How Safe Is Cycling? 947
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?"
only? (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.
Please (Score:3, Insightful)
Cycling is relatively safe (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:An important distinction (Score:5, 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.
What about cycling for transportation? (Score:2, Insightful)
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).
Danger (Score:4, Insightful)
Cycling carries its dangers, but cycling (even in a city) is probably less dangerous than not exercising at all.
Bike lanes... (Score:5, Insightful)
The best way to make cycling safer (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.
Re:An important distinction (Score:5, 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.
Safer than watching TV (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Cycling not the Answer (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:An important distinction (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:only? (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.
Car industry strikes back (Score:5, Insightful)
It is not the first time (nor the last) that the car industry try to eliminate alternatives to their products [wikipedia.org].
Car accidents is one of the main causes of death in US [nsc.org], 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! (Score:5, 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.
Re:How safe? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How safe? (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? (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? (Score:3, Insightful)
It isn't just me...its everyone on the road in a car driving along with ME....
I've seen other cars driving in other lane almost clock a couple of bicyclists more than a few times on busy roads in the morning, I have actually cringed a couple of time expecting a *splat*.....but they slammed the brakes in time or was able to swerve around them enough to miss them.
Cars and bikes on roads just do not mix...hell, I ride a motorcycle and even motorcycles and cars barely mix. Cars just can't see you....at least with a motorcycle, I have a fighting chance of quickly getting the fuck out of the way of the car coming at me, and my bike is fairly loud...enough so that a car driver will usually hear me and take notice.
Re:How safe? (Score:5, 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? (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? (Score:2, Insightful)
Cars may rarely proceed straight through a stop light in SF, but it's quite common to see cars roll through a red light to make a right turn on red if there's no opposing traffic..
There is a significant difference between a "California stop" and how a bicyclist treats a red light. The former is an admission that "yes, there is a law that says I must stop and I'm almost complying with it", the latter is "what law?". And the incomplete stop on a turn on red is a failure to come to a complete stop while executing an otherwise legal maneuver, while a bicyclist blowing through a red light is not only a failure to stop, but a failure in that he 'go-ed' when it was still illegal to do so. There is no "straight through on red" law anywhere in the country.
Neither bikes nor cars in downtown SF can claim moral superiority when it comes to following traffic laws.
The percentage of drivers who can claim moral superiority for actually obeying the law is significantly higher than the percentage of bicyclists who can claim the same thing. Continuing to argue that bikers aren't wrong for their flagrant disregard for traffic laws because some drivers break the law is a logical fallacy.
Re:How safe? (Score:5, 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 [state.az.us]:
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 [theguardian.com]
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
The real take from this entire story (Score:5, 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).
Re:How safe? (Score:0, Insightful)
Dude, I've read most of your responses. You do realize you assert that drivers should change the time of day they drive to avoid hitting some jackass cycling in the middle of the road? You know how fucking entitled that makes you sound? I hate cyclists, and I think they should be illegal on all roads. Two people I know (was not close to them) were hit from behind by a driver in a 45 MPH zone. The sun blinded him. It was at sunset. They were side-by-side on a busy city road, riding into the sun, in 45 MPH traffic, taking up the entire lane. It's a lot easier to see a car driving at the same speed as you than it is to see two jackasses on bikes riding at a walking pace in the middle of the fucking road.
One of them was killed. The other seriously injured. And a 17-year old's life ruined.
You firmly believe that he should have just pulled over for half an hour while the sun went down. You don't think the cyclist were being irresponsible at all, do you?
What a cock sucker you are.
Re:How safe? (Score:5, 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.