agarose2000

As summer season rolls in, it seems that nearly every day, I come across another article of yet another cyclist being killed somewhere. Even on group rides, with multiple casualties.

I'm looking for some hard statistics to help convince not just myself but the rest of the family that cycling isn't as dangerous as the news makes it out to be. Unless it is.

If anyone's got any stats or references they could share to help compare the two, would be helpful.

Velo Vol 

Yes there are general national stats (I don't have them bookmarked) but they may or may not be useful in making a safety determination for you.

Daytrip

Cycling is obviously a whole lot more dangerous--any way you look at it--than driving. By a long shot.

With that in mind, I try to minimize the risk in various ways, such as:

1.) Try to avoid riding on busy streets and highways;
2.) Try to avoid riding during morning and evening rush hours.
3.) Try to avoid riding into a setting sun
4.) Don't ride when tired
5.) Glance over my shoulder at cars approaching from behind so that hopefully I can bail if they look like they're aiming at me. This works well if you can accomplish #1.
6.) Use a mirror.
7.) Wear bright clothing, esp. on overcast/foggy days.

I live in a pretty rural area that's pretty hilly. I realized early on that if you stick to the main roads, they tend to be flatter, since they follow rivers and run through valleys. But they're also a lot more busy. By sticking to the backroads, I spend more time climbing, but it's safer and in the final analysis, more interesting and fun anyway. I find steady traffic to be a lot less fun to ride in, even with a wide shoulder, than a deserted country road.

hurley.girl

What are you basing this on?

Phantoj

1,600 posts and you haven't found the A&S forum yet?

MegaTom

Umm, this might be a bit obvious, and forgive me if I'm missing something, but if you get hit or you hit something on a bike..... YOU take the brunt of that hit.... not a steel frame and airbags around you. I think that might be the main reason that it's more dangerous.

Daytrip

Common sense.

Bike hits car: Car - 1, Bike - 0
Car hits bike: Bike - 0, Car - 1

Or:

Bike & rider weighs less than 200 lbs. Car & driver weighs about 4,000 pounds, on average.

prathmann

Some time back the consulting group Failure Analysis Associates (now Exponent, Inc.) compiled some statistics for the insurance industry on the risk of a fatality for a variety of common activities - expressed in terms of the risk of death per million hours of participation. Their numbers were 0.26 for cycling and 0.42 for car driving. In comparison, motorcycling was about 8 and flying a small private plane was about 15. Unfortunately their figures are getting a bit dated and I haven't seen any good comparisons like that more recently. The problem is getting a good handle on the total time (or distance) associated with cycling.

Of course, if you analyze based on a per-mile metric instead of per-hour then driving will be significantly less dangerous than cycling. But in many cases the per-hour measurement is more appropriate - e.g. you might go out for a Sunday afternoon drive vs. a bike ride; both will take about the same amount of time but you'd drive far more miles. And even as a utility cyclist I notice that I'm much more conserving of travel distance than when I'm driving. When grocery shopping by bike I'll tend to stick with the nearest stores. And when cycling I'll do more of my comparison shopping by phone or internet rather than just planning to visit a number of stores like I might do when driving.

jefferee

I like Ken Kifer's article on cycling risk. It's now pretty dated (stats are from 1997) but the analysis could be done with more recent stats. Measuring risk in terms of fatalities per exposure hour, Kifer concluded that cycling and driving are about equally dangerous.

https://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/health/risks.htm

agarose2000

I don't think it's that obvious. Sure, in car vs bike, the outcome is obvious, but if you consider car vs car or car vs tree (think drunken driver), cars speeding 80mph, and the other innumerable scenarios in which the drivers find themselves, I seriously wonder whether it's really safer to be on a bike or in a car. Despite the fact that most people consider driving a perfectly risk-acceptable activity.

Also, if you consider that most road cyclists avoid high trafficked areas, don't ride in dark or snow, (or even rain), and usually are found in more remote areas away from cars, I seriously question whether my life is more at risk driving to work than it is from my bike training.

hurley.girl

Which doesn't equate to real risk. I suggest you look into the actual statistics before stating something like "cycling is obviously more dangerous".

merlinextraligh

It's not nearly as clear cut as you think. By miles traveled, a Car is a bit safer. By hours of participation, it's a much closer question.

