NHTSA publishes 2007 bike fatality data

[Frank Krygowski[_2_]]

NHTSA's report on 2007 bicyclist (or "pedalcyclist") fatalities is
just out. It shows that cyclist (and pedestrian) fatalities dropped
about 10% from 2006 to 2007. Pedestrian fatalities were also down a
couple percent.

See http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/810986.PDF

At first glance, this is good news. But I think the main force
driving the fatality count may be exposure. IOW, there's a chance
that 2007 simply had fewer people riding bikes (or fewer miles ridden)
than in 2006. If anyone knows of data confirming or denying this, I'd
like to see it.

I'm concerned about this because 2008, with its $4/gallon gas prices
in America, was noted for a sharp increase in cycling. With lots of
inexperienced cyclists hitting the roads, I'm betting the news a year
from now will be less pleasant. And I'm betting it will trigger a
rise in "Bicycling is Dangerous" nonsense, with calls for more
discriminatory laws.

(BTW, last I checked, the annual fatality count for cycling was
roughly the same as the fatality count for accidentally inhaling
poisonous gases.)

- Frank Krygowski

[Leo Lichtman[_2_]]

"Frank Krygowski" (clip) I'm concerned about this because 2008, with its
$4/gallon gas prices
> in America, was noted for a sharp increase in cycling. With lots of
> inexperienced cyclists hitting the roads, I'm betting the news a year
> from now will be less pleasant. And I'm betting it will trigger a
> rise in "Bicycling is Dangerous" nonsense, with calls for more
> discriminatory laws. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
OTOH, one could argue that each new cyclist, fleeing high gas prices, is one
less driver threatening cyclist's safety. I don't think anyone knows which
way that would push the statistics. Who switches from driving to riding is
certainly not randomly distributed. The people sho leave their cars at home
are going to be predominantly the younger, healthier, more alert. This
means that the older, slower reacting, drivers will still be out there. I'm
80 years old, and I'm trying to be unbiased.

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

"Leo Lichtman" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Frank Krygowski" (clip) I'm concerned about this because 2008, with
> its $4/gallon gas prices
>> in America, was noted for a sharp increase in cycling. With lots of
>> inexperienced cyclists hitting the roads, I'm betting the news a year
>> from now will be less pleasant. And I'm betting it will trigger a
>> rise in "Bicycling is Dangerous" nonsense, with calls for more
>> discriminatory laws. (clip)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> OTOH, one could argue that each new cyclist, fleeing high gas prices,
> is one less driver threatening cyclist's safety. I don't think anyone
> knows which way that would push the statistics. Who switches from
> driving to riding is certainly not randomly distributed. The people
> sho leave their cars at home are going to be predominantly the
> younger, healthier, more alert. This means that the older, slower
> reacting, drivers will still be out there. I'm 80 years old, and I'm
> trying to be unbiased.

There's also a "safety in numbers" thing that happens when more people
ride bicycles. As bicyclists become the norm rather than the exception,
drivers are more likely to drive in a manner that's safer for all.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
Frank Krygowski > writes:

> I'm concerned about this because 2008, with its $4/gallon gas prices
> in America, was noted for a sharp increase in cycling. With lots of
> inexperienced cyclists hitting the roads, I'm betting the news a year
> from now will be less pleasant. And I'm betting it will trigger a
> rise in "Bicycling is Dangerous" nonsense, with calls for more
> discriminatory laws.

I've come to the admittedly opinionated conclusion that those
who will ride, will. And those who won't, won't. And for the
most part, bicyclists are off the law-makers' radar. I'm not
worried.

> (BTW, last I checked, the annual fatality count for cycling was
> roughly the same as the fatality count for accidentally inhaling
> poisonous gases.)

It seems a fair number of people have carbon monoxided themselves
to death. They didn't realize indoor barbeques are not such a
very good idea. Neither is running a gas-powered generator
indoors when the power goes out during an ice storm.

