Fifty Plus (50+) - Relative safety of biking as a sport

I am offering the data below as a basis for discussion. I have been affected and informed about a number of biking related injuries. That made me curious how typical my experience is.
I did not see Boxing or Baseball.

Statistics from the Dr Pietro Tonino of Loyola U. School of Medicine
Based on data from CPSC
Sports-related injuries presenting at US hospital emergency rooms.
Data for 2005. These would be the more serious injuries. There is no adjustment for exposure data to relate the number of hours spent by US residents in each of the activities.

Sport ER Visits
-------------------------
Basketball 500,000
Bicycling 485,000
US Football 418,000
Soccer (Football) 175,000
Skateboarding 112,000
Trampolines 108,000
Horseback riding 73,000
Golf 47,000
Roller Skating 35,000
Wrestling 34,000
Tennis 19,000
Track & Field 17,000

Dr. Tonino's study was reported in the Washington Post on June 19, 2006.

The trouble with statistics about cycling injuries is that they always lump everyone on a bike together into one category - the 6-year old who tips over on the sidewalk, the drunk who runs into the side of a car, and the hardcore hammerhead who brushes someone's rear wheel in a paceline. As a result, I don't think you can judge the safety of the sport from these numbers.

Interesting numbers.

I've had a couple of decent crashes. I sustained some good road rash and bruises in one crash and could have gone to the ER as a precautionary measure; however, my gut told me I was OK, despite a couple of knots and some blood here and there. I got back on my bike and rode back to the vehicle. In the second crash, I went over the handle bars into some bushes... soft landing. Some numb nuts was coming up the MUP on the wrong side of the path on a blind corner. When I first saw him, our front wheels were about 6 inches apart. I was OK. They hauled him off in the meat wagon. Though I was non too pleased with his behavior, I did walk to the end of the MUP to direct the meat wagon to his location.

I was surprised to see the magnitude of the number for golf! I've played on and off for a long time but have never sustained any injuries in the pursuit thereof. I've been apoplectic after numerous bad shots, but not so much that I injured myself or someone else. I've never been hit by a flying club or a ball. I didn't realize golf was such a contact sport! Lightning? Heart attacks?

Fore!!

As a Quality Engineer those numbers are meaningless without a known population to compare them to. I doubt that the number of football players or soccer players come anywhere close to the number of cyclists when one considers that there are more bicycles than cars in the US. And the US does not have the greatest number of cyclist per capita when compared to other developed nations.

Interesting numbers.

I was surprised to see the magnitude of the number for golf! Lightning? Heart attacks?

Likely that most of the injuries were boredom and alcohol related. ;)

cheers,
Geary

I see they left out skiing and snowboarding. There's a reason that many orthopedic Docs can play golf all summer without working.

That's why I ride...I love the danger baby! http://crapmods.com/phpBB/images/smiles/k_pepper1.gifhttp://crapmods.com/phpBB/images/smiles/k_pepper1.gif

I took up downhill racing because I knew my wife wouldn't go for me going back to racing flat track and motocross. It is much safer :roflmao2:

Softball has to be in there somewhere-too many muscle pulls and strains by many of us way too old to be playing!

As a Quality Engineer those numbers are meaningless without a known population to compare them to. I doubt that the number of football players or soccer players come anywhere close to the number of cyclists when one considers that there are more bicycles than cars in the US. And the US does not have the greatest number of cyclist per capita when compared to other developed nations.

I agree, the numbers don't mean a whole lot unless compared to the aggregate number of participants in each sport. Also, are these injuries which prevented participation for a while? A hangnail can screw up a golf swing and keep you off the course, while cycling injuries tend to be pretty dramatic.
Since everybody is on the topic, here is a study I've been passing around about auto related cycling accidents:

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/9/3/205

Funny, you know, in an American bookstore the books on chopper motorcycles and hot rods will be under "Transportation" and the books on bicycle commuting will be under "Sports and Hobbies". If a person was riding their bicycle the wrong way down the street at night with no lights and got hit by a car, is that a sports injury or just chronic stupidity?

tcs

PS: I just Googled a web site that said some 8,000,000 Americans go to the emergency room every year with a heart attack. Hmmm.

