Slashdot Mirror
How Safe Is Cycling?
theodp writes "With new bike sharing programs all the rage, spending tens of millions of dollars to make city streets more bike friendly with hundreds of miles of bike lanes has become a priority for bike-loving mayors like NYC's Michael Bloomberg and Chicago's Rahm Emanuel. 'You cannot be for a startup, high-tech economy and not be pro-bike,' claimed Emanuel, who credited bike-sharing and bike lanes for attracting Google and Motorola Mobility to downtown Chicago. Now, with huge bike-sharing contracts awarded and programs underway, the NY Times asks the big question, How Safe Is Cycling? Because bike accidents rarely make front page news and are likely to be dramatically underreported, it's hard to say, concludes the NYT's Gina Kolata. UCSF trauma surgeon Dr. Rochelle Dicker, who studied hospital and police records for 2,504 bicyclists treated at San Francisco General Hospital, told Kolata,'Lots of my colleagues do not want to ride after seeing these [city biking] injuries.' On the other hand, Andy Pruitt, the founder of the Boulder Center for Sports Medicine and an avid lifelong cyclist, said the dangers were overstated, noting he's only broken his collarbone twice and hip once in four decades of long-distance cycling. So, is cycling safe, especially in the city? And is it OK to follow Mayor Emanuel's lead and lose the helmet?"
Google is your friend, it can show you every last killed and injured biker.
http://www.nhtsa.gov/Bicycles
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811743.pdf
OTOH there are 89 car related deaths each and every day in the US, those too do not make the front page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year
It will show you every last *reported* injured biker. That's a very big and important distinction. Equally important is how many of those injuries were on public roads. Whether or not some kid on an off-road course injured himself is of little importance.
he's only broken his collarbone twice and hip once
Only? That sounds like proof of concept rather than a proof of overstatement.
Laughter is the Spackle of the Soul.
Wear a helmet.
None of us know everything. Therefore we're all naïve.
Unlike Andy Pruitt, I would not consider three broken bones in 40 years to be "safe". I have been cycling for about that long, but no more than a couple thousand miles per year on average, and I have never broken a bone, not cycling, not in any other activity - and my activities include flying (powered and unpowered craft), motorcycles, white water kayaking, and mocking senior management.
It's all the cars that are dangerous
Having seen a number of near-misses in London, no way would I cycle there. The main arteries are simply scary, the minor roads take too long and cross the main ones too frequently. Maybe the Greenway would make sense if both ends of the journey are in its vicinity.
Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
It isn't. At least, not on roads shared with cars.
Most drivers treat cyclists like pests (and in fairness, I see a lot of cyclists who completely ignore all traffic rules and deserve the reputation).
Where I live, we've had the buses kill cyclists because the bike lane and the bus lane co-exist and the bus drivers don't look.
I gave up on any notion of cycling on the same road as cars 15+ years ago. Unless you have an entire network of bike lanes which are physically separated from the cars (and even those tend to be spotty), I wouldn't consider cycling on city streets to be even remotely safe.
I don't trust most drivers while I'm in a car, being exposed on a bicycle? No way in hell I'd be willing to do that anymore.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
This article is written with a very specific kind of bicycling in mind. Note that everyone interviewed for this story was engaged in some kind of recreational or fitness cycling, which is notably more dangerous than cycling for transportation, since it generally involves much higher speeds (which also means biking on less dedicated bicycling infrastructure). It's particularly telling that in the part of the article where the various types of cycling are listed, transportation isn't among them, even though it is, by far, the most common reason for bicycling around the world (and notably the main type being addressed by bike sharing programs and all of the bike safety measures discussed in the Slashdot summary).
The 100+ temps can be dealt with using some amazing first world tech called a shower.. my office building has them on every floor.
He tried to kill me with a forklift!
Cycling carries its dangers, but cycling (even in a city) is probably less dangerous than not exercising at all.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Where I live (Vancouver, Canada) there's been a multi-year program to install bike lanes throughout the city. It's caused a lot of tension between drivers and cyclists because there's a sense amongst drivers (and pedestrians too, for that matter) that we're spending millions of tax dollars catering to a group who a) don't follow the rules of the road and b) feel that the rules don't apply to them. They ride fixie bikes with no brakes and no bells. They blow through crosswalks, shouting and terrifying grannies. They ride at night dressed in black with no lights and then shout at me when I nearly run them over after they blow through a stop sign. They ride on sidewalks right next to bike lanes - And there's zero enforcement for any of this, and none of the bike advocacy groups seem willing to shame the bad apples.