And your odds that your life ends in an automobile crash living in the USA are dramatically higher than of dying in a bike crash.

Riding a bike is just not nearly as dangerous as people make it out to be. https://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/health/risks.htm

Because you hear on BF of just about every bike fatality in the world, BF greatly distorts your perception of risk.

Edit: Jefferee and Prathman beat me to it.

MegaTom

But if you are in a cycling related accident, it obviously is more dangerous. Sure, statistically you may be well ahead of many other activities in terms of safety over time or miles traveled.... but when you are that one person in however many thousand, then being on the bike at that time & place is much more dangerous than being in a car.

stien

Depends where you ride, car vs bike and bike vs bike obviously.

I vote for biking being safer personally. Bikes can stop a lot faster than cars (if you ride with traffic). New drivers are trained killers, and a car is a bigger target than a bike.

Velo Vol 

I agree that the fatalities per hour is the most useful comparison. Yet even using that the risks vary widely depending on what kind of cycling you are examining. Consider the variance of risk:

--Kids cruising around a quiet neighborhood street
--Road cyclist on a quiet country road
--Road cyclist on a busy suburban road at rush hour
--Teenager riding urban streets at night with no lights

They're all thrown together in a general national statistic.

agarose2000

This is irrelevant to the question.

You could make the same argument that you shouldn't go for a walk outside your house because if you're in the wrong spot at the wrong time, an asteroid from outer space will enter the atmosphere and kill you. Hence no walking for you.

So by your reasoning, being on a walk around your house much more dangerous than any other activity.

merlinextraligh

No rational person would argue the proposition that when a car and a bike collide, you would prefer to be the occupant of the car, rather than the rider of the bike.

This does not answer the question, which activity creates a greater risk to its participant? As pointed out before, Cars go much faster than bikes. Also, Cars collide with things other than bikes.

So stating the obvious that Cars win in Car/Bike collisions, doesn't tell us much.

hurley.girl

Please stop confusing the outcome of a single accident with the statistical chance you'll be in an accident. Apples & Oranges.

I also suggest you read up on the differences between the perception of risk and actual risk.

agarose2000

I still think with a large enough # of cyclists being measured, you can get a rough guesstimate of the range with which you're dealing with.

The same problem applies to the car stats. Young teen males with sports cars will drive nothing like single mom with two kids with the minivan, and they will have hugely different risks (as reflected in their insurance). But still, you can get a rough idea of the range of danger each will encounter across a broad average.

Daytrip

This.

Statistics are great and all, but when I'm riding, I'm constantly aware of just how vulnerable I am compared to the people passing by in cars, pickup trucks and semi-trailers. And that's not to mention the risks involved in crashing solo due to a miscalculation or momentary lapse of attention. That's gonna hurt a lot more than the same mis-step in a car.

Daytrip

I suggest you lighten up the attitude.

merlinextraligh

Which is another reason why the risk posed to a reasonably prudent adult cyclist, with some bike handling skills, obeying the rules of the road, not riding at night (or with appropriate lighting at night) not drunk, and exercising some discretion in picking routes is actually rather small.

If you break it down, fewer than 1000 cyclist die each year. Something close to a third have been drinking. Anothe large percentage are chldren darting from sidewalks. A disproportionate number are people riding at night with inadequate lighting, and many are riding the wrong direction.

Subtract all these from the 1000, and it leaves few competent adult cyclists killed each year. Of course 1 is too many, but the idea that we are dropping like flies is simply a distorted perception.

hurley.girl

If nothing else, you have been lulled into a sense of safety when in a car. You are in danger in the car too, and should be just as aware of it.

I'm done trying to educate you. You may choose to read up on the science of risk and risk perception. You may choose to read up on the actual statistics showing how dangerous driving and cycling are. Or you can continue to hold onto your "common sense" about what's dangerous. Your call.

hurley.girl

Um.. ok.. now we're onto personal attacks. Super.

merlinextraligh

Or google Samuel Peltzman.