Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Why Biking Injuries and Deaths Are Spiking In the US

Posted by Soulskill on from the cyclists-blame-drivers,-drivers-blame-cyclists dept.

HughPickens.com writes: NPR reports that more and more adults across the U.S. are strapping on helmets and hopping on bikes to get to work. Unfortunately, between 1998 and 2013, the rate of bicycle-related injuries among all adults increased by 28 percent, from 96 injuries per 100,000 people in 1998-1999, to 123 injuries per 100,000 people in 2012-2013. And while the death rate among child cyclists has plummeted in the past four decades, the mortality rate among cyclists ages 35 to 54 has tripled. Dr. Benjamin Breyer isn't sure what's driving the surge in accidents among Generation Xers and baby boomers, but one reason could be what's known as the Lance Armstrong effect. "After Lance Armstrong had all of his success at the Tour de France, a lot more people were riding, and there were a lot more older riders that took up the bicycle for sport."

The most recent National Household Travel Survey showed that the vast majority of the increase in bicycling between 1995 and 2009 came from Americans older than 25, with the biggest increases coming in the oldest groups. That has meant more men in their 50s and 60s on road bikes, riding at high speeds, Breyer says — a recipe for serious injuries. Though a rapidly growing share of older people would like to ride, American cities built during the last 60 years don't make it easy for most people to do so. At the end of the day, reducing cycling accidents may boil down to something simple: Making sure that bikers know the rules of the road — and that drivers know how to deal with bikers.

29 of 696 comments (clear)

  1. If you ride a bike... by michael_rendier · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Always ride like absolutely NO ONE can see you...like you are invisible. If you purposefully always avoid situations where you are in front of a driver that perhaps doesn't look both ways...

    --
    There are three kinds of people in the world. Those that can count, and those that can't.
    1. Re:If you ride a bike... by bsolar · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually the typical advice given to bikers is to ride thinking that everyone around you is actively trying to kill you. It works because most people grossly underestimate how others can be *incompetent* but have much less difficulties in thinking about how others could be *malicious*. This is helpful in getting enough caution out of them.

    2. Re:If you ride a bike... by David_Hart · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually the typical advice given to bikers is to ride thinking that everyone around you is actively trying to kill you. It works because most people grossly underestimate how others can be *incompetent* but have much less difficulties in thinking about how others could be *malicious*. This is helpful in getting enough caution out of them.

      And helmets are only rated to protect against low impact forces. Most people think that helmets off much more protection than they actually do. Safe Cycling skills are much more important.

      http://bicyclesafe.com/helmets...

    3. Re: If you ride a bike... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Funny

      Here in anchorage alaska, pretty much every biking fatality is the result of a drunk driver, and usually also a hit a run. Not sure how that holds up nationally, but it might be worth seeing how duis correlate.

      In Anchorage, pretty much everything is a result of a drunk driver. Not much else is going on there.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    4. Re:If you ride a bike... by ZeroPly · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That is horrendously bad advice. If I were actually invisible, I would ride on the sidewalk. For riding on the road, you want to stay far enough towards the middle that you don't blend into the surroundings. And when you stop at intersections, you generally need to assert enough room that cars don't squeeze past you. Both those things would be impossible if you were invisible.

      --
      Support microSD: in a post 9/11 world, it is unwise to carry your data on media that you cannot comfortably swallow.
    5. Re:If you ride a bike... by NeoMorphy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Some drivers are malicious. One of my wife's students was rear ended after stopping for a stop sign. He went flying and broke his arm. The driver told him to get off the road and drove off. I stopped riding a bike in the 80s after multiple cars sideswiped me, once when I was on the sidewalk. It seemed like it was safer in the 70s and then in the early 80s drivers starting hitting cyclists like it was a sport.

      My wife and I are riding again, but only on the rail trails.

    6. Re:If you ride a bike... by Jeremi · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I ride on the sidewalk -- but supposedly that's illegal in my area (because they think I'll hit a pedestrian).

