A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 12th 19, 11:59 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,423
Default HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.

Here's my analysis of US national bicycle safety, published in 2010.* Nothing significant has changed since then.

***
HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING?
Surprisingly, cycling can be argued to be "safe enough", given only
that one is willing to count the intangible benefits of health through
exercise, generally acknowledged as substantial. Here I shall make no
effort to quantify those health benefits because the argument I'm
putting forward is conclusively made by harder statistics and
unexceptional general morality.

In the representative year of 2008, the last for which comprehesive
data is available, 716 cyclists died on US roads, and 52,000 were
injured.

Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

The most convenient way to grasp the meaning of these statistics is to
compare cycling with motoring, the latter ipso facto by motorists'
average mileage accepted by most Americans as safe enough.

Compared to a motorist a cyclist is:
11 times MORE likely to die PER MILE travelled
2.9 times MORE likely to die PER TRIP taken

By adding information about the relative frequency/length/duration of
journeys of cyclists and motorists, we can further conclude that in
the US:

Compared to a motorist, a cyclist is:
3 to 4 times MORE likely to die PER HOUR riding
3 to 4 times LESS likely to die IN A YEAR's riding

Source:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=htt...Wt7vubH xju7Q

It is the last number, that the average cyclist is 3 to 4 times less
likely to die in a year's riding than a motorist, and enjoys all the
benefits of healthy exercise, that permits us to ignore the greater
per mile/per trip/per hour danger.

***

Andre Jute
* A complete version is at
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!ms...ch/qOFCNhQ1428 . I used the best national figures available then, referring to 2008, but just about nothing has changed since then.
Ads
  #2  
Old May 13th 19, 05:31 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Kunich[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,055
Default HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.

On Sunday, May 12, 2019 at 3:59:57 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
Here's my analysis of US national bicycle safety, published in 2010.* Nothing significant has changed since then.

***
HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING?
Surprisingly, cycling can be argued to be "safe enough", given only
that one is willing to count the intangible benefits of health through
exercise, generally acknowledged as substantial. Here I shall make no
effort to quantify those health benefits because the argument I'm
putting forward is conclusively made by harder statistics and
unexceptional general morality.

In the representative year of 2008, the last for which comprehesive
data is available, 716 cyclists died on US roads, and 52,000 were
injured.

Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

The most convenient way to grasp the meaning of these statistics is to
compare cycling with motoring, the latter ipso facto by motorists'
average mileage accepted by most Americans as safe enough.

Compared to a motorist a cyclist is:
11 times MORE likely to die PER MILE travelled
2.9 times MORE likely to die PER TRIP taken

By adding information about the relative frequency/length/duration of
journeys of cyclists and motorists, we can further conclude that in
the US:

Compared to a motorist, a cyclist is:
3 to 4 times MORE likely to die PER HOUR riding
3 to 4 times LESS likely to die IN A YEAR's riding

Source:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=htt...Wt7vubH xju7Q

It is the last number, that the average cyclist is 3 to 4 times less
likely to die in a year's riding than a motorist, and enjoys all the
benefits of healthy exercise, that permits us to ignore the greater
per mile/per trip/per hour danger.

***

Andre Jute
* A complete version is at
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!ms...ch/qOFCNhQ1428 . I used the best national figures available then, referring to 2008, but just about nothing has changed since then.


My experience shows nothing of the kind. Though I DO have motorists acting in a threatening manner quite often after some 40 years of cycling I have been hit by ONE car. And that at a very low rate of speed so that I was more sore from contact from the ground than damage by the car.

I watched Andrew's video on "taking the lane" and you can SEE that in these cases these drivers were breaking the law in every case and in all but one I don't think that any actions taken by the rider would have prevented it other than by being more observant and FAR more willing to modify their speed to allow these obviously stupid drivers to go regardless of right-of-way..

I think that the "dangerous" bicycle statistics come entirely from people that do not know how to ride correctly, ride on the wrong side of the road against traffic, ride on sidewalks veering out into traffic in an unpredictable manner and the like. This is somewhat similar to cars being made to look far less safe than they are because of the dangerous driving habits of a very few.
  #3  
Old May 13th 19, 10:33 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,423
Default HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.