Bicycling is indeed dangerous, but not unreasonably so for those who ride intelligently and responsibly, and I still think the numerous multifaceted benefits of cycling far outweigh the risks. That said, I am always on a campaign to reduce those risks further, by advocating better education and stricter accountability for all road users.

The usual way to compare the relative risks of these various occupations is on a per hour basis.

Lets see: $1500 for a MRI from running and $1500 for a MRI from a cycling mishap. Broken foot from playing soccer and a broken leg from waling the dog. Seems to me just about any activity can be dangerous.

Man I can not wait until someone else is paying for my health care.

Numbers mean zero as to risk. You need to know injuries/fatalities per something --- like time or miles or even number of participants. Too me, the only valid comparison is time. The only such statistics I've seen are now two decades old.

Road cycling on a per hour basis was about as risky as an automobile and far less risky than general aviation and road motorcycling. Airline safety on a per hour basis is about the same as driving a car.

Then too, you have to separate out the population of cyclists as mentioned. The kids and those who flagrantly ignore the rules of the road shouldn't be counted except in special categories. Though I'm a biker (pedal and motor powered), I've almost killed two cyclist riding on the wrong side of the road at intersections. One was riding on the sidewalk.

This is the classic way to commit suicide on a bike. If people don't inform themselves how to cycle safely, it's then ignorant to blame the sport or the auto driver.

That said, you are very vulnerable on a bike mingling with cars/trucks, especially now with cell phones and texting. That two-decades old data doesn't account for that. Mountain biking (challenging single-track) has a lot going for it. It's also a better total body work out and boy does it keep the reflexes sharp. It also exercises the mind.

Al

I agree, the numbers don't mean a whole lot unless compared to the aggregate number of participants in each sport. Also, are these injuries which prevented participation for a while? A hangnail can screw up a golf swing and keep you off the course, while cycling injuries tend to be pretty dramatic.
Since everybody is on the topic, here is a study I've been passing around about auto related cycling accidents:

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/9/3/205

The conclusion is very logical. The more walkers/bikers, the more attention they get from the car drivers who then start to watch out for them. Group rides/pacelines are also more attention grabbing and imo are safer than riding alone.

Al

Sky Diving?

Boxing?

For me, the numbers represent good news that we are not all held captive in lounge chairs as life trickles away in the light of the television.

If cycling were three times as dangerous as it is, I'd still ride.

Interesting numbers.

I've had a couple of decent crashes. I sustained some good road rash and bruises in one crash and could have gone to the ER as a precautionary measure; however, my gut told me I was OK, despite a couple of knots and some blood here and there. I got back on my bike and rode back to the vehicle. In the second crash, I went over the handle bars into some bushes... soft landing. Some numb nuts was coming up the MUP on the wrong side of the path on a blind corner. When I first saw him, our front wheels were about 6 inches apart. I was OK. They hauled him off in the meat wagon. Though I was non too pleased with his behavior, I did walk to the end of the MUP to direct the meat wagon to his location.

I was surprised to see the magnitude of the number for golf! I've played on and off for a long time but have never sustained any injuries in the pursuit thereof. I've been apoplectic after numerous bad shots, but not so much that I injured myself or someone else. I've never been hit by a flying club or a ball. I didn't realize golf was such a contact sport! Lightning? Heart attacks?

Back injuries.

Boxing?

Boxing would be difficult to measure because amateurs are the majority of participants. Golden Gloves, etc. and its mostly scoring points, not knock out power. At the higher level of amateurs, then boxers develop that knock out punch. But since its only 3 rounds, there is little time to go for the knock out, mostly scoring points.

If any of you recall Sugar Ray Leonard, as an amateur Olympian, he was lightening quick but not until he turned professional, did he develop that knock out punching power. Even that took a while. I recall the fight between Surgar Ray and Armando Muniz as professional. I though Muniz really had him and made Ray's eyes grow big because Mando can really punch.

The judges for amateurs usually stop the fight if the boxer cannot respond to repeated punches. Now, the repeated blows to the head, that can eventually take its toll. Lots of retired boxers have slowed and blurred speech. But will they show up at the emergency room? Hardly.