The reduction in bicyclist & pedestrian fatalities seems to
be contemporaneous with larger Personally-Owned Vehicles
(i.e: SUVs and suchlike) falling out of favour. I haven't
yet looked at the document to which you refer, so I don't
know if non-fatal injuries are up while the number of
incidents remains roughly the same.

As for the numbers regarding numbers of cyclists or miles ridden,
I know you realize that has to be highly subjective. To the
statisticians, a bicycle is a bicycle, whether it's ridden by a
gonzo BMXer doing street-style, a hell-bent-for-leather downhill
mountain biker, a 5-y.o. kid bursting out of a driveway that's
obscured by parked cars, a DUI doing yet another non-recommendable
beer run, a newbie messenger out to prove himself, or whomever.

Maybe people are just becoming more savvy.
That would be nice.


cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article >,
"Leo Lichtman" > wrote:

> "Frank Krygowski" (clip) I'm concerned about this because 2008, with its
> $4/gallon gas prices
> > in America, was noted for a sharp increase in cycling. With lots of
> > inexperienced cyclists hitting the roads, I'm betting the news a year
> > from now will be less pleasant. And I'm betting it will trigger a
> > rise in "Bicycling is Dangerous" nonsense, with calls for more
> > discriminatory laws. (clip)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> OTOH, one could argue that each new cyclist, fleeing high gas prices, is one
> less driver threatening cyclist's safety. I don't think anyone knows which
> way that would push the statistics.

Yes we do. The fall in the car-driving population from increased cycling
is not substantial, even if there's a dramatic increase in the number of
cyclists.

It's akin to what would happen if 6 million Americans moved to Canada.
The roughly-20% increase in Canada's population would be a dramatic
change. The roughly-2% decrease in the US population would be a
discernable blip.

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

[Bruce Gilbert[_4_]]

"Mike Jacoubowsky" > wrote in message
...
> "Leo Lichtman" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Frank Krygowski" (clip) I'm concerned about this because 2008, with its
>> $4/gallon gas prices
>>> in America, was noted for a sharp increase in cycling. With lots of
>>> inexperienced cyclists hitting the roads, I'm betting the news a year
>>> from now will be less pleasant. And I'm betting it will trigger a
>>> rise in "Bicycling is Dangerous" nonsense, with calls for more
>>> discriminatory laws. (clip)
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> OTOH, one could argue that each new cyclist, fleeing high gas prices, is
>> one less driver threatening cyclist's safety. I don't think anyone knows
>> which way that would push the statistics. Who switches from driving to
>> riding is certainly not randomly distributed. The people sho leave their
>> cars at home are going to be predominantly the younger, healthier, more
>> alert. This means that the older, slower reacting, drivers will still be
>> out there. I'm 80 years old, and I'm trying to be unbiased.
>
> There's also a "safety in numbers" thing that happens when more people
> ride bicycles. As bicyclists become the norm rather than the exception,
> drivers are more likely to drive in a manner that's safer for all.
>
> --Mike Jacoubowsky
> Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReaction.com
> Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
>
Or, they may see a "target-rich environment"

Never underestimate the power of a drunken redneck (or yuppie) in a pickup
truck...

Bruce

[Stephen Harding]

Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> I'm concerned about this because 2008, with its $4/gallon gas prices
> in America, was noted for a sharp increase in cycling. With lots of
> inexperienced cyclists hitting the roads, I'm betting the news a year
> from now will be less pleasant. And I'm betting it will trigger a
> rise in "Bicycling is Dangerous" nonsense, with calls for more
> discriminatory laws.

I had read in WSJ article a month ago that most major cities
had already surpassed bike fatalities for the previous year,
so it seems likely fatalities will be up.

Combined with car fatalities likely lowest since mid-60's we
have bikes being *very* dangerous indeed!!!