On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 5:31:26 PM UTC+1, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Sunday, May 12, 2019 at 3:59:57 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
Here's my analysis of US national bicycle safety, published in 2010.* Nothing significant has changed since then.

***
HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING?
Surprisingly, cycling can be argued to be "safe enough", given only
that one is willing to count the intangible benefits of health through
exercise, generally acknowledged as substantial. Here I shall make no
effort to quantify those health benefits because the argument I'm
putting forward is conclusively made by harder statistics and
unexceptional general morality.

In the representative year of 2008, the last for which comprehesive
data is available, 716 cyclists died on US roads, and 52,000 were
injured.

Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

The most convenient way to grasp the meaning of these statistics is to
compare cycling with motoring, the latter ipso facto by motorists'
average mileage accepted by most Americans as safe enough.

Compared to a motorist a cyclist is:
11 times MORE likely to die PER MILE travelled
2.9 times MORE likely to die PER TRIP taken

By adding information about the relative frequency/length/duration of
journeys of cyclists and motorists, we can further conclude that in
the US:

Compared to a motorist, a cyclist is:
3 to 4 times MORE likely to die PER HOUR riding
3 to 4 times LESS likely to die IN A YEAR's riding

Source:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=htt...Wt7vubH xju7Q

It is the last number, that the average cyclist is 3 to 4 times less
likely to die in a year's riding than a motorist, and enjoys all the
benefits of healthy exercise, that permits us to ignore the greater
per mile/per trip/per hour danger.

***

Andre Jute
* A complete version is at
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!ms...ch/qOFCNhQ1428 . I used the best national figures available then, referring to 2008, but just about nothing has changed since then.


My experience shows nothing of the kind.


You can't argue with the official national numbers, Tom.

Though I DO have motorists acting in a threatening manner quite often after some 40 years of cycling I have been hit by ONE car. And that at a very low rate of speed so that I was more sore from contact from the ground than damage by the car.


In the random nature of statistical calculation, if there is one chance in a million of your being hit, and you're hit today, that does mean you can't be hit tomorrow as well

I watched Andrew's video on "taking the lane" and you can SEE that in these cases these drivers were breaking the law in every case and in all but one I don't think that any actions taken by the rider would have prevented it other than by being more observant and FAR more willing to modify their speed to allow these obviously stupid drivers to go regardless of right-of-way.


These numbers that I'm offering don't differentiate the causes of the incidents leading to the fatalities.

I think that the "dangerous" bicycle statistics come entirely from people that do not know how to ride correctly, ride on the wrong side of the road against traffic, ride on sidewalks veering out into traffic in an unpredictable manner and the like. This is somewhat similar to cars being made to look far less safe than they are because of the dangerous driving habits of a very few.


Sure, but again, these are the national official figures I'm working with, and they're a compilation of actual deaths on the road, not a sample, not anyone's opinion of the danger, but the hard facts of dead cyclists, 700 and some dead cyclists.

I made the original post because Frank Krygowski understated how safe cycling is, even as he screeched that other people were shouting "Danger! Danger!", as he still does in the forlorn hope of shutting up conversation.

Andre Jute
Numerate
  #4  
Old May 13th 19, 11:27 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Sir Ridesalot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,627
Default HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.

On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 5:33:52 PM UTC-4, Andre Jute wrote:
On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 5:31:26 PM UTC+1, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Sunday, May 12, 2019 at 3:59:57 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
Here's my analysis of US national bicycle safety, published in 2010.* Nothing significant has changed since then.

***
HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING?
Surprisingly, cycling can be argued to be "safe enough", given only
that one is willing to count the intangible benefits of health through
exercise, generally acknowledged as substantial. Here I shall make no
effort to quantify those health benefits because the argument I'm
putting forward is conclusively made by harder statistics and
unexceptional general morality.

In the representative year of 2008, the last for which comprehesive
data is available, 716 cyclists died on US roads, and 52,000 were
injured.

Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

The most convenient way to grasp the meaning of these statistics is to
compare cycling with motoring, the latter ipso facto by motorists'
average mileage accepted by most Americans as safe enough.

