How Safe Is Cycling?

How safe? by nospam007 · 2013-10-24 04:13 · Score: 5, Informative

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

Re:How safe? by Russ1642 · 2013-10-24 04:57 · Score: 4, Funny

Do you have any numbers to back up that claim?
Re:How safe? by funwithBSD · 2013-10-24 05:03 · Score: 5, Interesting

http://www.amazon.com/Effective-Cycling-John-Forester/dp/0262516942
Has definitive answers to how and why Cyclists get hurt.
I have an older version, but effectively the injury/death rate is mostly effected by poor decisions by the cyclist, not the car. Getting hit from behind by a car was 2% of injuries (but a major cause of death) while getting hit by the asshole riding against traffic was 33%.
In fact, the most dangerous thing to a cyclist is another cyclist.

--
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
Re:How safe? by Beardo+the+Bearded · 2013-10-24 05:16 · Score: 5, Informative

Okay, when I did an analysis of US stats last year, I found that cyclists are:
1% of traffic
2% of traffic injuries and fatalities
You're more likely to get seriously hurt when you get into an accident on a bike. That's just obvious, since you're cruising around in nothing but skintanium. There's no way -- none -- that a bike is going to come out ahead in a collision with a motorized vehicle. A fight with someone that's got 20 pounds on you is one-sided, so imagine a fight against someone that's got 2 tons on you and is made out of steel. This is why, when I bike, I assume that I never ever, under any circumstances ever, ever think that I have the right of way. A bike never has the right of way. I say this because of the laws of physics -- if a delivery van blows a stop sign and t-bones you, he can hose down his van and get back to work tomorrow. If you're really, really lucky and you have good medical care, you might be able to pee on your own in a couple of months. So whose fault is it? Who cares? As the cyclist, you're always "all in" when you're biking, so you always assume that every accident is your fault.
I started biking to school 17 years and 90 pounds ago. I bike to work 4/5 days a week unless it's snowing. (I don't bike when it's snowing; it's too dangerous with the cars out there, and on Thursdays I jog in.) In all that time, I've been hit one time. A woman on a road bike that was drafting behind me. A car was approaching the intersection (they have a stop) but they were approaching a little too fast for my liking. I hit my brakes, and they're tuned to stop my bike from full speed to stopped in about 2 meters. She couldn't stop nearly that well, and she rear-ended me. She tacoed her wheel and broke one of my rear lights. A lot of close calls, drivers that don't pay attention, but I pay enough attention for both of us.
Ironically, I do have a spinal injury, but I was hours away from the closest car when I got it.

--

---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
Re:How safe? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-24 05:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'm cool with bicycles except in the mornings when everyone is trying to get to work....you're passing someone, and BANG, you have to hit the brakes when you see a damned bike in the road with heavy traffic slowing shit down, when you're trying to make it to work.
I've likely almost killed a few idiots that I almost didn't see, especially in areas where the sun glare hits you in the early morning or late afternoon.
I know bikes "technically" have the same right to be on the road as cars, but let's be realistic in this day in age....there are times when it is NOT safe to be on a bike on a public road without a specific bike lane that is out of the main traffic lanes.
I like to ride a bike for exercise, but I'd damned sure not be out on the road during rush out without a being on a motorized vehicle.
You mean it's not safe to be on the road with YOU.
Waaah waaah waaaah. YOU need to get to work, so the cyclist is supposed to get out of YOUR way?
Seems like YOU are the problem.
Re:How safe? by ronmon · 2013-10-24 05:30 · Score: 5, Interesting

