Commuting - 3 to 5 times more likely to die from cycling in the US..

Interesting article on traffic calming:

http://www.economist.com/node/21528302

My first observations in Amsterdam were something along the lines of, "Holy $(@* the bike infrastructure here is amazing." However, I understand the level of effort it would take to get things up to par in the U.S. Americans are married to their cars, and believe themselves to be invincible within them.

I'll resist the urge to start a rant, but it's a two way street, so to speak.

Oh yeah! I can envision a change in American traffic infrastructure to properly incorporate cyclists. I can also easily envision cyclists still riding the wrong way, riding two and three wide, joggers and walkers in those very same lanes and (still) no one around to enforce anything.

It's obvious that the US has a lot of work to do to catch up to Europe. If you ride a bike here for something other than recreation, you're pretty much a 'freak'.

How dangerous is driving in the US compared to driving in the reference countries? If driving is also 3-5 times more dangerous, then the problems is Americans, not cycling in America.

It's obvious that the US has a lot of work to do to catch up to Europe. If you ride a bike here for something other than recreation, you're pretty much a 'freak'.

Don't worry, if the economy keeps going south while fossil fuel prices keep going up, alot more proper attention will be paid to the needs of cyclists.

Why?

Because politicians always cater to the needs of large segments of the population!

How dangerous is driving in the US compared to driving in the reference countries? If driving is also 3-5 times more dangerous, then the problems is Americans, not cycling in America.

That is kind of the point of the article. And, yes, driving in America is much more dangerous than driving in Europe. I don't know if it is 5x more deadly but when you realize that American drivers are some of the most protected drivers in the world due to the sheer size and the sophistication of the active safety systems in American vehicles, the fact that American drivers still kill themselves and each other in the 10's of thousands each year is pretty sobering.

H

Oh yeah! I can envision a change in American traffic infrastructure to properly incorporate cyclists. I can also easily envision cyclists still riding the wrong way, riding two and three wide, joggers and walkers in those very same lanes and (still) no one around to enforce anything.

Dutch and German cyclists ride 3 abreast, run red lights and salmon... they still don't get killed for it. Are you justifying death sentences for disobeying traffic statutes??

H

Dutch and German cyclists ride 3 abreast, run red lights and salmon... they still don't get killed for it. Are you justifying death sentences for disobeying traffic statutes??

H

Why would I do that?

I've seen statistics showing that cycling deaths have dropped in this city as the number of cyclists has grown. I'm sure good infrastructure and "Traffic Calming" makes a big difference but I also suspect that in places like Amsterdam drivers are used to having to keep an eye out for cyclists. Plus there are just fewer drivers around to kill somebody.

Dutch and German cyclists ride 3 abreast, run red lights and salmon... they still don't get killed for it. Are you justifying death sentences for disobeying traffic statutes??

H
ignoring your question, I have always wondered how you can blindly run stop signs and red lights and live through to old age, but there are a lot of cyclists I see doing that. I presume that most BF members don't do this because they claim to look for oncoming traffic -- and what sentient organism wouldn't check for oncoming traffic? But I see cyclists run red lights and stop signs with oncoming traffic almost daily this time of year (students just got back and it's not cold yet).

The other day I read a rant in the newspaper. The author was aggravated at all the cyclists on the road and didnt believe he/she should share.
With that attitude, well... infrastructure or not, I dont see things improving soon.

The other day I read a rant in the newspaper. The author was aggravated at all the cyclists on the road and didnt believe he/she should share.
With that attitude, well... infrastructure or not, I dont see things improving soon.

I work in a part of town that's filled with old warehouses converted to office space. The building I work in now was originally a car barn for horse drawn trolleys. A couple of these buildings have old blown up pictures adorning their walls on the lower floors from various periods in the history of the city.

If I ever feel like an intruder by riding my bike on the street all I need to do is look at some of these pictures. It's very clear that the streets have always been mixed use and there was a time when there were no cars on them at all. You can still to this day get a horse drawn carriage ride, there's space for cars and trains, and of course bikes.

Change will come slowly if at all in the US because cars and their associated infrastructure are where the money is. This ranges from infrastructure budgets of municipalities to auto manufacturers, dealerships, parts and service, State and local budgets that collect huge amounts of sales tax on car sales, license fees and registration, not to even mention big petro and the infrastructure behind keeping cars fed with fuel.
Both business and government depend deeply on the money that flows as a result of people driving cars and this is not likely to change any time soon.
Money talks and when it comes to money cyclists have a relatively squeaky little voice.