      It's probably different where you are, but around here there are a lot of sidewalks going past buildings with driveways between them. That means that anyone riding on the sidewalk is riding through an unprotected "blind intersection" at every driveway, and is in serious risk of getting t-boned (albeit probably at low speed) by a car coming out of the driveway, and possibly knocked out into the street for further abuse.

      Given that, around here it's very unsafe to ride a bike on the sidewalks, although you can get away with it you're willing to bike slowly and slow further and look both ways carefully before crossing each driveway. Given that, it's usually faster and safer to just ride on the street, where drivers can see you and where your presence is more expected.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
  2. Drivers, cyclists and pedestrians: idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Drivers, cyclists and pedestrians all draw from the same general population and none of them has the moral high ground. But watch this thread devolve into endless, ignorant sniping among the groups. I have a car, ride a bike and walk to work and I see members of each group act incredibly stupidly and selfishly. It's just a fact of life that people are generally terrible and their actions frequently endanger and even kill one another, bu they'd rather withdraw into their little cultural groups to claim the high ground. And nothing ever changes.

    1. Re:Drivers, cyclists and pedestrians: idiots by nine-times · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think it's less about who's an idiot, and more about who has what share of the responsibility. It seems sensible to me to think that the level of responsibility you should take for your actions scales with the amount to damage your actions can do. A pedestrian can afford to be an idiot-- if he runs into someone, he probably won't kill them. A truck driver, on the other hand, can easily kill a handful of people with one mistake.

      So there are idiots among all of those groups? Fine. I don't disagree. But take away the licenses of the idiots among the drivers. If we can't stop them from being idiots, the least we can do is minimize the damage they do by making them walk.

    2. Re:Drivers, cyclists and pedestrians: idiots by Calydor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Responsibility in proportion to your vulnerability? That's a dangerous precedent to set in a legal system, it will inevitably end up with victim blaming. It is not far from that to saying "Then don't dress provocatively if you don't want to get raped."

      Do we apply more responsibility to people that have a gun pointed at them than the guy holding the gun? If not, why should the pedestrian about to get run over have more responsibility than the driver of the about-to-be-a-deadly-weapon car?

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
  3. Re:Cyclists DON'T obey the law! by cruff · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I see this all the time also. However to be fair, the other day I observed a Prius driver blow through a stop sign and dart across an intersection in front of a cyclist obeying all the rules. There are all kinds of idiots on the road. Drive defensively like they are all out to kill out.

  4. Re:Cyclists DON'T obey the law! by SteveSgt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I did recently count, on my 10 mile pre-dawn bicycle commute to work, how many motorists I noticed violating traffic law:
    From the helmet-cam video I counted: 11 motorists driving pre-dawn without lights, 8 motorists failing to signal lane changes, 4 motorists failing to signal left turns, 4 motorists failed to come to a complete stop at stop signs, 3 motorists running red lights, I'm guessing at least 8 motorists significantly exceeding the posted speed limit, and two who exceeded the limit where electronic signs were showing them their speed.
    And that's just one Wednesday morning, on some of the least busy streets in my town.
    When are motorists going to start obeying the rules of the road?

  5. Naw, it's Doctors by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    and Lawyers buying $3-5k bikes they have no business riding. If you're into road biking you know about this and if you're at the lower end of the economic spectrum they're the bane of your existence. They moved into the sport back in the mid 2005. I was shopping for my first real road bike and the price of a decent carbon fiber frame shot up a grand (Boeing's new planes didn't help either). I ended up with an Aluminum Cevelo (which ironically some old person hit me on and ruined :( ... ).

    Anyway you've got rich people in OK Shape buying ridiculously fast bikes. I see them all the time at the little charity runs I like to do. If you're smart you steer as clear as you can. They don't have the riding chops to handle the bike they just bought but they're usually in OK enough shape to be dangerous (the fat ones end up on cruisers :P ).

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re: Naw, it's Doctors by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 5, Insightful

      An important lesson I learned while biking: There is right and there is dead right.

