Originally Posted by
the_tool_man
I get what you're saying, noglider. You're talking about a statistical observation of the general population. However, if someone is commuting by bicycle, they are essentially traveling the same distance they would have in a car. Granted, they may choose a different route, or use bike paths that eliminate the risk of encountering motor traffic. But I have a hard time believing that if I choose cycling to work over the same route I currently drive, that I would be safer. To say that concept is counterintuitive is an understatement. If it's true, I would like to read how you back that up. If nothing else, so I could appease my wife over my cycling commute.
I can't speak for him but I am of the same opinion, counter-intuitive though it may be. Unfortunately there is no explicit data, but here is a for-instance that is representative.
Number and distribution of fatal and nonfatal injuries (1999–2003, annualized) and person-trips (2001), by mode of travel, United States[SUP]*[/SUP]
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD]Passenger vehicle[/TD]
[TD="class: table-char"]32,283 fatal,[/TD]
[TD="class: table-char"][/TD]
[TD="class: table-char"]2,804,000 nonfatal, in[/TD]
[TD="class: table-char"]349,125 million trips[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD]Bicycle[/TD]
[TD="class: table-char"]695[/TD]
[TD="class: table-char"]fatal,[/TD]
[TD="class: table-char"]48,000[/TD]
[TD="class: table-char"]nonfatal, in [/TD]
[TD="class: table-char"]3,314 million trips.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
So, passenger vehicle has 8 nonfatal injuries per million trips. Bicycle has 14. For fatal, it's .09 vs .21 fatalities per million trips. On the face of it, the bicycle is up to twice as dangerous. But that's not yet the whole story.
For one thing, the bicycle injury stats include bicycle riders of all ages, comparing against vehicle passengers of all ages. Including children and young invincibles who perhaps have less skill than seasoned commuters, whereas in the 25-65 age bracket the injury rates are significantly lower. Both for motor vehicles and bicycles, but enough lower with bicycles to eat away the apparent difference in danger with motor vehicles.
Secondly and more significant in my mind, is when you look at where and how injury accidents occur. More than a third - some say up to almost a half - of the urban bicycle traffic accidents happen at or approaching an intersection (including business driveways). With the right judgments and practices, that percentage can be practically eliminated. Another big chunk happens when riding against traffic, and at night with no lights, and cycling under the influence. I believe that eliminating all of these possibilities all by itself reduces the danger of cycling to levels at or below the overall injury rates in motor vehicles.
There are other higher-risk factors that can also be mitigated (such as higher risk rural road cycling) but I think these are more applicable to specifics of a person's route, and can't really be generalized well. Yet taking everything together, even in a statistical sense it's very possible (I haven't
proven anything) that the risk of cycling is lower than driving on a given commute.