I find it interesting that the article notes that the collision was the result of a turning vehicle, yet goes on to say that separated bike lanes would have prevented it. I agree that separated lanes have their merits, but safety at intersections from turning vehicles ain't one of them.

Interesting article on traffic calming:

http://www.economist.com/node/21528302

... and the chance even in the US is pretty darn small as in almost infinitesimal. You'll die from something else instead.

J.

I find it interesting that the article notes that the collision was the result of a turning vehicle, yet goes on to say that separated bike lanes would have prevented it. I agree that separated lanes have their merits, but safety at intersections from turning vehicles ain't one of them.

Very true! We need to move all traffic out of the city centers and allow public transportation, cycling, and walkers to take over. It wouldn't actually be that hard to do, I'm in urban design, but politically impossible.

Very true! We need to move all traffic out of the city centers and allow public transportation, cycling, and walkers to take over. It wouldn't actually be that hard to do, I'm in urban design, but politically impossible.

Just imagine...A two-mile radius around all downtown centers. You could have trolleys, Ricshaw bicycles, and special e-buses that run in opposite directions. Automobiles could be parked at three or four different major parking garage locations, whereby trolleys, e-buses, and Ricshaw bikes could deliver people for a small fee.

Just think, if things go well, you can go anywhere within the two mile radius in less than ten minutes.

By George! I think you've got it! :thumb:

Speed plays a crucial part in serious injuries or fatalities. I ride slow to avoid unexpected emergencies.

Now regarding the problem with America: I think the root of the problem is that people are too lazy, spoiled by the comfort brought about by technology. If more people ride bikes, then cars will behave better, because many of the drivers themselves would also be cyclists and understand the safety issues of cycling. But cycling will never become popular in America as long as the majority of Americans are lazy.

Road condition is another problem in America. But again, if cycling becomes popular, the cities will pay more attention to improve the roads.

I can't imagine massive changes that are needed are going to occur in my neck of the woods, or most of the US, any time soon. If we cared one bit we wouldn't have let fast food and Walmart take a death grip on local mom-n-pops. Doubt oil will go to 8 bucks a barrel soon either (and looking at the people smoking now 8+dollar packs of cigs I doubt it'll make a difference). Image processing is already advanced enough at this point, that it's probably safer to have fully automated cars out on the road. Proving that to lawmakers and marketing to the masses that need that empowerment of a vehicle might be another matter, but give it time, the correct marketing push and insurance incentives and things will likely change.

What was most interesting to me was the speed/death rate indicated in the article. Knew I was lucky getting out of a collision as a kid with a driver ramming into me at 35-40mph after he overshot his turn lane with just a couple bruises and a concussion, but not how lucky.

Speed plays a crucial part in serious injuries or fatalities. I ride slow to avoid unexpected emergencies.

Now regarding the problem with America: I think the root of the problem is that people are too lazy, spoiled by the comfort brought about by technology. If more people ride bikes, then cars will behave better, because many of the drivers themselves would also be cyclists and understand the safety issues of cycling. But cycling will never become popular in America as long as the majority of Americans are lazy.

Road condition is another problem in America. But again, if cycling becomes popular, the cities will pay more attention to improve the roads.

Actually, where traffic is concerned, I think it's speed differential not just raw speed.

The rest of this depends on where you are - and I imagine that's not too different than other places. For example, in some cities in the US, drivers are very bike aware (where I live, they are pretty good). In other places they are awful. It depends on local enforcement, education about bikers, etc...

Same thing is true about road conditions. And, I've been down some pretty beat up roads in Europe too.

I'd say the primary problem is countrywide education in the US. But, then again, the US is many times larger than a lot of European countries. Some of their countries would even be small states in the US and with much, much more varied geography and weather patterns in the US as well. These are not apples to apples comparisons.

J.

Change will come slowly if at all in the US because cars and their associated infrastructure are where the money is. This ranges from infrastructure budgets of municipalities to auto manufacturers, dealerships, parts and service, State and local budgets that collect huge amounts of sales tax on car sales, license fees and registration, not to even mention big petro and the infrastructure behind keeping cars fed with fuel.
Both business and government depend deeply on the money that flows as a result of people driving cars and this is not likely to change any time soon.
Money talks and when it comes to money cyclists have a relatively squeaky little voice.

