19 ms·

More people riding bikes makes cycling safer for everyone, major new study finds

222 points by okket 9y ago

Alex3917 9y ago
This doesn't show that biking has gotten safer. It may have, but later adopters of biking are also less likely to engage in risky behavior. Similarly, as the percentage of folks who use heroin increases, the relative rate of overdoses declines. But that doesn't mean that heroin itself has become any more or less safe.
- nowarninglabel 9y ago
  I don't know, I mean surely there are some network effects of the more users that are using heroin the more that safe practices are developed, shared, and (socially) enforced. It'd be interesting to see if anyone has studied that. Granted, a counter-argument might be that even if it were safer from greater use it may just be that greater use nearly always leads to greater regulation.
- emh68 9y ago
  What's missing from the heroin analogy is fact that the dangers faced by cyclists can be changed - if drivers see a cyclist every 5 minutes vs every 1 hour, they'll be looking out for bicyclists constantly.
  - CydeWeys 9y ago
    What's also missing from the heroin analogy is that heroin itself is becoming safer as its use becomes widespread. It's made to a higher quality, with more standardized production processes, people know how to measure strength better, and the average person becomes more likely to know a good source for safe heroin that isn't cut with dangerous drugs like fentanyl. Take it to the logical extreme, imagining legalization of heroin and subsequent widespread use and sale in convenience stores, and it'd be way safer, because you'd always be getting a standardized product.
    - Alex3917 9y ago
      > heroin itself is becoming safer as its use becomes widespread That definitely was true for a while, not sure about in the last few years. A less controversial analogy might be with coffee, where the rate of people overdosing is probably lower now that it's no longer mainly used by Sufi mystics in enormous doses for entheogenic purposes.
- lkbm 9y ago
  That's a really good alternate hypothesis to explain the correlation--and one I hadn't thought of. The best way I can think to reject the risk-aversion hypothesis (without doing a RCT) would be to see a time-lag. If accident rates drop after ridership increases, that would suggest it's not risk-adverse people coming in later, whereas if ridership increases lead the rate drop, that would indicate that it's not a risk-tolerance thing. On the other hand, ridership increase proceeding accident rate dropping might need to account for newer riders being less experienced. I've read/read about other studies that found the same thing as this one, but I'm having trouble finding them right now. I found [0], but the methodology doesn't look like it would address the risk-aversion hypothesis. Personally, I think we should encourage cycling even if it doesn't lower accident rates, but evidence of improved safety makes it a more rational choice for urban planners. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/04/17/actually-cyclists-make-city-streets-safer/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/04/17/actua...
- tmnvix 9y ago
  I take your point, but if we are going to measure how likely it is for an activity to lead to death then total deaths and total participants (or 'participant-time') are what we will look at. Most people would agree that driving has become a safer activity if you could show them that the number of injuries or fatalities per driver or distance travelled has been falling. The same is true for cycling.
- mpweiher 9y ago
  You are assuming that the only/deciding factor is the behavior of the cyclists. For heroin, this is probably true, for cycling not so much.
  - Alex3917 9y ago
    > You are assuming that the only/deciding factor is the behavior of the cyclists. I'm really not. Read what I actually wrote instead of projecting onto it.
    - mpweiher 9y ago
      "but later adopters of biking are also less likely to engage in risky behavior."
      - lkbm 9y ago
        Saying "x is a factor" is not the same thing as saying "only x is a factor".
        mpweiher 9y ago
        Yeah, but saying this factor is the reason the other factors don't matter means it is the deciding factor.
        Alex3917 9y ago
        I didn't say the other factors didn't matter, or even that the theory in the article was incorrect. I was just saying that the statistical analysis in the article isn't enough to prove the explanation offered.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
moonka 9y ago
I believe it. After picking up cycling a couple years ago, I've noticed I am a lot more aware of bikes on the road, and drive with more care. I've also noticed my family driving more carefully around bikes as I've mentioned close calls I've had. I imagine it also leads to more willingness to invest in cycling infrastructure, which tends to make things safer as well.
