IN HONEST STATISTICS (NOT THE KRYGOWSKI KIND), IS CYCLING SAFE — OR DANGEROUS?

On Monday, November 25, 2013 1:20:13 PM UTC, tussock wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:



snip

Let's check the numbers we have against known statistics. In the US,

about 700 cyclists and around 40,000 motorised travellers will become

traffic fatalities this year.



In NZ it's



Driver ~130

Passenger ~70

Motorcycle ~40

Pedestrian ~30

Pedal cycle ~10

Other ~5



With most fatalities being older people. We've got around 2.9 million

drivers and something like 0.75 million cyclists (with about half of those

regulars and under 10% competative). There's only around 75000 motored on

two wheels.



1/2000 motorbikers.

1/22000 drivers.

1/75000 cyclists.



Noting that almost all cyclists are also drivers, a cyclist is over

three times as likely to die in their car as on their pushbike. The

motorbike crowd is, meanwhile, around a dozen times more likely to die on

two wheels than four.



And realistically, we're just about all pedestrains, even babies get

pushed around in prams.



1/120000 pedestrians.



So, more likely to die on your bike than on foot, but not that bad.





One thing I found recently though, was that only ~30% of cyclists per

year on today's numbers are killed by being run over. Another ~20% are

judged at fault in a collision (riding illegally and ending up under a

truck, typically), and the remains are non-collision deaths like strokes and

heart-attacks while riding, or catching a tree on downhill adventures.







And per-hour or per-km it's worse, as ususal, but cyclists who do more

hours and more km are proportionately safer, so real numbers are pretty hard

to find or figure out in the first place.



Thanks, Andre, nice view of things.







Holy crap. The average driver here does ~200km/week. I nearly manage

that when it's summer time on the bike. Speaking of which, really must get a

new chain on the thing and get back into it.



--

tussock

Perhaps the most striking thing is that, generally speaking, the anglophone and other advanced motoring countries without a cycling culture (i.e. excluding The Netherlands etc) for which we have numbers all show roughly the same pattern, all the numbers marching along in the same magnitudes, different multiples easily explained by internal differences in census methods and research outlooks, or even merely very small populations and samples.

But, in the end, everywhere cycling can be declared "safe" only by weighing in extraneous social and health factors over a lifetime. But that must be a personal interpretation; not something "cycling advocates" enforce.

Andre Jute
Economists and psychologists shouldn't forget that we're merely jumped-up statisticians with more glib gift of the gab than the merely mathematical technicians in our trade. -- Speech as outgoing chairman of the Media Association which nearly got me lynched.

On Monday, November 25, 2013 5:37:29 PM UTC, Garry Lee wrote:
A couple of points on reading all the above.

The Australian accident statistics improvement must be in large part due to the cracking down on drink-driving in that country.

It's possible but I don't want to venture onto such a statistical quicksand.. There are simply too many opinionated but statistically naive klowns in cycling to discuss anything that isn't firmly concreted in hallowed practice; that is why these discussions so soon turn nasty, as you've noticed.

I hae me doots about the relative risk of cycling v. driving. I've known in my life three people killed in car crashes and I've known seven killed off bikes. In addition, the last time (I've done it twice) I cycled Lands End to John O'Groats, one day at coffee four of us were chatting and each one of us had been struck by a car and injured while cycling (we were all in our early sixties).

This is one of the most troubling aspects of these statistics, raising huge questions about the count, about what is reported, and by whom, and about the level of injury that is counted. Take RBT as an example. It has a couple of hundred active members at most. Compare to the 700 fatalities nationally, and x times that number of serious injuries to cyclists, it doesn't matter if x is 5 or 10 or 20, the total of fatalities and serious injury is on this count not huge. Yet there are about 25m cyclists out there, depending on the level of usage at which you count someone as "a cyclist". The very few members of RBT should know only a tiny number of cyclists seriously hurt or killed, nowhere near a handful. ALL THE SAME, the 200 max of responding members of RBT know an inordinate number of people killed or seriously hurt on bikes, as becomes clear every time some wannabe pol tries to declare cycling "safe".

That experience is common. Many thoughtful cyclists have noticed the anomaly. It is a disturbing question mark over all available national numbers.

I feel that cycling would be safer if there was an apparatus in a car which rendered the use of a phone impossible while driving. They are undoubtedly a menace.

Tres exactement!

***

I take the personal view, backed by my cardiologist, that I wouldn't be alive except for my cycling, and I'm anyway scornful of the impossible modern demand for a totally risk-free existence, so it doesn't matter to me precisely how safe or dangerous cycling is, I'll cycle anyway, taking due precautions not to mix it with trucks traveling at 75mph on single-lane roads without shoulders ("take the lane" -- bloody idiots), taking good advantage of my privileged situation, living fifty paces from lovely Irish lanes beckoning me to ride in them.