The best way to make cycling in major cities safer would be to
1) require a drivers license to cycle on city streets
2) require cyclists to obey all traffic laws (this is already true in many jurisdictions)
3) disallow cyclists (and motorcycles) from weaving between lanes to move ahead in traffic. Require them to use lanes in the same manner as other vehicles (you don't see 2 smart cars trying to share one lane of traffic)
4) enforce #1, #2 and #3 as aggressivley with cyclists as with automobiles, with the same penalties
I have seen more pedestrians run down (or nearly run down) by cyclists running red lights, weaving in and out of slow moving traffic, transitioning from using the streets to using pedestrian crosswalks to thwart lights or make lefts from a right hand lane across traffic. I cannot count the number of times I've seen aggressive cyclists in New York and Chicago weave through cars, use the wrong side of the road (!!!), etc. and then get upset when someone nearly knocks them over because they weren't seen being where they didn't belong.
If you require a level of competence (driver's license), require all vehicles using the roads to abide by the same laws (and enforce equally, with equal consequences), you'd go a long way toward improving cycling safety.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Google is your friend, it can show you every last killed and injured biker.
No it cannot possibly show you every last injured cyclist. Killed I could believe but definitely not injured because most cycling injuries never get reported including those that involve cars. I've been in numerous cycling accidents myself of which *maybe* one may have been documented somewhere because it required sutures. I've been in and around competitive cycling my entire life (father races) and I assure you that very few bicycle accidents are ever reported to the police much less the NHTSA.
He broke his collarbone twice while racing and had two crashes on a mountain bike
Okay, you get the win on this one. Slashdot description is deceptive; thanks for the clarification these injuries were not in the street use the article is about.
Laughter is the Spackle of the Soul.
I lived in Philly til midway through my thirties. I rode a bike a *lot* - commuting, and, in fact, about 9 months as a bike messenger. No helmet.
I went down three times, and limped away all of them. Scraped hand. Once was due to a very bad seam in the street itself. Back then, *no* *one* wore a helmet.
Of course, back there, adults were supposed to ride in the street, not on the sidewalk, and in the street, you are suppsed to obey traffic laws like any other vehicle. If you ride your bike the way some self-proclaimed CotU (Centers of the Universe) drive their oversized, gas-guzzling SUVs, and think stopping for lights or stop signs is for weenies, well, there's a phrase for that:: think of it as evolution in action.
mark
I am over forty, don't bike, and have never borken ANY bone.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Pick a safe route at an off-peak time, and you'll be all right. And don't be hard when the roads are slick--take the bus.
I've bike-commuted for about 9 years now and it has worked out beautifully.
Route planning is everything. I'll ride 25% further just to get the benefit of a lower traffic route or a wide shoulder. Timing is also key. In some places, half an hour can make the difference between peaceful solitude and rush hour madness.
It's probably safer than watching TV. You don't get diabetes, obesity and coronary artery disease from cycling. If cycling gets you off the couch, do it. Hiking gets me off the couch. I don't worry about stumbling over a rock or yep... getting hit by a mountain biker. I worry about my mid-section getting flabby. Statistically, it's far more likely to kill me.
I used to cycle. I didn't mind the 25 mph city streets, as long as they were wide enough to avoid car door openings. I hated faster roads. Braddock and Ox road area of Fairfax County, VA was the worst. I road on Braddock, and a driver yelled at me. I road on the sidewalk next to Ox, and a guy mowing his lawn yelled at me for riding where only pedestrians are supposed to be. Technically he was right, but my life was more important to me than your stupid law. I was not about to take my life into my hands and ride on the side of Ox road there. I see a lot more road riders in California where I live now, but I really don't want to join them. I could see myself cruising the El Camino and the little Main Streets on the Peninsula though. El Camino is 35 mph but the traffic is so bad it goes slower a lot. That's about the fastest road I'd ever want to be on. San Francisco? It's a madhouse. Fuggedaboutit. I'll see you on a mountain side, walking to get fresh air and exercise.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
This is of course a complex question. Sure, cyclist are more prone to accidents and air pollution than those who commute by private car or by public transport. Then again, cycling to work is a "free" daily exercise – a benefit too often overlooked. A Danish study published in 2000 found that in a group of 30,000 randomly selected individuals, those who did not cycle to work experienced a 39% higher mortality rate than those who did – even after adjusting for other risk factors. So considering the overall effect, it seems that cycling is actually safer than not cycling, probably due to its positive effect on your physical fitness.
In The Netherlands. Nobody wears a helmet, with a few exception for very young kids (Always flanked and shielded by a overly concerned parent.)