Yeah, we're kinda like the little people in Horton Hears A Who!

I think that the argument that we need to "Catch up to Europe" falls on deaf ears, because most Americans resent that notion in any capacity.

One way to do "traffic calming" in the U.S. is to run the cycle routes through neighborhoods. A lot of newer neighborhoods are gated or at least difficult to pass into from one side and come out the other. In older residential neighborhoods there is more of a regular grid pattern, allowing cyclists to go from one end of the hood to the other. For me to go from my house to downtown, a 10 mile ride, I can cross a major arterial 4 blocks from my house, then I can pass through 5 or 6 other neighborhoods separated by larger roads. The neighborhood streets are generally quiet and lightly traveled, and when I do encounter traffic it is typically local traffic doing less than the 30 mph local speed limit. Many of the areas of my city are like this- you can cut through neighborhoods and avoid, for the most part, the busier roads.

Cycling infrastructure seems to be (smartly) addressing the discontinuities in the grid- the river and rail yards. Two current projects are building bridges over the river; one is a dedicated pedestrian/cycle bridge that will connect a park on the trail system on the west side of the river with the downtown area on the east side of the river. Another is a vehicle bridge that will cross the river to connect a major arterial with a new development, but will have a cycle bridge slung underneath it to connect the trails on the banks of the river.

One idea that I'm so sure about is that they are making the BUS ONLY lanes in the downtown area into BUS - BIKE ONLY lanes. I don't mind jockeying around in traffic, but buses scare the helloutta me.

I think that the argument that we need to "Catch up to Europe" falls on deaf ears, because most Americans resent that notion in any capacity.

Sad but true. Any mention of Europe in a public forum these days bring shrill cries of SOSHULLIZM!!!

Very true! We need to move all traffic out of the city centers and allow public transportation, cycling, and walkers to take over. It wouldn't actually be that hard to do, I'm in urban design, but politically impossible.

Not going to happen in America. We tried this in Buffalo; converted one stretch of Main Street to pedestrian-and-trolly-only in the 1980's. The end result was that people stopped coming downtown to shop and almost all of the stores along Main Street eventually shut down, and no new ones opened. Now we're embarking on a project to remove all that and let auto traffic on it again; we've already converted one block back to traffic, and the rest will only be a matter of time.

Face it, the only thing that will get Americans away from their cars is how heavy it hurts their wallet to drive one. And even then I'm skeptical.

Having lived in Europe, and now living near a college town in Central Virginia, the differences in attitude are sobering. Our legal system makes is painfully difficult to get appropriate enforcement of existing laws for "our" protection. Additionally, our culture in the US ennobles risky behavior. I do commute by bicycle, but I also must drive when I'm on-call, so I see both sides of this. I strive to be polite no matter how I get to work, but I'm painfully aware (because I don't want to be one of my patients!) that cyclists are quite vulnerable. The speed limit/injury rating isn't off the mark. Every situation is different, but if anyone sees the end results of stupidity and carelessness, I do. No cyclist can see everything all the time. Neither can drivers, but drivers are often self-distracted, be it a cell phone, texting, eating, reading, listening to music, or talking. Pilots learn the safety lesson during a protracted training period, over and over again. Drivers don't. Cyclists don't. The inequity of the education, and the penalties for being uneducated, are what are evident in this article. Cyclists, if they survive the experience, learn through physical harm. Motorists might learn through a fine, or jail time, but then again, only if they get caught. Yet - what mode of transportation is the most feared? Flying. Statistically speaking, it's the safest, but poorly understood by the masses. Motorists are insulated, in oh-so many ways.

Dutch and German cyclists ride 3 abreast, run red lights and salmon... they still don't get killed for it. Are you justifying death sentences for disobeying traffic statutes??

H

Dutch and German cyclists run salmon?

In the US the salmon run themselves. Every year.

...Motorists are insulated, in oh-so many ways.

An economist once wrote that if you want drivers to drive more safely, instead of putting airbags in the car put in a big knife sticking out of the center of the steering wheel. :)

Very true! We need to move all traffic out of the city centers and allow public transportation, cycling, and walkers to take over. It wouldn't actually be that hard to do, I'm in urban design, but politically impossible.

