Originally Posted by
PaulRivers
I disagree with "Mile for mile, cyclists get killed at a 1.5x greater rate than drivers". Partly because I've never heard this before but it sounds silly, frankly, but mostly because I don't think they have any way of figuring that out - how would they know how many miles someone biked in a year? How would they randomly collect and sample the statistics? It's *very* difficult for me to believe you're more likely to be killed on a bike than in a car given the vast number of people who refuse to bike regularly on the roads and only bike on trails - how the heck would they get killed?
It just doesn't seem to pass my "common sense" filter. :-(
The key word in my statement is
rate (although the "mile for mile" part should clue you off too). Vehicle related fatalities are usually reported in deaths per 100 million miles traveled.
Either way, you can read
THE ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS OF BICYCLING AND WALKING FHWA CASE STUDY #15. From the US DOT. It is kindof old (1993), but it is the most recent study that I am aware of that was conducted by the US Government.
If you take their optimistic estimate of 21 Billion bicycle miles traveled and 1,000 cyclists died. That is 4.76 deaths per 100 million bicycle miles traveled. Compare that with 1.36 deaths per 100 million car miles traveled in 2007 (
NHTSA).
That is actually 3.5x more likely to die per mile on a bicycle in 1993 compared to in a car in 2007. I don't like the numbers any more than you do, but there they are. I wish we had more up to date numbers (deaths are up to date, but no estimate on mileage for bicycles). The rate is probably lower now, if you believe that annual mileage hasn't decreased since 1993, which is probably a reasonable thing to think.
Now, as for your disbelief in statistics and random sampling, what else don't you believe? Do you not believe the official unemployment rate because they only randomly sample 60,000 homes in the US? What about Oregon's unemployment rate, they only randomly sample 1,000 homes!