Here's a nice graphic that illustrates how poorly people gauge risk

http://www.clinicalanswers.nhs.uk/re...munication.GIF

Notice the rather large circle (2004 statistics) for motor vehicle accidents, the smaller but still sizable circle for pedestrian accidents, the still smaller circle for motorcycle accidents...everyone knows how dangerous they are and then the tiny circle for bicycle accidents...about the same chance as dying in an air/space accident:eek:

We kill over 45,000 people per year in the US in car accidents (the number 1 nonmedical cause of death!) and think not a second thought about getting in a car. But the news will run 12" headlines about the risk of dying in a bicycle accident, boating accident or getting squished by a stingray . Lots of concerned looks and hand wringing followed by calls to ban jumping stingrays;)

Print out the chart, macteacher, and ask your co-worker if he's going to stop driving the death trap;)

His argument wasn't that your more likely to get into an accident with a bike than a car. The argument was those cars that do get into accidents have a good chance of involving a bike the more a cyclist rides on the road.
Nice chart Cycocommute. I saved it!!!!

Live Your Life Five Minutes at a Time
 

Try living in Five Minute Segments. The last 5 is now gone forever. The Next 5 are unknown.
Enjoy your rides. Smile and Wave at the auto drivers. You are having more fun then they are.

Wow! I hadn't realized that being legally executed was less risky than driving a car or bicycling! That is what that chart demonstrates isn't it?:rolleyes:

My take: Totally useless graphical representation of risk since no exposure factors are considered.

Six million ways to die choose one. I might be hit by falling plane/space debris, so I don;t leave the house anyone either. Let's RIDE, harder to be hit that way. :)

There are a few people at my office who used to do that. They'd tell me how I'm insane, going to get killed, etc. A few high-profile cyclist deaths out here fueled them even more, then they'd send me e-mails with links to the news sites, and tell me how cycling is equivalent to suicide.

Now, whenever I hear news of a really bad auto crash here in town, I send them a link to the story and tell them how awful and scary it must be to drive in to work every day.

They've since stopped berating my riding.

Your friend seems to be arguing that both the greater good of society and your own personal well-being would be better served if neither you nor anyone else rode bicycles on the roads. While superficially well-formed, it is a argument based on an assumption about an unestablished statistic. I mistrust any argument based on either of those things--one based on both is, shall we say, weak?

I would argue exactly the opposite, in fact. If anyone should be put off the roads, it should be your friend and his/her automobile. This argument is supported by the health benefits to the riders, the reduction of ca$h flowing into the coffers of the many corporations that profit from an oil-based infrastructure, the harm to the environment caused by motor vehicle use on a large scale, and the crazy foreign policies our oil-dependent lifestyles bring about.

A lot of times we believe what we believe because it is convenient, not because it actually makes sense.

Tell him that (UK) 60% of all head injuries involve alcohol in the bloodstream. Ask him if he is going to wear a safety helmet, next time he goes to a bar.

More people die of head injuries from falling down stairs than from cycling accidents. Ask him if he is going to wear a safety helmet, next time he goes to bed. Or, better still, only sleep downstairs, on a futon, since people get injured falling out of bed.

In the UK in 06, half a million people received medical treatment for injuries caused by walking into street furniture while using a mobile (cellphone). Ask him if he's going to wear a safety helmet and body armour before making a cellphone call.

British Medical Association research showed that cycling 4 miles a day reduced your chances of having a heart attack by 50% and that daily cycling was twenty times more likely to extend your life because of greater health and fitness than it was likely to result in a fatal collision. Tell him you'll visit him in the cardiology department of your local hospital.

Alternatively, he is a plonker and ignoramus and should be ignored. Until you visit him in the cardiology department of your local hospital.

(1) I think a lot of the adversion to bicycle commuting comes form the incredibly self-centered bunker mentality which suggests that the ultimate goal of suburban living is to aquire a Ford Expedition to better protect yourself and your family. Why else do you think so many grown adults are whining about how "expensive" it is to fuel their V8? Note, of course, that this also means the vehicle of choice is all the more deadly to those around you, not only in sheer mass but also in more limited visibility.