Of course now that gas here is back down to $1.60s, the
traveling world will self adjust to its natural order of
cars everywhere and bikes back on their hooks in the garage.

> (BTW, last I checked, the annual fatality count for cycling was
> roughly the same as the fatality count for accidentally inhaling
> poisonous gases.)

Better keep your helmet on!


SMH

[Frank Krygowski[_2_]]

On Dec 14, 7:06*pm, Stephen Harding > wrote:
> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>
> > (BTW, last I checked, the annual fatality count for cycling was
> > roughly the same as the fatality count for accidentally inhaling
> > poisonous gases.)
>
> Better keep your helmet on!

I was thinking more of mandatory gas masks. Always! Why, if only
_one_ life can be saved ....!

- Frank Krygowski

[[email protected]]

Frank Krygowski wrote:

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/810986.PDF

>>> (BTW, last I checked, the annual fatality count for cycling was
>>> roughly the same as the fatality count for accidentally inhaling
>>> poisonous gases.)

>> Better keep your helmet on!

> I was thinking more of mandatory gas masks. Always! Why, if only
> _one_ life can be saved ....!

There was no listing of causes of death nor whether the listed deaths
resulted from collisions of motor vehicles with bicycles.

Nowhere in the article did I find what the population of bicyclists
was for the listed fatalities. From this article, any number of
claims could be supported, especially things that are not part of most
state vehicle codes. Typically the following piece in that report
rings of emotional thinking:

# IMPORTANT SAFETY REMINDERS

# All bicyclists should wear properly fitted bicycle helmets every
# time they ride. A helmet is the single most effective way to
# prevent head injury resulting from a bicycle crash. Bicyclists are
# considered vehicle operators; they are required to obey the same
# rules of the road as other vehicle operators, including obeying
# traffic signs, signals, and lane markings.

# When cycling in the street, cyclists must ride in the same direction
# as traffic. Drivers of motor vehicles need to share the road with
# bicyclists. Be courteous – allow at least three feet clearance
# when passing a bicyclist on the road, look for cyclists before
# opening a car door or pulling out from a parking space, and yield to
# cyclists at intersections and as directed by signs and signals. Be
# especially watchful for cyclists when making turns, either left or
# right.

# Bicyclists should increase their visibility to drivers by wearing
# fluorescent or brightly colored clothing during the day, dawn, and
# dusk. To be noticed when riding at night, use a front light and a
# red reflector or flashing rear light, and use retro-reflective tape
# or markings on equipment or clothing.

Nice pablum at best. I don't understand how such a vapid report gets
published.

Jobst Brandt

[Frank Krygowski[_2_]]

On Dec 14, 10:13*pm, wrote:
> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> *http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/810986.PDF
>
> >>> (BTW, last I checked, the annual fatality count for cycling was
> >>> roughly the same as the fatality count for accidentally inhaling
> >>> poisonous gases.)
> >> Better keep your helmet on!
> > I was thinking more of mandatory gas masks. *Always! *Why, if only
> > _one_ life can be saved ....!
>
> There was no listing of causes of death nor whether the listed deaths
> resulted from collisions of motor vehicles with bicycles.
>
> Nowhere in the article did I find what the population of bicyclists
> was for the listed fatalities. *From this article, any number of
> claims could be supported, especially things that are not part of most
> state vehicle codes. *Typically the following piece in that report
> rings of emotional thinking:
>
> # IMPORTANT SAFETY REMINDERS
>
> # All bicyclists should wear properly fitted bicycle helmets every
> # time they ride. *A helmet is the single most effective way to
> # prevent head injury resulting from a bicycle crash. *Bicyclists are
> # considered vehicle operators; they are required to obey the same
> # rules of the road as other vehicle operators, including obeying
> # traffic signs, signals, and lane markings.
>
> # When cycling in the street, cyclists must ride in the same direction
> # as traffic. *Drivers of motor vehicles need to share the road with
> # bicyclists. *Be courteous – allow at least three feet clearance
> # when passing a bicyclist on the road, look for cyclists before
> # opening a car door or pulling out from a parking space, and yield to
> # cyclists at intersections and as directed by signs and signals. *Be
> # especially watchful for cyclists when making turns, either left or
> # right.
>
> # Bicyclists should increase their visibility to drivers by wearing
> # fluorescent or brightly colored clothing during the day, dawn, and
> # dusk. *To be noticed when riding at night, use a front light and a
> # red reflector or flashing rear light, and use retro-reflective tape
> # or markings on equipment or clothing.
>
> Nice pablum at best. *I don't understand how such a vapid report gets
> published.

