Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Advocacy & Safety
Reload this Page >

Cycling deaths have gone up...

Advocacy & Safety Cyclists should expect and demand safe accommodation on every public road, just as do all other users. Discuss your bicycle advocacy and safety concerns here.

Cycling deaths have gone up...

Reply

Old 03-13-18, 05:56 PM
  #51  
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 26,628

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Originally Posted by no motor? View Post
Police "judgement" versus Law
is how that played out here. It was like some Faulkner story with all the interwoven storylines involving southern mores.
Yes, that was quite a story that occurred 6 years ago.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-18, 09:35 PM
  #52  
rachel120
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 696
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 609 Post(s)
Do you really think that the same authorities that have taken children for walking a mile unsupervised and had CPS investigate for child neglect are going to be all happy happy joy joy about those same kids traveling that same mile by bike?
rachel120 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-18, 08:36 AM
  #53  
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 26,628

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Originally Posted by rachel120 View Post
Do you really think that the same authorities that have taken children for walking a mile unsupervised and had CPS investigate for child neglect are going to be all happy happy joy joy about those same kids traveling that same mile by bike?
Anyone is entitled to be fearful fearful worried worried as much as he/she desires when speculating about what might happen to somebody, somewhere, or chooses to extrapolate from an isolated negative incident into something far more pervasive to be fearful about.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-18, 08:54 AM
  #54  
mr_bill
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 2,901
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1108 Post(s)
You asked for ANY, you got ANY.

ESSA, aka re-authorization of ESEA

-mr. bill
mr_bill is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-18, 09:35 AM
  #55  
rachel120
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 696
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 609 Post(s)
This is the big one. It's not the only one, it's just the one where the family went to the media to try and stop what was happening.

https://www.cnn.com/2015/04/13/livin...ain/index.html
rachel120 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-18, 10:07 AM
  #56  
Milton Keynes
Senior Member
 
Milton Keynes's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 2,141

Bikes: Two-wheeled human-powered vehicles, but that's not important right now

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 890 Post(s)
Originally Posted by rachel120 View Post
This is the big one. It's not the only one, it's just the one where the family went to the media to try and stop what was happening.

https://www.cnn.com/2015/04/13/livin...ain/index.html
Outrageous. When I was 10 I had a paper route so I was on my own riding about a 3 mile route all over town, every day except Sunday. Not to mention that I also walked to school and back (a little over 1/2 mile one way) every day unless the weather was bad. Of course it was 1981 and we lived in a small town, but have your kids do that now and CPS will try to take them away from you.

And that's not even including how, on some weekends, I would walk about a mile down the railroad tracks to an old stone railroad bridge and walk around in the woods along the creek. I think we knew that the trains didn't run on the weekends but we had enough common sense to get off the tracks if we heard a train.
Milton Keynes is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-18, 11:09 AM
  #57  
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 26,628

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Originally Posted by rachel120 View Post
This is the big one. It's not the only one, it's just the one where the family went to the media to try and stop what was happening.

https://www.cnn.com/2015/04/13/livin...ain/index.html
Again, another years old incident report with nothing about bicycling, young bicyclists or anything else related to the topic of this thread.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-18, 11:40 AM
  #58  
rachel120
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 696
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 609 Post(s)
Why are you in such denial that the laws have been strengthened in a way that supports today's helicopter parenting with over-scheduled kids? Why don't you see that letting your kids go off and be kids is now considered neglectful since anything can happen to them if an adult's eyes are not on them at all times? I could bring up article after article, including one where CPS told a woman she was neglectful for closing her baby's door when he was napping since she wasn't watching him, but somehow I don't think you would accept any of it.

Bottom line, yesterday's latchkey kids remember the trouble they got into when left alone and have gone the opposite extreme. Reinforced by the Mommy Wars and by the number of latchkey kids that pined for the greener grass of parents being around and the news going for shock value and giving the perception that the world is more dangerous than ever for kids, they've pushed laws through that are supposed to "protect" children that have ended up being over-protective. Then mix in the culture change as well, and those that are to interpret the laws are very, very likely to be helicopter parents themselves and think that less supervision is wrong.

You want proof? Go to your city park and look at the playground equipment. Kids have to be super protected, so playgrounds have been modified to the point of ridiculousness that prevent possible injuries by making the slides so low they aren't really slides and the swings can't go high up in the air to be jumped off of.
rachel120 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-18, 11:51 AM
  #59  
mr_bill
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 2,901
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1108 Post(s)
Originally Posted by rachel120 View Post
....I don't think you would accept any of it.
Full stop.