You got it. It would be as easy as having those people we really idolize start riding bikes everywhere. Can you imagine Carrie Underwood, Lady Gaga, Warren Buffet, The Real Wives of New Jersey, J. Lo, and others like these to seriously start riding bikes. President Obama does it, now, but no one pays much attention to him.

Then, once THESE folks have to actually get somewhere on a bike, the need to redesign things can kick in.
There have already been Federal initiatives to increase and/or enhance cycling infrastructure, so it can happen.

But it will take P. Diddy, NASCAR and the NFL, combined, to make any lasting impact on the American mind.

You got it. It would be as easy as having those people we really idolize to start riding bikes everywhere. Can you imagine Carrie Underwood, Lady Gaga, Warren Buffet, The Real Wives of New Jersey, J. Lo, and others like these to be out seriously riding bikes. President Obama does it, now, but no one pays much attention to him.

Then, once THESE folks have to actually get somewhere on a bike, the need to redesign things can kick in.
There have already been Federal initiatives to increase and/or enhance cycling infrastructure, so it can happen.

But it will take P. Diddy, NASCAR and the NFL, combined, to make any lasting impact on the American mind.

Yeah, that's not going to happen. Those people ride around in 'pimped out' Bentleys.

I think that the argument that we need to "Catch up to Europe" falls on deaf ears, because most Americans resent that notion in any capacity.


Sad but true. Any mention of Europe in a public forum these days bring shrill cries of SOSHULLIZM!!!

I used to frequent a motorcycle forum that had lots of folks who claimed to be apoltical, but when an election cycle came around, proved to swing pretty hard right. Any mention of a European country as an example of public transit or healthcare, etc. would get one member particularly riled up. He once said "F*** Europe, what do they know about how we should do things?!" It just never occurs to these folks that Europeans have been living together and next to each other in a limited amount of space much, much longer than we have in North America.

We have a present and previous President who are cyclists (Bush, who is a very serious rider and Obama who is a regular but more casual rider) but this has oddly received little media coverage other than the occasional photo.

Bush's recent 100k ride for Wounded Warrior awareness was almost totally uncovered by the news.....

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2011/04/29/except-abc-media-ignore-george-w-bushs-mountain-bike-ride-wounded-war-

I hate to cynical but I suspect this has far more to do with the fact that big oil and auto manufacturers are the primary sponsors of news air time than any political bias because the lack of coverage seems to cut both ways.

Not going to happen in America. ....Face it, the only thing that will get Americans away from their cars is how heavy it hurts their wallet to drive one. And even then I'm skeptical.

First, differences in geography - distances traveled, types of communities, etc - are huge. The sheer size of the US is overwhelming compared to most European areas. Plus, generally public transport is far more available there where often virtually non-existent in the US.


Having lived in Europe...the differences in attitude are sobering...

Haven't lived in Europe and haven't traveled there for 15 or 20 years.

However, driver behavior and attitudes are greatly different there than in the US.

Actually, as far as transport goes - I would love it if we were more like most of Europe. But we are not, nor are we gonna come close

Because politicians always cater to the needs of large segments of the population!


Are you kidding? Govt. in the US is run by and for the people with money. Good intentions are always short-lived.

The Euro countries we point to as pro-cycling examples made a conscious decision decades ago. The govt. forced the change on the people and they came to accept it as a way of life. The US in the 70's? We paid lip-service to conservation and change for a couple of years and then went back to business as usual. We manipulate the population with social issues while never passing a single law to threaten the status quo.

Are you kidding? Govt. in the US is run by and for the people with money. Good intentions are always short-lived.

The Euro countries we point to as pro-cycling examples made a conscious decision decades ago. The govt. forced the change on the people and they came to accept it as a way of life. The US in the 70's? We paid lip-service to conservation and change for a couple of years and then went back to business as usual. We manipulate the population with social issues while never passing a single law to threaten the status quo.

Regardless as to the amount of money that exists in whichever block of interest, politicians are always concerned about NOT upsetting large numbers of people. Usually, their concern does NOT lie within a legitimate realm of actual interest for the welfare of the people. It is generally, totally consumed by their own self-interests.

If an enormous group of cyclists voiced any concern about any particular subject, a politician would be certain to exploit the opportunity to voice a position of advocacy for the cyclists' concern.

If indeed the politician could actually do something (anything) on the behalf of the cyclists, he would. That's provided that it does not interfere with some prior interest that's already been lobbied for or Not supported by the politician's political party. Of course, these prior interests, are usually related to sweet-money-deals, that continue to enrich the wealthy.