I was told one time by a trainer that when a boxer takes too many body shots, after the fight it is common to have blood in the urine. I don't think that gets reported.

I bike over 10,000 miles per year for exercise and just fun. I intend to continue until I can not do it anymore.
My interest in relative safety was triggered by accidents in my immediate family.
I agree that number of ER visits do not reveal if biking is safer then other sports or not. I did read a lot of supporting information on Google but it is too much to post it here. Let me just assure you guys that bicycle related injuries are no rare phenomena to ER doctors. They said so on my visits. My doctor bought a TdF shirt on an auction and has it hanging in his lobby. I wonder what the message is here?
I am curious if my experiences are typical or not. I am trying to be very careful and bike on trails most of the time.
Here are my accidents resulting in my ER room visits.
1) Wipe out on paved trail with wet leaves in a curve. Trail was dry otherwise.
2) Flip over with Tandem due to deep rut in non paved trail.
3) Wipe out due to error in my pace line biking.
4) Collision of pace line due to me braking hard for a crossing cat.
5) Extreme windy condition blew a bug sideways in my eye in Florida. The bug got embedded.
6) Flip over with Tandem due to rut in non paved bike trail.
All the above required doctor intervention. My wife broke bones in the flip over. My son broke off the ball joint of his leg.
These 6 accidents took place over about 20 years.
I am using now more often a bike with fatter tires to improve my safety.
The injuries suffered by my son and wife were in part caused by clipped in bike shoes. Both did not disconnect while falling. (The clip lock setting was as low as it can be).

^^^^ Sounds like you would be safer staying off the trails and on the road but not in pacelines. ;)

Life is fatal.

Pick your poison and get on with it.

Crude but to the point. How wonderful that we can enjoy whatever past-times we choose as we travel ever so much closer to the inevitable. We just each have to decide whether we judge the quality of our life by total number of years, or total number of exciting and enjoyable experiences.

Oh darn, now my brain is tired....gotta go.

Boxing?
Yeah, I busted my knee on a skydiving landing and broke my wrist on a dumb bike mishap but the relative number of my participant hours was several orders of magnitude higher biking.

Meh! Means nothing to me. For me cycling isn't a sport. It's a way of life.

Let's compare the risks between driving a cage everyday to work then coming home and parking in front of the tube, compared to riding a bike to and from where ever then going out for a pleasure ride.

Life is fatal.

Pick your poison and get on with it.

Crude but to the point. How wonderful that we can enjoy whatever past-times we choose as we travel ever so much closer to the inevitable. We just each have to decide whether we judge the quality of our life by total number of years, or total number of exciting and enjoyable experiences.

Oh darn, now my brain is tired....gotta go.

Agree.
But I hope you all agree that trying to improve safety in our chosen poison is also a good idea.
For instant: I used to not wear a HELMET. I am now firmly convinced that helmets are a good thing after observing bikers with concussion farmed out to hospitals and me bumping my head while I was rolling over. My latest adjustment is using a little fatter tires. They make a lot of difference.
Pace lines are dangerous and unpaved trails can be if you go fast like 20 MPH.:)

The "study" isn't a study at all and is therefore meaningless. It is flawed in its' design in that it assumes that everyone riding a bicycle is somehow involved in the "sport" of bicycling. That just is not the case. A commuter is not riding for "sport". The people who ride around the neighborhood are not doing it for "sport". The folks who race and compete are clearly involved in a "sport".

Another one of those numerical aggregations without meaning.

Denver: I know you called "fore" but I just couldn't get out of the way. :)

30 years ago I knew an older boy (Well into his 70's) that was into all sorts of hobbies- Running- Horse riding- biking were just a few. He was fit and not just for his age either. He had various incidents happen that sent him off to ER occasionally but never had anything serious. Then one day- he did not wake up. They reckoned that life killed him. Or it could have been the 20 **** a day or the bottles of gin he could down at one sitting.

hi,
I doubt that the number of fatal basketball versus baseball dosen"t equals car versus bike fatalities,
but I still live to ride.:twitchy:
Ps I ve heard the definition of Good Health..
Quote: (A very slow Death)..:roflmao2:.
Doug


PS The number of people who die in their bed a sleep may be almost has high as bicycle riders, So Don't Sleep...

hi,
I doubt that the number of fatal basketball versus baseball dosen"t equals car versus bike fatalities,
but I still live to ride.:twitchy:
Ps I ve heard the definition of Good Health..
Quote: (A very slow Death)..:roflmao2:.
Doug


PS The number of people who die in their bed a sleep may be almost has high as bicycle riders, So Don't Sleep...