- dkarl 9y ago
  I think cyclists create a halo effect because they create a stigma against harming cyclists in their social circle. People who are confident that they aren't personally connected to any cyclists openly joke about running them down. The only consequences they worry about if they hit a cyclist are legal ones, and when cycling is rare and "weird," they know there probably won't be any. When, on the other hand, they know there are cyclists among their coworkers or in their social circle, or if cycling is prevalent enough that they feel it's likely, they start to worry about the stigma that will attach to them if somebody finds out they knocked down a cyclist or carelessly put a cyclist in danger. They're forced to pay attention in a way that they didn't have to before. Many people hate this change, by the way. It scares them that an attitude they used to be able to joke about in a positive way is now something they have to hide. It makes them angry that they have to invest effort and attention for the benefit of people they feel opposed to. It's easy for progressives to simply see it as "progress" and not realize that it leaves a lot of people feeling like losers.
  - BurningFrog 9y ago
    Do you actually know people who have no ethical problems killing random cyclists?
    - davidw 9y ago
      It's pretty common to talk that way on the internet. Also stuff like this is pretty common: https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10154488392421642&id=575201641 https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1015448839242164...
    - 9y ago
Theodores 9y ago
More people riding also makes it normal. 15 years ago, working for a cycling wholesale distributor I was the only one that cycled to work. Yet I felt I had to explain why I cycled just so people didn't think I was a banned drink driver. In 2017 I am glad to say that all the bike parking is taken at 8.55 in the morning and there are bike to work posters in the kitchen. There is nothing new in this study. Perceptions have changed though and I thank all who have participated in this.
- mc32 9y ago
  When I was growing up, biking was mostly for teenagers under 16. After that kids graduated to cars. I was an outlier biking into my twenties, eventually commuting to work meant having to drive 20 mins or taking a bus over an hour. Weekend warrior lycra cyclists, I think, cleared the path for regular cyclists. It kind of normalized adults on a bike on roads.
  - revelation 9y ago
    Adults have been riding bikes for transportation for far longer than we have been giving spoiled, unsafe brats cars for "sweet 16".
    - mc32 9y ago
      True, but when I was growing up, very few adolescents rode bikes. Mostly only adults on the periphery of society did and a few enthusiasts.
- Finnucane 9y ago
  Also, as cycling gets more common, cities invest more in cycling infrastructure. There's nothing especially surprising here--it's consistent with what has been observed in other cities, here and in Europe.
ilaksh 9y ago
You mean less dangerous. To me, San Diego and Ft. Worth are average areas. In these places bicycles are relatively rare compared to cars. I am always surprised when I see them. Cars weigh thousands of pounds. Consider the safety precautions for cars with air bags, crumple zones, and crash testing. There is no protection from cars for someone on a bicycle. They try to say riding on the sidewalk with a bike is more dangerous because cars do not look out for bicycles at driveways and such. But personally in most areas I don't feel safe biking on the street, and would rather stay on the sidewalk like I did when I was a kid. I would just have to pause to check before crossing driveways and intersections. I believe that there will eventually be something like a smart safe city where 2000+ pounds vehicles do not freely mix with pedestrians, cyclists, and baby strollers. There should be physical barriers or totally separate walkways. Think about it. They can't even sell a car without an airbag anymore. Yet what chance do you have from a physics standpoint to be truly safe when the other vehicle exceeds your mass by 2000+ pounds?
- soared 9y ago
  What point are you trying to make? Obviously cars have safety features for people inside them. Are you arguing for safety features on cars for the people outside of cars, or safety features on bikes to combat cars? All I read from your post is that cars are big and heavy, which would hurt unprotected people. In some cities people bike less. Ft worth is way too hot to bike, and definitely not average for bike culture.
  - afarrell 9y ago
    One safety feature that cars could have for bicycles is Wide-angle rear-view mirrors[1] by default. I put one on my car when I lived in Austin to soothe my anxiety that I would kill someone and it did wonders for my situational awareness. https://www.amazon.com/Fit-System-RM011-Clip-Mirror/dp/B001A0J2JO https://www.amazon.com/Fit-System-RM011-Clip-Mirror/dp/B001A...
