Perspective on Cycling Safety

There have been many posts recently about cyclists' deaths.

We understand the emotion. In our household, Silver was PROFOUNDLY affected by the death of a cyclist she was riding with last year.

But, cycling in the USA has a better average fatality rate than cars.
Biking Fatalities: 2.64 per million people
Vehicle Fatalities: 146.7 per million people

Personally, I'm encouraged that this statistic is so low by comparison given that cyclist are not cloistered in steel as car drivers are.

Every death is a tragedy...particularly when it results from someone's careless negligence.

But, I remain encouraged that cyclists have a very good probability of safety compared to our primary nemesis - cars.

My source is this government study from 2005: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd...005/810617.pdf

Dear Mr. Silver,

Fatalities is very much final. But, what about statistics on serious injury per xx miles per person??

And wasn't there a study where the trend for cyclist injury was on the rise even though the compliance for helmet use was going up?

I don't want to scare anyone here. Its just..., well, I'm a lot like my cats, very curious. And like cats, too lazy to search. :o ;)

For those of you who may get worried over some of the horrible news, it might be worth noting that much of the accidents are from racers, ex-racers and such (I think).

Racers tend to skew the statistics I think. Case in point, the year I "quit", well there was me sorta like Saul Raisin, can't recall my accident..., one gal crashed into a tree and broke her pelvis; another gal crashed and had multiple pins in her arm; another half mooned her wheel while practicing pace line and ended up with pins in her left thumb. And all of these happened during practice/training. And I thought we were being careful and mindful about safety. Definitly far less than million miles.

2 death per million miles and almost 70x lower death rate than a car is something to cheer about. I wish it was 0.0 per million miles...

smilingcat

SC, you're absolutely right. There's a lot more statistics out there ( I couldn't quickly find the injury stats)...PLUS, we can make stats say anything we want them to... I acknowledge that the stats I cited could be interpreted in many different ways.

But here's another one: Worldwide Bike Production is about 100Million units/yr. Car Production is about 40Million units/yr. Annual production was equal for most of the last 50 years, but Bike production went into orbit about 10-15 years ago.

So, despite statistical interpretation issues, I personally remain encouraged that with the number of bikes on the road exploding, fatality rates are still low relative to cars.

I read recently that after many years of slow but steady decline in deaths of motorcycle riders in bike/vs/car accidents, these past two years have shown a sudden alarming leap in deaths for motorcycle riders. The only guess they have so far is the sudden proliferation of car drivers talking on cell phones... :mad:

It was a kid on a cellphone who rear-ended my Subaru at a stop light last week.

I wonder how the stats work as far as fatalites per million riders and fatalities per million drivers? Maybe the car fatalities are higher because there are so many more people who drive than bike?

We've had 4 bike-related accidents in my small town (100,000) in the past month. The one fatality was a 23 year old man without a helmet who jumped the curb on a mt bike, lost control and hit a telephone pole.

The other 3 people survived with injuries -
- 1 was a 16 year old boy without a helmet, crossing against a light.
- 1 was a man with a helmet on a bike lane, crossing the highway, someone turned left. His bike was more damaged than he was luckily.
- 1 was a man with a helmet riding downhill in the bike lane, through an intersection a few blocks from my house and a van turned left right in front of him. The van left the scene. :mad:

In my town, the last 2 are anomolies. More often than not, the "cyclist" who is hit and injured or killed, is riding at night, without lights, on the highway, without a helmet, weaving into traffic (and often intoxicated).

I get my panties tied in a knot when I hear about these types of accidents and then the inevitable calls for cyclists to stay off our roads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelownagirl

I wonder how the stats work as far as fatalites per million riders and fatalities per million drivers? Maybe the car fatalities are higher because there are so many more people who drive than bike?

---

Yeah- maybe the statistics are like that because sometimes there are 2 or more people riding in the car and they are all killed in an accident- do they count all those passengers too? Likely yes.

I read an interesting article once about vehicle safety. It said that the average proportion of fatal accidents in cars has remained fairly steady over the years, despite incredible advances in safety features.

The theory was that there's an acceptable level of risk stuck in people's minds, and as cars get safer people just drive more recklessly.

The only example I can remember is anti-lock brakes: now folks just follow closer than they used to before antilock brakes.