Compared to a motorist a cyclist is:
11 times MORE likely to die PER MILE travelled
2.9 times MORE likely to die PER TRIP taken

By adding information about the relative frequency/length/duration of
journeys of cyclists and motorists, we can further conclude that in
the US:

Compared to a motorist, a cyclist is:
3 to 4 times MORE likely to die PER HOUR riding
3 to 4 times LESS likely to die IN A YEAR's riding

Source:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=htt...Wt7vubH xju7Q

It is the last number, that the average cyclist is 3 to 4 times less
likely to die in a year's riding than a motorist, and enjoys all the
benefits of healthy exercise, that permits us to ignore the greater
per mile/per trip/per hour danger.

***

Andre Jute
* A complete version is at
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!ms...ch/qOFCNhQ1428 . I used the best national figures available then, referring to 2008, but just about nothing has changed since then.


My experience shows nothing of the kind.


You can't argue with the official national numbers, Tom.

Though I DO have motorists acting in a threatening manner quite often after some 40 years of cycling I have been hit by ONE car. And that at a very low rate of speed so that I was more sore from contact from the ground than damage by the car.


In the random nature of statistical calculation, if there is one chance in a million of your being hit, and you're hit today, that does mean you can't be hit tomorrow as well

I watched Andrew's video on "taking the lane" and you can SEE that in these cases these drivers were breaking the law in every case and in all but one I don't think that any actions taken by the rider would have prevented it other than by being more observant and FAR more willing to modify their speed to allow these obviously stupid drivers to go regardless of right-of-way.


These numbers that I'm offering don't differentiate the causes of the incidents leading to the fatalities.

I think that the "dangerous" bicycle statistics come entirely from people that do not know how to ride correctly, ride on the wrong side of the road against traffic, ride on sidewalks veering out into traffic in an unpredictable manner and the like. This is somewhat similar to cars being made to look far less safe than they are because of the dangerous driving habits of a very few.


Sure, but again, these are the national official figures I'm working with, and they're a compilation of actual deaths on the road, not a sample, not anyone's opinion of the danger, but the hard facts of dead cyclists, 700 and some dead cyclists.

I made the original post because Frank Krygowski understated how safe cycling is, even as he screeched that other people were shouting "Danger! Danger!", as he still does in the forlorn hope of shutting up conversation.

  #5  
Old May 13th 19, 11:34 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
James[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,018
Default HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.

On 12/5/19 8:59 pm, Andre Jute wrote:
Here's my analysis of US national bicycle safety, published in 2010.* Nothing significant has changed since then.

***
HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING?
Surprisingly, cycling can be argued to be "safe enough", given only
that one is willing to count the intangible benefits of health through
exercise, generally acknowledged as substantial. Here I shall make no
effort to quantify those health benefits because the argument I'm
putting forward is conclusively made by harder statistics and
unexceptional general morality.

In the representative year of 2008, the last for which comprehesive
data is available, 716 cyclists died on US roads, and 52,000 were
injured.

Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

The most convenient way to grasp the meaning of these statistics is to
compare cycling with motoring, the latter ipso facto by motorists'
average mileage accepted by most Americans as safe enough.

Compared to a motorist a cyclist is:
11 times MORE likely to die PER MILE travelled
2.9 times MORE likely to die PER TRIP taken

By adding information about the relative frequency/length/duration of
journeys of cyclists and motorists, we can further conclude that in
the US:

Compared to a motorist, a cyclist is:
3 to 4 times MORE likely to die PER HOUR riding
3 to 4 times LESS likely to die IN A YEAR's riding

Source:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=htt...Wt7vubH xju7Q

It is the last number, that the average cyclist is 3 to 4 times less
likely to die in a year's riding than a motorist, and enjoys all the
benefits of healthy exercise, that permits us to ignore the greater
per mile/per trip/per hour danger.

***

Andre Jute
* A complete version is at
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!ms...ch/qOFCNhQ1428 . I used the best national figures available then, referring to 2008, but just about nothing has changed since then.