Anyhow, "research" from Iowa "proves" that children can't walk.
(Stay tuned for "research" that "proves" children can't ride a bike.)

-mr. bill

Last edited by mr_bill; 03-14-18 at 11:58 AM.
mr_bill is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-18, 11:56 AM
  #60  
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 26,628

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Originally Posted by rachel120 View Post
Why are you in such denial that the laws have been strengthened in a way that supports today's helicopter parenting with over-scheduled kids? Why don't you see that letting your kids go off and be kids is now considered neglectful since anything can happen to them if an adult's eyes are not on them at all times? I could bring up article after article, including one where CPS told a woman she was neglectful for closing her baby's door when he was napping since she wasn't watching him, but somehow I don't think you would accept any of it.

Bottom line, yesterday's latchkey kids remember the trouble they got into when left alone and have gone the opposite extreme. Reinforced by the Mommy Wars and by the number of latchkey kids that pined for the greener grass of parents being around and the news going for shock value and giving the perception that the world is more dangerous than ever for kids, they've pushed laws through that are supposed to "protect" children that have ended up being over-protective. Then mix in the culture change as well, and those that are to interpret the laws are very, very likely to be helicopter parents themselves and think that less supervision is wrong.

You want proof? Go to your city park and look at the playground equipment. Kids have to be super protected, so playgrounds have been modified to the point of ridiculousness that prevent possible injuries by making the slides so low they aren't really slides and the swings can't go high up in the air to be jumped off of.
Any bicycling content and not just ranting how society could be going to hell in a handbasket?

Last edited by I-Like-To-Bike; 03-14-18 at 11:59 AM.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-18, 03:28 PM
  #61  
rachel120
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 696
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 609 Post(s)
Bicycling content? How about logic? If people cannot let their children walk around alone without investigations of neglect, then they also can't let children ride a bike alone. So that is a legal consideration when people ask why kids can't just ride a bike to go do fun stuff.
rachel120 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-18, 05:25 AM
  #62  
Maelochs
Senior Member
 
Maelochs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 9,334

Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE

Mentioned: 101 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4165 Post(s)
So ... from this thread I learned that even though bicycle deaths are lower than in 1975, there are more cycling deaths ... caused by drunk drivers texting while hitting drunk cyclists?

Or did i learn that as in so many cases, "statistics" generated by "studies" like these actually prove pretty much nothing?

One thing I didn't learn, is that discussion with some posters (Not referring to anyone who likes-to-bike, surely) is pretty pointless.

I didn't learn that here because I already knew it.

Anyway ... shouldn't we be contrasting the number of helicopter parents dying while flying in helicopters versus fluctuations in the price of aviation fuel, and then try to calculate how many were drunk and texting their free-range kids? That way we can calculate the appropriate fines for raising free-range kids who don't do good internet research.

Oh never mind. I am going to go ride my bike before work.
Maelochs is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-18, 06:25 AM
  #63  
njkayaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,832
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1512 Post(s)
Originally Posted by Maelochs View Post
Or did i learn that as in so many cases, "statistics" generated by "studies" like these actually prove pretty much nothing?
It's a dumb click-baity article and the OP (and some others) fell for.

It doesn't really show the statistics (it showed cherry picked numbers).

And it undermines its implied conclusion ("cycling is getting more dangerous") by pointing out that the number of bicycling-miles have gone up.

Last edited by njkayaker; 03-15-18 at 06:34 AM.
njkayaker is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-18, 07:07 AM
  #64  
Daniel4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,754
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 541 Post(s)
This thread reminds me of a story in a ww1 documentary I watched. Head injuries escalated after the practice of wearing metal helmets.
Daniel4 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-18, 07:38 AM
  #65  
Maelochs
Senior Member
 
Maelochs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 9,334

Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE

Mentioned: 101 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4165 Post(s)
Originally Posted by Daniel4 View Post
This thread reminds me of a story in a ww1 documentary I watched. Head injuries escalated after the practice of wearing metal helmets.
Yup, and after the war when people stopped wearing helmets ... you guessed it.
Maelochs is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-18, 07:49 AM
  #66  
njkayaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,832
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1512 Post(s)
Originally Posted by Daniel4 View Post
This thread reminds me of a story in a ww1 documentary I watched. Head injuries escalated after the practice of wearing metal helmets.
https://www.cartalk.com/puzzler/metal-helmet-mystery
njkayaker is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-18, 08:37 AM
  #67  
Daniel4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,754
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 541 Post(s)
Originally Posted by Maelochs View Post
Yup, and after the war when people stopped wearing helmets ... you guessed it.

Yes, both of you are spot-on. Don't attribute the helmets to the head injuries. Attribute the killing or the attempted killing.