(2) Of course, that's only part of the story. Perhaps an even bigger part of the story is the extreme shortsightedness of the US's ridiculous zoning laws which suggest that every quart of milk requires making a trip in said Ford Expedition. Since things are so far away, more driving is done which as we all know makes things more difficult for those on bikes. It's now finally becoming clear how incredibly stupid it was to do things this way. Unfortunately things are so far gone now that we may be largely stuck with what we have for a long time.

(3) People are lazy. Let's face it, America wants to drive, and it's willing to put up with all of the pollution and environmentally destructive practices required to keep driving, including such insanities as burning our food supply (corn).

So, once you consider (2) and (3), item (1) is all the more easily justifiable. Fortunately (and unfortunately), I believe we're now starting to run into the real natural limits that almost everyone has pretended don't exist. Hopefully we'll finally realize that we should start to do things better, unfortunately (4) the vast majority of people don't seem to be capable or willing to consider the future. I hope that we'll start to behave that way less, and that we bicycle commuters will eventually be seen as the early adopters of a more sustainable and responsible lifestyle. Time to start doing things that we should be doing instead of the things that we can do.

Wow... thanks for all the good rebuttals... I'll make good use of them the next time someone starts with me again :)

I've got more than 100,000 miles and 35 years of riding (I started when I was 9 and most of miles are in the last 10 years). I feel safer on my bike than I do in my car. I'm pretty certain I'm not even close to being unique as I know a bunch of people who ride a *lot* more than I do.

Every form of travel is risky and has it's own dangers. Cycling, driving, flying, motorcycles,walking, they all have their own dangers. Tell your friend that when he gets into his vehicle and starts driving there is no guarantee that he is gona arrive at his destination alive. And that news article that he used to try to discourage you is really a cheap shot. Next time there is a collission between two vehicles and it's in the news, make sure you show that to him.

Overall mortality risk is lower on a bike. On average a full-time bicycle commuter will live longer than the same guy driving every day, because the guy in the car is safer while travelling, but will have a much higher incidence of diseases which are less likely to happen to people who get daily vigorous exercise.

In other words, odds are the guy in the car is going to die in a hospital bed of cancer or heart disease while the other guy is still out riding around on his bicycle.

And here's a published report that backs that up:
http://opim.wharton.upenn.edu/~ulric...viro-jul06.pdf

The graphic was developed from this data and only represents the lifetime odds of dying of any single activity. The NSC site also has yearly odds of dying and includes this disclaimer

The odds given below are statistical averages over the whole U.S. population and do not necessarily reflect the chances of death for a particular person from a particular external cause. Any individual's odds of dying from various external causes are affected by the activities in which they participate, where they live and drive, what kind of work they do, and other factors.

The graphic is just an easy way of looking at the data. It's also a good way of showing someone how risky one activity is over another...especially if they haven't a clue.

As for the odds of dying of legal execution being less than bicycling or driving, I don't see your point. Should they be higher? Few people in the population are convicted and executed so the odds of that method of death should be low...for any one member of the population. Don't do the crime, etc.

That link went to a story with practically no information. There could be many explanations for what happened, many of which could involve errors on the part of the biker. If the crash WAS caused by an error on the part of the biker, that slants the statistics. How many crashes take place with bikers who are making mistakes (running stop lights, unlit, not yielding right-of-way, etc.) and how many take place with bikers who aren't. I would think that if you are in the latter class your risks are even lower than average. But I'm not a mathematician.

I-Like-To-Bike is on to something. The graphic only makes sense once you read the disclaimer. And who reads disclaimers?
If I did my math right -and there is statistical significant change I did not- the change of dying in a motorvehicle accident for a regular user of a motorvehicle (1 in 74) are in the same range as the chances of dying in bicycle accident for a regular user of a bicycle (1 in 63). I assumed that 75% of the popluation regularly uses a motorvehicle and 1.5% regularly uses a bicycle.

I am sure that if you wanted to reach a different conclusion you can work the number in such a way that they will. It is statistics after all...

Of course while I type this I see a banner to the right side for car insurance. It repeatedly shows to cars colliding :)
Duppie

I'm not a mathematician, but it seems to me that a response to this is that, yes, if a blind 80-year-old driver sideswipes you, you certainly will be injured or killed, but how likely is that to happen?