In Australia the number of cyclists killed per year has been relatively
stable for at least a decade, and is close to 40.
https://www.bitre.gov.au/statistics/safety/fatal_road_crash_database.aspx

The national cycling participation survey that is conducted every 2
years since 2011 (2011, 2013, 2015, 2017) shows a statistically
significant decline in participation.
https://www.cycle-helmets.com/ncp-2017.pdf

In 2017, 3.74 million Australians cycled in a typical week, for 2.54
hours each on average.

Excluding the people who cycle less frequently, that is 9.5 million
hours of cycling per week, or a bit shy of 500 million hours annually.
Ok so I've rounded up to include some of those who cycle less frequently.

If those cyclists average 20 km/h, then 10 billion km, or 0.4 deaths per
100 million km.

According to BITRE data, Australia's road toll in 2016 was 0.52 per 100
million vehicle km. That includes motorcyclists as well as car
occupants and everyone else (perhaps even pedestrians).

Cycling doesn't appear particularly dangerous given this.

There is one interesting extra piece of information though, and that is
that cycling serious injuries (requiring a hospital stay of a couple of
weeks at least), have increased nearly 100% over the past 10 years,
where as fatalities have remained relatively constant.

My guess is that there are more low speed crashes occurring in urban
areas. People are trying to use a bicycle for transport to combat car
traffic congestion, and are not skilled ninja cyclists.

--
JS
  #6  
Old May 14th 19, 12:06 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B. Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 502
Default HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.

On Mon, 13 May 2019 15:27:49 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 5:33:52 PM UTC-4, Andre Jute wrote:
On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 5:31:26 PM UTC+1, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Sunday, May 12, 2019 at 3:59:57 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
Here's my analysis of US national bicycle safety, published in 2010.* Nothing significant has changed since then.

***
HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING?
Surprisingly, cycling can be argued to be "safe enough", given only
that one is willing to count the intangible benefits of health through
exercise, generally acknowledged as substantial. Here I shall make no
effort to quantify those health benefits because the argument I'm
putting forward is conclusively made by harder statistics and
unexceptional general morality.

In the representative year of 2008, the last for which comprehesive
data is available, 716 cyclists died on US roads, and 52,000 were
injured.

Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

The most convenient way to grasp the meaning of these statistics is to
compare cycling with motoring, the latter ipso facto by motorists'
average mileage accepted by most Americans as safe enough.

Compared to a motorist a cyclist is:
11 times MORE likely to die PER MILE travelled
2.9 times MORE likely to die PER TRIP taken

By adding information about the relative frequency/length/duration of
journeys of cyclists and motorists, we can further conclude that in
the US:

Compared to a motorist, a cyclist is:
3 to 4 times MORE likely to die PER HOUR riding
3 to 4 times LESS likely to die IN A YEAR's riding

Source:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=htt...Wt7vubH xju7Q

It is the last number, that the average cyclist is 3 to 4 times less
likely to die in a year's riding than a motorist, and enjoys all the
benefits of healthy exercise, that permits us to ignore the greater
per mile/per trip/per hour danger.

***

Andre Jute
* A complete version is at
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!ms...ch/qOFCNhQ1428 . I used the best national figures available then, referring to 2008, but just about nothing has changed since then.

My experience shows nothing of the kind.


You can't argue with the official national numbers, Tom.

Though I DO have motorists acting in a threatening manner quite often after some 40 years of cycling I have been hit by ONE car. And that at a very low rate of speed so that I was more sore from contact from the ground than damage by the car.


In the random nature of statistical calculation, if there is one chance in a million of your being hit, and you're hit today, that does mean you can't be hit tomorrow as well

I watched Andrew's video on "taking the lane" and you can SEE that in these cases these drivers were breaking the law in every case and in all but one I don't think that any actions taken by the rider would have prevented it other than by being more observant and FAR more willing to modify their speed to allow these obviously stupid drivers to go regardless of right-of-way.


These numbers that I'm offering don't differentiate the causes of the incidents leading to the fatalities.

I think that the "dangerous" bicycle statistics come entirely from people that do not know how to ride correctly, ride on the wrong side of the road against traffic, ride on sidewalks veering out into traffic in an unpredictable manner and the like. This is somewhat similar to cars being made to look far less safe than they are because of the dangerous driving habits of a very few.


