My greatest concern is distracted motorists. I urge everyone else who shares this concern to join focusdriven.org, which is modeled after MADD, another organization I support financially.

In 100k miles of road cycling spanning more than 4 decades, I have had only one collision with a motor vehicle, a left-cross which I might avoid today with better brakes, more visible clothing, better (more assertive) lateral positioning on the road, etc. Total injuries from cycling are a minor separation of the right shoulder, a double fracture of the left clavicle, a concussion, and two different sets of facial lacerations. The clavicle fx, concussion, and left cheekbone laceration were from the close encounter with the motor vehicle, 33 years ago (at age 26). The other injuries occurred in my teens and early 20s.

+1

I've read a few interesting things lately. Maybe cycling is safer for us than the numbers might lead you to believe.
Experienced cyclists get killed less often than inexperienced cyclists. Being that we ride a lot (I didi almost 8000 miles last year) I think my odds improve.
Where I live there are bottom feeder folks who ride on the wrong side of the road with no helmets at night without lights. When they get killed being stupid it still shows as a cyclist killed.
Tragically, young kids get killed regularly doing the things that kids do. That raises the stats too.

My bet: For us in this forum cycling is pretty safe. Sure, there are unfortunate stories, but I'll bet we come out as far better off cycling than not cycling.

OR-- Alternate answer: Who cares, I'm going for a ride!

Cycling can seriously damage your wealth.

Well, it depends on what you mean by "dangerous".

About 800 cyclists perish per year in the USA. Of course, the statistics do not take into account the kind of rider they are. Almost 50% of the fatalities occur at night and usually with people riding without lights. So if you do not ride at night without lights, your fatality risk is halved. Also if you are female, your risk is substantially lower. Guys just manage to get themselves killed easier.

But taken on an per hour risk factor, cycling is half as dangerous as driving. I know it does not FEEL that way. But I guess driving in a car gives one a false sense of security. Also cyclists tend to avoid high risk behaviors that drivers of vehicles indulge in frequently. For example, driving while drunk is popular and contributes to many fatalities. But not too many cyclists ride whilst inebriated. Also falling asleep at the wheel is another major contributor to fatalities and again this is a very much lower risk for cyclists. Finally, fooling around with distractors, cell phones, and so on, is pretty common in motorized vehicles and is not a big thing for cyclists.

Interestingly enough, motorcycles have 8 times the risk of fatality that cyclists have.

Pat

how DANGEROUS is cycling ?
 

I'm also a RABID BMW motorcycle owner/rider with 900,000 + miles and counting.

Attachment 132944

There are times when I feel "less safe" on the bicycle, only because I can NOT power my way out of an accident scenario. One of the reasons I LOVE MTB single track is the lack of traffic.

50% of all motorcycle deaths are due to drunk riding, sad but true.

All the gear all the time (ATGATT) is a good mantra.

I absolutely HATE the statement "there are two kinds of motorcycle riders, those who have crashed and those who will."

Gee, think that statement applies to airplane pilots as well ?

Bottom line, training, training, and more training. Experience truly is the name of the game.

Gary

Compaired to what?

At a point where I had about half the miles in you do, I gave up motorcycles. I told my wife I'd not buy another motorcycle until the kids are all out of college. Well, this year is the year that they will all be finished. Yet, I'm not likely to get another motorcycle. Its a funny thing that just about the time I started with motorcycles, I stopped with bicycles. I didn't stop give up motorcycles until I laid down the motorcycle two times in the space of one year, and in both instances this was the only way to avoid a much more serious accident. I can tell you from experience that, even with ATGATT, laying the bike down at 65+ mph is a whole lot less fun than any time I've gone down on a bicycle. But, to each his own. I agree that training, experience, and not doing stupid things like drinking and riding are keys to safety. I also believe that a healthy dose of good luck doesn't hurt either.

This doesn't ring true. It sounds like "common sense" but not FARS or similar data. I don't have the data in front of me, but as I recall the three most dangerous times were A: 7-9am, B: 12-1pm, and C: 5-7pm. Basically rush times with high incidents of distracted drivers. Some increase with twilight, am & pm, but numbers of deaths at dark hours is low because number riders is low.

Car and motorcycle risk of death are higher than bicycles because accidents usually happen at higher speeds

If you are worried about bike safety, read "the Art of Cycling" by Robert Hurst.

Most cycling risks are manageable.

I rode 5000 miles last year. No injuries.