Andre Jute

On 25/11/13 16:59, Andre Jute wrote:
On Monday, November 25, 2013 4:30:31 AM UTC, James wrote:
On 25/11/13 14:51, James wrote:

In Australia, even prior to the mandatory use of bicycle helmets,
motor

vehicle drivers and bicycle riders were subject to the same risk
of 0.84

fatalities per million trips, and similar risk on a per hour
basis. Per

kilometer riders are 4 times more likely to die.



I don't think the fatality risk has changed _much_ since 1985-86.
I also have no idea how accurate the numbers are.

A cyclist being 4 times as likely to die per kilometer as the
occupant of a car is broadly in accordance with the American numbers
I worked with.

See Appendix A.
http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/36229/c...omparisons.pdf


Actually, I'll revise that. I think the fatality risk for motor car

drivers has dropped while the risk for bicycle riders has stayed
the same.

I don't think helmets have actually saved many people's lives, and
the

road toll seems to drop each year though our population is
growing.

If the fatalities haven't kept pace with growing population,
something is working. Whether it is helmets would require data and
analysis. It could be anything, including even the roadworks you
dislike. I made a crack at the hospital about what can be seen from
the third floor of the bike lanes on the roads outside the hospital
gates: "All cycle lanes lead straight to Accident & Emergency," and a
guy who worked Resuscitation said, "To that extent, they've worked.
We get the donors faster." (Anyone on a pedal- or motor-bike in
medical slang is "a donor".)

Yep, we call motorcyclists "Temporary Australians".

Specifically on helmets, the New York whole universe compilation of
serious cycling accidents that I discussed before, that anti-helmet
zealots avoid so assiduously, is the best indicator that helmets do
save lives. In it there was a clear trend for the helmet wearers to
suffer a lower fatality rate.

I'm sure helmets have saved some lives. I'm also sure mandatory helmet
wearing has hit bicycle populations too, which would account to some
extent the flat line in fatalities.

As I noted not so long ago, over the past 10 years the injury rates have
been steadily climbing as more people decide to beat the traffic and get
some exercise. Middle aged men are doing it most and have the highest
injury counts. There has been a spike in fatalities this year. I
wonder if the fatalities have been just a bit slow to catch up.

I'm sure the presence of facilities has attracted more people to ride
their bike, but I wouldn't count on the facilities being responsible for
lowering injury or death rates. One of the worst places for getting
doored is St Kilda Rd, just a few km south of the Arts Centre - where
the door zone bike lanes are.

[Joking] Perhaps you're better off getting doored than hit from behind!

--
JS

On 26/11/13 04:37, Garry Lee wrote:
A couple of points on reading all the above.
The Australian accident statistics improvement must be in large part due to the cracking down on drink-driving in that country.
I hae me doots about the relative risk of cycling v. driving. I've known in my life three people killed in car crashes and I've known seven killed off bikes. In addition, the last time (I've done it twice) I cycled Lands End to John O'Groats, one day at coffee four of us were chatting and each one of us had been struck by a car and injured while cycling (we were all in our early sixties).
I feel that cycling would be safer if there was an apparatus in a car which rendered the use of a phone impossible while driving. They are undoubtedly a menace.

Yes, Garry, there have been many initiatives in Australia to lower the
road toll. "If you drink and drive you a bloody idiot" "Wipe off 5 and
stay alive" "A microsleep can kill in seconds" And signs that suggest
speeding is compensation for a small penis.

Just a couple of days ago there were announced increased fines and 4
demerit points for handling a mobile phone while driving. You can talk
hands free only.

The initiatives to reduce cycling injuries and deaths have been ...

I can't think of any.

Oh, there was a lame attempt to get people to check before opening their
car door. What else could they do after painting all those bike lanes
in the door zone?

I think the "Look Bike" campaign was aimed at looking for motorcycles
more than bicycles.

Obviously helmet wearing campaigns have done their part to reduce
numbers of cyclists and a few head injuries and maybe some deaths.

--
JS

On Monday, November 25, 2013 9:01:40 PM UTC, James wrote:

One of the worst places for getting

doored is St Kilda Rd, just a few km south of the Arts Centre - where

the door zone bike lanes are.

[Joking] Perhaps you're better off getting doored than hit from behind!