Listen to this and believe it. I have lived in Key West since 1990 and sold my last fuel burner in 1995. I have a "grocery getter" bike with big baskets and a lean and fast bike for getting somewhere quickly or running my dog. I stop at traffic lights and stop signs, obey one way streets and respect car traffic while not expecting the same in return. However, I am in the minority and am fully aware of that.
Most bicyclists do not think that road rules apply to them whether they are tourists or locals. Looking both ways when crossing a one way street has saved me from many accidents. Drivers don't see you, especially when they are talking on their phones. Bike lanes are not respected. It is up to you as a cyclist to anticipate the other guy doing something stupid and unexpected. They surely will.
Having driven motorcycles for many years prior to moving here I already had this mind set and it helped a great deal.
Re:How safe? by hawguy · 2013-10-24 05:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'm cool with bicycles except in the mornings when everyone is trying to get to work....you're passing someone, and BANG, you have to hit the brakes when you see a damned bike in the road with heavy traffic slowing shit down, when you're trying to make it to work.
What a coincidence, I'm cool with cars except when I'm trying to bike to work. I'm biking along a road, staying as far to the right as I safely can (avoiding broken road edges, parked car doors, etc), and suddenly *BANG*, I've got a car driving 2 feet behind me. Cars have their place and all, but I'm just trying to get to work, can't the car drivers leave earlier or later in the day?

I've likely almost killed a few idiots that I almost didn't see, especially in areas where the sun glare hits you in the early morning or late afternoon.
Perhaps you're driving too fast for conditions if you've "almost killed a few". Speed limits are *maximums", driving below the speed limit when conditions warrant it is always legal. Another option would be to pull off the road and wait until conditions improve to the point where you can see safely - a good rule of thumb is that if you can't see a human shaped object on the road, then you can't see well enough to drive.

I know bikes "technically" have the same right to be on the road as cars, but let's be realistic in this day in age....there are times when it is NOT safe to be on a bike on a public road without a specific bike lane that is out of the main traffic lanes.
You can take "technically" out of that sentence - bikes have the same right to the roads as cars do (except in certain specific situations). Trust me, cyclists would like more bike lanes too, but car drivers whine about loss of lanes and/or parking everytime one is contemplated.

I like to ride a bike for exercise, but I'd damned sure not be out on the road during rush out without a being on a motorized vehicle.
Bikes aren't just for exercise - try commuting on one.
Re:How safe? by emj · 2013-10-24 05:41 · Score: 4, Informative

While I'm sure it's a good book I don't think you summary is right in anyway. First of all most bicycle accidents leading to serisou injury (at least a day in hospital) happen only to the cyclist, with no one else involved. The biggest cause of accidents is bad infrastructure and maintainance, i.e. gravel on the bicycle lane, or other surprises such as tight curves .
It's of course possible that things are completely different here in Sweden, and it's also possible to blame this on the cyclist saying that bad judgement is the cause of these accidents, but you have to put it in a perspective you do not have the same types of problems in car lanes, no one would dig a hole in the middle of the road without giving motorist lots of warning and protection. This happens quite often in bicycle infrastructure.
These are stats from Sweden
27% can be related to operation and maintenance
20% to road design
27% to cyclist-bicycle interaction
15% to the behaviour and state of the cyclist,
11% to the interaction of the cyclist with other road users
Re:How safe? by Obfuscant · 2013-10-24 05:55 · Score: 4, Insightful

You can take "technically" out of that sentence - bikes have the same right to the roads as cars do (except in certain specific situations).
Whenever I see a bicyclist say those words, he almost never follows them with "and the same responsibilities to obey the law". It's always in the context that bicyclists want to be treated by drivers as the law says they must, but them following the vehicular laws isn't important.
You say "*BANG*, I've got a car driving 2 feet behind me" during a commute to work on city streets. So? There's a car two feet behind that car, and another one two feet behind him. It's called "rush hour", or in some smaller town, "rush minute". Part of commuting and quite legal.
You in particular may be very fastidious in obeying traffic signals and rules of the road, but since almost none of the riders I come across in this town bother with such trivialities it is impossible not to paint the entire riding population with the same brush. In fact, to keep from killing many of your compatriots, it is necessary to assume they are going to ignore the law. A bike approaching the street you are on from a side street with a stop sign? Assume he isn't going to, assume he's going to actually speed up to challenge you for the right of way, and then he's going to either lay over in a sharp turn or side-step into the crosswalk to try to invoke the pedestrian in a crosswalk laws on you.
Sorry, but that's real world experience.
Re:How safe? by hawguy · 2013-10-24 06:02 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'm driving at a speed that is safe for the automobile traffic around me....most of us are.
That appears to be a problem with your driving. You don't drive at a speed that's safe for the automobile traffic around you, you drive at a speed that's safe for the road you're on, and apparently you're on a road that's frequented by cyclists. If you were on a limited access highway, maybe you could get away with your style of driving, but anywhere else you need to drive at a safe and prudent speed and expect obstacles in the road - bikes, pedestrians, stalled cars, dogs, cows, etc. I once narrowly avoided a refrigerator that was left in the middle of the road after it fell off a truck.

