Bicure

Okay - here's what I wanna know:

How much MORE dangerous is cycling than driving from a per capita standpoint?

That is, what PERCENTAGE of cyclists are injured/killed compared to drivers?

What we have to correct for is this: ONLY injuries/fatalities to DRIVERS vs cyclists can be included, and not others injured BY drivers.

I wanna know how much more dangerous it is to be the operater of a bicycle than a motor vehicle.

makeinu

It depends which dangers you consider. Danger of death do to automobile collision? Danger of death due to heart disease? Danger of death due to either automobile collision or heart disease?

It's difficult to say what the risk of death is due to automobile collision for cyclists because it's difficult to say how many cyclists are out there. Motorists are easy to count because they need to register. Cyclists are hard to count unless they are dead. More bicycles were sold than automobiles in 2007, yet we all know that there aren't more cyclists than motorists on the road.

maddyfish

You are assuming it IS more dangerous to ride a bike than ride in a car?

John E

Typical common statistics claim that the injury and fatality rates for competent cyclists are comparable to those for average motorists. I am arguably safer in my VW Passat wagon (unblemished driving record since 1971, five-star NHTSA crash test ratings) than on my bicycle, but this does not factor in two significant additional factors -- the immense health benefits of aerobic exercise, particularly cycling, and the social responsibility to minimize my contributions to traffic congestion, resource depletion, and greenhouse gas emission.

caloso

What does your definition of "injury" include? Would it include road rash? Sunburn? Allergic reactions due to insect stings?

EnigManiac

In Toronto, the city's bike committee, Toronto Police Services and most independant cycling advocates agree that there are about 400,000 daily adult cyclists during the peak 26-week season and as many as 10,000 year-round cyclists with varying numbers in between during the off-season, depending on weather (often through April, September and October there are approx 300,000). Over a year, there are about 12 million total cyclists on the roads. Only about 1,000 incidents are reported each year. Advocates suggest there may be as many as 5 times that amount that go unreported. Assuming that they went unreported because the incidents were minor or inconsequential, that would mirror the official study that shows that only 3 deaths occured in 2007 and less than 50 serious injuries. The vast majority of car-bike interactions resulted in minor or no injuries or damage whatsoever. It would seem that cycling is exceptionally safe, as a result.

In fact, the statistics show that cycists, in spite of their numbers, rank third in 'vulnerable' users of the road, well behind pedestrians (29 fatalities in 2007) and scooter/motorcycle operators (4 fatalities).

What do those numbers really mean though? There are about 400 million cars on the road in Toronto during an average year, compared to 12 million cyclists, but there are probably 1200 million pedestrians.

Generally, assessments are made by calculating how many hours are spent riding a bike versus driving a car. However, an arguably better assessment is achieved by studying how many miles (kilometers) are travelled. Cyclists have a significantly higher liklihood of fatality based upon distance---almost double the risk that motorists face, but to be fair, both numbers are very low: 0.039 - cyclists and 0.016 - motorists. But for hours spent, the trend flip-flops with 0.26 for cyclists and 0.47 for motorists (source: https://www.raisethehammer.org/index....sue=2007/09/09)

closetbiker

The first good page on this subject I read was here

https://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/health/risks.htm

He sums up by saying, I like this page too

https://neptune.spacebears.com/opine/helmets.html

where the author breaks down some numbers and says,

genec

Sadly, the very page where you cited as "the first good page" was authored by a guy that was killed by a drunk driver.


Sort of puts a different perspective on the whole safety issue, eh?

Ed Holland

This is such a hard question to answer. OK we can find statistics on a national basis, state basis and even city basis, but they are all averages that do not take into acount any of the following:

Rider experience, traffic skills
Roads taken by the cyclist, traffic levels
Time of day
Protective equipment, lights etc.

Of course there is risk associated with riding a bike. Our perception of these risks is unique to each of us based on our riding experience and environment. Either we ride, reasoning that these risks are not sufficient to deter us, or we choose not to ride.

Ed

closetbiker

Yeah. It shows the importance of fighting drunk drivers. The bike wasn't the problem. The drunk behind the trucks wheel was.

His death doesn't negate any points he's made does it?

maddyfish

The first girl I ever kissed;
My best friend from middle school;
My wife's favorite uncle;
My brother-in-law;

Would all say riding a bike was safer than driving a car,






-If they hadn't all been killed in car accidents.

LittleBigMan

It's hard to nail down, but my quick pick is that:

1) Riding a bike can make you more likely to get injured due to falls.

2) The risk of death per trip could be about the same.

3) The health benefits of cycling are so great that they outweigh any risks, making cycling safer overall.

4) The more you know about safe cycling, the safer you'll be, just like the more you know about safe driving, the safer you'll be.

Allister

Yeah, it indicates that driving drunk is more dangerous than cycling. Mostly to others, of course, but nevertheless...

BarracksSi

Just to argue the other direction --

To me, it makes sense to compare driver-hours and cyclist-hours versus distance traveled. Although it seems like people judge their trips (whether by bike or car -- or bus or train, too) based on distance, they're really thinking about how long it'll take. People around here are willing to travel at another time of day in order to avoid the rush hour; their trip won't be any shorter distance-wise, but they'll spend less time in transit and feel less frustrated.

I'd guess that people will be comfortable spending up to half an hour -- at most -- to get someplace where they want to go (a work commute doesn't exactly count, then.. ). I'm talking about the grocery store, restaurants, movie theaters, etc. Whether they're on a bike or in a car, they'll spend roughly the same amount of time doing roughly the same thing.