Sure, but again, these are the national official figures I'm working with, and they're a compilation of actual deaths on the road, not a sample, not anyone's opinion of the danger, but the hard facts of dead cyclists, 700 and some dead cyclists.

I made the original post because Frank Krygowski understated how safe cycling is, even as he screeched that other people were shouting "Danger! Danger!", as he still does in the forlorn hope of shutting up conversation.

Andre Jute
Numerate


With regards to statistics. I think British prime minister Benjamin Disraeli said it best: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

The problem with statistics seems to be that one can pick and choose which ones to use to support their position.

Cheers


The origins of the seems to have been Mark Twain who attributed it to
Disraeli. As a prelude he wrote, " "Figures often beguile me,
particularly when I have the arranging of them myself" which matches
your theory that statistics often support the individual that most
carefully selects them. :-)

I've mentioned a good friend who ran a successful financial research
firm here in Bangkok, who often stated that he could design a survey
to prove anything that you wished.
--

Cheers,

John B.
  #7  
Old May 14th 19, 12:09 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,305
Default HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.

On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 3:35:04 PM UTC-7, James wrote:
On 12/5/19 8:59 pm, Andre Jute wrote:
Here's my analysis of US national bicycle safety, published in 2010.* Nothing significant has changed since then.

***
HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING?
Surprisingly, cycling can be argued to be "safe enough", given only
that one is willing to count the intangible benefits of health through
exercise, generally acknowledged as substantial. Here I shall make no
effort to quantify those health benefits because the argument I'm
putting forward is conclusively made by harder statistics and
unexceptional general morality.

In the representative year of 2008, the last for which comprehesive
data is available, 716 cyclists died on US roads, and 52,000 were
injured.

Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

The most convenient way to grasp the meaning of these statistics is to
compare cycling with motoring, the latter ipso facto by motorists'
average mileage accepted by most Americans as safe enough.

Compared to a motorist a cyclist is:
11 times MORE likely to die PER MILE travelled
2.9 times MORE likely to die PER TRIP taken

By adding information about the relative frequency/length/duration of
journeys of cyclists and motorists, we can further conclude that in
the US:

Compared to a motorist, a cyclist is:
3 to 4 times MORE likely to die PER HOUR riding
3 to 4 times LESS likely to die IN A YEAR's riding

Source:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=htt...Wt7vubH xju7Q

It is the last number, that the average cyclist is 3 to 4 times less
likely to die in a year's riding than a motorist, and enjoys all the
benefits of healthy exercise, that permits us to ignore the greater
per mile/per trip/per hour danger.

***

Andre Jute
* A complete version is at
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!ms...ch/qOFCNhQ1428 . I used the best national figures available then, referring to 2008, but just about nothing has changed since then.


In Australia the number of cyclists killed per year has been relatively
stable for at least a decade, and is close to 40.
https://www.bitre.gov.au/statistics/safety/fatal_road_crash_database.aspx

The national cycling participation survey that is conducted every 2
years since 2011 (2011, 2013, 2015, 2017) shows a statistically
significant decline in participation.
https://www.cycle-helmets.com/ncp-2017.pdf

In 2017, 3.74 million Australians cycled in a typical week, for 2.54
hours each on average.

Excluding the people who cycle less frequently, that is 9.5 million
hours of cycling per week, or a bit shy of 500 million hours annually.
Ok so I've rounded up to include some of those who cycle less frequently.

If those cyclists average 20 km/h, then 10 billion km, or 0.4 deaths per
100 million km.

According to BITRE data, Australia's road toll in 2016 was 0.52 per 100
million vehicle km. That includes motorcyclists as well as car
occupants and everyone else (perhaps even pedestrians).

Cycling doesn't appear particularly dangerous given this.

There is one interesting extra piece of information though, and that is
that cycling serious injuries (requiring a hospital stay of a couple of
weeks at least), have increased nearly 100% over the past 10 years,
where as fatalities have remained relatively constant.