  - ilaksh 9y ago
    The point is that one of the main reasons that there aren't more people biking may be that people feel unsafe because of the physics and that one way to see that is to compare the standard of what is safe for people riding in cars to what is safe for people riding on bicycles. Would you buy a car if it received less than average safety scores? But all of the cars with those below average safety scores have large metal frames, a body, and a huge amount of mass that as I said, due to the basic physics equations means that the occupants of a car will be much, much less likely to be injured or killed if there is a collision. So considering how seriously people take car safety regulations, this is a bit of a crazy double standard.
caub 9y ago
when you are a cyclist, you would drive cars much less fast since you're already visualizing how faster you're than a bike, and you have much more attention and respect to bikes of course Which should have priority to cars!
throwaway12124 9y ago
Apparently the negative effects on pedestrian safety are not considered to be worthy of study, or even mention. One of the worst things about walking around Manhattan is being buzzed by fast-moving bicyclists riding on the sidewalk, through crosswalks against the lights, and even the wrong way on one-way streets. Cars and trucks are at least predictable--bicyclists are a chaotic menace in NYC.
discombobulate 9y ago
Bike network effects!
gregdoesit 9y ago
Come to Amsterdam to see first hand proof of this study. Virtually no one wears helmets... because you don't have to. Infrastructure is designed to be bikers first. Drivers are constantly aware of bikes and also receive training to avoid the most common accidents (hitting a biker when opening the door - see the Dutch Reach). The biggest threat to a biker in this city is another (often less experienced) biker, pedestrians not looking around or trying to cross tram tracks parallel. However, it did take almost 40 years to get here though, changes starting in the 1970s - I do hope many cities will follow a similar route.
- paulcole 9y ago
  >Virtually no one wears helmets... because you don't have to. Helmets are pretty misunderstood. They don't offer much in the way of protection in a serious accident. The real value is in preventing serious head injuries in an otherwise minor fall/accident. People in Amsterdam may not wear helmets but it's because they choose not to, not because helmets aren't needed.
  - akvadrako 9y ago
    This is what the anti-cycling agenda wants you to think. In reality, helmets are not worth the trouble. They potentially could make a difference in a very small percent of bike accidents and they slightly discourage biking, leading to worse overall safety and health. It's just absurd to say they are "needed".
    - CydeWeys 9y ago
      > In reality, helmets are not worth the trouble. Who are you to say that? Most of my cycling is to and from work, on my own bike. Wearing a helmet costs me nothing in the way of inconvenience. I simply leave the helmet on the bike when I park it at home and at work (both secure locations). Who are you to issue some blatant proclamation that "in reality" this isn't worth the nonexistent trouble?
      - 9y ago
awjr 9y ago
Denmark just worked out it stopped 55,000 sick days and where able to persuade 34% of car drivers that tried an eBike to switch to an eBike. https://cyclingindustry.news/danish-study-outlines-economic-savings-made-by-building-a-safe-cycling-network/ https://cyclingindustry.news/danish-study-outlines-economic-... Cycling can reduce risk of death by 41%, death by cancer 45% and death from heart disease by 46% http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-39641122 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-39641122 A single 10ft cycle track can carry the same number of people as 7 lanes of car traffic. Netherlands is currently at 10% obesity and going down to 8.5% by 2030. The UK is at 27% and predicted to go up to 35%. So cycling really does appear be to that miracle solution for urban transport but you absolutely cannot 'share space'. Absolutely key to segregate. A good end to end network is only as good as its weakest link and too many times, town planners give in to politicians and local residents and deliver stuff that really is does not provide inclusive ages 8-80 cycle routes.
- closeparen 9y ago
  Basically every middle-class American child grew up riding a bicycle while sharing space with cars on his suburban streets. Bike lanes may be a hard requirement for you, but the quintessential American childhood experience says that's not exactly widespread. We go through the rite of passage of transitioning from bikes to cars at age 16 because they increase our time-efficiency and decrease physical exertion. EDIT: A cursory Google puts the rate of cycling among children at 70%. Would you care to explain your disagreement?
  - danbolt 9y ago
    What's your take on urban density and neighbourhood? I can visualize a child getting around the suburbs well, but a busy city street or highway sound less pleasant for a daily commute.
