Originally Posted by
randya
if this were true, there would be 40,000 cyclists per year killed on US roads rather than 40,000 motorists.
Well, there's roughly 100x as many motorists on the road as cyclists in the US. (Unfortunately, accurate statistics on this are hard to come by, so this figure could be off by a large margin.)
But deaths -- accurate statistics are easy to come by there. I think about 600 cyclists and 40,000 motorists die per year in the US? So if we multiplied that cyclist figure by a 100 to compensate for the fact that there's 100x as many motorists -- that would be 60,000/year.
Bikes are safer because the speeds are lower. But they're more dangerous because the operator is far less protected. Also, children ride bikes and don't drive cars, and they often ride very poorly. Which factors win? I think that overall the more dangerous factors do, but not by that much.
Motorcycles have the speed of a car (and then some) and the limited protection of a bike (but more protection -- full helmet, leathers, etc. -- stuff that would cook you riding a bike) -- and I think that statistically they've turned out to be far more deadly than either.