My guess is that there are more low speed crashes occurring in urban
areas. People are trying to use a bicycle for transport to combat car
traffic congestion, and are not skilled ninja cyclists.


I'm amazed that more people in PDX don't get hurt in bike versus bike accidents. Take the commuter herd, throw in some eBikes, jam them in a two-way chute with some pedestrians thrown in, and it gets pretty sketchy. Morning traffic can be brutal. https://media.chatterblock.com/cache...a1f9febee1.png

-- Jay Beattie.
  #8  
Old May 14th 19, 12:42 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Sir Ridesalot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,627
Default HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.

On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 7:09:30 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 3:35:04 PM UTC-7, James wrote:
On 12/5/19 8:59 pm, Andre Jute wrote:
Here's my analysis of US national bicycle safety, published in 2010.* Nothing significant has changed since then.

***
HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING?
Surprisingly, cycling can be argued to be "safe enough", given only
that one is willing to count the intangible benefits of health through
exercise, generally acknowledged as substantial. Here I shall make no
effort to quantify those health benefits because the argument I'm
putting forward is conclusively made by harder statistics and
unexceptional general morality.

In the representative year of 2008, the last for which comprehesive
data is available, 716 cyclists died on US roads, and 52,000 were
injured.

Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

The most convenient way to grasp the meaning of these statistics is to
compare cycling with motoring, the latter ipso facto by motorists'
average mileage accepted by most Americans as safe enough.

Compared to a motorist a cyclist is:
11 times MORE likely to die PER MILE travelled
2.9 times MORE likely to die PER TRIP taken

By adding information about the relative frequency/length/duration of
journeys of cyclists and motorists, we can further conclude that in
the US:

Compared to a motorist, a cyclist is:
3 to 4 times MORE likely to die PER HOUR riding
3 to 4 times LESS likely to die IN A YEAR's riding

Source:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=htt...Wt7vubH xju7Q

It is the last number, that the average cyclist is 3 to 4 times less
likely to die in a year's riding than a motorist, and enjoys all the
benefits of healthy exercise, that permits us to ignore the greater
per mile/per trip/per hour danger.

***

Andre Jute
* A complete version is at
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!ms...ch/qOFCNhQ1428 . I used the best national figures available then, referring to 2008, but just about nothing has changed since then.


In Australia the number of cyclists killed per year has been relatively
stable for at least a decade, and is close to 40.
https://www.bitre.gov.au/statistics/safety/fatal_road_crash_database.aspx

The national cycling participation survey that is conducted every 2
years since 2011 (2011, 2013, 2015, 2017) shows a statistically
significant decline in participation.
https://www.cycle-helmets.com/ncp-2017.pdf

In 2017, 3.74 million Australians cycled in a typical week, for 2.54
hours each on average.

Excluding the people who cycle less frequently, that is 9.5 million
hours of cycling per week, or a bit shy of 500 million hours annually.
Ok so I've rounded up to include some of those who cycle less frequently.

If those cyclists average 20 km/h, then 10 billion km, or 0.4 deaths per
100 million km.

According to BITRE data, Australia's road toll in 2016 was 0.52 per 100
million vehicle km. That includes motorcyclists as well as car
occupants and everyone else (perhaps even pedestrians).

Cycling doesn't appear particularly dangerous given this.

There is one interesting extra piece of information though, and that is
that cycling serious injuries (requiring a hospital stay of a couple of
weeks at least), have increased nearly 100% over the past 10 years,
where as fatalities have remained relatively constant.

My guess is that there are more low speed crashes occurring in urban
areas. People are trying to use a bicycle for transport to combat car
traffic congestion, and are not skilled ninja cyclists.


I'm amazed that more people in PDX don't get hurt in bike versus bike accidents. Take the commuter herd, throw in some eBikes, jam them in a two-way chute with some pedestrians thrown in, and it gets pretty sketchy. Morning traffic can be brutal. https://media.chatterblock.com/cache...a1f9febee1.png

-- Jay Beattie.


Where are the cars? Speed limit sign of 50. That looks like an organized event closed to motor vehicles. Am I wrong about that?

Cheers
  #9  
Old May 14th 19, 01:00 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,305
Default HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.