I doubt that anyone here will disagree that biking is better then no activity.
Unfortunately our choices are not so simple. My wife just lost a whole bike season because of a nasty bike accident and so did my son.
Both will bike again but we are interested in avoiding a broken pelvis (my wife) and a broken off ball joint (my son). I have no illusion that all accidents can be avoided. There are safer ways to bike and that does not mean that they are no fun.:)

I don't bike for speed.

I don't go careening downhills.

I go even slower or don't ride in bad or icy weather.

I don't go on busy highways. I am VERY selective where I ride.

I bicycle about 3,500 miles per year.

My position with my family responsibilities mandates that I be as safe as possible. My family can't afford for me to be out of commission.

Since 1998, I have had no accidents that anyone would classify as other than totally minor.

I get a lot of excellent exercise, and relaxation, and, mostly, thoroughly enjoy my bicycling.

YMMV

Knock on wood.

I am offering the data below as a basis for discussion. I have been affected and informed about a number of biking related injuries. That made me curious how typical my experience is.
I did not see Boxing or Baseball.

Statistics from the Dr Pietro Tonino of Loyola U. School of Medicine
Based on data from CPSC
Sports-related injuries presenting at US hospital emergency rooms.
Data for 2005. These would be the more serious injuries. There is no adjustment for exposure data to relate the number of hours spent by US residents in each of the activities.

Sport ER Visits
-------------------------
Basketball 500,000
Bicycling 485,000
US Football 418,000
Soccer (Football) 175,000
Skateboarding 112,000
Trampolines 108,000
Horseback riding 73,000
Golf 47,000
Roller Skating 35,000
Wrestling 34,000
Tennis 19,000
Track & Field 17,000

Dr. Tonino's study was reported in the Washington Post on June 19, 2006.

Therein lies the rub...

Therein lies the rub...

Billydonn,
Yes I know.
I look at my typical bike ride. Hardly anybody there. Now imagine we double or triple that and have no rules of the road. Bikers go against traffic. Bikers go through red lights. Bikers ignore stop signs.
You would have lots more in ER.
I am advocating biking VC correct and use some common sense.
I wonder how many bikers we loose to accidents vs gain by recognizing how good biking is.

The "study" isn't a study at all and is therefore meaningless. It is flawed in its' design in that it assumes that everyone riding a bicycle is somehow involved in the "sport" of bicycling. That just is not the case. A commuter is not riding for "sport". The people who ride around the neighborhood are not doing it for "sport". The folks who race and compete are clearly involved in a "sport".

Another one of those numerical aggregations without meaning.

Denver: I know you called "fore" but I just couldn't get out of the way. :)

Calling cycling a "sport" incorrectly (and I agree with you that mostly it isn't) isn't a design flaw in the research. It's a conceptual issue, true enough.... but not a design flaw. The main design issue is hours of activity exposure, which is mentioned in the OP and, doubtless, acknowledged in the report itself. Severity of injury may be a limitation of the study as well, as not all ER visits are equally serious.

My guess would be that, hour for hour, trampolining wins the prize for the most dangerous activity.

Calling cycling a "sport" incorrectly (and I agree with you that mostly it isn't) isn't a design flaw in the research. It's a conceptual issue, true enough.... but not a design flaw. The main design issue is hours of activity exposure, which is mentioned in the OP and, doubtless, acknowledged in the report itself. Severity of injury may be a limitation of the study as well, as not all ER visits are equally serious.

My guess would be that, hour for hour, trampolining wins the prize for the most dangerous activity.

