who were bicycling enthusiasts who had computer Internet access (in 1996) and were members of an Internet bicycle commuters mailing list or Internet forums where bicycle commuters might be found, or were readers of bicycling enthusiast magazines.

The limitations of the selected survey methods and distribution, and warnings about extrapolating the data to the general population of commuters are provided in the sections "Survey Limitations and Goals" and "Study Method."

There is zero applicability of this survey data to estimating the total number of miles ridden by American bicyclists.

Wouldn't the sample characteristics make this a good study for many of the cyclists on this forum? I think most of us are more concerned about our own safety rather than generalizing to the entire population.

Wouldn't the sample characteristics make this a good study for many of the cyclists on this forum? I think most of us are more concerned about our own safety rather than generalizing to the entire population.

I think the sample selection may be somewhat representative of certain segments of BF posters most likely the regulars of Road Cycling, Touring and Commuting. What "we" may be specifically concerned about and what the posters on this thread actually write about cycling safety (to include all sorts of generalizing about the cycling safety record/habits of the general population) are two different concepts.

This isn't very helpful. My question, "what studies?" is a sincere one, not rhetorical.

http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/health/risks.htm This is the most common one. You've got to scroll down to "Calculations Based on Miles Instead of Hours" to see the citation.

There are many ways to interpret the figures that various studies come up with.

Here are a few comments.

Our City does an occasional survey on bicycle use, by their figures, which they admit are probably on the low side, and as most local bicycle commuters know are definitely low, there are 3,500 downtown commuters for a population of 1 million. I'd put the total regular commuters at 5,000 plus, weekend riders, 3 times that? Throw that into the estimate for the cycling population.

If you can get hold of the raw data on cycling deaths, look at the situations. How many were Ninjas at night? Drunk? No brakes? Children? Riding wrong way? The only study I saw where such factors were listed showed a significant influence from the Darwin Award contenders. Do you ride like that? No? Throw that into the mix.

Indirect influence. I am the healthiest person at work, this is not unconnected to my riding.

We are none of us going to get out this place alive, enjoy what you've got.

Probably isn't that dangerous for most people. It is probably a bit more dangerous for people who cycle against traffic, on sidewalks, etc.

It would be interesting to know out of the 697 bicycle deaths in the original post, as someone else pointed out… a. How many were children… b. How many of those deaths were due to an accident evolving an automobile, in which the bicyclist was not at fault.

Bicycling itself does contain some elements of risk, as does walking, jogging, skiing, skateboarding, and so on. But, I feel intuitively the risk of death from bicycling goes up significantly when mixing automobiles into the situation.

I would be willing to bet, that the odds of my dying as a result of a single bicycle accident no matter the number of miles/kilometers I ride, is infinitesimal if I was on the road by myself without those 3000 pound projectiles flying around me. So, to say bicycling itself is a very safe undertaking could be accurate.

I would be willing to bet, that the odds of my dying as a result of a single bicycle accident no matter the number of miles/kilometers I ride, is infinitesimal if I was on the road by myself without those 3000 pound projectiles flying around me. So, to say bicycling itself is a very safe undertaking could be accurate.

You could make this argument with cars too; an individual car on the road is far less likely to crash when there aren't any other cars around.

I would be willing to bet, that the odds of my dying as a result of a single bicycle accident no matter the number of miles/kilometers I ride, is infinitesimal if I was on the road by myself without those 3000 pound projectiles flying around me. So, to say bicycling itself is a very safe undertaking could be accurate.
:roflmao2:
I would be willing to bet that the danger from bare knuckle boxing, dueling or gun fights would be infinitesimal if I could practice these activities by myself without anyone else around.

I didn't read your original post, because I can't find it, but apparently you claim that driving is safer than riding a bike, because when you run into things at high speeds, it's better to be surrounded by a protective shell of sheet metal. In the case of driver vs bicyclist accidents, I agree with you. However, car drivers have two disadvantages as far as safety is concerned:
1. They go a lot faster than bikes.
2. A large percentage (not all) of drivers are not very aware of what's going on outside their vehicle; this is simply not the case with almost all experienced adult bicyclists. In addition, there are more cars than bikes on the road. This means that when a driver runs into something at high speeds, it's more likely to be another car, in which case the advantage of being encased in steel totally disappears.

The whole key to safety, in my opinion, is to not run into things in the first place. In this area, bikes are superior to cars. In fact, the only thing that makes bicycling at all dangerous is the possibility that an inattentive, or possibly homicidal, driver will mow the occasional bicyclist down. In other words, bikes aren't dangerous at all; cars are.

BTW, you do not, in fact, own the copyright (royalties is not the right term) to the word "fack." It's common usage among large segments of drunken English-speaking peoples across the globe, particularly those descended from Celts, and does not belong to you.


coulnt have said it better myself

It would be interesting to know out of the 697 bicycle deaths in the original post, as someone else pointed out… a. How many were children… b. How many of those deaths were due to an accident evolving an automobile, in which the bicyclist was not at fault.

Bicycling itself does contain some elements of risk, as does walking, jogging, skiing, skateboarding, and so on. But, I feel intuitively the risk of death from bicycling goes up significantly when mixing automobiles into the situation.

I would be willing to bet, that the odds of my dying as a result of a single bicycle accident no matter the number of miles/kilometers I ride, is infinitesimal if I was on the road by myself without those 3000 pound projectiles flying around me. So, to say bicycling itself is a very safe undertaking could be accurate.

Yessss... and further, how many of the cycling deaths which involved an automobile, also involved a drunken cyclist, one without lights or reflectors, one riding the wrong way...etc?

I doubt very much that any significant percentage of the 697 were bicycle only. but even when you mix in cars, being sensible about risk factors, safety equipment and paying attention, can drastically reduce your chances of being killed.