BIKE: bicycling safety

[Thorne]

Yeah, MBJ, thanks.  I'll put it to the list now.

------ Original Message ------
Received: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 04:48:02 PM CDT
From: Michael Bluejay <bikes>
To: Thorne <jeffrey.thorne>
Subject: Re: BIKE: bicycling safety

I think you meant to send this to the list, but I think it went only to 
me.

Good post, by the way, and I do agree that better cycling skills can 
reduce injury -- which is why I wrote BicycleSafe.com.  I do believe 
that my risk of injury or death from cycling is greater than for 
driving, but it's a risk I'm willing to take.

-MBJ-

On Oct 13, 2004, at 3:49 PM, Thorne wrote:

> "Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of 
> vehicles."
>
> Not to dis MBJ or Kifer or anybody else, but I'm not sure that the 
> 2.5:1 ratio
> for deaths per mile traveled truly is a fair comparison.  Unless I'm 
> mistaken,
> lumped into that figure are accidents by kids on sidewalks and other 
> sorts of
> accidents not comparable to "miles traveled" by transportation 
> cyclists.  It
> has been shown that accident rates [which I admit right off is 
> different for
> death rates] for cyclists decrease with training and with experience 
> riding.
> Maybe someone could help with a good link to such data, but for the 
> present,
> accept this from johnforester.com:
>
> "Cyclist Crash Rate Reduction & Bikeway Programs, as they Affect the 
> Purposes
> of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the National 
> Center
> for Disease Control: A Call to Difficult Action" (scroll down to 
> "2.2.1 Crash
> Rates"):
> "1: Those groups of cyclists, in both the U.S. and the U.K., whose 
> members are
> most likely to operate in the vehicular manner have crash rates only 
> 20% to
> 25% of those of the typical adult cycling population. (Forester 1994 
> Chap 5
> Accidents) A reduction of this magnitude demonstrates that having the 
> skill of
> operating in the vehicular manner both prevents the cyclist from 
> causing his
> own car-bike collisions, and it gives him the understanding to detect 
> and
> avoid many of the instances in which the motorist is making a mistake.
> 2: There has been no significant demonstration that either bike paths 
> or
> bike-lane stripes have reduced the cyclist crash rate. On the 
> contrary, bike
> paths have several times been shown to be the most dangerous 
> facilities we
> have. (Kaplan 1976; Moritz 1996; Forester 1994 Chap 9 Effect of 
> Bikeways on
> Traffic) The evidence for bike-lane stripes is that at best they are 
> of little
> importance, at worst an encouragement to dangerous traffic errors by 
> both
> cyclists and motorists. (Forester 1978, 1982) All bike-lane studies 
> fail to
> separate out two other causes: bike lanes are typically put on the 
> safer
> streets, bike lanes are installed as part of a program that makes 
> other safety
> improvements with great publicity. These are more than sufficient to 
> explain
> the differences found."
>
> Then scroll down to "2.2.4 Consistency of the Evidence":
> "Consider Kaplan's data. Commuting by bicycle, which is obviously done 
> at
> times and locations of greatest traffic intensity, has about the 
> lowest crash
> rate. Similarly, those cyclists who habitually ride under what are 
> considered
> the most dangerous conditions of traffic, topography, weather, and 
> darkness
> have very low overall crash rates. The British data indicate that four 
> years
> of cycling with the Cyclists' Touring Club reduces the crash rate to 
> about 20%
> of its former value. The whole pattern of the evidence consistently 
> points to
> the principle that cycling according to the rules of the road for 
> drivers of
> vehicles, and the skill that goes with that, is by far the strongest 
> factor in
> reducing the cyclist crash rate."
>
> If we accept the finding (and for the moment I'm at a loss to find the 
> studies
> relied upon, but they are out there) that vehicular cycling leads to 
> 20-25% of
> the crash rate and we apply that to the 2.5 times greater death rate 
> per mile
> for cycling overall, then perhaps we get a death rate lower than that 
> for
> driving, IF you are riding properly.  Roll into that the recent study 
> I've
> referenced on this list before that shows a much lower overall 
> mortality rate
> for cycling commuters, and you've got all the more reason to ride 
> safely and
> feel safe doing it.
>
> I'll keep biking to work even if I'm later convinced I'm taking a 2.5 
> times
> greater risk doing so because I find it such an improvement to my life
> otherwise.  I will take into consideration, though, the vehicular 
> cycling
> principles that have been shown to better my odds on the streets.
>
> Jeff
>
> ------ Original Message ------
> Received: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 01:01:19 PM CDT
> From: Michael Bluejay <bikes>
> To: Patrick Goetz <pgoetz>Cc: forum
> Subject: Re: BIKE: bicycling safety
>
>
> On Oct 13, 2004, at 12:34 PM, Patrick Goetz wrote:
>
>> Michael Bluejay wrote:
>>> Mile for mile, the only honest way to compare the two transit modes,
>>> cycling is more dangerous than driving.
>>
>> My comment was more of an aside than anything else, but now I'm
>> curious -- does anyone have access to the per mile accident and
>> fatality statistics for bicycling vs. driving?
>
>
> http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/health/risks.htm
>
> Search for "fatalities per mile".  It's about 2/3 the way down the
> page.  It shows that on a per-mile basis, cyclists are 2.5 more likely
> to be killed than motorists.  That's an incredible difference.
>
> Interestingly, the author discounts that statistic as being an unfair
> comparison, but he couldn't be more wrong.  And ironically, he himself
> was killed by an automobile while cycling.
>
> -MBJ-
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Get on or off this list here:  http://BicycleAustin.info/list
>
>
>
>