It's been published for decades. The format - including the pablum at
the end - has been consistent for a long time. It's what that agency
(the NHTSA) does.

It's quite normal to have agencies keeping track of fatalities,
accidents, illnesses, etc. in lots of circumstances. For example, the
number of cardiovascular disease fatalities can be found within
minutes. Ditto the number of motorists killed per year.

My interest is driven by a paradox: Bicycling is not only quite safe,
but those who cycle are safer, overall, than those who are sedentary.
Yet cycling is portrayed as uniquely dangerous, and that image tends
to drive people away from a beneficial - and beautiful - activity.

- Frank Krygowski

[peter]

On Dec 15, 11:00*pm, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk>
wrote:
> Frank Krygowski > considered Mon, 15 Dec 2008

> >My interest is driven by a paradox: Bicycling is not only quite safe,
> >but those who cycle are safer, overall, than those who are sedentary.
> >Yet cycling is portrayed as uniquely dangerous, and that image tends
> >to drive people away from a beneficial - and beautiful - activity.
>
> >- Frank Krygowski
>
> It would be interesting for someone to calculate the number of lives
> that NOT cycling costs each year, due to cardiovascular disease etc.
> I'm sure all the figures are available, but it would take a
> statistician (which I'm not) to tease them out.

Mayer Hillman did such a study for the British Medical Association
back in 1992. He compared the years of life lost due to cycling
accidents vs. the years of life gained by cyclists being more
physically active. So a cyclist dying in a crash at age 30 relative
to a 72 year life expectancy counts as a loss of 42 life-years while
someone dying prematurely of heart disease at 60 when they could have
lived to 72 with proper exercise counts as a loss of 12 life-years.
His conclusion was that overall cycling saves about 20 times as many
life-years as it costs.

[Peter Cole[_2_]]

peter wrote:
> On Dec 15, 11:00 pm, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk>
> wrote:
>> Frank Krygowski > considered Mon, 15 Dec 2008
>
>>> My interest is driven by a paradox: Bicycling is not only quite safe,
>>> but those who cycle are safer, overall, than those who are sedentary.
>>> Yet cycling is portrayed as uniquely dangerous, and that image tends
>>> to drive people away from a beneficial - and beautiful - activity.
>>> - Frank Krygowski
>> It would be interesting for someone to calculate the number of lives
>> that NOT cycling costs each year, due to cardiovascular disease etc.
>> I'm sure all the figures are available, but it would take a
>> statistician (which I'm not) to tease them out.
>
> Mayer Hillman did such a study for the British Medical Association
> back in 1992. He compared the years of life lost due to cycling
> accidents vs. the years of life gained by cyclists being more
> physically active. So a cyclist dying in a crash at age 30 relative
> to a 72 year life expectancy counts as a loss of 42 life-years while
> someone dying prematurely of heart disease at 60 when they could have
> lived to 72 with proper exercise counts as a loss of 12 life-years.
> His conclusion was that overall cycling saves about 20 times as many
> life-years as it costs.

That's all well and good, and a very interesting thing to know, but as
beneficial as cycling is, it would only be more so if fewer people died
doing it.