On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 4:42:36 PM UTC-7, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 7:09:30 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 3:35:04 PM UTC-7, James wrote:
On 12/5/19 8:59 pm, Andre Jute wrote:
Here's my analysis of US national bicycle safety, published in 2010..* Nothing significant has changed since then.

***
HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING?
Surprisingly, cycling can be argued to be "safe enough", given only
that one is willing to count the intangible benefits of health through
exercise, generally acknowledged as substantial. Here I shall make no
effort to quantify those health benefits because the argument I'm
putting forward is conclusively made by harder statistics and
unexceptional general morality.

In the representative year of 2008, the last for which comprehesive
data is available, 716 cyclists died on US roads, and 52,000 were
injured.

Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

The most convenient way to grasp the meaning of these statistics is to
compare cycling with motoring, the latter ipso facto by motorists'
average mileage accepted by most Americans as safe enough.

Compared to a motorist a cyclist is:
11 times MORE likely to die PER MILE travelled
2.9 times MORE likely to die PER TRIP taken

By adding information about the relative frequency/length/duration of
journeys of cyclists and motorists, we can further conclude that in
the US:

Compared to a motorist, a cyclist is:
3 to 4 times MORE likely to die PER HOUR riding
3 to 4 times LESS likely to die IN A YEAR's riding

Source:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=htt...Wt7vubH xju7Q

It is the last number, that the average cyclist is 3 to 4 times less
likely to die in a year's riding than a motorist, and enjoys all the
benefits of healthy exercise, that permits us to ignore the greater
per mile/per trip/per hour danger.

***

Andre Jute
* A complete version is at
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!ms...ch/qOFCNhQ1428 . I used the best national figures available then, referring to 2008, but just about nothing has changed since then.


In Australia the number of cyclists killed per year has been relatively
stable for at least a decade, and is close to 40.
https://www.bitre.gov.au/statistics/safety/fatal_road_crash_database..aspx

The national cycling participation survey that is conducted every 2
years since 2011 (2011, 2013, 2015, 2017) shows a statistically
significant decline in participation.
https://www.cycle-helmets.com/ncp-2017.pdf

In 2017, 3.74 million Australians cycled in a typical week, for 2.54
hours each on average.

Excluding the people who cycle less frequently, that is 9.5 million
hours of cycling per week, or a bit shy of 500 million hours annually..
Ok so I've rounded up to include some of those who cycle less frequently.

If those cyclists average 20 km/h, then 10 billion km, or 0.4 deaths per
100 million km.

According to BITRE data, Australia's road toll in 2016 was 0.52 per 100
million vehicle km. That includes motorcyclists as well as car
occupants and everyone else (perhaps even pedestrians).

Cycling doesn't appear particularly dangerous given this.

There is one interesting extra piece of information though, and that is
that cycling serious injuries (requiring a hospital stay of a couple of
weeks at least), have increased nearly 100% over the past 10 years,
where as fatalities have remained relatively constant.

My guess is that there are more low speed crashes occurring in urban
areas. People are trying to use a bicycle for transport to combat car
traffic congestion, and are not skilled ninja cyclists.


I'm amazed that more people in PDX don't get hurt in bike versus bike accidents. Take the commuter herd, throw in some eBikes, jam them in a two-way chute with some pedestrians thrown in, and it gets pretty sketchy. Morning traffic can be brutal. https://media.chatterblock.com/cache...a1f9febee1.png

-- Jay Beattie.


Where are the cars? Speed limit sign of 50. That looks like an organized event closed to motor vehicles. Am I wrong about that?


Disorganized event -- the Providence Bridge Pedal. I'm just kidding about it being morning traffic, which occurs elsewhere for me.

-- Jay Beattie.
  #10  
Old May 14th 19, 03:19 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,807
Default HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.

On 5/13/2019 8:00 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 4:42:36 PM UTC-7, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 7:09:30 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 3:35:04 PM UTC-7, James wrote:
On 12/5/19 8:59 pm, Andre Jute wrote:
Here's my analysis of US national bicycle safety, published in 2010.* Nothing significant has changed since then.