It was an interesting article. I have no idea how to find it again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelownagirl

I wonder how the stats work as far as fatalites per million riders and fatalities per million drivers?

---

I did look for that, but I'd wonder how they estimate a statistic like that...At least Car Miles are supported by # gallons of gas consumed (which is a measured statistic), but my guess is that any bureaucrat would underestimate the number of bike miles logged...

I wonder if we would all be safer if they took the big SUVs away from all these people. The moms in their behemouth SUVs scare me more than old Bubba in his farm truck. You have 1 kid, do you really need a Ford Expedition?

I wish we rule you must show genuine need for such an extravagent vehicle. Of course half my friends would need to get new cars! :rolleyes: And cell phones need to be regulated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aggie_Ama

The moms in their behemouth SUVs scare me more than old Bubba in his farm truck. You have 1 kid, do you really need a Ford Expedition?

---

What is a Texas Cadillac? A Chevy Suburan, or course

The scary thing is my husband's Grandma who shouldn't even be driving, yet has a Dodge Ram 2500 Dually. I envy Europeans and their small cars. I drive a Dodge Caliber, 4 wimpy cylinders. The little car caries two adults, two schnauzers, two bikes and camping gear- why do I need more??

And I am sorry, the mom's here have Excursions- a Ford 250 with a bed cover. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aggie_Ama

The scary thing is my husband's Grandma who shouldn't even be driving, yet has a Dodge Ram 2500 Dually. I envy Europeans and their small cars. I drive a Dodge Caliber, 4 wimpy cylinders. The little car caries two adults, two schnauzers, two bikes and camping gear- why do I need more??

And I am sorry, the mom's here have Excursions- a Ford 250 with a bed cover. :rolleyes:

---

Could be worse, Excursion or Ford Extinctions with 2 foot lift kits are the rage here.
Reminds of the time when I did a climb (Lytle Creek).I stopped when the road turned to gravel to rest, some guy came in a lifted truck and proceeded to spend 10 minutes trying to turn around when he could have done it in about if he had used the gravel...

Mr. Silver, thanks for starting this thread, 'cause I think it's an important point. After my crash (no bones broken but massive bruises, black eye and plenty scared) I really had a hard time getting back on the bike and I wound up avoiding this forum, as helpful as it had been, because of the reports of deaths and injuries from all over. I actually had the mindset "ok, is this the time I get killed or maimed?" when I went out on the road. And I still get scared sometimes.

I tell myself 1) I'm a cautious, conservative rider and I play it safe. Nothing wrong with that. 2) A lot - not all, but a lot - of the accidents come from people doing dumb stuff, like riding in the wrong place, at night w/ no lights, etc. 3) I keep myself very visible. In fact, I'm getting a little frustrated at how many of the nice jerseys for large women are dark! 4)and I'll add that bit about racers to my mantra. The first night I went to the Lehigh Velodrome for the Master's Nationals in Aug., there were 3 crashes. Latelate will stay off the track.:rolleyes:

I've been lurking here for a while and I figure I should just jump in at some point. :)

Here's an article that I'm re-posting from C.I.C.L.E. It has lots of great stats about cycling safety:


Sep 10 '07 - Is Bicycling Safe?
Published September 9, 2007 by Raise the Hammer
By Ryan McGreal


Raise the Hammer promotes cycling as a great transportation choice. It's cleaner and healthier than driving, producing zero emissions and achieving the equivalent of 595 km/l (1,400 mpg) in fuel economy.

Nevertheless, would-be cyclists often ask: But is it safe? Will I have to pay for my environmental choice with crippling injuries or premature death?

An article in View Magazine a couple of months ago advocated for better bicycle infrastructure by focusing on cycling dangers. Though well-intentioned, it reinforced many preconceptions without examining them for accuracy.

In fact, cycling is arguably safer than driving.

Comparing the Risks
Every activity carries risks, and are many possible ways to compare the relative risks of cycling and other activities. Looking at several can help to form a more complete picture.

Fatality by Distance Cycled
The most obvious comparison is the fatality risk per distanced traveled. In this straight-up analysis, cycling is more dangerous than driving. Every 1.6 million kilometres (one million kilometres) cycled produces 0.039 cyclist fatalities, compared to 0.016 fatalities for motorists. They're both very low, but the risk for cycling is more than double.