I could show a graph that nicely shows that helmets are correlated with higher death rates. (No the helmet doesn't kill, its because helmets are worn in countries with low separation of slow cyclists and fast cars)
There is also a correlation between more helmets (by law) leading to LESS cyclers. Its a burden.
Seperation of slow and fast traffic is BY FAR the biggest factor here. Then also consider the health benefit of the exercise.
Regular exercise will make you more healthy and prolong your life! So, on bike lanes, Cycling is Super Awesome Safe! No helmet needed.
ps, incidents are on the rise due to old folks going faster on their electric assisted bikes.
ps2 mopeds, scooters, especially those that clock 50km/h are more and more forced into the car lane in The Netherlands, the speeds fits better.
ps3 Watch your juveniles, those pesky 12-18 y/o have a high incident rate. They are also likely to be offended by a helmet..
I have actually seen all of these things, and many workplaces have shower facilities.
So, I would say all of your "no one is going to" are pretty much wrong. I've certainly seen cyclists out in snow storms, because you can buy studded tires for bikes these days, and rain gear.
Maybe you wouldn't, but it definitely happens.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Cycling seems fairly safe to me if you wear a helmet and you choose your routes to avoid cars.
Here in Minneapolis I notice what I would call a lot of "aggressive" cyclists -- people who run traffic control devices (stop signs, lights, etc) and get dangerously close to traffic that might otherwise change speeds/lanes/turn/etc very quickly. From the cyclists I talk to, it almost seems like cycling is taking on a political component, too, which seems to contribute to aggressive cycling or at least an aggressive attitude.
The other thing that kind of amazes me are the people who INSIST on cycling on a busy through street (like Lyndale through South Minneapolis) instead of moving over just a block on either side and riding on a nearly empty residential street, like Garfield or Aldrich. Or the bike racing gear wearers who insist on riding on the parkway instead of the bike path 25 feet away, in spite of the fact that the parkway is a single lane and the parking cutouts along the parkway are pretty narrow -- if cars are parked in the cutouts there's precious little room to pass a cyclist.
As long as people insist on riding in traffic and people kind of a jerk about it, it doesn't surprise me that there are conflicts a cyclist will lose simply based on mass.
Rarely will you find THE answer to anything. Biking is just one of the answers to some (many?) situations. Take college. I biked to pretty much every class. My crowning achievement was waking up at 8:56 before a test at 9 half way across campus and making it on time (thankfully it was downhill...and no I didn't do too well, hence being proud of just making it there on time). Sure, in the driving rain the answer isn't biking, its skipping class.
But seriously who said everyone has to bike? If 1/3 of people bike on nice days it would do wonders to reduce congestion and pollution. Speaking of, how many big cities get 3ft of snow on a regular basis?
I say its good to have the option.
Cycling excludes many people, especially the elderly, the otherwise frail, and the uncoordinated. In the city, at least, they would be taking their lives in their hands.
It seems like an idea by the young and healthy, for the young and healthy. Which is fine, but devoting significant public resources to it seems questionable. Should cities invest in transportation programs (such as bikeshare) that many residents are physically unable to utilize?
I was once in an accident where I driver passed me while I was riding in the cycling lane. Like 10 feet ahead of me, he suddenly stopped and pulled into the bike lane to let someone out (it's illegal to stop in a bike lane unless you are pulling into a parking space). At my speed (I'd say somewhere between 20-25mph) I didn't have enough time to slow down enough to maneuver around. I ended up having to jump off my bike and tuck and roll, landing the trunk of his car and cracking his rear window with my shoulder. He jumped out of the car, furious with me saying his was gonna take me to court for damages. I ended up taking him first and won the case thanks to the footage from my GoPro.
TLDR: Was riding legally in the bike lane when a driver pulled over and stopped right in-front of me, forcing me to roll onto his trunk and cracking his window. Took him to court and won the case due to video evidence.
So I think that the real question should be "How safe is cycling when every follows the law?"
It is not the first time (nor the last) that the car industry try to eliminate alternatives to their products.
Car accidents is one of the main causes of death in US, 1 in 108 (and maybe other causes in that report should be grouped in that category as are caused directly or indirectly by cars), while bicycles are 1 in 5000 (and a lot of them could be caused by cars). And those 2 are often ignored by the people that mainly fear being killed by a shark or terrorists that are 1 in several millons each.
we could save 10's of thousands of lives a year by actually having real driving skill requirements and every 3 years a required road test. Most drivers are barely capable of going i na straight line. Plus it should be a LOT easier to lose your drivers license. A lot of old people are highly dangerous to others yet still have a legal drivers license.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I will happily furnish two chairs and as much liquor as you can drink, and we'll sit at the stop sign next to my house. One block away from a school, and one block away from a heavily frequented park. In a residential historic neighborhood with home values approaching seven figures. Speed bumps on almost every street.
