"Bicycling and walking make up 9.6 percent of all trips. Yet bicyclists and pedestrians represent 12.9 percent of all traffic-related fatalities, and only 1.5 percent of federal transportation dollars are spent on bicycling and walking projects."
Bmike, I don't want to discount the great need for more bicycling and walking, as those are the two forms of transportation that I've spent by far the most hours doing in the last 15 years (along with running, yes--running transportation...
)
But when you try to mix cycling fatalities and pedestrian fatalities, I'm afraid I can't get on that bus.
There are just so many pedestrian fatalities that to mix the two is like mixing the earth's fresh water with its oceans.
The part I don't get is, when studies compare cycling, walking, and driving fatalities, it's always
per mile. Who walks 20 miles a day? That would take 5 or 6 hours (if you had the stamina.) But I can drive that far in anywhere from 20 to 40 minutes.
It takes a car 60 seconds to do what a pedestrian takes 20 minutes to do. Which is safer?
If you measured not by miles, but by hours, cycling and walking would appear much safer than in most cycling/walking fatality studies. And they are safer.