IIHS 2008 Fatality Facts - Bicyclists
09-26-09, 07:50 AM
#51
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,184
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I didn't get snobbish or boorish from it. I didn't get that he thinks drunk middle class cyclists don't exist either. I got that he was saying:
1. Some cyclists are dirt poor.
2. Some cyclists aren't legally allowed to drive.
3. They pretty much get ignored when they die.
Can't say that I disagree with any of that. And I've seen cyclists who probably fit that description riding around. It's good to consider them, due to #1, when talking about things like lighting.
1. Some cyclists are dirt poor.
2. Some cyclists aren't legally allowed to drive.
3. They pretty much get ignored when they die.
Can't say that I disagree with any of that. And I've seen cyclists who probably fit that description riding around. It's good to consider them, due to #1, when talking about things like lighting.
Apparently, an apology is due from me, also, since posts subsequent to mine (and Tandem's) indicate that my spirit of objectivity was misplaced. I, too, apologize, and am retiring from this thread.
Caruso
09-26-09, 09:09 AM
#52
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,993
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,544 Times
in
1,051 Posts
Well, that proves that each of us can read the same words and take different meaning from them, especially when words are written rather than spoken and we don't have the benefit of an audible clue to amplify the writer's intended tone. It is also certainly true (as evidenced by what Tandem expressed in his gracious apology which, in my view, goes beyond the call of duty) that one can write with the intent to convey one tone and, due to choice of words and that same absence of an audible clue, a tone totally different can come across to readers.
Apparently, an apology is due from me, also, since posts subsequent to mine (and Tandem's) indicate that my spirit of objectivity was misplaced. I, too, apologize, and am retiring from this thread.
Caruso
Apparently, an apology is due from me, also, since posts subsequent to mine (and Tandem's) indicate that my spirit of objectivity was misplaced. I, too, apologize, and am retiring from this thread.
Caruso
Seems to me the first post doesn't need an apology, it still needs an explanation from the OP of what was the point of the data listing?
09-26-09, 11:16 AM
#53
hors category
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 7,231
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times
in
5 Posts
Awareness....
Flawed or not, the NTHSA provides the data used by Federal, State and local government agencies as well as the insurance industry via the IIHS and similar independent organizations. It is the 'official' data cited most often in regard to trends and behaviors.
For example, the "extracts" I provided were with one minor exception (I parsed the after hours fatality data bit more more) taken directly from the IIHS report, they were not my own which anyone who followed the links provided would have seen.
Like all data compiled based on forms filled out by local authorities that feed government data bases or extracted from other reports, it may contain inaccuracies: Garbage in, Garbage Out. But, it is what it is... and I was my assumption that readers in a form that purports to have an interest in understanding and advocating safe cycling might be interested in knowing the 2008 reports had started to be published.
Beyond that, it's up to each reader to decide how much time then want to take drilling down on the data to see what was reported at the national and perhaps the state level. For example, while the IIHS concludes that the largest number of fatalities occurs in the evening, in Georgia the morning hours are when the most fatalities occurred in 2008. Also as noted, the data for Iowa in the FARS data base only reported information collected on 5 fatalities, whereas the Iowa Bicycle Coalition's compilation of bicycle fatality reports includes a total of 8 'reports' taken from local media (accurately reported or not) regarding bicycle fatalities. As to why the numbers are different would take some investigation, e.g., perhaps only deaths that were caused by collisions with motor vehicles were collected for bicycles.
Flawed or not, the NTHSA provides the data used by Federal, State and local government agencies as well as the insurance industry via the IIHS and similar independent organizations. It is the 'official' data cited most often in regard to trends and behaviors.
For example, the "extracts" I provided were with one minor exception (I parsed the after hours fatality data bit more more) taken directly from the IIHS report, they were not my own which anyone who followed the links provided would have seen.
Like all data compiled based on forms filled out by local authorities that feed government data bases or extracted from other reports, it may contain inaccuracies: Garbage in, Garbage Out. But, it is what it is... and I was my assumption that readers in a form that purports to have an interest in understanding and advocating safe cycling might be interested in knowing the 2008 reports had started to be published.
Beyond that, it's up to each reader to decide how much time then want to take drilling down on the data to see what was reported at the national and perhaps the state level. For example, while the IIHS concludes that the largest number of fatalities occurs in the evening, in Georgia the morning hours are when the most fatalities occurred in 2008. Also as noted, the data for Iowa in the FARS data base only reported information collected on 5 fatalities, whereas the Iowa Bicycle Coalition's compilation of bicycle fatality reports includes a total of 8 'reports' taken from local media (accurately reported or not) regarding bicycle fatalities. As to why the numbers are different would take some investigation, e.g., perhaps only deaths that were caused by collisions with motor vehicles were collected for bicycles.
09-26-09, 12:26 PM
#54
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hilliard, Ohio
Posts: 89
Bikes: Schwinn MTB, Surly LHT, Cannondal CADD8ek XO
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
09-26-09, 01:09 PM
#56
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: in bed with your mom
Posts: 13,696
Bikes: who cares?
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
What gets lost in many of these discussions is the body of people who ride bicycles as their primary means of transporation not so much by choice, but due to the lack of choice, i.e., low-wage earners, drifters and folks who have lost their licenses after being convicted of DUI offenses.
It's these street clothes-clad folks on garage-sale and department store bikes who, along with some of the urban ninjas to whom you refer, that can end up riding into traffic along the shoulder of a road, in the gutters, on sidewalks and into cross walks or streets on their way to or from work and often times from their respective watering holes in the evening that quitely get offed truly because they were invisible to the motorist. Now, couple that with the disproportionate number of distracted and impaired motorists who hit the roads at the same time and who frequent the same locations and you get what you get, especially if the guy on the bike is DUI.
Of course, the guy in the flanel shirt on the BMX bike that's way too small or the F/S dept. store bike picked up at Goodwill for $10 with the broken suspension fork and rear shock that has never touched a computer key board or walked into a bike shop and who may also have a DUI record just isn't going to have advocates which is why their is usually not much published or posted when they go down vs. when one of "our friends" in the cycling community is struck down.
So, if their bikes had reflectors it's only because they were on the bike when they found it at the Goodwill or where-ever and, as for lights, lights cost money and so do batteries: that's just not high on the priority list when the most you could afford to pay for your 'ride' was about $25 and it'll get stolen before too long anyway... so why waste the money.
And, in closing, remember that to the motoring public a cyclist is a cyclist. They really don't look at the guy on the dept. store bike in street clothes and make a huge distinction to a bicycle commuter who is wearing a helmet and all of the other accoutrements; they're just folks on bikes riding where they don't belong putting themselves and motorists at risk.
Just something to think about when looking at these statistics. Yes, we have some friends or acquantances in those numbers too... and they were doing all of the right things. But, at the end of the day they're reduced to a statistic and lumped in with the guy riding his clunker home at 2am after a few too many that rode into an intersection riding the wrong way in the right lane who was taken out by the motorist turning right off the cross street who never saw him until it was too late.
It's these street clothes-clad folks on garage-sale and department store bikes who, along with some of the urban ninjas to whom you refer, that can end up riding into traffic along the shoulder of a road, in the gutters, on sidewalks and into cross walks or streets on their way to or from work and often times from their respective watering holes in the evening that quitely get offed truly because they were invisible to the motorist. Now, couple that with the disproportionate number of distracted and impaired motorists who hit the roads at the same time and who frequent the same locations and you get what you get, especially if the guy on the bike is DUI.
Of course, the guy in the flanel shirt on the BMX bike that's way too small or the F/S dept. store bike picked up at Goodwill for $10 with the broken suspension fork and rear shock that has never touched a computer key board or walked into a bike shop and who may also have a DUI record just isn't going to have advocates which is why their is usually not much published or posted when they go down vs. when one of "our friends" in the cycling community is struck down.
So, if their bikes had reflectors it's only because they were on the bike when they found it at the Goodwill or where-ever and, as for lights, lights cost money and so do batteries: that's just not high on the priority list when the most you could afford to pay for your 'ride' was about $25 and it'll get stolen before too long anyway... so why waste the money.
And, in closing, remember that to the motoring public a cyclist is a cyclist. They really don't look at the guy on the dept. store bike in street clothes and make a huge distinction to a bicycle commuter who is wearing a helmet and all of the other accoutrements; they're just folks on bikes riding where they don't belong putting themselves and motorists at risk.
Just something to think about when looking at these statistics. Yes, we have some friends or acquantances in those numbers too... and they were doing all of the right things. But, at the end of the day they're reduced to a statistic and lumped in with the guy riding his clunker home at 2am after a few too many that rode into an intersection riding the wrong way in the right lane who was taken out by the motorist turning right off the cross street who never saw him until it was too late.
Last edited by randya; 09-26-09 at 01:22 PM.
09-26-09, 01:48 PM
#57
Senior Member
If females have the same or lesser rate of wear, and suffer less injury, we know that the helmet makes little difference in lower injury rates.
The best way to prevent injuries is to avoid the incidences that lead to them. Mitigation by equipment is a poor substitute in comparison. Prevention is far more effective.
These stats are a result of poor behavior, mostly avoidable. I'd say that women are under represented in these stats because they more likely tend to not take the risks that men and children do
Last edited by closetbiker; 09-26-09 at 03:41 PM.
09-26-09, 02:48 PM
#58
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 16,897
Bikes: 1980 Masi, 1984 Mondonico, 1984 Trek 610, 1980 Woodrup Giro, 2005 Mondonico Futura Leggera ELOS, 1967 PX10E, 1971 Peugeot UO-8
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1866 Post(s)
Liked 665 Times
in
507 Posts
Go do some reseach if it's important to you....
Example: https://www.bicyclinginfo.org/faqs/answer.cfm?id=36
There is tons of data out there, but you'll have to do some analysis to parse it down to what you're specifically looking for. Moreover, it will be spread out over a wide number of years and most likely it won't be all that current.
Ken Kifers page looked at this extentively many years ago before he too became a statistic: https://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/health/risks.htm
Be careful when you pull from sources whose primary reason for being and future livelihood is tied to cycling as they will pump up the numbers by using over-ambitious assumptions for ridership and the like.
Example: How many miles did you (in the generic sense) ride last year. No, really. How many miles did you ACTUALLY ride? Not how many would you like to believe you rode, or did you plan to ride, or do you estimate you rode based on calculating some flawed average.
Some folks will actually know and cite those numbers, particularly the folks who do, in fact, ride a lot of miles and keep track of their training, trips or commute mileage. However, the further you delve into the recreational riders the less reliable the data becomes. Therefore, survey data is also suspect and to be taken with a grain of salt as, once again, the average person who likes to take surveys will inflate numbers for miles ridden, etc... and many of the types of riders we've talked about begin represented in these statistics aren't the recreational / commuter types who end up being included in surveys.
Example: https://www.bicyclinginfo.org/faqs/answer.cfm?id=36
There is tons of data out there, but you'll have to do some analysis to parse it down to what you're specifically looking for. Moreover, it will be spread out over a wide number of years and most likely it won't be all that current.
Ken Kifers page looked at this extentively many years ago before he too became a statistic: https://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/health/risks.htm
Be careful when you pull from sources whose primary reason for being and future livelihood is tied to cycling as they will pump up the numbers by using over-ambitious assumptions for ridership and the like.