However, this is not the most useful way to compare risks.

Fatality by Time Spent Cycling
Failure Analysis Associates, Inc. performed a comparative analysis of fatality rates for a variety of activities per million hours spent performing a given activity. They concluded that the fatality rate for every million hours spent cycling is 0.26, compared to 0.47 per million driving hours (on-road motorcycling comes in at a whopping 8.80 deaths per million motorcycling hours).

That is, riding a motor vehicle has nearly twice the risk of fatality as riding a bike for a given duration.

Overall Fatality and Commute Homeostasis
According to the US National Safety Council, for every million cyclists in the US, 16.5 die each year, whereas for every million motorists, 19.9 die each year.

This is important, because it helps us to draw conclusions about how the higher risk per distance traveled interacts with the lower risk per time spent traveling. Cycling is more dangerous on a straight distance comparison, but because drivers travel farther on average, the overall risk to an individual is higher for drivers than for cyclists.

This is related to what we might call "commute homeostasis", or the amount of time a person is willing to spend traveling. All things being equal, a person is willing to travel a farther distance only if they can get there faster.

People who drive tend to live farther away from destinations (e.g. work commute) than people who cycle. In fact, one benefit of cycling is that it saves so much money that cyclists can often afford to live much closer to where they work.

Cycling also tends to place a premium on proximity, so cyclists are more likely to locate in places where many destinations are nearby, which reduces the cycling distance and hence the risk as a function of distance.

Fatality Rate in Crashes
Another way of evaluating risk is to examine the odds of dying if you do crash. Common sense dictates that crashing in a bicycle has a higher risk of death than crashing in a motor vehicle, but according to the NHTSA, bicycles compare rather well.

The odds of dying from a bicycle crash are one in 71. This compares to one in 75 for a light truck (pickup truck, SUV, van), one in 108 for a car, one in 43 for a truck, one in 26 for a motorcycle, and one in 15 for a pedestrian.

In other words, the odds of dying in a bike crash are about the same as the odds of dying in an SUV crash. The false sense of security that comes from an SUV tends to produce far more dangerous driving behaviour.

"Life Years" Gained and Lost
In addition to the direct risk of death or injury, cycling and driving also carry indirect risks that must be factored into account.

According to a study by the British Medical Association, the average gain in "life years" through improved fitness from cycling exceeds the average loss in "life years" through cycling fatalities by a factor of 20 to 1.

Driving confers no commensurate health benefits through improved fitness; in fact, time spent driving actually correlates with poorer overall health and higher risk of heart disease, obesity, diabetes, cancer, and related lifestyle diseases.

Psychologically, it's hard to weigh the slight risk of being hit by a car tomorrow against the vastly reduced risk of having a heart attack in twenty years, but it is far too significant to ignore.

Risk is Mutable
Since cyclists are not a homogeneous bunch, it makes sense to examine whether and how cycling behaviour affects fatality rates. It turns out that cyclists who ignore the rules are much more likely to die than cyclists who follow the rules.

The difference is so stark that it would make more sense to regard them as two separate populations for the sake of comparison. Averaging the two groups - cyclists who follow or who disregard the law - together obscures the vast differences in their relative risks.

It also obscures the fact that an individual cyclist's choices strongly influence their risk of fatality. Cyclists are not helpless victims of safety statistics (even encouraging statistics).

It might not be politically expedient to state, but in the majority of bicycle crashes, the cyclist is at least partly at fault. Cyclists are hit when they ride on the sidewalk and appear out of nowhere at intersections; when they pass on the right; when they ride at night without lights and reflectors; when they ride the wrong way down one way streets; when they ride too closly to parked cars; and so on.

Bike infrastructure can certainly help: streets with clearly marked, well-maintained bike lanes are safer than streets without them. It's also clear that bike lanes increase the perception of safety for would-be cyclists.

However, the way you ride is a bigger factor in accident prevention. The absolute best way to avoid accidents is to ride as though you are driving a motor vehicle. In other words: be visible, follow the rules of the road, pay close attention to what's happening around you, and practice defensive riding. You will earn the respect of motorists, maximize your safety, and get the most enjoyment from cycling.

Back to Front Page

Would you like to contribute to C.I.C.L.E.? Do you a have bike-related article, news story, event, idea, suggestion, etc...? Check out our submissions page.