    2. Re:Naw, it's Doctors by DudeTheMath · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Easy there, big fella. Guess what? If the lane is not wide enough for a car to pass me with (in FL) a three foot gap, then, yes, I do have the right to "block" a full lane of traffic (hey, guess what else? I am traffic, so I'm not blocking it; I'm just slowing it). I also have the responsibility to signal my turns, stop for red lights (and in most states, stop signs; Google "Idaho stop"), and stay within the speed limit.

      I don't know about your experience on the roads, but I see a far higher percentage of cars than bikes failing to signal and exceeding the speed limit, and about the same percentage rolling stop signs.

      --
      You save only 59 seconds over 8 miles by going 75 instead of 65. Do you really have to pass that guy? Do the Math!
    3. Re:Naw, it's Doctors by Runaway1956 · · Score: 4, Informative

      "block a full lane of traffic"

      Speaking of arrogant little fucks - yes, they DO have the right to take up a full lane of traffic. A bicycle has the same right to use the road that a car, pickup, or tractor trailer has. Exactly the same. You really need to review traffic laws.

      Personally, I haven't ridden a bicycle in decades. I do, however, ride a motorcycle. I use the entire lane. It's a defensive measure, taught long long ago. You use the entire lane in order to discourage automobile drivers who might want to crowd you. Never leave part of your lane unoccupied for long, because motorists might want to pass you while using part of your lane.

      Before you make allusions that a bicyclist or motorcyclist doesn't know how to use the roadway, you really need to review the laws.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    4. Re: Naw, it's Doctors by Kavonte · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Just to expand on that for those who don't have experience:

      If you ride in the middle of the lane, when cars pass, they'll move entirely into the passing lane when doing so.

      If instead, you ride on the right edge of the lane, people approaching from behind see a lane in front of them that is almost empty, and so they assume that they almost don't have to avoid you. So one of two things happens, depending on if there is approaching traffic in the adjacent lane that they need to utilize to pass you:

      If there is no approaching traffic, as the driver gets closer and slowly realizes that there isn't enough room in the lane for them to skirt past you without leaving it, the driver will move about half way into the passing lane when passing you. The result is that, even though you're riding closer to the right edge of the lane, there will be less space between you and traffic that is passing you from behind.

      If there is approaching traffic in the passing lane, the driver still approaches under the assumption that they don't need the passing lane, and when they get closer and realize that they do need it, they move only about a quarter of the way into the passing lane. The result is that they're now a serious risk to both you and the approaching traffic. ...and if it comes down to it, you know that they're going to choose to hit you rather than the approaching traffic, as that is less likely to kill them.

      If you instead ride on the shoulder of the road, cars approaching from behind will neither bother to move over nor slow down, and so you'll have people constantly passing you on your left at 55 MPH, each time throwing you off-balance as they suck you into the stream of traffic. This is incredibly dangerous as all that has to happen for you to die is for this draft to cause you to fall over into the lane of traffic, then someone immediately behind whomever passed you will run over you.

      It's really best to hang out around 1/3 to 1/2 way from the right side to the left side of the lane. Being more to the left ironically puts more distance between you and other traffic, and it keeps that other traffic from doing some incredibly stupid things, as it is now obvious to other traffic that they have to wait until it is safe to pass.

      Essentially the problem is that motorists don't deal with bicyclists often, and so they don't know how to safely deal with them because they haven't put a lot of thought into the problem. As a bicyclist, you have to make it obvious to motorists what they need to do.

      It's better to be alive and hated by all motorists than it is to be dead.

    5. Re: Naw, it's Doctors by rgbatduke · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, one major part of the problem is that even in supposedly "bike friendly" towns where they have a "bike lane", that lane ranges from 8 inches wide to less than a meter wide. Sometimes several times within a stretch of 1/3 of mile. There is often crap in it -- branches, leaves, rocks, bottles -- or open grates over storm drains. In the summertime south they can even have middling large poisonous snakes in it, especially early morning or late evening.