We aren't expecting to have to slow quickly or stop for a slow moving, non-motorized vehicle suddenly appearing in the middle of the road.
I wouldn't lump all drivers in with yourself, not all drivers have such little control of their vehicle they fear running over cyclists.

Face it...the roads are built and meant for motorized vehicles. It is the smaller bicycles that have to be on the lookout and use judgement on when it is save to ride and on what roads.
Actually, many roads were first built because of lobbying by cyclists -- it wasn't until cars came later that bikes were pushed off to the shoulders.

You can go on and on all you want on laws and insurance, etc....but what good is that going to do for you when racked up in the hospital for months, and that's even if you survive a duel with a 3000+ lbs metal vehicle going about 3-4x as fast as you are?
Oh, I understand my mortality when I'm on my bike, and since I know i'm not going to change the laws of physics, I've continued to encourage my legislators to write laws that hold cars more responsible when they are at-fault in collisions with cyclists. If car drivers thought they might face jail time for side swiping a cyclist, or hitting a cyclist "because I didn't see him" or "I was going too fast to stop", then perhaps they'll drive a little more carefully.
Hopefully it's just a temporary problem and self-driving cars will make car-bike collisions much less common.
Re:How safe? by hawguy · 2013-10-24 06:10 · Score: 5, Interesting

You can take "technically" out of that sentence - bikes have the same right to the roads as cars do (except in certain specific situations).
Whenever I see a bicyclist say those words, he almost never follows them with "and the same responsibilities to obey the law". It's always in the context that bicyclists want to be treated by drivers as the law says they must, but them following the vehicular laws isn't important.
If you're in the SF bay area, let me know, I'll meet you for a weekend ride and show you that there are cyclists that *do* follow laws as much as they expect cars to respect them.

You say "*BANG*, I've got a car driving 2 feet behind me" during a commute to work on city streets. So? There's a car two feet behind that car, and another one two feet behind him. It's called "rush hour", or in some smaller town, "rush minute". Part of commuting and quite legal.
If you've got cars stacked up 2 feet from each other, then you're in stop and go traffic that's moving at a crawl - bikes aren't slowing you down, they are reducing the number of cars in front of you.

You in particular may be very fastidious in obeying traffic signals and rules of the road, but since almost none of the riders I come across in this town bother with such trivialities it is impossible not to paint the entire riding population with the same brush.
Yes, some cyclists obey the law, some don't. Some car drivers obey the law, some don't. Yet we all have to share the same roads.

In fact, to keep from killing many of your compatriots, it is necessary to assume they are going to ignore the law. A bike approaching the street you are on from a side street with a stop sign? Assume he isn't going to, assume he's going to actually speed up to challenge you for the right of way, and then he's going to either lay over in a sharp turn or side-step into the crosswalk to try to invoke the pedestrian in a crosswalk laws on you.
That's one of my biggest pet peeves - I can maintain a stopped trackstand for only a few seconds before i've got to unclip and put my feet down - when a car has the right of way at a stop sign, I wish they would just take it because then I can get through the intersection faster. Encouraging cyclists to take the right of way when they don't have right of way just further encourages them to not respect right of way laws.
Re:How safe? by JoeDuncan · 2013-10-24 06:21 · Score: 4, Informative