Both a motorist and a cyclist would spend the same amount of time in transit, then -- but, usually, the motorist will travel much farther just because their car moves faster. That'll skew statistics that rely on mileage traveled.

Bicure

Wow - GREAT responses all!

It kind of reflects what I've come to believe, which is that despite our strong sense of vulnerability & profound awareness of the general insanity of kar kulture, biking is, on any measurable level, not significantly more dangerous than driving a car.

Bicure

Yikes.

This IS a bicycling forum, ya?



(EDIT NOTE: This post was in reponse to what I felt was a pretty harsh reply by iltb-2, who has now deleted that post, and is responding - once again harshly, I feel - to my response to his post that no longer exists `cause he deleted it... Is this what they call "crazy-making? Have a cookie, iltb-2!)

THANK YOU, MAKEINU! (I JUST READ YOUR POST BELOW ABOUT ILTB-2! (THE CRAZY-MAKING POST DELETION IS A FAVE METHOD OF TROLLS TO MAKE OTHERS LOOK FOOLISH, SO THAT MAKES SENSE NOW!)

iltb-2

Yes. But not a necessarily a support group for Woodstock Wannabes or Counter Culture Cultists who think all bicyclists share their views (or should share them.) You might find the Living Car Free contingent more to your liking.

genec

Well, Ken is another statistic. I wonder how he would figure that into his work.

And the drunk is probably still alive. Hopefully in jail... but the way these things tend to work when cyclists are involved, even that is not assured.

makeinu

Just a heads up for you, new guy. iltb-2 has a long history of trolling bike forums, both here and elsewhere. The moderators have tried banning him (account bans, IP bans, the whole enchilada), but he's so crazy and obsessed that he keeps sneaking his way back in.

Needless to say if you want him to go away (like everyone does) then you'll have to make an individual effort and add him to your ignore list like I'm going to do right now.

P.S. The reason I didn't have him on my ignore list already because last I encountered him his user name was "I-Like-To-Bike". I didn't realize he was now using iltb-2, but it's obvious that it's him because he always blathers the same off topic nonsense of the "selfrighteous" "contingent" of "group thinkers" (these are favorite terms of his), with vague references to hippies such as "Woodstock Wannabes" or "Counter Culture Cultists" (these terms change from post to post). Combined with the new user name (iltb-2 instead of I-Like-To-Bike) and little caption "Still Around", it's obvious that it's him, crazy as ever and desperately obsessed with trolling any and every post.

LittleBigMan

Yep, I think you're right.

closetbiker

Just like the second page's author (who is well aware that "extremely improbable" is not quite the same as "impossible"), Ken did figure in the deaths to cyclists caused by drunks, so I don't think he would have changed his page one bit (if he could).

His page had an update on the trial. Over a year later, the case over Ken's murder finally went to trial. Jimmy Don Rodgers pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 20 years. Neither Ken's son, sister, nor brother wanted him to be punished as revenge, but were concerned that he might kill someone else if he were released. He may possibly be released in a year under very strict probation conditions, but if he fails any condition he will return to prison for the rest of his sentence.

closetbiker

I considering the danger of cycling to involve the way in which one cycles (and that includes looking out for those who are not careful and avoiding them as you often can).

Check out this report on the death of cyclists.

https://www.helmets.org/bcstudy.htm

At the bottom, there are brief descriptions as to what the circumstances were that led to the deaths. I think any reasonable adult could have avoided the vast majority of them. If you could eliminate those tragically avoidable (stupid) deaths, there hardly would be a death toll at all. The fact that even if you include these incidents, and then consider just how many people ride, and the benefits still outweigh the risks, I'd have to wonder why all those people are taking the (by comparison) huge risk of driving everywhere.

makeinu

Another comment about the "danger of cycling". I think it's a bit unfair to attribute cyclists who happened to die cycling to the danger of cycling.

After all, when motorists die it is usually the result of collision with motorists. When cyclists die it is also usually the result of collision with motorists. Obviously the dangerous activity is driving a motorized vehicle. To separate out whether the perpetrator of this dangerous activity just so happens to also be the victim is nonsense.

It's like leaving a gun unsecured and unlocked in your home. Although doing so may make you less likely to die yourself, it also increases the chances that your family might be injured in a gun accident or the chance that you accidentally shoot an innocent, etc, etc. Things are dangerous when they kill people, not just when they kill the owner.

Considering only the exposure to danger experienced by the owner, even at the expense of danger to others is just plain selfish. The fact that, even within this biased perspective, cycling still fairs about even with motoring only highlights just how selfish motoring really is. The truth is that motoring is overwhelmingly more dangerous. It's like waiving around a locked and loaded gun in public with your finger on the trigger. Although you may or may not hurt yourself doing it, you have a damn good chance of hurting someone.

Motoring is dangerous because motorists are a danger both to themselves and to the people around them.

Fear&Trembling

Thanks for the heads-up on the ignore list - you're my first!

crtreedude 

I know it isn't going to happen most likely, but if there were no cars, what would the death statistics be like? Or, if those who drove cars realized it was a privelege, not a right and gave others the right of road too - include pedestrians.

Living here has really driven this home since in our small community, have a vehicle does not mean you own the road but you have to share it with everyone else. As someone said, it isn't cycling that is dangerous - it is the motorists.