You chug a beer every time a car rolls through the stop sign. You down a shot every time someone blows through it without even slowing down. You take a sip when cars bottom out on the dips. Shot for people texting or talking on mobiles. Just a sip for speeding. You want to up the ante? Add a drink for failure to yield right-of-way, or honked horn.
I'll take a shot for every car that doesn't break the law in some fashion.
I'll go home in better shape than you, by far.
Everyday on my bike, someone tries to kill me. Often enough on purpose. On my bike, it's very unlikely that I'll kill or maim anyone, whether I follow the law or not. Every cyclist I've ever talked to who has been in an car/bike accident (and that's just about all of them) was following the law at the time of the accident. And the car wasn't. Guess who got injured?
So the hell with you. Cyclists rarely hurt anyone, and car drivers kill cyclists every day.
As a dutch person you just proved to me you are a lazy fat wimp. Enjoy your heart attack.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Ever heard of a Trike? My 85 year old father rides his all the time.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
Coming from Boulder to Chicago, the difference is insane. The drivers in Chicago are, by and large, a "me first" crowd. They cut off other cars by driving in the bike lanes. Even Chicago's police regularly park and drive on bike lanes, setting an excellent example for the citizens to follow. Delivery vehicles think nothing of blocking a bike lane. But the issue doesn't end with bad drivers. The city streets are so littered with signs (business signs, parking, no parking, street sweeping, snow route, speed limit, school zone, bus stop, pedestrian crossing, tow zone, one way, no left turn, and then two names plus a state route for some streets!) that it is impossible to read them all, making it very likely that you'll miss an important one (was that a stop sign?!?). Lanes appear and disappear without warning. Did I miss a sign that said this lane was ending? No -- there is no sign. (There was no room for that sign.) And some stop lights are placed where it is almost impossible to see until it is too late to stop. It's really insane. And the natives have no clue how bad it is. Drivers are so distracted by the insane signage and roads, that a bicyclist will get lost in the noise.
the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
bikers just need to cut risks:
1) Don't ride in the dark.
2) Don't ride in the middle of the street.
3) Don't go down hills at full speed.
4) Wear a helmet
5) Be careful at intersections
They don't have to be laws. Just what you do to live.
I am driving in a congested city area with a cyclist tailgating me. A pedestrian is not yet in the cross walk but showing signs of entering a marked cross walk so I start to slow down. Pedestrian enters the walk, the cyclist pulls out from behind me to pass on the right, accelerating as the pedestrian dodges the cyclist.
Yeah, these are only the "rude" cyclists, but you all know about No True Scotsman. "A man with red hair on a bike wearing a kilt almost clobbered a pedestrian in Aberdeen the other day." "No true Scotsman would ride a bike that way!"
but what about one that runs over a pedestrian because he was riding on the sidewalk?
If you bothered to google this: cyclists are involved in collisions with .6% of pedestrian injuries in NYC that warrant a trip to the doctor, ER, or a police report.
The other 99.4% are motor vehicle drivers.
The statistics do not account for whether the cyclist or pedestrian is at fault. Quite a few pedestrians rely on hearing to tell if a vehicle is coming - I have people step right into the road in front of me all the time, and it's particularly annoying since I'm more likely to be injured trying to avoid them and hitting something or crashing, or glancing off them and then crashing. They're likely to only get a bruised rib, whereas I'll probably get a broken arm.
Please help metamoderate.
As a cyclist, I'd like to weigh in that it's the cyclists' fault.
As a cyclist, I'd like to weigh in that you're full of it, and engaging in thinking/logic that's a cousin to the basic logic employed by racists. You cite some guy riding extremely dangerously as an example of how everyone rides. You rely on an anecdote, which is not evidence. And then you state that this behavior is what causes all/most injuries, which is victim-blaming.
Turns out, there's plenty of studies on this subject, from all across the world, using various methods. They typically find between 66% and 90% of collisions are the fault of motorists, and the cyclist was doing nothing wrong or improper when they were hit. The top causes of injuries in most cities are doorings (which in many places is automatically the door-openers fault, even if it's not specifically codified into law, as virtually all jurisdictions make opening a door into the path of "traffic" illegal), right hooks (driver passes you and then immediately slows/turns, cutting you off and blocking your path), and left-crosses (left turn in front of you, illegally failing to yield to oncoming traffic.) None are the cyclist's fault.