[peter]

On Dec 16, 10:32*am, Peter Cole > wrote:
> peter wrote:
> > On Dec 15, 11:00 pm, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk>
> > wrote:
> >> Frank Krygowski > considered Mon, 15 Dec 2008
>
> >>> My interest is driven by a paradox: Bicycling is not only quite safe,
> >>> but those who cycle are safer, overall, than those who are sedentary.
> >>> Yet cycling is portrayed as uniquely dangerous, and that image tends
> >>> to drive people away from a beneficial - and beautiful - activity.
> >>> - Frank Krygowski
> >> It would be interesting for someone to calculate the number of lives
> >> that NOT cycling costs each year, due to cardiovascular disease etc.
> >> I'm sure all the figures are available, but it would take a
> >> statistician (which I'm not) to tease them out.
>
> > Mayer Hillman did such a study for the British Medical Association
> > back in 1992. *He compared the years of life lost due to cycling
> > accidents vs. the years of life gained by cyclists being more
> > physically active. *So a cyclist dying in a crash at age 30 relative
> > to a 72 year life expectancy counts as a loss of 42 life-years while
> > someone dying prematurely of heart disease at 60 when they could have
> > lived to 72 with proper exercise counts as a loss of 12 life-years.
> > His conclusion was that overall cycling saves about 20 times as many
> > life-years as it costs.
>
> That's all well and good, and a very interesting thing to know, but as
> beneficial as cycling is, it would only be more so if fewer people died
> doing it.

Sure, and based on accident statistics around the world it looks like
one of the best ways to reduce the risk per cyclist is to increase the
amount of cycling. There's a strong correlation between the amount of
cycling in a country and the safety of cycling there. Excessive
publicity about the dangers of cycling may well be counterproductive
by reducing the amount of cycling - making the risk higher for the
remaining cyclists and also increasing the risk of diseases associated
with sedentary lifestyles.

[Frank Krygowski[_2_]]

On Dec 16, 1:32*pm, Peter Cole > wrote:
> peter wrote:
> >
>
> > Mayer Hillman did such a study for the British Medical Association
> > back in 1992. *He compared the years of life lost due to cycling
> > accidents vs. the years of life gained by cyclists being more
> > physically active. *So a cyclist dying in a crash at age 30 relative
> > to a 72 year life expectancy counts as a loss of 42 life-years while
> > someone dying prematurely of heart disease at 60 when they could have
> > lived to 72 with proper exercise counts as a loss of 12 life-years.
> > His conclusion was that overall cycling saves about 20 times as many
> > life-years as it costs.
>
> That's all well and good, and a very interesting thing to know, but as
> beneficial as cycling is, it would only be more so if fewer people died
> doing it.

Yes, cycling would be more beneficial if fewer people died doing it -
a truism shared by motoring, walking, jogging, swimming, flying,
boating, climbing stairs, and almost every other human activity.

But with just 750 U.S. fatalities per year, or one fatality per
(roughly) fifteen million miles ridden, it's silly to worry too much,
or to cause others to worry. The current level of cycling fear is a
far bigger problem than the minuscule fatality risk.

- Frank Krygowski

[Peter Cole[_2_]]

peter wrote:
> On Dec 16, 10:32 am, Peter Cole > wrote:

>> That's all well and good, and a very interesting thing to know, but as
>> beneficial as cycling is, it would only be more so if fewer people died
>> doing it.
>
> Sure, and based on accident statistics around the world it looks like
> one of the best ways to reduce the risk per cyclist is to increase the
> amount of cycling.
> There's a strong correlation between the amount of
> cycling in a country and the safety of cycling there.

Absolutely.

> Excessive
> publicity about the dangers of cycling may well be counterproductive
> by reducing the amount of cycling - making the risk higher for the
> remaining cyclists and also increasing the risk of diseases associated
> with sedentary lifestyles.