It's not the number of bicycles that's the cause of cycling deaths. It's the number of cars on the road.
Daniel4 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-18, 08:51 AM
  #68  
njkayaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,832
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1512 Post(s)
Originally Posted by Daniel4 View Post
It's not the number of bicycles that's the cause of cycling deaths. It's the number of cars on the road.
You don't know that. (Bicycles don't "cause" deaths anyway.)

Bicycling-miles have gone up (according to the article). An increase in deaths would not be unexpected even if the number of cars stayed the same.

There might be more cars but people are driving less miles. Maybe, there are more shorter (urban) trips being taken (which might increase the risk to more cyclists). (I believe urban driving per mile is statistically safer than rural driving.)

Maybe, the increase is random fluctuation.

The article doesn't show all the data.

It's an obviously poorly written article.

The "metal helmet" story is about drawing a conclusion without having all of the data required to be able to draw that conclusion.

Last edited by njkayaker; 03-15-18 at 09:01 AM.
njkayaker is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-18, 09:16 AM
  #69  
Maelochs
Senior Member
 
Maelochs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 9,334

Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE

Mentioned: 101 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4165 Post(s)
"We have all these numbers but nobody knows what they mean."

"Well, then, they can mean whatever we want."

"Yeah, but they still won't really mean anything."

"Yeah, but I'll get paid."
Maelochs is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-18, 09:59 AM
  #70  
Daniel4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,754
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 541 Post(s)
Originally Posted by njkayaker View Post
You don't know that. (Bicycles don't "cause" deaths anyway.)

Bicycling-miles have gone up (according to the article). An increase in deaths would not be unexpected even if the number of cars stayed the same.

There might be more cars but people are driving less miles. Maybe, there are more shorter (urban) trips being taken (which might increase the risk to more cyclists). (I believe urban driving per mile is statistically safer than rural driving.)

Maybe, the increase is random fluctuation.

The article doesn't show all the data.

It's an obviously poorly written article.

The "metal helmet" story is about drawing a conclusion without having all of the data required to be able to draw that conclusion.
Yes we do know that. How many bicycles fatalities per mile would there be if there were no cars on the road? Not as high as 818 per year.

A bike ride on a road with no cars has a much much lower fatality rate per mile as compared to a bike ride on a road with many cars regardless if they are going at 30mph or 80mph. Again, compare 6am on a Sunday morning with 4pm on a weekday in any city.

Remove all the bicycles from the road and the US road fatalities would still be 30,000 motorists and about 3000 pedestrians.

The metal helmet analogy is to be careful not to blame the metal helmet for the increase in head injuries but to attribute the number of lives saved in context of the real cause of deaths and injuries, the war. When the war ended, the number of ongoing deaths due to ww1 dropped to zero (except for those who were wounded during the war but died after it ended).

In our case, one is quick to blame the bicycle in context of what causes all the road fatalities - the car.

In this article,
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201...t-to-stop.html

way down below in the chart titled "Pedestrians in peril in early Toronto" shows a chart of pedestrian deaths over time. Bicycles were around since the 1890s. But notice how pedestrian deaths started to go up around 1910 when the automobile and streetcars were getting popular? Not even the horse and buggy were as much of a risk.

Although there are no charts listing bicycles deaths over this same time period, with pedestrian deaths, who is going to say the rise in their deaths in the 1910s should be measured per mile rate of pedestrians because there were more pedestrians?

It's the number of cars one encounters, plain and simple.

And that's why a lot (not all) cyclists - commuters and recreationalists - prefer to take trails and side streets even though the distance is longer than direct along busy streets. The distance is longer but the number of cars encountered is what matters.

Last edited by Daniel4; 03-15-18 at 10:04 AM.
Daniel4 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-18, 10:01 AM
  #71  
njkayaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,832
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1512 Post(s)
Originally Posted by Daniel4 View Post
Yes we do know that. How many bicycles fatalities per mile would there be if there were no cars on the road? Not as high as 818 per year.
Everybody should be riding on unicorns instead.

Originally Posted by Daniel4 View Post
It's the number of cars one encounters, plain and simple.
It's the result of the number of bicyclist-car encounters. Reducing one or the other (or both) will reduce the number of encounters (and encounter-related fatalities).

Originally Posted by Daniel4 View Post
The metal helmet analogy is to be careful not to blame the metal helmet for the increase in head injuries but to attribute the number of lives saved in context of the real cause of deaths and injuries, the war.
"Blame" is a conclusion. Conclusions should be correctly/carefully made based on "complete" data.

