I posted this in Advocacy and Safety too, but I think I read it here... Can anybody help me find the stats that show that a cyclist is in more danger of an accident when you compare mile for mile traveled, but when you compare the amount of time on a bike vs the amount of time in a car the bike is safer?

Thanks!

I don't think you will find any meaningful statistics along those lines.

The closest stats I see are "7.3 injuries per million miles for cyclists and 1.5 injuries per million miles traveled for motorists, making cyclists 4.9 times more likely to be injured per mile of travel" from the NHTSA. You might be able to massage that to support your position, but I seriously doubt it will hold much meaning. You'd have to do a very thorough statistical analysis if you want your position to hold any credibility.

Like it or not, automobiles are most likely safer than bicycles. Although autos will travel significantly faster, they have significantly more mass to absorb an impact; they're designed with impacts in mind; they have numerous safety features like crumple zones, seat belts and now airbags. (Motorcycles, in comparison, are relatively dangerous -- as you can travel at very high speeds with no protection.)

If you are in your car, not moving, and you get hit by another car at 25-35 mph you are virtually guaranteed to survive; if you're on a bike and get hit at 25-35 mph, you're in trouble. If you're in a car and hit a tree at 25 mph, you've probably screwed up your car but that's it; if you're on a bike and hit a tree full-on, you're off to the hospital. If you're in a car and something bad happens at 70mph, you may well survive; if you're in a bicycle and anything bad happens involving 50+ mph (e.g. fast descent, hit by a speeding car) you are SOL.

Crash and fatality rates will also vary greatly from region to region. Bicycle accident rates are very likely to be different in Portland OR (less auto traffic, lots of bicycles and mass transit) than Houston (lots of cars, bad drivers, poor mass transit options, poor bicycle infrastructure) than rural Idaho (minimal traffic, minimal cyclists) than NYC (where millions of cyclists ride in car-free areas like Central Park, Prospect Park and the West Side Greenway) than Belgium (huge cycling population, lots of completely isolated bicycle facilities, laws that favor pedestrians and cyclists).

And, of course, there's the issue of poor data collection. Autos are likely to have pretty reliable data collection, but cycling data is very likely to be way off.

That said, I don't see much reason for concern on the matter. It's nowhere near as dangerous as riding a motorcycle, a vehicle that millions of people manage to use safely anyway despite its inherent risks. Just obey traffic laws, use lights at night, and use some common sense and you'll be fine.

Of the two, the mile for mile comparison is not that relevant. Time spent is what maters. Last car I owned I did 200 000 miles in, not sure when I will hit that mark in a bike.

Very difficult. There's a Dept of transport study on motorcycling in the UK (it is referenced on wikipedia in the bicycle safety article) that shows that motorcyclists are twice as likely to get killed or seriously injured as pedal cyclists, but that motorists are eight times safer than the latter. However, this is per million kilometers travelled. Any calculation you do to estimate what that means in terms of time on the bike or in the car is bound to be flawed, but unless you were able to show that the milion kilometres was covered eight times faster by car than by bike - on average - the risk to the cyclist based on journey time rather than distance would still be greater than to the motorist.

This isn't too surprising, given that the majority of deaths and serious injuries to cyclists involve collisions with other vehicles that typically weigh a lot more than the bike...

If you look at pedestrians the picture is brighter. As with cyclists, the most common cause of death or serious injury for pedestrians is collision with a motor vehicle. And (again from the UK) six times as many pedestrians are killed as cyclists, while the distance travelled walking is only five times that travelled cycling. (Wiki, bicycle helmets, reference given). Therefore per mile travelled cycling is safer than walking.

Even when you look at accident rates among cars, there is probably a lot of disparity depending on the environment (urban, suburban, rural, freeway, etc., night, dusk, day), and the type of driver. Some situations are simply more dangerous for drivers, and the same thing can be said for cyclists, so any generalization between the two is a bit meaningless IMO.

Plus, as an Bacciagalupe pointed out, bikes don't have the protections against injury that cars do. The link provided by him breaks down the situations where cyclists are most likely to be injured.

Let's say that, on average, cars go 35 MPH and bikes go 10 MPH. If cars travel 3.5 times faster than bikes, the above stats still say that cars are safer than bikes.