Well, back to the article posted by the OP ... The author makes a big deal out of his statistics showing that it is a lot more dangerous to ride a bicycle in the Britain on a per hour basis than a car but it is the opposite in France. He also brings in a bunch of other countries to say that this statistic is unique to the Britain. He then comes up with a bunch of bogus theories to explain this but he completely over-looks the obvious one: They drive on the left in the Britain and on the right in the comparison countries he uses in the paper, so of course the statistics are reversed! Duh. This is easily tested I might add, all we need to do it look at the statistics from Sweden where they switched from driving on the left to driving on the right in 1967. If we take out 1968, which was a transitional year, and compare the 1967 pre-change statistics to the 1969 statistics we find that the death rate per hour for motorists and cyclists switched in a way that is virtually identical to the difference between Britain and France shown in the article. I think these Swedish statistics are over looked in the literature because they were only published in Swedish a language spoken only by Swedes and a few Finns that were forced to learn it in high school.

Should you avoid cycling in countries that drive on the left side of the road? While even at 3.5 times the risk versus driving and MV, as the author points out, the risk is still a lot less than the risks you encounter from normal every day activities such as climbing Mt. Everest or cheating on your spouse, so even though it is riskier than bicycling elsewhere (relative to driving an MV) the risk is still pretty small and not a big deal and this is without considering the health benefits.

"The things that make you live may kill you in the end" from a Neil Young song

left or right side of the road
 

Bull**** ! I spent 6 months motorcycling & bicycling in Japan last year. IMHO, absolutely NO difference between the left and right as a primary lane in safety terms.

Attachment 133135

Attachment 133136

note the front basket, step thru frame and belt drive on my Bridgestone

Only issue I had was, sometimes after making a right turn, I would want to move over to the right hand lane for some unknown reason.

Adjustment period needed to get used the convex mirrors at every intersection. I refer to them as "optical" stop signs.

Attachment 133137

Why would it make a difference on which side of the road everyone rides/drives?

As my father used to say "The purpose of life is to live it not survive it."

None of those of us who are posting have been killed yet. I'd say you're safe enough as long as you post here.

I think that refered to drugs and not bicycles.

So provide us with a better alternate hypophysis that fits the data.

I can see how it might make a difference if there is a connection between being right ocular dominant and driving on the right side of the road. Most people are right ocular dominant. Which may help most drivers see cyclist on the right side of the road better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocular_dominance

I'm safe , I'm posting.

Can someone explain this, from the article:

The Growth Rule states that if the amount of cycling doubles, the number of deaths increases only 25%, hence the risk in cycling decreases by 37%.

Why do the fatalities increase by only 25%? I guess the point is that drivers are more used to seeing cyclists?? Or is it that when there are more cyclists, there are more bike paths built??

With more people riding bikes, the total number of deaths grows but at a much lower rate, so the overall rate gets lower.

Lets say with 1,000 cyclists there were 100 deaths (10%)
Let's say the number of cyclists increases to 2,000 and now there are 125 deaths. (6.25%)
That is a 37.5% reduction in the rate of deaths per cyclist.
(not real numbers, just for illustration)

When the number of cyclists increases, along with drivers getting more accustomed to seeing cyclists on the road, more of the drivers are cyclists themselves and are more likely to be aware of how to safely react.

That is a bit funny. I did just once have a driver tell me "why don't you stay on the sidewalk where you belong?" And that was for no apparent reason.

He didn't look bright enough that it was worth explaining the law. Or maybe that he should take his idea to the council chambers and try to get it passed.

Of course not cycling is really dangerous too. A little heart attack packs at least as much punch as a Buick. Personally I'm cheap so bicycling would get my vote if the dangers were even both ways. I don't think they are. I think that bicycling does have its risks, but still comes out ahead.

The bus company does have a chance of getting a buck offa me some day, but their best one is going to be if they can pry it out of my cold dead hands.

Well, I was all about to chip in and say that cycling, as long as it's attentive and considerate, in a spirit of willingness to coexist with pushier and less observant road users, needn't be troublesome. I was all about citing a lot of years commuting in London, Paris, N. York and other places

And then I realised that as I'm still hobbling around on crutches after a 'no other vehicle' 1kph tumble, my views are as worth attention as listening to rice crispies for lottery forecasts.

(By the way, am I alone in thinking the 'left side/right side of the road' post was a pretty good tease?)

Having ridden in England and France- I would prefer the attitude of other Road users in France to the ones we have in the UK.

The French love all sport and on the road look out for cyclists. In fact- I would prefer to cycle in France than Drive. One example was on an organised ride with UK riders in France. Came to a hill in woods and I saw a car stopped at the top of the hill. I overtook the other riders and warned them to keep to the right and told the car driver that the other riders were all safe enough. His reply was "Why should I ruin their ride when I can enjoy watching them come up the hill". He then got out of his car along with his wife and kids and as the riders got to the top- they were cheered and applauded for managing the 5% 300metre climb. As the driver said- They are enjoying themselves-I am just out for a drive in the car.

And this is typical of the attitude you get in France from all other road users.