14,757 miles in the last 5 years. I've never been hit, not even close. The closest was a landscaping truck with branches sticking out of the side, those hit me. And some punk kid threw a branch at me when I was riding by. I turned around and let his mommy know what happened. However, I have been hit once (rear ended) in the last 5 years while driving to work.

I'd agree with nashvillewill. Country roads seem fairly dangerous in my area, unless you're with a large group of cyclists, then it just pi$$e$ of drivers because they can't buzz you like usual.

Here's another.

http://www.bikexprt.com/streetsmarts/usa/index.htm

Ok, so I felt the need to chime in here. While I may not have the income level of others around me I typically commute in more affluent neighborhoods. Out here it is not uncommon to have the local "pro bike shop" team in full kit out on the streets at any time. People have come to expect that, so even in the suburban area that I live I find it to be quite safe. More often than not, if you ride defensively, and keep your head on a swivel, you should be quite safe in most situations. Knowledge is power.

That's also what I do and since I do that I see a big difference, feel much safer!

Nashvillwill says:

You must be talking about some small city or town. You can't possibly be referring to San Francisco, New York, Chicago, Dallas, Maimi, Baltimore, Boston, New Orleans, Cleveland, or Pheonix. In most large urban centers, I could swear that there's some kinda secret agreement between bus companies and taxi cab drivers to intimidate, befuddle, maim, or kill any cyclist you want, whenever convenient.

If you hadn't used the word suburb in your explanation, I would have thought you were describing city cycling conditions. Most cyclists don't maintain the same speed that drivers do within the city. Drivers tend to exceed the speed limit, as they go from red light to red light, or from stop sign to stop sign. Cyclists tend to ride below the speed limit and stop at lights, but ignore stop signs when there is no visible traffic. The speed limit might very well be greater in the suburbs, but there tends to be fewer cars that drive erratically and more than likely, there will either be a clearly marked bicycle lane, or at least adequate space on the right to improvise a bike lane. Also, there's a greater likelihood of being seen on a suburban road, as they tend to have fewer curbs and intersections. Therefore, there are fewer abrupt and unexpected encounters with other vehicles.

No. Rural areas have both fewer cars and cyclists. As soon as the density of vehicles decreases, the number of accidents must decrease, as well. Many cyclists are killed near intersections. There are more intersections in larger urban centers, than anywhere else. The majority of cyclists are killed on major roads or thoroughfares located within cities.

I dunno. At what point do the suburbs, become rural areas? Alright, I'll concede. I most probably should have stated unpaved rural road.

Therefore the order of danger goes like this:

Urban Centers > Suburban Roads > Paved Rural Roads > Unpaved Rural Roads

References:

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811386.pdf

http://www.iihs.org/research/fatality.aspx?topicName=bicycles&year=2008

+1 This.

Old age I think.

Living is risky, but you ain't gonna stop living, are you?

Cycling is more dangerous than stamp collecting.

I guess the point is that there are risks in everything we do, you just have to prepare the best you can to lessen those risks.

if you are so worried about riding, however, you will probably not have a good time on the road, so maybe try mountain biking. The only risks there are falling off the side of a trail (which I have done) or running into wildlife (like the time I ran across a mountain lion).

But hey....

It's unsafe. You are going to die!!!

Are you guys kidding me or what?
There are risks in everything we do.

I'm going to try to limit those risks, but I am still going to do them.

Heck you could choke on dinner tonight and die. Does this mean I'm not going to eat!

"Unsafe" is an emotionally laden term that's hard to discuss, because emotions are subject neither to measurement nor discussion. If you change that to "risk" you can have a rational discussion.

Most calculations of relative risk indicate the risks of not exercising (as in bicycling) are about six times higher than the risk of death while cycling. I think it was the British Medical Journal (but I could be mistaken) than came out with a factor of 20:1. That is, the benefits of bicycling are 20 times higher than the risks.

Emotionally, that's more than safe enough. Cycling is also fun!

Can't speak 1st hand about the others, but I have ridden in Boston. One of the safest places I've ridden & most polite drivers. Very large cycling community there. My wife & I rode all around while towing our little Scottish Terrier. Drivers gave us all kind of room. My wife's daughter went to Tufts University. Her sole transportation was a bike, she has never owned a car. No problems in the 4 years she was there. Then she moved to DC for a year & then San Francisco for a couple. No problems in either place. My wife cycled in San Francisco & said it was great. No problems with traffic.

However, we also cycled in Chicago on the MUP along the lake. That was one of the most dangerous palces I've ever cycled. It was a busy weekend & the trail very crowded. Cyclists were trying to go fast to train & were a hazard. Pedestrians were often oblivious to everything going on around them. Roller bladers were a hazard even when you were standing still at the very edge of the path. No injuries but it would have been safer on the roads:(

The most cycling friendly place that I've ever ridden was Seoul, South Korea.

The safest place to ride is a big, level, grassy field, with no trees, wearing lots of pads and a helmet. Even then, you could fall over and get hurt.