      I'd love to ride my bike to work, and sometimes do in spite of the fact that the "bike lanes" I ride in have all of the features on the list above -- averaging around 18 inches in width (but actually disappearing altogether without warning as the road passes under an overpass where the pylons come down right on the edge of the road so there isn't any shoulder either). I've been blown past by full-scale dump trucks going 55+ mph and missing me by whole feet.

      I lived in Durham for decades without hearing of a single bike fatality and few accidents. In the last few years, friends of mine have been killed or been dumped in the ICU for weeks, all because of precisely the conditions you list above -- you're damned if you ride in the lane because it provides the illusion of having enough room but when it is 8" wide, it doesn't, and you're damned if you ride out in the lane because there are folks on the road you don't think you should be there or are drunk and are driving massive vehicles at unsafe speeds even before you show up in their sights.

      Personally, I think that if official policy is "riding bikes is good, reduces energy consumption, promotes good cardiovascular health" then government needs to make a serious commitment to making safe bikeways. In my opinion, that means unobstructed, clean bike lanes at least 1 meter wide NOT including gutter/grate or curb if present, and not borrowing from the road shoulder. It also means providing protected dedicated function bikeways that parallel things like 4 to 6 lane roads where biking will NEVER be safe, so you aren't forced to ride on roads that are dangerous to cars, let alone bikes, to get from point A to point B.

      Finally, yeah, it wouldn't be crazy to license bike riders who plan to ride on non-neighborhood streets, even if it is a one time license that you get after you prove you understand the rules of the road and how they practically pertain to bikes. Accidents are often caused by bikers, not just by car or truck or motorcycle drivers. I've watched people biking down the road on the wrong side, thinking that they are some sort of pedestrian.

      rgb

      --
      Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
    6. Re: Naw, it's Doctors by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Insightful

      if you're riding on street where the cars regularly travel at 50+mph, and there's a convenient sidewalk or bike path alongside the road, however winding, use the sidewalk or bike path.

      And if I'm walking on it (what kind of idiot would walk on a sidewalk?) with my kids and we have our backs to you just feel free to shoot the gap and if you misjudge it and knock my five year old flat on his face feel free to yell at him because he didn't walk in a straight line. And then when I yell at *you* call the police and accuse me of assault.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  6. Re:Cyclists DON'T obey the law! by Murdoch5 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You're absolutely right, except the number of cyclists who break the laws vs motorists is really unbalanced. I live in Toronto and the number of times a cyclist doesn't stop at a stop sign, traffic light, or will dart amongst traffic, really is getting ridiculous.

  7. Re:Cyclists DON'T obey the law! by Murdoch5 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How many cyclists don't signal lane changes? How many cyclists don't obey the crossing rules for the road? How many cyclists don't have acceptable lighting? I can do the same thing you're doing and at least in Toronto, cyclists break way more rules then motorists.

  8. Re:Solution by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Funny

    I know! I know! We need self driving bicycles!

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  9. Re:Cyclists DON'T obey the law! by nine-times · · Score: 5, Insightful

    On the other hand, there really should be different rules of traffic for cyclists than for cars. I'm not saying there should be no rules, or that cyclists shouldn't follow the rules, but the rules should just be different. What a cyclist can see and hear is different from someone driving. The acceleration profile is different. The top speed is different, as is the amount of damage they can do. Riding a bicycle safely requires a different set of behaviors than driving safely.

    We don't expect pedestrians to follow the same laws as cars. Let's not pretend that cars and bikes aren't on different footing.

  10. Re:Biking while intoxicated by godrik · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is there really a story here? It seems that these numbers are normalized to a random population and not to the cyclist population. According to http://bikeleague.org/commutin... the number of cyclist rose sharply in that period as well.

    As far as I can tell, there are more cyclist injuries mostly because there are more cyclist. Per mile accident rates are more meaningful than an absolute out of context number.

    That being said, I chose not to bike to work because the drivers where I live (Charlotte,NC) are complete nuts and there are no bike path I can take.