...effectively the injury/death rate is mostly effected by poor decisions by the cyclist, not the car.
This is incorrect. In any study regarding bike-car collisions I have seen, the overwhelming majority of them are caused by motorist negligence. Take a look at this study by the City of Toronto based on police reports:
http://www.toronto.ca/transportation/publications/bicycle_motor-vehicle/
It shows something like @83% of bike-car collisions were caused by the motorist, not the cyclist. This basic finding has been replicated in many other cities as well. I can't find the link at the moment, but IIRC it was like 90%+ caused by motorists in NYC.
Re:How safe? by hawguy · 2013-10-24 07:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

That appears to be a problem with your driving. You don't drive at a speed that's safe for the automobile traffic around you, you drive at a speed that's safe for the road you're on, and apparently you're on a road that's frequented by cyclists. If you were on a limited access highway, maybe you could get away with your style of driving, but anywhere else you need to drive at a safe and prudent speed and expect obstacles in the road - bikes, pedestrians, stalled cars, dogs, cows, etc. I once narrowly avoided a refrigerator that was left in the middle of the road after it fell off a truck.
So basically, you expect drivers to do 15mph in a 35 just because you're too much of a dick to get the fuck out of the way.
Wow, don't they teach Driver's Ed in schools any more? Here's a legal definition of prudent speed:

A. A person shall not drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the circumstances, conditions and actual and potential hazards then existing. A person shall control the speed of a vehicle as necessary to avoid colliding with any object, person, vehicle or other conveyance on, entering or adjacent to the highway in compliance with legal requirements and the duty of all persons to exercise reasonable care for the protection of others.
Do you think that a speed necessary to avoid colliding with a stationary object on the road means driving at zero mph?

All drivers have trouble avoiding something unexpected in the road when it's hard to see.
So your problem isn't in avoiding cyclists, it's that it's hard to see them? How could you see a pedestrian in the road if you can't see a cyclist, since they are about the same size?

Actually, many roads were first built because of lobbying by cyclists -- it wasn't until cars came later that bikes were pushed off to the shoulders.
Actually, roads were first built for horse-drawn vehicles. Then they were improved for automobiles. If you want to make extraordinary claims, you need some actual data to back it up. Otherwise, it's just bullshit.
Sorry, sometimes I assume that others have the same access to Google that I do:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2011/aug/15/cyclists-paved-way-for-roads

Oh, I understand my mortality when I'm on my bike, and since I know i'm not going to change the laws of physics, I've continued to encourage my legislators to write laws that hold cars more responsible when they are at-fault in collisions with cyclists. If car drivers thought they might face jail time for side swiping a cyclist, or hitting a cyclist "because I didn't see him" or "I was going too fast to stop", then perhaps they'll drive a little more carefully.
And if cyclists thought they might face jail time for not obeying the laws of the road as the majority constantly do, then perhaps they'd bike a little more intelligently. (Actually, that's obviously not true because cyclists already face serious injury and death for being stupid on the road, and they do it all the time anyway.) But no, let's make legislature with outrageous penalties to punish people for using the roads as they were intended.
You even admit that your argument makes no sense, yet you still use it? As you said, cyclists already face *far* more punishment and face disproportionate risk for traffic accidents.

After all, your right to bike is clearly more important than the right of ANYONE to drive a car.
Bottom line though is you're being quite stupid about all this.
Well no, sorry that you misunderstood me, I don't think that drivers should be banned from roa
Re:How safe? by thesupraman · 2013-10-24 09:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