It's a double-edged sword. The more you try to communicate the message
of cyclist vulnerability to drivers, the more you probably discourage
people from taking up cycling. The default solution seems to be
segregated facilities. Most of the reactions I get from non-cyclists are
of the "I'd love to do that too, but it seems so dangerous" variety. I
don't know how well people grasp statistics.

[Jeremy Parker]

"Peter Cole" > wrote

[snip]

> That's all well and good, and a very interesting thing to know, but
> as beneficial as cycling is, it would only be more so if fewer
> people died doing it.

If that's true, cycling would be most beneficial when it was banned
completely, because a complete ban would bring about the fewest
possible number of dead people - none at all

Jeremy Parker

[DC1999]

On Dec 10, 3:56*pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" >
wrote:
> "Leo Lichtman" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Frank Krygowski" (clip) I'm concerned about this because 2008, with
> > its $4/gallon gas prices
> >> in America, was noted for a sharp increase in cycling. *With lots of
> >> inexperienced cyclists hitting the roads, I'm betting the news a year
> >> from now will be less pleasant. *And I'm betting it will trigger a
> >> rise in "Bicycling is Dangerous" nonsense, with calls for more
> >> discriminatory laws. (clip)
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > OTOH, one could argue that each new cyclist, fleeing high gas prices,
> > is one less driver threatening cyclist's safety. *I don't think anyone
> > knows which way that would push the statistics. *Who switches from
> > driving to riding is certainly not randomly distributed. *The people
> > sho leave their cars at home are going to be predominantly the
> > younger, healthier, more alert. *This means that the older, slower
> > reacting, drivers will still be out there. *I'm 80 years old, and I'm
> > trying to be unbiased.
>
> There's also a "safety in numbers" thing that happens when more people
> ride bicycles. As bicyclists become the norm rather than the exception,
> drivers are more likely to drive in a manner that's safer for all.
>
> --Mike Jacoubowsky
> Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
> Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

My unscientific sense is that there's considerable truth to this
observation of "safety in numbers." The last time I was in Amsterdam
-- about 15 years ago -- it was still full of bicyclists by the
thousands. Are there any statistics from there which might shed light
on this issue?

Dave

[Peter Cole[_2_]]

Jeremy Parker wrote:
> "Peter Cole" > wrote
>
> [snip]
>
>> That's all well and good, and a very interesting thing to know, but
>> as beneficial as cycling is, it would only be more so if fewer
>> people died doing it.
>
> If that's true, cycling would be most beneficial when it was banned
> completely, because a complete ban would bring about the fewest
> possible number of dead people - none at all
>
> Jeremy Parker
>
>

No. The claim seems reasonable that the fitness related drops in
mortality from cycling exceed the deaths from cycling, reducing the
latter would only improve the net difference.

[[email protected]]

On Dec 10, 9:31 am, Frank Krygowski > wrote:
> NHTSA's report on 2007 bicyclist (or "pedalcyclist") fatalities is
> just out. It shows that cyclist (and pedestrian) fatalities dropped
> about 10% from 2006 to 2007. Pedestrian fatalities were also down a
> couple percent.
>
> Seehttp://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/810986.PDF
>
> At first glance, this is good news. But I think the main force
> driving the fatality count may be exposure. IOW, there's a chance
> that 2007 simply had fewer people riding bikes (or fewer miles ridden)
> than in 2006. If anyone knows of data confirming or denying this, I'd
> like to see it.

I believe off the top of my head that there was a marked increase in
adult bicycling in 2007 that continued into 2008. SF and NYC for
instance saw huge increases in 2007. But that is not the whole story.
I suspect that behind the scenes we are seeing a drop-off of bicycling
by kids that has been ongoing since the 1980s. The fraction of all
bicyclist fatalities that involve kids under 16 has fallen from about
one third to now less than one fifth. I seriously doubt this is
because of the helmet use or because kids are getting more savvy. I
think it's simply because there are far fewer kids on bikesm and it
has a huge effect on the accident/fatality statistics.