Yes billydonn.
There is where personal exposure comes in. I had some painful accidents and so did my wife and son.
This is a bit trivial but bear with me. My barber said that he has numerous bikers as customers and they all report accidents.
I go on a CC tour. The tour leader reports that at least 10% rate of not being able to complete the tour. My last tour had 5 send home fatalities out of 32 participants. My wife is so upset that she will not let me go on another tour.
I am willing to take chances she is not under those odds.

I guess I should fess up to my agenda. I participated on two CC tours. The tour leader was/is very safety conscious. He said that over 10% of the tour participants can not complete the tour due to accidents and other issues.
Assuming that to be true I submit that we lose a lot of bikers due to accidents and that is not a good thing.
I am trying to increase accident awareness.

If you use bicycling primarily for commuting (or similar "non-recreational" activities), taking the place of a car, then comparing hours of riding with hours of driving a car is a totally invalid measure of safety, if comparing to car use.

You should use accidents per mile traveled instead. Otherwise, apples to oranges.

In 28 seasons and 165,000 miles, I've had:

2 broken scapulas,
1 broken collar bone,
more broken ribs than I can count,
2 concussions.

All of the above from bike crashes. Oddly enough, I've been hit by cars twice and have suffered nothing more than bruising and road rash.

Last Summer, my wife hit a pot hole and suffered a concussion.

Still, I head out every day for a ride. I can't stop. :)

If you use bicycling primarily for commuting (or similar "non-recreational" activities), taking the place of a car, then comparing hours of riding with hours of driving a car is a totally invalid measure of safety, if comparing to car use.

You should use accidents per mile traveled instead. Otherwise, apples to oranges.

This point by Denver brings up another safety issue.
I live in Illinois. This State is in a perpetual budget crunch. This results into roads being just barely patched for SUV and Trucks and marginal for cars.
Bike lanes, if any, are not fixed. Edge of roads with large holes, cracks and steps in the pavement.
Perhaps gas prices will increase and bike commuter traffic will increase.
At this point in time commuter bike traffic is very close to zero in this town.
My recreational biking takes place on carefully selected trails and roads.
Commuting in this town needs major investment to be reasonably safe.
This is not so in Wisconsin. I go there often and WI did make an effort to help biking.

I studied the point made by Denver. Death rate per mile driven is lower with bikes then cars or motorcycles per some studies. However injuries is another story. There are lots more injuries.
This matches my experience. I am 67 years old and drive lots of miles since age 18. I can remember 3 accidents in about 2,000,000 million miles and no injuries to me or anyone with me.
I biked perhaps 100,000 miles with 6 accidents. Some of these these accidents resulted into injuries which hurt for years.
This did not stop me biking because the positive aspect of biking motivates me.
Not everyone is as tough as Dennis T above or as determined as I am. Many former bikers give up after injury.
It behooves us to promote bike safety.

If you use bicycling primarily for commuting (or similar "non-recreational" activities), taking the place of a car, then comparing hours of riding with hours of driving a car is a totally invalid measure of safety, if comparing to car use.

You should use accidents per mile traveled instead. Otherwise, apples to oranges.

A good exception to the "rule" ---- I think.

Al

I guess I should fess up to my agenda. I participated on two CC tours. The tour leader was/is very safety conscious. He said that over 10% of the tour participants can not complete the tour due to accidents and other issues.
Assuming that to be true I submit that we lose a lot of bikers due to accidents and that is not a good thing.
I am trying to increase accident awareness.

I wondered if there was a slightly hidden agenda. Thanks for confirming it. I think it admirable for one to try and increase safety for self and others in general, and especially for cycling. At the same time, I recognize that the "other issues" your tour leader mentioned could be simple things like saddle sores, strained muscles, extreme fatigue, sore knees, or simple scrapes and road rash from minor falls.

One thought that has occurred to me as a result of this discussion is the following. Cycling is an activity wherein individuals in remarkably poor physical shape, and with very little training can put themselves out on the roadways where danger is easy to find. For example, I can be a novice rider with little skill and still go downhill at over 30 mph. If, on the other hand, I take up bowling or golf, or even running, I'm less likely to find the same potential for major accidents due to lack of skill. What we do is dangerous. We go fast having to balance on two wheels in places where there are other bigger things going even faster than us. Yet, there may be a tendency for the casual observer or new individual to cycling to underestimate the danger and skill involved in being a safe cyclist. If, however, you decide that you want to sky dive, scuba dive, race cars, etc. instructors will repeatedly warn of the seriousness of the activity. I think that's a good idea. Being focused on safety, learning and practicing skills, and using the correct equipment are all important in my book. I've never been concerned with comparative safety data. I know what I do has risks. I simply work to reduce or manage them.