So you see...You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about! :roflmao2:

Where did the Economist get the 3 to 5 times number? They don't state any surveys or studies.

There have been several studies that it is more dangerous for cyclists to ride in multi use paths than on the street. I don't know about Europe, but in New York all protected bike lanes are considered multi use paths so you get joggers, dog walkers, rollerbladers, skateboarders, and pedestrians. An accident with them might not kill you, but it is much more likely that an accident will happen if a cyclist rides among them than if he would ride on the street.

Regardless as to the amount of money that exists in whichever block of interest, politicians are always concerned about NOT upsetting large numbers of people.
It could be suggested that the "money" has the same interest. The money people, (capitalists) wish to keep the masses buying or spending - consuming, in other words - in accordance with their needs. That is the core of what they do, in fact. Politicians and they serve many of the same ends.

I read somewhere that there were more bicycles sold than cars in recent years. If that is so , where are they? And where is their INFLUENCE?
It certainly seems there is more to all this than simply having more bikes on the scene.

Having lived in Europe, and now living near a college town in Central Virginia,

Yeah, my daughter is at UVA. Even though the college dominates that town the good ol boy driving is in full effect..

One of the things I learned from reading the bikeforums:

The obvious reason for the higher death rates in America as opposed to Europe is because American cyclists blow through stop signs and traffic lights more. :rolleyes:

The other day I read a rant in the newspaper. The author was aggravated at all the cyclists on the road and didnt believe he/she should share.
With that attitude, well... infrastructure or not, I dont see things improving soon.

I agree that the major problem is one of motorist attitude. In the US there is an expectation that driving is a right, and that anybody who is impeding my RIGHT to drive at an unsafe speed is obviously in the wrong. I am currently on a business trip, in a small town in Germany. Last night as I was walking down a street, I noticed that this particular street which can be seen here (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Tennenlohe,+Erlangen,+Germany&hl=en&ll=49.548406,11.026964&spn=0.000596,0.00142&sll=49.610696,10.898395&sspn=0.009524,0.022724&vpsrc=6&t=h&z=20) accomodated two way motorized traffic, and had a marked bike lane, all in a width that I would have considered too narrow of a lane to share when riding my bike. Observing the traffic, it worked well, because the drivers drove carefully, looked ahead on the road to avoid conflicts and essentially, used common sense.
The infrastructure, be it rules about passing slow moving vehicles, a painted bike lane, or a separated bike path is only as safe as the drivers using it. Motorists in the US tend to be worse than those in Denmark, Germany or the Netherlands - that is why it is more dangerous in the US.

I agree that the major problem is one of motorist attitude. In the US there is an expectation that driving is a right, and that anybody who is impeding my RIGHT to drive at an unsafe speed is obviously in the wrong. I am currently on a business trip, in a small town in Germany. Last night as I was walking down a street, I noticed that this particular street which can be seen here (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Tennenlohe,+Erlangen,+Germany&hl=en&ll=49.548406,11.026964&spn=0.000596,0.00142&sll=49.610696,10.898395&sspn=0.009524,0.022724&vpsrc=6&t=h&z=20) accomodated two way motorized traffic, and had a marked bike lane, all in a width that I would have considered too narrow of a lane to share when riding my bike. Observing the traffic, it worked well, because the drivers drove carefully, looked ahead on the road to avoid conflicts and essentially, used common sense.
The infrastructure, be it rules about passing slow moving vehicles, a painted bike lane, or a separated bike path is only as safe as the drivers using it. Motorists in the US tend to be worse than those in Denmark, Germany or the Netherlands - that is why it is more dangerous in the US.
We're not Europe, that is certain. On some occasions, I consider that a pity. Seeings as our history and ancestry started out there, for the most part, this is odd to me.
I also dont ask we Yanks to be Europeans. We do have a RIGHT to be ourselves.
What is needed is the attitude of cycling as serious transportation. In a recent study, 90% of Georgia motorists agreed that bicycles have the right to use the roads. But a large part of those same motorists admitted that they hated cyclists for being on the roads. Thats twisted right there, and it doesnt take into account the 10% that said they thought we should be somewhere else. Interestingly, Georgia has adopted some of the better cycling related traffic initiatives in the US to date.

Good observations from the 'Deutsche' perspective.