***
HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING?
Surprisingly, cycling can be argued to be "safe enough", given only
that one is willing to count the intangible benefits of health through
exercise, generally acknowledged as substantial. Here I shall make no
effort to quantify those health benefits because the argument I'm
putting forward is conclusively made by harder statistics and
unexceptional general morality.

In the representative year of 2008, the last for which comprehesive
data is available, 716 cyclists died on US roads, and 52,000 were
injured.

Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

The most convenient way to grasp the meaning of these statistics is to
compare cycling with motoring, the latter ipso facto by motorists'
average mileage accepted by most Americans as safe enough.

Compared to a motorist a cyclist is:
11 times MORE likely to die PER MILE travelled
2.9 times MORE likely to die PER TRIP taken

By adding information about the relative frequency/length/duration of
journeys of cyclists and motorists, we can further conclude that in
the US:

Compared to a motorist, a cyclist is:
3 to 4 times MORE likely to die PER HOUR riding
3 to 4 times LESS likely to die IN A YEAR's riding

Source:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=htt...Wt7vubH xju7Q

It is the last number, that the average cyclist is 3 to 4 times less
likely to die in a year's riding than a motorist, and enjoys all the
benefits of healthy exercise, that permits us to ignore the greater
per mile/per trip/per hour danger.

***

Andre Jute
* A complete version is at
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!ms...ch/qOFCNhQ1428 . I used the best national figures available then, referring to 2008, but just about nothing has changed since then.


In Australia the number of cyclists killed per year has been relatively
stable for at least a decade, and is close to 40.
https://www.bitre.gov.au/statistics/safety/fatal_road_crash_database.aspx

The national cycling participation survey that is conducted every 2
years since 2011 (2011, 2013, 2015, 2017) shows a statistically
significant decline in participation.
https://www.cycle-helmets.com/ncp-2017.pdf

In 2017, 3.74 million Australians cycled in a typical week, for 2.54
hours each on average.

Excluding the people who cycle less frequently, that is 9.5 million
hours of cycling per week, or a bit shy of 500 million hours annually.
Ok so I've rounded up to include some of those who cycle less frequently.

If those cyclists average 20 km/h, then 10 billion km, or 0.4 deaths per
100 million km.

According to BITRE data, Australia's road toll in 2016 was 0.52 per 100
million vehicle km. That includes motorcyclists as well as car
occupants and everyone else (perhaps even pedestrians).

Cycling doesn't appear particularly dangerous given this.

There is one interesting extra piece of information though, and that is
that cycling serious injuries (requiring a hospital stay of a couple of
weeks at least), have increased nearly 100% over the past 10 years,
where as fatalities have remained relatively constant.

My guess is that there are more low speed crashes occurring in urban
areas. People are trying to use a bicycle for transport to combat car
traffic congestion, and are not skilled ninja cyclists.

I'm amazed that more people in PDX don't get hurt in bike versus bike accidents. Take the commuter herd, throw in some eBikes, jam them in a two-way chute with some pedestrians thrown in, and it gets pretty sketchy. Morning traffic can be brutal. https://media.chatterblock.com/cache...a1f9febee1.png

-- Jay Beattie.


Where are the cars? Speed limit sign of 50. That looks like an organized event closed to motor vehicles. Am I wrong about that?


Disorganized event -- the Providence Bridge Pedal. I'm just kidding about it being morning traffic, which occurs elsewhere for me.


When my kid lived in Portland, she started a "Bridge Ride" one year. She
quit soon after the start, because the riders were so densely packed she
couldn't move above a walking pace.

--
- Frank Krygowski
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is cycling dangerous? Bertie Wooster[_2_] UK 20 March 17th 14 10:43 PM
Cycling casualties plummet despite rise in numbers Simon Mason[_4_] UK 7 April 6th 12 08:06 AM
"Cycling is not dangerous. Cars are dangerous." Doug[_3_] UK 56 September 14th 09 05:57 PM
Help Texas Cycling call these numbers throughout the weekend Anton Berlin Racing 4 June 25th 09 08:58 PM
Cycling is dangerous Garry Jones General 375 November 21st 03 06:52 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.