Bicycling fatalities
 

Do they release statistics on how many people die every year on a bicycle? I'm wondering how dangerous it is. You could die doing anything I mean look at automobiles, but I was wondering if bicycling is motorcycle dangerous (I heard at least 1 in 10 regular motorcyclists will die over time)

Yes there are lots of statistics.

As far as fatalities:

Almost all agree that bicycling is nowhere near as dangerous as motorcycling.

Per mile traveled (which gives the worst comparison for bicyclists), bicycling maybe slightly more dangerous than driving. (However, keep in mind the figures include children, drunks, no-lights at night, etc). So I believe that if you can stay out of all of those demographics you can be at a lower risk of death than driving.

Also, none of this factors in the positive health benefits. The net result of bicycling is a longer life expectancy on average.

On the other hand, you are likely to increase your risk of non-fatal injury.

I think I am safer on my bike than on the freeway,,,,,Auto deaths are so common that they almost never make the news here, when ever we have a bicycle fatality it makes the news like crazy, so do shootings.

I think your probably a lot less likely to die while riding your bike than a heart attack if you don't! Everything is a risk...Alot goes into measuring your personal riak though. How safe are you on your bike? Only as safe as you ride.

I don't find most of these statistics terribly useful.

Motorists go though some level of "standardization" though their road training and tests. Additionally, important safety features are standard on motor vehicles, such as lights. So whereas the skill sets and relevant variables that go into motoring statistics "overall" are more rounded, cycling skill sets and variables are nearly completely uncontrolled. That as mentioned, can muck the statistics a bit more when you're trying to find *your* chances.

You may check with your local police department. They may have statistics for you or point you in the right direction?

+1. I'd much rather take whatever risk there is (always trying to minimize it of course), than go through the triple angioplasty I had 6 years ago before I got back into cycling.

Technically, ALL of them will die over time....

/stats geek

Oh, you mean die on the motorcycle. Well, possibly, but that doesn't mean that motorcycle riding is deadly dangerous in and of itself. It could be that certain individuals have tendencies to behave in risky ways, and they just happen to be doing so on a motorcycle. Take the bike away, and it's entirely possible those people will do something else (say canoeing or rock climbing, to name two random examples) in a risky manner and thus die. There are safe (or safER anyway) and unsafe ways to do just about anything you cna think of, so we all have to pick our odds.

While it may be true that motorists must demonstrate some level of knowledge and proficiency once, in most states that's the end of it -- renewals are pretty much automatic. Even in states where there is some test required, it isn't generally a practical skills test. There's a big difference between knowing the law and practicing it. The evidence of this is the high number of drivers ticketed daily for offenses ranging from speeding to DUI to vehicular homicide. As with drivers, most people start out with at least some knowledge of bicycle law, even if it's just that they're expected to follow the same laws drivers are. The fact that there is no skills test required isn't that big a factor, in my opinion.

As far as the vehicles themselves are concerned, they may start out with standard safety features, but these can and often are neglected or intentionally removed over time. In some states vehicles must pass a safety inspection, but I know that at least some vehicles are modified just for the inspection and then unmodified immediately thereafter. Bicycles also come with standard safety features as required by state law. Again, these can be removed or modified. As above, I don't see a significant difference.

Just like driving, the risk at which you place yourself while on a bicycle is impacted significantly by the amount of training you've received, the way your bicycle is set up and maintained, and the way in which you operate your vehicle. Set your bike and yourself up for maximum visibility, follow the law, ride defensively, and your chances of not becoming a statistic significantly improve. You may still be hurt or killed through no fault of your own, but the same can happen in your car.

Testing is not required for a bicycle at all however. Legally you're expected to know the rules of the road, but they don't make you read any books. The fact that nobody tells you about the dangers of hopping sidewalks, riding by doors, or riding down the wrong side of the road doesn't strike you as a big factor?

Motorists are required to demonstrate knowledge in many primary safety practises. While some drivers may be negligent of such things, there will be many who will have a greatly reduced window for error thanks to training which will have helped prepare them ahead of time with things they might not have known or thought about beforehand. This is training that cyclists simply don't get, and a considerable factor in discrepancies in skill.

There is a significant difference. Mandatory safety features on a bicycle (based on local regulations) include reflectors which are typically less effective than active lighting systems, and a bell which is of little use in road conditions (the bell doesn't usually *come* with the bicycle either. Actually, often the reflectors don't either, its the riders responsibility to purchase some). Contrasted to mandatory inclusion of high powered lights, seat belts and horns, I don't see how you can't see a significant difference in the usefulness of included safety features.

There aren't many features which you can add to a motor vehicle to greatly increase safety, primary needs come included. The same is not true for a bicycle, where out of box most models are missing features which can *greatly* enhance safety, such as active lighting or warning systems capable of reaching people inside their vehicles (horns and the like)

I don't know of any drivers who remove their lights for jollies, just ones who neglect to repair damaged ones. I can't think of any other "safety features" which are removed, saved that people don't always wear their seatbelts.

In fact, 10 in 10 regular motorcyclists will die over time. We are all gonna die. :p

Motorcycling has been shown something like 27 times more dangerous than driving a car. Cycling is slightly less safe per mile travelled and slightly safer per hour of exposure (makes sense because a mile in a car goes usually goes by faster than a mile on a bike, so we're talking about different exposure times here). A lot depends on how you ride (duh).

In fact, there are, on average, more people who tend to behave in risky ways among motorcycle riders than among general population. That's why some of them get a motorcycle in the first place. This is confirmed by the fact that when car and motorcycle crashes are examined, the motorcycle operator is statistically more likely to have alcohol in his blood at the time of the crash.