What's more, my experience says that, as well. I've hurt myself far more by falling off a bike then driving in a car.

Ray

Well, for one thing I bet that if kids age 4 to 16, who are now on bikes, all drove cars the numbers would be quite different.

So, in all seriousness, let's compare Brussels sprouts to other Brussels sprouts: since only 16 y/o + drive a car, only 16 y/o cyclists should be taken into account.

I also agree that time spent in the saddle is more meaningful than distance. If we stuck to distance alone, going on foot would seem to be a suicidal endeavor.

Oh and truisms are good arguments sometimes like the fact that if there weren't any cars there would a whole lot less "bicycle injuries" while, if there weren't any bicycles it would still be dangerous to drive a car.

Love it! Thanks all!

Nancy,

Here is a link to a blog from the Netherlands with some studies. From what David Hembrow says, at least in the Netherlands you would have to live 91 lives before you died from a cycling related brain injury....

Aaron

Hembrow's interpretation is a classic example of cherry-picking stats.

The report states that in the Netherlands alone, annually 67,000 cyclists get first aid due to a crash, 8000 are admitted to the hospital and 190 are killed; that of those admitted to the hospital, 27% have head or brain injuries; that 3/4 of those injuries did not involve a motor vehicle (not surprising, given high ridership and excellent bike facilities); and that the report suggests the head injury rate might be cut in half if helmets were used.

Despite this, and despite the overall pro-helmet tilt to the report, Hembrow plucks out one and only one stat to support his anti-helmet views.

This is why if you're going to compare the safety of cars vs bikes, you need to be extremely careful and detailed if you plan to use a statistical analysis.

The original report is here btw: https://www.swov.nl/rapport/Factsheet...le_helmets.pdf

I would say the statistics for bikes would be virtually unavaliable, or at least you would have to doctor the stats to show bike miles on roads, versus trails. The vast majority of miles travelled in cars are on legal roads, while there is a lot more variation of terrain people ride bikes on, with much different safety stats I would think.

Thanks all!

Why are you only concerned with fatalities?

I could give a crap what the stats show. I ride...period. FWIW I decided that helmets were pretty much a joke when I saw the tag on them that claimed they would prevent 85% of cycling fatalities (total bunch of BS). Statistics are a bunch of numbers and unfortunately the numbers are spun the benefit of whoever has them in their hands at the moment.

Personally I have been riding for over 40 years, I have crashed several times with and without helmet. Never any head injuries or even helmet damage. I have logged in excess of 65,000 miles (best guestimate). According to most fear mongers I should be dead. Ditto with driving statistics, I beat the odds on them too, for a variety of reasons.

Aaron

Living in Canada, I remember calling stats can for accident stats at one point. The stats were all lumped in at the time with pedestrian accidents etc... I don't really trust the stats, and they would be vastly different for touring also.

They also don't mention the fatalities caused by overweight drivers being killed by heart problems and a million other health issues that might not exist if the driver got out of the car and on a bike.

Put that equation into the mix and.............................

To each his own on this one. At 16 I was touring in the panhandle of FL and was required by the group to wear a helmet. A car cut me off with a right turn and I had the choice to hit a telephone pole or go over the hood of the car. I chose the hood, slid over, and landed on my head. No damage done other than a bit of road rash so I finished the tour. Would that have resulted in head injury? Don't really know but I probably would have had to leave the tour at the very least.

On the other hand, I rode for 30 years after that without a helmet, went down a number of times and never came close to hitting my head on the pavement. I have two kids now so wear my helmet as an example. Bottom line is do what your comfortable with. It's your noggin and your choice.

John

Nancy:

From the National Safety Council (NSC):

https://www.nsc.org/news_resources/Do...ts2011_037.pdf

https://www.nsc.org/news_resources/in...of%20Dying.pdf

Hope this helps & enjoy your day.

-stevnim

It's somewhat dated, but this: https://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/health/risks.htm has a summary of most of the studies done on the subject, along with an assessment of their inadequacies. The hourly rates are about halfway down the page, the distance rates are closer to the 2/3 mark.

Ironically, the guy who wrote it did end up dieing in a bike accident, which is why it hasn't been updated in the past decade.

Sometimes life is ironic. Then, though, it got downright sarcastic.