scattered73

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

NoRacer

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

uke

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

bragi

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

JeffS

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?

JeffS

Post a link to one of these threads.

lyeinyoureye

Check out (or if data isn't present make a reasonable assumption regarding) fatalities per mile. Here's a decent overview IMO. As usual it's more about how someone drives/cycles/walks than that they drive/cycle/walk.

Roody

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.

Roody

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.

dynodonn 

Probably through surveys like this one

bragi

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.

prathmann

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.

bragi

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...

Roody

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.

1. 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.
   
2. 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.
   
3. 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.
   
4. What is your competence level? Study and think about bike safety to increase your competence.
   
5. 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.

I-Like-To-Bike

The study is available at: https://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.

Roody

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-Like-To-Bike

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.

uke

https://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.

coldfeet

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.

stevo9er

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

Bionicycle

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.

uke

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-Like-To-Bike

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.

EatMyA**

coulnt have said it better myself

coldfeet

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.