The "metal helmet" conclusion was based on an increase in the number (or percentages??) of wounded with head injuries. That conclusion can't be made without knowing the number of fatalities with head injuries before and after the introduction of metal helmets. That other data is absent.

Originally Posted by Daniel4 View Post
When the war ended, the number of ongoing deaths due to ww1 dropped to zero (except for those who were wounded during the war but died after it ended).
??? What does this have to do with the "metal helmet" story?

Last edited by njkayaker; 03-15-18 at 10:16 AM.
njkayaker is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-18, 10:13 AM
  #72  
Daniel4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,754
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 541 Post(s)
Originally Posted by njkayaker View Post

Everybody should be riding on unicorns instead.


It's the result the number of bicyclist-car encounters. Reducing one or the other (or both) will reduce the number of fatalities.
So on your next bicycle ride, make a comparison which you would rather take, a route with lots of fast moving cars or one with hardly any? And then measure their distances.

Get rid of all the cyclists is what some politicians want. But that doesn't solve the pedestrians deaths does it?

In 1971, the Dutch recognized it wasn't the number of kids but it's the drivers that were killing them.
http://www.cbc.ca/listen/shows/metro...gment/15527415

Last edited by Daniel4; 03-15-18 at 10:18 AM.
Daniel4 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-18, 10:24 AM
  #73  
njkayaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,832
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1512 Post(s)
Originally Posted by Daniel4 View Post
So on your next bicycle ride, make a comparison which you would rather take, a route with lots of fast moving cars or one with hardly any? And then measure their distances.

Get rid of all the cyclists is what some politicians want. But that doesn't solve the pedestrians deaths does it?
There are two parts to this.

1- explaining why the death rate increased.
2- what to do to decrease the death rate.

Death rates will be expected to increase if you increase car-miles OR bicycle-miles.

If the number of car-miles hasn't increase (the number of car-miles has been going down), then the reason bicycle deaths have increased isn't due to "more cars".

If the number of bicycle-miles has increased while car-miles have stayed the same (a possibility), then an increase in bicycle deaths isn't caused by "more cars".

It's not even clear that bicycle fatalities (as a rate) has increased.

All that I'm talking about is 1.

Originally Posted by Daniel4 View Post
Get rid of all the cyclists is what some politicians want. But that doesn't solve the pedestrians deaths does it?
"Getting rid of cars" is not a "practical" way to solve either of these.

Getting rid of cyclists is relatively easy (it might even be agreeable to a majority of people).

Last edited by njkayaker; 03-15-18 at 10:32 AM.
njkayaker is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-18, 02:49 PM
  #74  
Hippiebrian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Long Beach, Ca.
Posts: 591

Bikes: Raleigh Sojourn, '67 Raleigh Super Course, old Gary Fisher Mamba, and a generic Chinese folder

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Hmm, and how many people died from illnesses caused by obesity or a sedentary lifestyle in that same year compared to years past? I will take my chances cycling and probably live longer because of it. Not to say we shouldn't do whatever we can to get the numbers dropped drastically, but cycling is still relatively safe, and it will be safer if more cyclists are on the road. Let's not scare people off with a really small danger. That is just more dangerous overall (if that makes sense).
Hippiebrian is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-18, 01:07 PM
  #75  
sdotkling
Member
 
sdotkling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 36

Bikes: Tourer: Bilenky Midlands, ca. 2002. Road: Voodoo Bondeye (Scandium); Travel: Trek 950 steel, S&S coupled, 1" slicks; Folder: Swift Custom Aluminum, ca. 2004; generic Chinese Carbon; plus a few more

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Aside from the neck-snapping tangent-tossing in this thread, I'm surprised no one has mentioned road design as being a contributing factor in bicycle deaths and injuries. New roads, especially in places outside of the old, crumbling Northeast US, are shockingly hostile to bicycles. Intersections in many places, like Florida, Texas, California, are vast 200-yard concrete kill zones, with complicated, multi-phase traffic signals with staggered turn-arrows, right-on-red laws and travel lanes, multiple lanes of traffic, no (or token) pedestrian amenities, and suburban sprawl so vast that everyone must drive for almost any purpose. I've personally been almost killed at a few of these massive intersections in Florida, South Carolina, and Georgia, and been honked at and shouted at at many others. Maybe that's just the effect I have on people when I wear Spandex. The occasional "bike lanes" on the shoulders can appear and disappear without sense or warning, as older parts of the road meet newer parts, often driving the cyclist out into traffic. Traffic circles seem to be the road-building rage in many states, and transversing one on a bike means joining the main traffic flow for a knuckle-blanching few seconds, to the usual ire of nearby motorists. It's rough out there, people.
sdotkling is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service