Heh-heh. I lived on St Kilda Rd briefly, nearer the beach, while the house in St Vincent Place was being made ready. I wouldn't choose to cycle there, but if you live anywhere near there, you're a very, very long way from more attractive cycling spaces, and you may be forced to take what you can get.. Back in my time the road along the beach (was it called The Parade?) towards the port was deserted late at night and in the dawn hours when I used to run with a girl who was a maniac for exercise.

Andre Jute

On Monday, November 25, 2013 9:01:40 PM UTC, James wrote:
On 25/11/13 16:59, Andre Jute wrote:

Specifically on helmets, the New York whole universe compilation of

serious cycling accidents that I discussed before, that anti-helmet

zealots avoid so assiduously, is the best indicator that helmets do

save lives. In it there was a clear trend for the helmet wearers to

suffer a lower fatality rate.

I'm sure helmets have saved some lives. I'm also sure mandatory helmet

wearing has hit bicycle populations too, which would account to some

extent the flat line in fatalities.

This is one of the problems of these statistics, that you are working with fluid real life situations, not a laboratory population of rats under strict control. We don't know whether mandatory helmet laws deter cyclists beyond a few new or irregular cyclists who don't have a helmet and revert to the car or the bus rather than buy one. We don't know whether the class of cyclist most likely deterred is also the class of cyclist most likely to become an injury or fatality statistic, though it seems likely. It might be possible to argue that drunks cycling while they're banned from driving don't care about helmet laws anyway, and level the statistics off the other way (this is an argument that Krygowski has made several times as a fact -- in the absence of evidence, I put it forward merely as speculation).

What's in my base article is gospel. But, as Garry says, is it ALL the relevant gospel? I fear not.

Andre Jute

On 11-25-2013, 11:32, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Death tolls tend to rise or fall with road use. When hard times and/or gas prices and/or demographic trends reduce the miles driven, fewer drivers and passengers are killed. “Millennials aren’t driving cars,� some claim. OTOH, cycling seems to be rising in popularity, so bike deaths should have a tendency to rise, even though that tendency may be partially offset by other factors.

More cyclists may mean more targets for cars to hit.

BUT it may also mean fewer cars to hit them.

--
Wes Groleau

Expert, n.:
Someone who comes from out of town and shows slides.

Wes Groleau wrote:
On 11-25-2013, 11:32, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Death tolls tend to rise or fall with road use. When hard times and/or
gas prices and/or demographic trends reduce the miles driven, fewer
drivers and passengers are killed. “Millennials aren’t driving cars,�
some claim. OTOH, cycling seems to be rising in popularity, so bike
deaths should have a tendency to rise, even though that tendency may be
partially offset by other factors.

More cyclists may mean more targets for cars to hit.

BUT it may also mean fewer cars to hit them.

Larger cycling presence reduces accidents with cars.
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cont...3/205.full.pdf

--
duane

On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 10:14:16 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Monday, November 25, 2013 12:37:29 PM UTC-5, Garry Lee wrote:
A couple of points on reading all the above.

The Australian accident statistics improvement must be in large part due to the cracking down on drink-driving in that country.

In my rather long post above listing some causes of increased road safety, I'd intended to mention the big campaigns against drunk driving, but I lost track of it.

I should also have mention speed enforcement and red light cameras, although they're unpopular (since people apparently feel they have a constitutional right to speed and run red lights). One cycling advocate I know well said she was against such cameras. Then she came across data for her city which showed that the intersections where they were installed had _tremendous_ drops in crashes.

I feel that cycling would be safer if there was an apparatus in a car which rendered the use of a phone impossible while driving. They are undoubtedly a menace.

I've longed for a device to jam all cell signals within a couple hundred feet of me when I'm on the road. Preferably with a loud, loud blast of sound into the ear of the offender!

- Frank Krygowski

Limiting hand phone use while driving is extremely simple to
accomplish. In Singapore, for example, talking on a hand phone while
driving is punishable by up to a S$1,000 fine and six months in
prison.

As the average family income in Singapore is about S$4,000 this is
substantial penalty and as a result driving while using a hand phone
does not appear to be wide spread on the Island.

Of course, mandating such penalties does take a certain amount of
political bravery but the Singapore government has never lacked for
that.

--
Cheers,

John B.

On 11/25/2013 5:02 PM, John B. wrote:

snip

Limiting hand phone use while driving is extremely simple to
accomplish. In Singapore, for example, talking on a hand phone while
driving is punishable by up to a S$1,000 fine and six months in
prison.

Except "studies have shown" that the problem with phone use is not
holding the phone in one's hand, it's the lack of concentration on
driving caused by the phone conversation. So even using a headset isn't
going to fix the problem of distracted driving. Too bad that using a
cell phone jammer is illegal.