So, when I have to quickly brake (to avoid things in front of me) and the cyclist who thought it was cool to be tailgating me slams in the back of my car?
That has happened to me TWICE, both times they grabbed their bikes and ran, leaving me with the insurance costs of fixing up the damage to my paintwork..
How about the cyclists weaving and cutting through the traffic, making cars emergency stop because they decide its ok to cut around the front of you as they
can go faster than the heavy traffic by doing it?
And the one I really love, the cyclists who blaze straight through red lights and pedestrians crossing because they are somehow more holy that all other road
users? I have seen at least one nasty accident between cyclists and crossing pedestrian..
The fact is that ALL road users have to follow the rules, however many cyclists want and in fact demand special treatment.
Bring on the equiality I say - time to register those bikes, have manditory fitness checks for they safety, and test/license to riders for the road?
Then there is the issue of road taxes, etc - time they started paying their share?
Damn those two way streets, cyclists are special and shouldnt have to do THOSE things, right?
Start quoting technical road laws at people to excuse your situation, and you better be damn ready to follow them yourself.

An important distinction by gweilo8888 · 2013-10-24 04:16 · Score: 4, Informative

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.

Re:An important distinction by CanHasDIY · 2013-10-24 04:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
Depends on how "off-road" is defined; I agree a cyclist crashing into a tree on a backwoods trail shouldn't be included in the figures, but what about one that runs over a pedestrian because he was riding on the sidewalk? Technically 'off-road,' but still occurred in an urban setting next to the road, so it should be counted, just like if a car were to do the same thing.
Also, I don't see any reference to a percentage by volume - of course more people will be injured by cars, because there are significantly more cars on the road than bikes.

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Re:An important distinction by Grishnakh · 2013-10-24 04:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

It also doesn't compare apples to apples: how many miles are the riders riding, versus the car drivers, and what is the accident rate per-mile?
The simple fact is that bicycling (as much as I love it) is horrendously dangerous in urban areas, and the reason is cars (and even worse, SUVs). All these moves to build bike lanes are idiotic and wasteful, because they do absolutely nothing to physically separate bikes from cars, and cars will drive in the bike lanes whenever they want (which is, every time they need to take a right turn, or simply stop paying attention, or get drunk).
If these idiot mayors want to encourage bicycling, they need to build real bike roads, like they have in Copenhagen, where the bikes are the only thing on the road, not cars, and not pedestrians either. That's the only way to do it.
Re:An important distinction by pmontra · 2013-10-24 04:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

Given the speed and travelled distance difference between cars and bicycles maybe per-hour accidents would be a better metric.
Thumbs up for separating bikes from everything else, cars and pedestrians. Bike lanes on sidewalks in city centers are slow and dangerous because of pedestrians. I always prefer to share the road with cars: they're more predictable and I get home sooner.
Re:An important distinction by Shoten · 2013-10-24 06:26 · Score: 4, Interesting

The simple fact is that bicycling (as much as I love it) is horrendously dangerous in urban areas, and the reason is cars (and even worse, SUVs). All these moves to build bike lanes are idiotic and wasteful, because they do absolutely nothing to physically separate bikes from cars, and cars will drive in the bike lanes whenever they want (which is, every time they need to take a right turn, or simply stop paying attention, or get drunk).
If these idiot mayors want to encourage bicycling, they need to build real bike roads, like they have in Copenhagen, where the bikes are the only thing on the road, not cars, and not pedestrians either. That's the only way to do it.
Actually, while this seems intuitively obvious, a lot of research and testing indicates that it's the opposite of what is true. There's a Dutch city planner/traffic engineer by the last name of Monderman who did some fascinating work on the topic, re-engineering a Dutch village in the opposite way. What resulted was a dramatic drop in both the number and severity of accidents...of all forms. Instead of trying to calm traffic, separate cars and pedestrians/bikes from each other and provide tons of stop signs and other signage, he did the opposite. There's a surprisingly enjoyable book called "Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do" that I recommend for anyone who drives a lot. I know, a book about traffic...must be insanely boring, right? It's actually quite good, both an entertaining read and full of solid academic rigor. Monderman himself is a riot. He points out, while driving towards a bridge, a sign that says it's a bridge. He asks if anyone really needs a sign to know that they're seeing a bridge. "Treat people like idiots, and they will behave as such," he points out. I agree.