This is a great post. Next time someone at work mentions how dangerous cycling on the roads is, I'll bring this up. Thank you!

Actually, I am talking about San Francisco.

Its just a matter of though, you don't have to agree.

If I read the OP post I assume he's talking about danger and safety in regards to his physical well being, e.g. not getting killed or seriously injured. So to compare a fender bender one had while driving and saying, 'see I never had this while cycling' is a little besides the point.

I actually looked at some stats and the chance of you getting killed while riding a bike vs driving a car are about 7 times higher (per mile travelled). That walking is more dangerous than biking is just weird, and it doesn't make a lot of sense. 4000 pedestrians getting killed vs 700 cyclists per year. That's approximately a 1-6 ratio. At least from what I see it appears that there are many more pedestrians out there compared to cyclists (certainly more than six for each cyclist).
Now if you look at how many drivers get killed a year (18,000) that seems low to the enormous volume of cars out there (even if you add passenger deaths of 7000). Seems to me the order of danger by form of transportation (and we're talking fatalities here) seems to be

-motorcycles
-bicycles
-pedestrians
-cars

As to the question what you can do, I found the following tips to be helpful:
-Ride defensively, expect the unexpected, be aware of your surroundings
-Get off the street as much as possible, try to find separated bike paths
-Choose routes where the general speed of traffic is low (residential areas etc), that will make an accident more survivable

If you are comparing "per mile traveled" for cars and bikes, then also do the same for pedestrians. Bikes usually travel many more miles than peds. Frankly, none of the stats have much meaning. Apples and oranges. Too many variables.

True, it's not scientific, but I wanted to respond to Bragi who claimed that 'statistically riding a bike is more dangerous than flying, about as dangerous as driving, and actually a little safer than walking'.

Like you, I live in the Bay Area. You know how many times I've almost gotten killed in San Francisco. Not only by drivers, but by fellow cyclists too! The whole damn town is crazy! It's also dangerous to drive in Frisco too! If the tourists or crackhead DUI's don't get you, the parking maids will for sure! :lol:

Just ask San Franciscan cyclists about how safe they feel...

I've been to Boston on several occasions before. Boston has the same downtown craziness as all the other major cities.

I've been riding bikes for around 50 years, and have been hit twice. The first was in Greeley, Colorado, which had bike lanes in the center of the street. I got hit by a guy turning left with no turn indication. The second time was when a guy opened a door into me; I couldn't see because the sun was low and shining into my eyes. The driver blamed me for riding too close to his car.

I've nearly been hit a number of times when walking on a sidewalk, by drivers in a hurry. Then there's the classic case of people not stopping while looking to their left for oncoming cars, not caring that a pedestrian is approaching from their right.

Minimizing your risk while riding a bike is pretty simple. Wearing bright clothes helps a lot. I have an Aerostich hi-viz yellow jacket that makes me very easy to see. At night, I have a very bright headlight and taillight. Even so... it's up to me to be alert. A bus tried to outrun me to its next stop one time; I was prepared to move around to the left after the driver hit the brakes, but he didn't pull over and made all of his passengers walk across the bike lane to get to the bus.

Lots of people do unsafe things. I do them too, in inattentive moments. The key is to minimize them, and hope that my unsafe action doesn't line up with someone else's.

Ride alert. Have fun. Even on your way to downtown Los Angeles.

I think it's more a matter of what you're used to. Cities seem crazy to people that don't live in them. Our main office is in the city and one of our satellite offices is in the burbs. Some of the people that work there live in more rural areas. Ask one of them to visit the downtown office and it's like you're asking them to travel through a war zone. ;)

I grew up in a small town that didn't get it's first stop light until I was in high school. The "city" that I went to college in had a population of less than 50,000. Boston, San Francisco, or Minneapolis all seem like safer places to be on a bike because the drivers are used to a lot of pedestrians and cyclists. I've been to the first two cities several times and of course live in Minneapolis. Boston in particular looks like a hostile place to drive but easy to get around on foot or by bike.

I can see this. When I was visiting Philly the other day, it looked like a chaotic place to ride. Same with NYC until I rode it.

True, living is indeed the leading cause of death.

As a pretty regular commuter through downtown San Jose, I have to agree with this. The closer I am to the busiest parts of the city, the safer I feel. The speed limits are generally 25 mph, and I typically ride at about 75% of the speed limit, many cars don't even bother to pass me because they know they're just going to get caught at the next light anyways. It's when I get further away from downtown - closer to home (Milpitas), where where people seem to be in more of a hurry, are more likely to right-hook, pull out in front of you, and are simply less attentive.

Having said that, it all depends on which city we're talking about. I've ridden in SF several times, and none of those times have been very pleasant until I get to an MUP. Drivers up there don't seem to like cyclists very much. Once I get over the G.G. and into Sausalito & Tiburon, it's a different story - certainly less stressful to ride on the streets there.