I wondered if there was a slightly hidden agenda. Thanks for confirming it. I think it admirable for one to try and increase safety for self and others in general, and especially for cycling. At the same time, I recognize that the "other issues" your tour leader mentioned could be simple things like saddle sores, strained muscles, extreme fatigue, sore knees, or simple scrapes and road rash from minor falls.

One thought that has occurred to me as a result of this discussion is the following. Cycling is an activity wherein individuals in remarkably poor physical shape, and with very little training can put themselves out on the roadways where danger is easy to find. For example, I can be a novice rider with little skill and still go downhill at over 30 mph. If, on the other hand, I take up bowling or golf, or even running, I'm less likely to find the same potential for major accidents due to lack of skill. What we do is dangerous. We go fast having to balance on two wheels in places where there are other bigger things going even faster than us. Yet, there may be a tendency for the casual observer or new individual to cycling to underestimate the danger and skill involved in being a safe cyclist. If, however, you decide that you want to sky dive, scuba dive, race cars, etc. instructors will repeatedly warn of the seriousness of the activity. I think that's a good idea. Being focused on safety, learning and practicing skills, and using the correct equipment are all important in my book. I've never been concerned with comparative safety data. I know what I do has risks. I simply work to reduce or manage them.

Yes, I am thinking of kids on bikes in traffic. No formal training that I know of.
-----------
Regarding my effort here. Everybody's effort counts IMHO. We are all significant in the greater picture.
------------
Regarding the CC tour, I will just report the casualties send home on the last tour:
One dead due to Heart Attack.
One send home with Heart Attack.
One send home with acute dehydration.
One send home with concussion and memory loss.
One send home with cracked pelvis.
There were a number of falls with more minor injuries also. They required doctor care but finished the tour. I was one of those. In addition we had food poisoning and heat exhaustion. Those bikers also completed the tour with some help from the SAG.
Therefore, the 10% casualties are serious cases. Nobody wants to spend over $7,000 and give up easy.

Regarding the CC tour, I will just report the casualties send home on the last tour:
One dead due to Heart Attack.
One send home with Heart Attack.
One send home with acute dehydration.
One send home with concussion and memory loss.
One send home with cracked pelvis.
There were a number of falls with more minor injuries also. They required doctor care but finished the tour. I was one of those. In addition we had food poisoning and heat exhaustion. Those bikers also completed the tour with some help from the SAG.Therefore, the 10% casualties are serious cases. Nobody wants to spend over $7,000 and give up easy.

Hey, that sounds like REAL fun!!

A good exception to the "rule" ---- I think.

Al

Basically, all other factors being equal,

"Is it safer for me to drive to church/work/bank, or to ride my bicycle to church/work/bank?" is the type of question I am posing.

Hey, that sounds like REAL fun!!

Yeah, that is why the tour is called "The CC Challenge". Fun was not on the agenda.
It is great for your self esteem however. Not everybody can do this.
I know, I know: Most people do not want to do it.
At least 100 do it in the USA alone every year. ABB, PAC, RAAM, and others. And there is TdF.

I'm too old not to have fun!

Basically, all other factors being equal,

"Is it safer for me to drive to church/work/bank, or to ride my bicycle to church/work/bank?" is the type of question I am posing.

Based on my experience and looking at the broad overweight population there is no contest between some big old clunker and a bike.
The vast majority of Americans will be much safer in a slow driven big car then on a bike.
For instance: I have seen a 300# biker fall of the bike. It was no fun. That biker never biked again. She did not die but was scared to dead to go on a bike again.
I know some very old folks who should not drive but do and do so slowly. Biking? You got to be kidding. They have trouble walking.
See the Villages in FL. Folks use Golf Carts. Bikes are seldom used and only by the fittest.