In Minneapolis recently, some guy was driving on one side of a divided freeway going to work, and on the opposite side, going in the opposite direction, beyond the physical median that separates the different directions, was a garbage truck. A wheel detached from the truck, bounced over the median, hit the front of the guy's vehicle, and killed him. All it takes is one garbage truck with a loose wheel and, bam, you're dead.

That's kind of what I was getting at. Save for the part where they take up commuting...I really wish they'd do that.

On a somewhat unrelated note... it's another truck! The last five or six of Toronto's cycling fatalities involved trucks as I recall, and here is a pretty-close-to-fatal accident again. This definitely has some statistical significance, especially given that there are far fewer trucks on the roads than other vehicles. If you want to increase your safety on the road, be especially vigilant when trucks are around.

Word. Cement/dump truck season is upon us once again. Urg.

You are right, the posted graph is a simple way of looking at the gathered "data", but does not come close to providing any useful information about the actual risk incurred by participation in any of those activities.

The odds of dying by legal execution is very low for the public at large; the risk for those who participate in the activity are quite high.

Risk is not determined or evaluated by gathering data on the odds of any single activity occurring in a lifetime, but rather evaluating the likelihood that negative events will occur when (and if) exposed to the "hazard", as well as the likely severity of the negative event.

Hydroplane speed
 

9 x square root of the inflation pressure. 98.5 mph for 120 PSI. You make it hydroplane and I'll bow down before you...

hey, did you ever see the movie 28 days later? that guy got in a bike accident, and he lived, but everyone else turned into zombies while he was in a coma. i don't think your friend is taking that into consideration.

So what you are saying is if I ride a bike 10,000 miles a year and drive a car... never, then I'm at an infinitely higher risk of dying on a bike than I am in dying in a car?

Then I'll stop riding a bike and drive my car. But wouldn't that make driving an infinitely higher risk than riding?

We can simplify the chart by saying that LIVING = 1 in 1 risk of DYING. Now that it's all evened out, we can all just go about the business of living... and riding. :D

The graph and the data aren't meant to provide any information on the 'risk' involved in an activity. They are not stated that way nor presented that way. They are the 'odds' of death from a particular activity based upon all the causes of death in 2004 based on your living in this nation and in this population of people. I'll agree that the risk of dying in a particular activity depending on the activity. The risk of dying in an activity depends a lot on the location of the activity. For example, the risk of dying in a shark attack is probably pretty low. The risk of dying in a shark attack in Colorado is probably much, much closer to zero then in California which is much lower then if you go in the water;)

However, when someone makes a statement like this

he's not looking at the risk of his own actions. Comparing the odds of his death in an automobile accident...a supposedly safe activity...vs the odds of dying on a bicycle...a supposedly unsafe activity...with a simple easy to grasp graphic tells him just how full of crap he is;)

There's no rational, intellectual way to respond to people who send you bike crash links.

So I retaliate in kind.

Every time there's a car crash--especially if it's an SUV rollover (We've had at least one a week of those lately)--I retaliate by sending the link to the article to the person trying to get me off my bike. After a few of those, they quit hassling me.

Here's one from today's Star. Not the best example since there's a question of speed and intoxication, but you get the idea. I can't figure out why The Star makes you pay for any article other than today's paper...

Yeah, not the best example because co-workers never sit around joking about how fast they were driving, and everyone knows you can go 10-15 over the speed limit. When they do go to a get together at a bar, everyone jokes at how you ride there (in winter) and offers you a lift home... because I'll be safer going 60 odd in a car controlled by a drunk than at 10 on something that requires me to be sober enough to balance.

I don't have a link for you, but the equivalent of 10 Boeing 747 jets full to capacity die on US highways ever single day in auto crashes. Seems high to me and I may stand corrected. Google for yourself.

This is as close as I could get as I gotta get off the computer now:

Auto deaths in developed countries 400 times greater than terror related deaths.

Tell him he'd better not ever eat a cheeseburger again, or he might choke on it and/or have a heart attack from the artery clogging fats.

by the way I love cheeseburgers.

Tell him you're either going out under the wheel of a car, or as a big fat slob who never exercises, and therefore has high blood pressure, and cholesterol, etc.

The health benefits outweight the risks.