This is not to label all motorcycle riders scruffy outlaws with no regards for safety. Most of them aren't, I'm sure. But there are more of them among motorcyclists than among the general public.

There's a billboard here in Portland that says "newest technology to prevent heart disease". It's a picture of a road bike. :)

I think the point is, that most cycling fatalities aren't cycling fatalities sice they usually involve getting run over by a car. They should be called car related fatalities. Cycling fatalities should be limited to heart attacks, running of the road into poles, that sort of thing.

Yeah, for as much as people worry about spectacular crashes, it's diseases that get them in the end.

Time magazine printed this graphic a while ago. I kept it because it puts things into perspective.

Look at how many deaths cycling prevents

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1375/...72bca6fc_o.jpg

As others have pointed out, generalized bicycling fatality numbers are pretty much worthless. The vast majority of cycling accidents are completely avoidable by action of the cyclist. Mostly they're people riding the wrong way, riding drunk, riding without proper safety gear (lights/reflectors), riding on sidewalks and not using care crossing intersections, using bike lanes and acting as though they actually provide you any protection, etc. Also a lot are children who don't understand how traffic works.

A careful and experienced adult cyclist can all but eliminate the majority of fatal situations by his own actions.

Also, to be fair you must include the health benefits of cycling. I've seen it claimed that the health benefits of cycling outweigh the increased accident mortality risks by 20:1; that is, for every year that's taken from the lifetime of a cyclist by being killed prematurely, 20 years are added to the average cyclist's life due to decreased mortality from heart disease, cancer, etc.

You can certainly google it to find sources, but I think the latest, 2006 figures were somewhere between 700-800 bicyclist deaths v. 42,000 auto deaths. And 42k deaths was considered a good thing, because it was down from 2005... Haven't found a source that details cyclist deaths as to cause or circumstance... like getting hit by a car.

Do you have any references for this specific breakdown of the cause/contributing factor for the "vast majority of cycling accidents" for adults?

You are making me laugh and laugh and laugh.

Not offhand, but 15 seconds on google yields:
http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/health/risks.htm

Then
http://www.wrongful-death.com/wrongf...ent_death.html
Be careful when reading the statistics. Some accident types are listed as "motorist failed to yield" but could be a sidewalk rider who entered the intersection on a crosswalk. If such a cyclist is hit, theoretically it could be the motorist's "fault" since "pedestrians" in the crosswalk always have right-of-way over a vehicle, but in reality it's the bicyclist doing something boneheaded that really caused the accident. It all depends on a combination of local laws and who's interpreting them how.

Oh I am; and skeptical of those who make quantitative claims first, and look for evidence to support those claims later.

In the first cite the only relevant statistics (Carol Tan 1995 study), only 21.8% of fatalities were attributed to any specific cause and that included:
1.3% The motorist was overtaking the bicyclist and failed to see him.
.6% The motorist lost control of the car and struck the bicyclist.
.5% The motorist struck a play vehicle (big wheel, bike with training wheels).
3.9% The motorist was overtaking the bicyclist, cause of the accident unclear.

I assume the rest are attributed to the catch-all of "etc." in order to support the claim that most accidents would not happen to a bicyclist doing the right thing.

I could find nothing supporting your claim in the second cite.

how about descriptions of the deaths of cyclists over a 10 year period?

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

bottom of the page, part 6, appendix A

1 example

94-165-0036 At approximately 23:30 hours on a late April evening in Langford, B.C. a half ton truck travelling in an easterly direction on Kelly Road near Langford struck a cyclist travelling in a westward direction on the roadway. The bicycle, driven by a male in his mid thirties, was not lighted although it had orange reflectors on the pedals. The cyclist was wearing dark clothing that included a black jacket with white bands on the sleeves. The principal cause of death was a massive head injury. The cyclist was severely impaired by alcohol.

Not to brag or anything, but I'm in good physical shape, I have good vision and hearing, I keep my bikes in good mechanical condition and have the blinkies and lights and whatnot, I ride with traffic, I ride clean and sober, and I have a few miles under my belt.

I have to say, I like my chances.

Closetbiker,

Cute graphic, but misleading. "heart attack is the biggest killer" is garbage in, garbage out. When you look at the numbers the heart attack numbers are low until about age 70 or 80+. All people die. All doctors have to complete a death certificate. Unknown cause of death is "heart attack". The problem with this approach is accidents, etc with higher rates in younger people, is not addressed because there isn't a good lobby for it.

Original poster,
I've looked off and on for several years. Excutive summary: no valid data available.

Rates of death/ year are low, in most years maybe about 100. No agency collects relevant data. The data that is collected is more day of week, time of day, which doesn't tell you much than many deaths are because of lack of lighting.

You can't find data on:
1. bike vs motor vehicle
1.1 impact from which side of bike
1.2 type of pavement: street, trail, residental, 2 lane road, 4+ lane road
1.3 speed limit at sight
1.4 traffic signal data: green, yellow, red light
1.5 sun glare as partial cause
1.6 motor vehicle not operated under control: i.e.,cell phones, DUI, etc
1.7 bike not operating according to rules of road
1.8 safety equipment/clothing used by cyclist
1.9 solo cyclist or group of cyclists
1.10 traffic volumn at time of "accident"

2. bike, solo accidents
2.1 running off road
2.2 equipment failure
2.3 road hazard causing loss of control


It would be great to have data, but until someone lobbies for it, or volunteers create own database, all data is
suspect and just hearsay.