The reason you're engaging in this victim-blaming is for a psychological self-defense mechanism. See, it's scary when a cyclist gets hit or killed, especially if they weren't doing anything wrong. That means it could happen to you. In order to protect yourself from that danger mentally, you see yourself as superior. "I ride safely." "I follow all the laws." "I have really bright lights." "I'm not riding a cheap bike, mine's better and well-maintained." Tada! You now ride proudly and feeling "safe."
Well, guess what? I follow the law. I have years of experience riding in the city. I know all the protect-yourself techniques. I have great lights. I ride a really nice bike with great disc brakes and it's well maintained. I've still been hit.
or slammed their brakes on and caused a lot of (probably harmless, but expensive) rear-end collisions. I would fully support the cop who arrests your fucking ass for that
The officer would ticket the driver of the vehicle that rear-ended the other for failing to follow at a safe distance. Nice try.
Please help metamoderate.
It is up to you ... to anticipate the other guy doing something stupid and unexpected. They surely will.
This is the only rule you need to live by to drive, cycle, run, walk, or travel any road safely. Travel under the expectation that you need to anticipate someone else's dumb move and you will find yourself prepared for the majority of situations (note that I didn't say all of them, because someone out there will find a way to blow your mind one day).
I have an older version, but effectively the injury/death rate is mostly effected by poor decisions by the cyclist, not the car.
First off, "the car" doesn't do anything. The driver does. You're attributing behavior to an inanimate object, something I see people do constantly.
Second: several decades of research proves your claim wrong. Most collisions are due to the driver doing something illegal, sometimes simply failing to yield because they think they have right-of-way over someone on a bicycle.
Australian helmet cam study: http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/study-blames-drivers-for-bike-crashes-20101122-18330.html
London study: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/drivers-to-blame-for-twothirds-of-bicycle-collisions-in-westminster-8602166.html
UK-wide study: http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study
Toronto study which found cyclists at fault in TEN PERCENT of crashes: http://www.examiner.com/article/study-claims-cyclists-at-fault-only-10-percent-of-crashes
The list goes on. Keep in mind that studies which are based off police reports that aren't carefully analyzed are typically faulty because police very often incorrectly side with motorists, don't interview cyclists, witness statements are wrong, etc. It's common to review a report, see obvious signs that the motorist did something illegal, and police do not cite them, and often cite the cyclist.
This guy was hit and two witnesses and the driver claimed he ran a red light; police tried to give him a ticket for running the light. He knew he hadn't. He found video from a traffic camera showing very clearly that he was cut off by the driver - what we call a "left cross": http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/19284/it-must-have-been-your-fault-cmon-you-are-a-biker/
It should make you stop and think to consider that many cyclists ride with helmet cameras. There's a reason - drivers lie, police don't believe us (or very often we're incapacitated or otherwise unable to defend ourselves), and witnesses are discriminatory towards cyclists or simply don't understand traffic laws or think they saw what they didn't.
Please help metamoderate.
I agree completely. I do precisely the same thing. I generally assumed that most motorists are criminally incompetent idiots. I know this is incorrect, and that the vast majority of motorists are good, law-abiding citizens and competent drivers who are aware of their surroundings. But when you're sharing the road with someone driving a 5 ton metal box at 3-4x your speed, assuming they're a moron can save your life.
Not to defend idiot drivers, because there are plenty of them around, but cyclists can be difficult to see in numerous situations even under ideal weather/visibility condidtions. This is made worse when they're where they don't belong (weaving between cars, zipping into crosswalks and using them as a left-turn lane in states which allow right-on-red (NYC doesn't, much of NY does, and IL does, including Chicago except where marked), riding against traffic, moving erratically from using the sidewalk as a bike highway to cutting into traffic, often from in front of a parked truck or SUV that effectively hides there existence, etc. etc. etc.
If cyclists were required to hold a valid drivers license, obey the rules of the road, and it were enforced at least as well as it is against cars, with the same consequences (such as points on your license for running red lights, etc.), then a whole lot less cyclists would die, irrespective of whether the accident "blame" is placed on the automobile driver for not having x-ray vision and going 5 miles over the 30MPH limit, or on the cyclist for driving like an idiot.
I cycle around the city plenty, and it can get dicey, and there are drivers that need several hard whacks with a clue-bat, but they are dwarfed by the idiocy of other cyclists I observe every day...as often as not against other cyclists.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy