We'd all like to know if cycling is safer than driving, or exactly how safe it is... the problem is that unlike motoring, where large insurance companies gather data and do statistical analysis and national agencies also collect data and do their own analysis, there are few if any agencies that REGULARLY collect the data for cyclists... Deaths are noted for some cyclists (involved in automobile collisions) so these are known, but these numbers don't have the rates of cyclist deaths to total cyclists or total cyclist miles ridden, as frankly there is no way to collect this data... cyclists are not registered with city or state, nor do they report their annual mileage, nor do we really know how well they are trained, or how they ride.

Data has been collected from various polls and from some club riders, so speculation has been made for cyclist stats, but really we just have no idea how accurate this data is.

Ken Kiefer put together some nice cycling pages that are being maintained now long after his death (killed by a drunk driver) that has some safety stats on it... but again these are estimates (and he states just that) and projections based on polls... with no doubt some margin of error that is totally unknown.

Ken's page on safety shows that per hour used, cyclists are likely safer than motor vehicles... Largely due to the fact that motorists per hour in a car are generally exposed to higher speeds, and thus greater potential for physical harm. However, based on miles traveled, cycling is over two times as dangerous as driving. And again, this is ALL based on estimates... and the data is quite old, over 10 years. http://www.phred.org/~alex/kenkifer/...alth/risks.htm

Since this information was originally posted, we have seen a dramatic drop in automobile passenger deaths, due primarily to air bags and crumple zones within cars, and somewhat due to fewer miles being driven. (due to economic reasons) During that same time period we have also seen the advent of very distracting smart phones, which may cause motorists to be distracted and collide with objects they might have seen and missed in the past... such as signs and lamp posts and yes, cyclists. Motorists are well protected in their cars, but not so the cyclists.

We have also seen an increase in bike ridership in some areas... areas that have taken up new forms of infrastructure... such as NYC, SF and Portland... but as yet, we don't really have any data to tell if cyclist death rates have changed... again, as there is not a significant and reliable method to collect the data.

So until we have a good method to collect data such as number of cyclists, hours and miles ridden, we are pretty much guessing. And as cyclists we tend to guess that cycling is safer than driving. (or at least that is what we tell each other).

Cool beans. Thanks, and love the avatar. :thumb:

While the point about punishment vs consequences is noted, I'm going to play devil's advocate here for a second.

Consider the following two cases:
Driver A is distracted, makes a right turn and rear-ends a stopped car at 20 mph. He cited, his insurance pays up.
Driver B is distracted, makes the same right turn, this time clipping a cyclist causing severe injury. He cited, his insurance pays up.
Driver C is distracted, makes the same right turn, cuts someone off, gets honked at, and continues on his way.

Why should drivers A, B, & C be punished differently? All took the same action, just with vastly different out-comes.

I'll ask the mods to move the thread to a more appropriate place. This is the thread I participate in. I figured this would likely be a point of discussion for many of the threads here so that's why I put it here. However I can see why it would be better elsewhere. In the future, I'm totally cool with hearing that I've made a mistake. Just say it and I'll fix it. I'm not easily offended.

because we live in a no harm no foul world… no if an officer was present at "c" there could be a chance for being "cited".. but I doubt it.

When considering adult cyclist only, the studies show motorist are at fault for collisions with cyclist between 65% to 95%. Hawaii study said 75%. Australia study said 95%.

Part of the problem is that many anti-cyclists like citing studies that include kid cyclist without noting the inclusion of kids. Those studies show cyclist at fault by just over 50% of the time.

Your words are confusing here. If you think the roads belong to motorist (as implied by the bold) then you are wrong. Cyclist are the people that pushed for improved roads over 100 years ago.

You really want to force 8 year old kids to get a cycle drivers license. The next demand after that is that they get insurance. Great ideas for encouraging kids to cycle.


Not a pay wall, just an ad to get you to sign up. Just click on the " skip ad" button.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/op...0yaQZCTf3vHZEQ

Why is that report post icon-an ICON- instead of just written REPORT POST-??
I HATE ICONS.
Why would anyone know that a funny little triangle with what looks like an exclamation point-means REPORT POST?
I hate those crummy icons in cars-they actually pay folks to develop them?? The 1998 suburban has what looks like a some sort of 1930's oil pouring container-looks like an oil lamp-for oil pressure- it has what looks like a sail boat for water temperature.
Just write Oil pressure-make the units legible-I'll figure it out!!
I hate icons- just abbreviate what they mean RP (report post)
Yeah I'm old-62!

Car drivers who injury kill bike riders aren't criminally punished-because it isn't a crime.
Same reason car drivers who kill car enclosed people aren't criminally prosecuted.
There is no changing this.No criminal intent-I think-means no crime?? Maybe a lawyer here can tell us the legal theory of why you can screw up and kill someone-but if it is just a "screw up" as opposed to intentional-no crime.

Yeah we can't change that-I think it is some deep deep legal principle. Stupid or poor judgement or inattentive isn't a crime is what it amounts to.

Damn whippersnapper.

Careless behavior can be a crime and result in criminal manslaughter convictions. That is the purpose of manslaughter laws. Such laws are often simply ignored when it is a cyclist who is killed.

Hah!! Good to know there are some really old gimps on here. Heck i might have to consider myself "late middle age"

....reported.:D

Yes-but car drivers killing "car people" are rarely charged with manslaughter-IF THEY ARE SOBER and don't run.
I think car vs car killings only get charged if they were breaking a traffic safety type law-speeding running a red light??
Probably same story car vs bike deaths.

Was the bike rider who killed the pedestrian in San francisco-1 or so ago-in a cross walk-was he charged?

Charged and pleaded guilty.