Example: How many miles did you (in the generic sense) ride last year. No, really. How many miles did you ACTUALLY ride? Not how many would you like to believe you rode, or did you plan to ride, or do you estimate you rode based on calculating some flawed average.
Some folks will actually know and cite those numbers, particularly the folks who do, in fact, ride a lot of miles and keep track of their training, trips or commute mileage. However, the further you delve into the recreational riders the less reliable the data becomes. Therefore, survey data is also suspect and to be taken with a grain of salt as, once again, the average person who likes to take surveys will inflate numbers for miles ridden, etc... and many of the types of riders we've talked about begin represented in these statistics aren't the recreational / commuter types who end up being included in surveys.
Granted, one must be careful when choosing data sources.
The main conclusion I draw from the data shown is that far fewer fatalities occur, or are reported, for pedalcyclists than for motor vehicle drivers and occupants. I don't think anything more that's definitive can be said. We can't even talk about fatality rates.
09-26-09, 06:46 PM
#59
hors category
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 7,231
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times
in
5 Posts
The IIHS & NHTSA FARS data are data sources (period). However, it's a data source that's used extensively, e.g., the IIHS data is based on FARS and the NHTSA has a hand in quite a few bicycle safety programs that feed off of their annual data and trends; more info HERE.
I don't disagree that there needs to be a lot more data fed into a normalized data base to get more meaningful information and there are resources on the Web that do that for various different countries. However, it was not my intent to delve into that.
My interest in the FARS data actually comes from being a motorcyclist as well as a cyclist and making a point of trying to stay abreast of the motorcycle-related data and trends as a point of reference when non-motorcyclists cite mortality data that almost always comes from the NHTSA FARS data. My assumption is, most non-cyclists -- including journalists doing background for stories -- also go to the IIHS and FARS data and regurgitate it based on face value.
It is what it is.... I assumed, perhaps wrongly, that it would be of interest. In retrospect I should have omitted the extracts -- since they've been what many have focused on -- and omitted my poorly-worded attempt to address some of the demographics that are captured in the FARS data based on my own life experiences and observations.
Last edited by TandemGeek; 09-26-09 at 06:54 PM.
09-26-09, 08:09 PM
#60
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 16,897
Bikes: 1980 Masi, 1984 Mondonico, 1984 Trek 610, 1980 Woodrup Giro, 2005 Mondonico Futura Leggera ELOS, 1967 PX10E, 1971 Peugeot UO-8
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1866 Post(s)
Liked 665 Times
in
507 Posts
As I said in my last post when responding to the question "why did I post the links and information?": for awareness.
The IIHS & NHTSA FARS data are data sources (period). However, it's a data source that's used extensively, e.g., the IIHS data is based on FARS and the NHTSA has a hand in quite a few bicycle safety programs that feed off of their annual data and trends; more info HERE.
I don't disagree that there needs to be a lot more data fed into a normalized data base to get more meaningful information and there are resources on the Web that do that for various different countries. However, it was not my intent to delve into that.
My interest in the FARS data actually comes from being a motorcyclist as well as a cyclist and making a point of trying to stay abreast of the motorcycle-related data and trends as a point of reference when non-motorcyclists cite mortality data that almost always comes from the NHTSA FARS data. My assumption is, most non-cyclists -- including journalists doing background for stories -- also go to the IIHS and FARS data and regurgitate it based on face value.
It is what it is.... I assumed, perhaps wrongly, that it would be of interest. In retrospect I should have omitted the extracts -- since they've been what many have focused on -- and omitted my poorly-worded attempt to address some of the demographics that are captured in the FARS data based on my own life experiences and observations.
The IIHS & NHTSA FARS data are data sources (period). However, it's a data source that's used extensively, e.g., the IIHS data is based on FARS and the NHTSA has a hand in quite a few bicycle safety programs that feed off of their annual data and trends; more info HERE.
I don't disagree that there needs to be a lot more data fed into a normalized data base to get more meaningful information and there are resources on the Web that do that for various different countries. However, it was not my intent to delve into that.
My interest in the FARS data actually comes from being a motorcyclist as well as a cyclist and making a point of trying to stay abreast of the motorcycle-related data and trends as a point of reference when non-motorcyclists cite mortality data that almost always comes from the NHTSA FARS data. My assumption is, most non-cyclists -- including journalists doing background for stories -- also go to the IIHS and FARS data and regurgitate it based on face value.
It is what it is.... I assumed, perhaps wrongly, that it would be of interest. In retrospect I should have omitted the extracts -- since they've been what many have focused on -- and omitted my poorly-worded attempt to address some of the demographics that are captured in the FARS data based on my own life experiences and observations.
The data you showed are of interest, but I keep coming to the conclusion, "this is why there is minimal attention paid by NHTSA to cycling fatalities." There's not enough information to draw the kinds of conclusions that would point to the most likely-to-be effective countermeasures, and the size of the problem is two orders of magnitude smaller than the light-vehicle/heavy vehicle problem. Problem is too small, and there's nothing pointing out what to do. NHTSA will not act under these circumstances. They can take actions that promise in much nearer term to reduce motor vehicle fatalites by larger amounts.
In addition, your response to one of the early replies asking for background data was rather like an ad hominem argument, which I thought was uncalled for.
09-26-09, 10:18 PM
#62
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: in bed with your mom
Posts: 13,696
Bikes: who cares?
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
no it's not and it doesn't matter what the ratio is. We don't look at the raw numbers, we look at the proportional numbers.
If females have the same or lesser rate of wear, and suffer less injury, we know that the helmet makes little difference in lower injury rates.
The best way to prevent injuries is to avoid the incidences that lead to them. Mitigation by equipment is a poor substitute in comparison. Prevention is far more effective.
These stats are a result of poor behavior, mostly avoidable. I'd say that women are under represented in these stats because they more likely tend to not take the risks that men and children do
If females have the same or lesser rate of wear, and suffer less injury, we know that the helmet makes little difference in lower injury rates.
The best way to prevent injuries is to avoid the incidences that lead to them. Mitigation by equipment is a poor substitute in comparison. Prevention is far more effective.
These stats are a result of poor behavior, mostly avoidable. I'd say that women are under represented in these stats because they more likely tend to not take the risks that men and children do
09-26-09, 11:25 PM
#63
Senior Member
09-27-09, 07:02 AM
#64
hors category
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 7,231
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times
in
5 Posts
Believe me, I am THOROUGHLY aware of FARS and GESS and IIHS, what they offer, and what it takes to draw conclusions based on them. I've used them extensively in my work, identifying ways active safety might be employed on the automotive side.
The data you showed are of interest, but I keep coming to the conclusion, "this is why there is minimal attention paid by NHTSA to cycling fatalities." There's not enough information to draw the kinds of conclusions that would point to the most likely-to-be effective countermeasures, and the size of the problem is two orders of magnitude smaller than the light-vehicle/heavy vehicle problem. Problem is too small, and there's nothing pointing out what to do. NHTSA will not act under these circumstances. They can take actions that promise in much nearer term to reduce motor vehicle fatalites by larger amounts.
The data you showed are of interest, but I keep coming to the conclusion, "this is why there is minimal attention paid by NHTSA to cycling fatalities." There's not enough information to draw the kinds of conclusions that would point to the most likely-to-be effective countermeasures, and the size of the problem is two orders of magnitude smaller than the light-vehicle/heavy vehicle problem. Problem is too small, and there's nothing pointing out what to do. NHTSA will not act under these circumstances. They can take actions that promise in much nearer term to reduce motor vehicle fatalites by larger amounts.
https://www.bicyclinginfo.org/facts/crash-facts.cfm
Originally Posted by bicycleinfo.org 'Crash Facts'
Quick Facts
Bicyclist Deaths in 1997: 814
Bicyclist Deaths in 2007: 698 (NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts)
Reduction in bicyclist deaths between 1997 and 2007: 14%
Bicyclist Injuries in 1997: 58,000
Bicyclist Injuries in 2007: 43,000 (NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts)
Reduction in bicyclist injuries between 1997 and 2007: 26%
The total cost of bicyclist injury and death is almost $5.4 billion per year (National Safety Council).
The raw numbers hide all kinds of trends, truths, and lessons, and they beg a wide range of questions. Is bicycling dangerous? Is it more dangerous than other modes of travel? Is bicycling getting safer? Who is getting killed in bicycle crashes, where, when, and why? The following section seeks to answer some of these questions and provide a better perspective and context for the facts.
Is bicycling more dangerous than other modes of travel?
Obviously with 698 deaths per year, there are risks associated with riding a bicycle. Bicycle fatalities represent just fewer than two percent of all traffic fatalities, and yet bicycle trips account for less than one percent of all trips in the United States. However, bicycling remains a healthful, inherently safe activity for tens of millions of people every year.
As mentioned, bicyclists seem to be over-represented in the crash data as they account for almost two percent of fatalities but less than one percent of trips. However, there is no reliable source of exposure data to really answer this question: we don't know how many miles bicyclists travel each year, and we don't know how long it takes them to cover these miles (and thus how long they are exposed to motor vehicle traffic). Risk based on exposure varies by time of day (with night-time being more risky), experience of rider, location of riding, alcohol use, and many other factors. Until we have better exposure measures, we just don't know how bicyclist risk compares to other modes, but the health benefits of riding may offset some of this risk
Bicyclist Deaths in 1997: 814
Bicyclist Deaths in 2007: 698 (NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts)
Reduction in bicyclist deaths between 1997 and 2007: 14%
Bicyclist Injuries in 1997: 58,000
Bicyclist Injuries in 2007: 43,000 (NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts)
Reduction in bicyclist injuries between 1997 and 2007: 26%
The total cost of bicyclist injury and death is almost $5.4 billion per year (National Safety Council).
The raw numbers hide all kinds of trends, truths, and lessons, and they beg a wide range of questions. Is bicycling dangerous? Is it more dangerous than other modes of travel? Is bicycling getting safer? Who is getting killed in bicycle crashes, where, when, and why? The following section seeks to answer some of these questions and provide a better perspective and context for the facts.
Is bicycling more dangerous than other modes of travel?
Obviously with 698 deaths per year, there are risks associated with riding a bicycle. Bicycle fatalities represent just fewer than two percent of all traffic fatalities, and yet bicycle trips account for less than one percent of all trips in the United States. However, bicycling remains a healthful, inherently safe activity for tens of millions of people every year.
As mentioned, bicyclists seem to be over-represented in the crash data as they account for almost two percent of fatalities but less than one percent of trips. However, there is no reliable source of exposure data to really answer this question: we don't know how many miles bicyclists travel each year, and we don't know how long it takes them to cover these miles (and thus how long they are exposed to motor vehicle traffic). Risk based on exposure varies by time of day (with night-time being more risky), experience of rider, location of riding, alcohol use, and many other factors. Until we have better exposure measures, we just don't know how bicyclist risk compares to other modes, but the health benefits of riding may offset some of this risk
09-27-09, 08:42 PM
#65
Very, very Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,224
Bikes: 2012 Surly Troll, 1999 Hardtail MTB
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
I ran my own numbers partially from the kindly provided link by TandemGeek, partially from other sources.
700 people died cycling but all cyclists make up only .2% of all road miles traveled. (https://bicycleuniverse.info/transpo/almanac.html) Cars (more or less) made up 99.8% of all road miles traveled and accounted for 40,000 deaths. So cars travel 499 times more miles than bikes. If cyclists were to travel as many miles as cars we would have 349,300 bike deaths. Or in other words, every mile traveled by bike is 8.7times more dangerous than the same mile traveled by car.