--

For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
Re:An important distinction by N0Man74 · 2013-10-24 10:14 · Score: 4, Interesting

That's it—not the absolute number of injuries/fatalities, but the rate. It's very high, at least around my area, considering the relatively small number of cyclist miles ridden on roads.

But would the injury rate remain the same if the number of drivers was reduced and the number of bicyclists was increased? Does their rarity contribute to the lack of awareness that cars have for them? Would an increase in bicyclists help justify extra costs of building extra safety measures for bicyclists (suck as bike lanes, perhaps even ones divided from other traffic?)

only? by themushroom · 2013-10-24 04:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

Re:only? by frinkster · 2013-10-24 04:30 · Score: 5, Informative

he's only broken his collarbone twice and hip once
Only? That sounds like proof of concept rather than a proof of overstatement.
If you were to see the actual quote, you may feel differently:

Dr. Pruitt cites his own example. Now 62, he was a bicycle racer and has been riding for the past four decades. He covers 5,000 to 10,000 miles a year.
In all that time, he has had four serious crashes. He broke his collarbone twice while racing and had two crashes on a mountain bike, breaking a hip one time and spraining a wrist the other.
This is a worthless data point.
Re:only? by bluefoxlucid · 2013-10-24 04:51 · Score: 4, Interesting

As a cyclist, I'd like to weigh in that it's the cyclists' fault.
Many of us are quite aware that there are laws. In Idaho, a bicycle can stop at a traffic signal and then proceed if clear (I want this extended to motorcycles and small, high-visibility vehicles like top-down convertibles). In most states, bicycles are supposed to stop at stop signs, traffic signals, and other traffic control devices. They should ride with traffic--not against it--and exercise reasonable road safety.
Unfortunately, most people on bicycles are not the many of us; they are the many blunt dunderheads who got a $50 bike at Wal-Mart that will probably fall apart one day when jumping a ramp. They don't know or care about the law. Some of them think salmoning is safe and will ride blissfully head-on toward high-speed traffic. As a result, you have all of these retarded people running through intersections into traffic; I've seen a guy on a fixed gear bike run through a red light and turn left through oncoming left-turn traffic, just weaving between close-packed moving cars.
Think about how dangerous cars would be if we didn't train people to drive them and didn't issue tickets to lawbreakers. You run traffic signals, drive down the wrong side of the road, and generally behave unsafely on a bicycle? The police don't do shit. Legally they're empowered to fine you and even take away your fucking driver's license--they don't have direct recourse for a bicycle, but they can eventually argue that the bicycle is an enabler and legally take possession of it. Some of these people could be fined out of existence or outright arrested for their dangerous behavior--you think running through a traffic signal and swerving through dense moving traffic isn't arrest-worthy? Someone could have panicked and swerved his car straight into the other oncoming traffic to try to evade the cyclist, 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.
There's your danger.

--
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Re:only? by girlintraining · 2013-10-24 04:54 · Score: 4, Interesting