  11. Re:Cyclists DON'T obey the law! by Alomex · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I know the minimum separation distance is a meter and it's total BS.

    I knew from the kindergarden whine tone of your post that you would turn into chicken shit when confronted to the facts.

    For instance I can't give you a meter of room is that means I have to drive in the wrong lane, because that would violate other laws. I can't give you a meter or room when the entire lane isn't a meter wide. I can't give you a meter of room when you don't hold your fucking [very mature] distance steady and bike on the curb.

    If you can't give a meter then you must follow behind until you can find the space to safely pass. That is what the law says. Laws you seemed to care so much about when they were bottle feeding your baby tantrum and now you try to dismiss so quickly when they work against you.

    And by the way, I'm a driver not a cyclist. I just simply have no respect for 2000 pound iron driving cowards complaining about 20 pound cycling vehicles.

  12. Re:Cyclists DON'T obey the law! by jeti · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Bicyclists should wait at red lights just like everyone else, for example. It doesn't mean "stop, look, then proceed if you don't see a car crossing". It means you wait until it turns green.

    Why? You make an assertion without providing a reason. Starting at the same time as cars exposes bicyclists to the risk of both right hooks and left hooks. Fully stoppimg also means that the bike is longer on the crossroads. If the crossing road is obviously clear of traffic, it can be safer to run the light. At least thats what a study conducted in Paris concluded. As a result, bicyclists are now explicitly allowed to run red lights at a few marked crossings.

  13. You suffer from confirmation bias by emj · · Score: 4, Informative

    All people in traffic break the law, you just choose to see the bad behaviour of cyclists, it's very easy to succumb to confirmation bias, or just plain we vs. them thinking. Anyways there are lots of studies on this if you care to read them, some peer reviewed and some not so peer reviewed.

    That said you do need to break the law when bicycling, and it's often the safest way to bicycle. This is why we have things like "idaho stop", pregreen for cyclists etc.

  14. Re:Cyclists DON'T obey the law! by emj · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There are good reasons for pedestrians to obey most of the "rules of the road" too.)

    There are no good reasons. Jaywalking was a highly controversial concept when it was promoted as the future. I'm glad we are starting think about it again. If the infrastructure is for cars, then a cyclist or pedestrian has a hard time being law abiding. If there is good infrastructure for cyclists and pedestrians then it's easy to follow the law.

    I do not see you thinking anything about safety, but just how to make pedestrians and cyclists give space to cars. If that is the foundation of your arguments, and mine are built on the reverse then it's going to be hard to discuss.

  15. Re:Cyclists DON'T obey the law! by damienl451 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A lot of it is just jealously: drivers are incensed they have to wait at red lights when cyclists *sometimes* run the red light if it's safe to do so. The fact that it's against the law is mostly irrelevant: when the law changes to recognize that it's perfectly safe to do so at many intersections, drivers keep bitching about it, except that they now complain that the law is always favoring cyclists. Same for when lots of cities in Europe started allowing cyclists go against traffic in one-way streets (with signs and ground markings to warn drivers), even though it's perfectly safe. The vast majority of cyclists don't have a death wish: we're not going to blaze through a busy intersection with cars going 30+ MPH. On the other hand, there are many situations that do warrant running the red light. Simple example that I encounter daily: I reach the end of the bike lane and I'm supposed to be waiting for the green light at the Advanced stop line/bike box. Except that 90% of the time, there is already a car in that box, because some drivers think that it's just a buffer area that they're free to use. Which means that I'd be forced to wait right next to a car or, worse, a van or truck, which may or may not look when they decide to turn right. So, the safest course of action in this case would be for me to run the red light and take my rightful position in front of the car that has taken the safe spot the law provided for me. But, if I've already run the red light and now notice that there is no traffic in sight, I might as well keep going and clear the intersection. I've never endangered myself, or anyone else, whenever I've run a red light. Virtually all of my 'close calls' have been at uncontrolled intersections where I had the right of way, or when the light was green, and someone decided to turn right without looking properly.