Please somebody tell me I am wrong here somewhere.
700 people died cycling but all cyclists make up only .2% of all road miles traveled. (https://bicycleuniverse.info/transpo/almanac.html) Cars (more or less) made up 99.8% of all road miles traveled and accounted for 40,000 deaths. So cars travel 499 times more miles than bikes. If cyclists were to travel as many miles as cars we would have 349,300 bike deaths. Or in other words, every mile traveled by bike is 8.7times more dangerous than the same mile traveled by car.
Please somebody tell me I am wrong here somewhere.
09-27-09, 09:10 PM
#66
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 4,556
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
I ran my own numbers partially from the kindly provided link by TandemGeek, partially from other sources.
700 people died cycling but all cyclists make up only .2% of all road miles traveled. (https://bicycleuniverse.info/transpo/almanac.html) Cars (more or less) made up 99.8% of all road miles traveled and accounted for 40,000 deaths. So cars travel 499 times more miles than bikes. If cyclists were to travel as many miles as cars we would have 349,300 bike deaths. Or in other words, every mile traveled by bike is 8.7times more dangerous than the same mile traveled by car.
Please somebody tell me I am wrong here somewhere.
700 people died cycling but all cyclists make up only .2% of all road miles traveled. (https://bicycleuniverse.info/transpo/almanac.html) Cars (more or less) made up 99.8% of all road miles traveled and accounted for 40,000 deaths. So cars travel 499 times more miles than bikes. If cyclists were to travel as many miles as cars we would have 349,300 bike deaths. Or in other words, every mile traveled by bike is 8.7times more dangerous than the same mile traveled by car.
Please somebody tell me I am wrong here somewhere.
Per exposure hour, btw, it flips the other way with his numbers.
09-27-09, 09:16 PM
#67
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 4,556
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Ya know, his numbers are over a decade old. It could be that cycling has actually gotten, relatively, more dangerous. That'd be something very interesting to look into. It would seem, based on total deaths, that it's getting safer. Maybe we're just riding a lot less though?
09-27-09, 09:28 PM
#68
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 16,897
Bikes: 1980 Masi, 1984 Mondonico, 1984 Trek 610, 1980 Woodrup Giro, 2005 Mondonico Futura Leggera ELOS, 1967 PX10E, 1971 Peugeot UO-8
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1866 Post(s)
Liked 665 Times
in
507 Posts
Sorry to revisit this thread, but given your professional interest in automotive safety and interest in cycling safety, what have you found in regard to data sources that might be more useful? Even the CDC seems to 'punt' when it comes to the subject and sends readers and researchers to the DOT/UNC Pedestrian & Cycling Information Center (bicyclinginfo.org) where, once again, the NHTSA & IIHS data are used as resources, but also acknowledged for being relatively inadequate for meaningful interpretation and action:
https://www.bicyclinginfo.org/facts/crash-facts.cfm
.
https://www.bicyclinginfo.org/facts/crash-facts.cfm
.
https://www.nhtsa.gov/portal/site/nht...ewName=Article
sorry, wish it had come through better, it's the "Office of Crash Avoidance Research Technical Publications
," (google that!) and there are a study or two on pedalcyclist crashes and pedestrian crashes. However they deal with car/bike collisions, not say, bike/bike or bike/ped. They also differ radically from the car studies, in that good data exists about car usage: How many cars, how fast, where they go, how many miles per year, yadda yadda. Nearly none of that has been collected for bikes, and I think it will be very difficult to get similar data. Why? There are no regulates about registration of bikes or cyclists, that anyone respects. My family has 6 bikes, none registered. My mileage is never recorded except for my training. We would generally never consider telling Big Bro where we ride our bikes. Plus, how do you account for non-road riding?