Only? That sounds like proof of concept rather than a proof of overstatement.
It is only proof that America as a whole, of which NYC is a part of (contrary to popular opinion, who think it is America), has a shockingly low regard for bikers. Take for example, how the Dutch handle bicycling -- they have not just dedicated lanes, but dedicated traffic signals. Bikes are an integrated part of their public transportation system. In the United States, it's viewed as "something children do, or people who haven't grown up." In other words, you're viewed as immature and/or poor if you ride a bike, not environmentally conscious, fiscally prudent, or body smart.
Now I live in the midwest, and several of our cities, to little fanfare, have been adopting the dutch approach. In Chicago, Minneapolis, and other cities, we are creating dedicated bike lanes and signals. Minneapolis in particular has an extensive network of inter-city bike trails which it maintains year round. For those who forget, Minneapolis is located at the same lat/long as Moscow, and it regularly gets snowfall of several feet come high winter. Chicago's trains have been installing bike racks in the cars and on buses, though they are seen less than elsewhere during the cold season. New York, for all its bluster about this, barely registers on the scale of bike-friendliness; cyclists there might as well be armed mad-max style and shooting at motorists for as much hostility there is between the two groups, whereas in the midwest, and even along the West coast in places like San Francisco, motorists are much more tolerant of cyclists.
This is starting to change as the millenials come into the workforce and seem decidedly uninterested in owning their own car. I'm not entirely sure why this is happening, because unlike Europe, the population density of America is such that owning a car is pretty much a necessity -- most people who own bikes also own, or at least have access to, a car or other form of motorized transportation. Even in Europe, scooters are a common sight, whereas around here, they're rare indeed.
I guess my point is that while culture plays a role, the bigger hinderance to mass transit and cycling both in the United States is population density. We are really spread out. You could fit several Western Europes into the US, and we don't have nearly as many people per mile as most European countries. The other part of this is that our city's infrastructure has never been flat out replaced. Europe's has -- it was called WWII, when most of their infrastructure was blown up. Your welcome by the way -- we paid for fixing a lot of that. We've never done the same here -- our roads were never reimagined to include bikes, or mini-vehicles, etc. Our urban sprawl continues unabated. And this is, ultimately, why we have so many problems; We're too spread out, and infrastructure costs too damn much, which is why it's only basic. We should have had bullet trains and such a long time ago; But the maintenance costs of all this suburban landscape saps away our budget. And it makes cycling a losing proposition -- the average road trip is 15 miles in the midwest. That's 30 miles a day if you want to go by bike. And considering that over 1/3rd of our citizens are clinically obese... I don't know that even half of Americans could survive a 30 mile bike ride.

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Re:only? by rolfwind · 2013-10-24 04:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

As an avid rider, I think the most dangerous part of biking are all those people that follow rules for pedestrians when it suits them and rules for road traffic when it suits them. As a driver, I'm 5x more cautious with a biker around than a pedestrian, because they are so unpredictable and impatient.

Safe is a Relative Measure by DexterIsADog · 2013-10-24 04:19 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

Bike lanes... by CohibaVancouver · 2013-10-24 04:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

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 safer by FreeUser · 2013-10-24 04:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

Injuries are seldom reported by sjbe · 2013-10-24 04:34 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

context by themushroom · 2013-10-24 04:35 · Score: 4, Informative

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.

Re:Please by spike+hay · 2013-10-24 04:47 · Score: 4, Informative

Motorcycle helmets actually offer good protection, while bicycle helmets don't. For any impact over about 10 mph, they are not going to signifcantly reduce the peak accelerations your brain experiences (it's your brain sloshing that does the damage). I guess they can prevent lacerations, but that's about it. Helmet advocates always quote a study from the 1980s (funded by helmet manufacturers) that showed an 84% reduction in brain injuries, but other work has not borne this out. (example)

Wearing a helmet is applying a different standard to risk than we do in many other situations. Cycling is actually slightly safer per mile than walking, yet we don't make peds wear helmets. Just the same, we could make drivers wear helmets just like race car drivers do. That would actually prevent a huge number of deaths. But we don't. So why are cyclists singled out to wear the safety yarmulkes?

As an additional point, helment laws are actually terrible for cycling safety. After Australia made helmets mandatory, cycling went down 1/3 overnight. Fewer cyclists means drivers are less likely to expect them. In addition, there is evidence that cyclists wearing helments engage in riskier behavior as a form of risk-compensation.

--
If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.

Car industry strikes back by gmuslera · 2013-10-24 05:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Re:Helmets should be required! by Lumpy · 2013-10-24 05:10 · Score: 4, Insightful

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'm a cyclist too, and you're victim-blaming by SuperBanana · 2013-10-24 06:38 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

The real take from this entire story by orthancstone · 2013-10-24 07:58 · Score: 4, Insightful

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).

35 of 947 comments (clear)