Person A fires a rifle into the air on New Years Eve, the bullet hits nobody. He's caught and charged with a Misdemeanor.
Person B fires a rifle into the air on New Years Eve, the bullet hits and wounds someone, he's charged with a Misdemeanor and Felony.

Why should shooters A and B be punished differently? Both took the same action, just with vastly different out-comes.

Collisions normally occur because someone violated a law. Motorist are often ticketed when they cause a collision with another motorist, and when the other motorist dies, the at fault motorist finds themselves charged with manslaughter more often than when they kill a cyclist.


As Dchiefransom noted - charged and pleaded guilty of manslaughter. Where have you been? The DA slammed him as hard as he could.

As pointed out before, its far easier to kill a cyclist than passenger/driver. Drivers/passengers walk away from 40 mph collisions on a regular basis. An automobile fatality therefore involves something much more abnormal than a cycling fatality. Its entirely possible to have a cyclist badly injured in an accident that wouldn't typically rise to the standard of gross negligence, such as rolling through a stop sign at 10 mph. For example, the ex-amazon CFO who was killed when a van turned left in front of her on a downhill. That type of left-turn accident (with 2 cars) happens daily in most cities.

I am of the opinion, as many others here, that hitting anything with your motor vehicle is abnormal and should not simply be excused.

Since you note it is easier to kill pedestrians and cyclists with your deadly weapon, should not a driver exercise far greater caution to not hit pedestrians and cyclists. At least some states are finally beginning to recognize this truth by passing vulnerable user laws.

If cyclists are such vulnerable users, clearly they do not have a place on the roads, and should be banned from them FOR THEIR OWN SAFETY. We already do this on freeways, perhaps we should extend this protection to any road with a speedlimit above 25 mph.

If cyclists want to be treated as equivalent to cars for usage rights, then they need to accept their share of the risks with being on the roads.

Then maybe only semi-trucks should be allowed to use any roads. Your logic is seriously flawed and auto-centric.

In reality, the roads would be far safer if only cyclist were allowed to use them, including freeways.

The people using the deadly weapons are the ones who should have the responsibility to operate them safely and face the penalty when they fail to do so.

Yep, just gimped my way through 10 miles of urban traffic on an errand whim. :p

Then we need some strict vulnerable user laws, and these need to be enforced.

Hmmm-I clicked far right icon-hope this shows various quotes

Dynodonn-I do about 2 miles in mild traffic on my way to and from the levee.I kinda gave up using the bike for transportation because of theft concerns.
I need to get a real beater bike for trips to the dollar store-few grocery bits-bread cereal soup-stuff easily enough carried in a knapsack(bread tricky).
My bikes are just trek 950 jamis dragon +853 frame with decent but used wheels-frakenbike components-XTR XT LX all mixed-maybe it would take me $600-$700 to duplicate because XTR hubs Hugi 240 ft hub-buying used of course- but I'm attached to them in a way I'm not attached to the 2006 Prius or 1998 suburban-if they were stolen-wrecked-no tears-just buy another used car(except suburban no comprehensive since it is worth so little$2000 maybe)
The bikes being stolen would actually sadden me a bit-not the "bad human aspect" I expect that-but just the loss-attached to them.


Dchiefransom- and CB HI thanks.I lost track of that case.
Despite San Fran being a Liberal-Green-West Coast city-there was a HUGE outcry against that bike rider.If he did the same with a car-yeah he would have been charged-pled guilty-but it wouldn't have been "peasants up in arms burn Frankenstein" deal.
I take that to mean-FOLKS MANY FOLKS- HATE DISLIKE BIKE RIDERS! In a liberal left coast city-they wanted to lynch this bike rider?
Why?
"The Choir Answer" here is frequently " cadgers car drivers(all adults are car drivers) are evil impatient people who don't want us on the road because we delay them,so they hate us"
Some of course will mention that bike riders are sometimes guilty-run lights lane split some strafe pedestrians(close shave them)-and some-ME- will mention Mass Whatever,and LANE CONTROLLING.

It doesn't actually matter much WHY many many adults(all adults drive cars) hate bike riders-but bike riders should ride in ways that decrease this antipathy.The VC answer is usually "my safety trumps everything else"-an answer that can't be contested-except to say "we don't think lane controlling makes you safer"-no hard numbers either way-never will be any hard numbers either way.

In any case it showed there is very significant antipathy toward bike riders.

Maybe the same story NYNY- was the cab driver ever charged?If he wasn't-or if he isn't convicted it will be because a thuggish bike messenger was involved.
Folks HATE bike riders-even liberal city coastal folks.
Thanks all-not up for a fight this am-so mild shot at LC.

I pack a 5lb cable lock, not 100 percent theft proof, but sufficient enough to deter a number of potential thieves. The replacement cost and the actual loss of a bicycle don't bother me as so much as the time and energy in the obtaining of the parts and setting up a new bicycle to my commuting requirements.

5 lbs-gotta be -20mm cable-6 feet? I see more 15mm cables advertised now.
Is it actual wire strands or is it one of those other ones that have jointed links.

Now that I'm thinking about it-I have a "why did I buy this frame" frame.Trek 750 DB steel-but ugly wrong size scratched up-no fork-but came with a crankset.It would be too much work to make salable-but I could make it an ugly beater-paint over Trek-easily enough-free in the I already paid for parts sense.
Thanks-got me to thinking.
charlie

You are missing the point with this case. If you want serious vitriol against cyclists, don't look to car drivers, look to pedestrians in cities like San Francisco. I'm not certain that if I lived there that I would own a car myself. The cyclist ran a red light, so if a car had done that, it would have plowed through a line of pedestrians. The reason the guy wasn't taken away from the hospital in handcuffs is BECAUSE he was on a bicycle, not in a car.