09-27-09, 09:31 PM
#69
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,215
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
By that logic, sitting on a park bench is far more dangerous. The average park bench sitter travels 0 miles. There have probably been several fatalities this year on park benches. That makes the risk of dying per mile traveled on a park bench infinite. If you travel by park bench, death is a certainty.
09-27-09, 09:38 PM
#70
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 16,897
Bikes: 1980 Masi, 1984 Mondonico, 1984 Trek 610, 1980 Woodrup Giro, 2005 Mondonico Futura Leggera ELOS, 1967 PX10E, 1971 Peugeot UO-8
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1866 Post(s)
Liked 665 Times
in
507 Posts
The comments in posts 65 thru 67 illustrate the problem raised by the CDC, quoted by TG in post 64. The EXPOSURE is not understood, and perhaps the method for determining it has not been determined or agreed upon.
Kifer took a stab at it. Probably the best approach right now for assessing cycling safety stats is to mimic his method, if it can be fully understood, and plug-in more current data.
Another would be to compare his method and results with the NHTSA study "Marco P.daSilva, Brittany N. Campbell, John D. Smith, Wassim G.Najm, "Analysis of Pedalcyclist Crashes";, Performed by John A.Volpe National Transportation System Center, Cambridge, MA, Sponsored by National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington D.C, November 2002, DOT HS 809 572", which can be downloaded as a pdf from that website I cited in post 68. Najm, now one of the most respected analysts applying the GESS and FARS, attempt to use the methods commonly applied to study crash avoidance methods for cars and trucks.
Kifer took a stab at it. Probably the best approach right now for assessing cycling safety stats is to mimic his method, if it can be fully understood, and plug-in more current data.
Another would be to compare his method and results with the NHTSA study "Marco P.daSilva, Brittany N. Campbell, John D. Smith, Wassim G.Najm, "Analysis of Pedalcyclist Crashes";, Performed by John A.Volpe National Transportation System Center, Cambridge, MA, Sponsored by National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington D.C, November 2002, DOT HS 809 572", which can be downloaded as a pdf from that website I cited in post 68. Najm, now one of the most respected analysts applying the GESS and FARS, attempt to use the methods commonly applied to study crash avoidance methods for cars and trucks.
09-27-09, 09:51 PM
#71
Very, very Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,224
Bikes: 2012 Surly Troll, 1999 Hardtail MTB
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
He used .8% of miles traveled. Interesting.
09-28-09, 08:53 AM
#72
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 16,897
Bikes: 1980 Masi, 1984 Mondonico, 1984 Trek 610, 1980 Woodrup Giro, 2005 Mondonico Futura Leggera ELOS, 1967 PX10E, 1971 Peugeot UO-8
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1866 Post(s)
Liked 665 Times
in
507 Posts
I think nobody does. That's why it's interesting to know how Ken Kifer estimated it. Najm et al did not estimate it. They were looking at pedalcyclist crashes as a function of licensed vehicle miles.
09-28-09, 06:52 PM
#73
hors category
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 7,231
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times
in
5 Posts
Looking at the different surveys, Kifer also noted some of the problems with how the survey data was collected and how it may have skewed the data.
Heck, there's even a reference back to the 2001 John Hopkins study from the late 90's that looked at alcohol's role in cycling accidents and fatalities which was published about the same time as an AAFP report on cycling-related injuries that has many interesting statistics and citations.
Last edited by TandemGeek; 09-28-09 at 08:06 PM.
09-28-09, 07:09 PM
#74
Very, very Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,224
Bikes: 2012 Surly Troll, 1999 Hardtail MTB
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
By that logic, sitting on a park bench is far more dangerous.
09-28-09, 08:57 PM
#75
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 478
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
By that logic, sitting on a park bench is far more dangerous. The average park bench sitter travels 0 miles. There have probably been several fatalities this year on park benches. That makes the risk of dying per mile traveled on a park bench infinite. If you travel by park bench, death is a certainty.