    - analog31 9y ago
      I have a rule of thumb, to designate "busy" streets as having 2+ lanes going in each direction. That's when traffic gets faster, and more dense, so that drivers are no longer in complete control of their cars. This is just convenient in order to have a definition. I avoid those streets if possible. I also don't like fast traffic and parked cars on the side. That's just me. Safety aside, calm streets are more pleasant. In my locale, there are enough slow side streets interspersed with the higher density neighborhoods, that I can generally avoid fast streets. In some places, a bike path along an old rail line solves the problem. There's a sort of "Jane Jacobs utopia" neighborhood on the other side of town, where cars drive on one street and bikes / buses on the next street over. If it's dense enough, then people can walk. The odd thing is that the suburbs aren't necessarily great. They might not have sidewalks -- an issue for pedestrians and the smallest kids -- and everything is great until you have to get past a high speed road or intersection. Plus, due to lower density, distances are longer. I live in a moderately dense urban area. My friends who live in suburbs are the ones who drive everywhere.
newy 9y ago
I've always believed this. More bikers on the road creates more awareness from drivers, and also more investment by cities into bike infrastructure, including dedicated and protected bike lanes. More bikes available also means more bikers, something we're working on at Spin for US cities. Get in touch (email in profile) if this seems like a problem space interesting to you :)
projektir 9y ago
I'm still deeply uncomfortable about riding a bike next to / in front of a car compared to the sidewalk, and I'm not sure how to overpower that fear...
- peller 9y ago
  Well, same as any other fear, you have 1) face it and 2) do that bit by bit. Ride one block on the street. Did you survive? Cool; your fear is now ever so slightly diminished. The next day, two blocks. And so on. It does help if you are confident in your ability to ride in a straight line and to brake on a dime (aka using mostly the front brake). And, same as passing a truck on the highway in a car, it's generally not a good idea to hang out in a car's blind spot. As for cars that are scared to pass you, yea, that's really obnoxious. But as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, the vast majority of bike-car accidents don't happen on the straight-aways; they mostly happen in intersections.
  - projektir 9y ago
    The other fears are mostly irrational, though. This one doesn't appear to be: it seems to be a cultural thing that US bikers are OK with riding next to cars, while to me it just seems... not prudent. How does that protect me from a car just ramming into me from behind? There just doesn't seem to be anything I can do about that. I'm always relying on the hope that the driver behind me is paying attention and I'm not big on hope. Riding on the street to me is usually very rattling because of how many cars repeatedly pass me, it doesn't really reduce my fear.
- analog31 9y ago
  YMMV of course, but it has helped me to have a rear view mirror on my bike. I do not use it as a substitute for turning my head and looking when I'm going to change lanes or make a turn. But it lets me comfortably maintain a sort of "inventory" of what's behind me at any given moment. I'm much less likely to get taken by surprise. I tend to be conspicuously and gratuitously polite. For instance I will wave if I see that someone is stuck behind me, and will pull aside when possible. One thing I realize is that i'm often in someone's neighborhood, so they'll probably see me again.
u801e 9y ago
I think a lot of the problems that cyclists have when riding amongst motor vehicles have to do with existing laws (such as riding as far right as practicable when going less than the normal speed of traffic). In reality, most traffic lanes are not wide enough for a cyclist and a car to travel side by side with sufficient clearance between the two vehicles. A cyclist is about 2.5 to 3 feet wide and many states have laws requiring at least feet of distance between them and the cyclist. The cyclist will also ride about 2 to 3 feet from the right edge of the lane. A car is a little less than 6 feet wide on average. If you add those distances up, you end up with a total of 14 to 15 feet. Even on interstate highways, lanes may only 12 feet wide. On surface streets, they may only be 10 feet wide. Because of this, you end up with the situation where cars will "lane split" while passing a cyclist and frequently misjudge how far they are from the cyclist when passing them. Also, the lane splitting car cannot leave enough room for cars in the adjacent lane because the lanes do not have sufficient width to accommodate a vehicle and half of another vehicle. Another problem is that cyclists riding to the right aren't as visible to traffic as opposed to those who are "taking the lane". They're more vulnerable to collisions such as "right-hooks", traffic entering from side streets and opposing left turning traffic who didn't see them. The laws should be changed to say that cyclists are like slow moving vehicles who are entitled to the full use of the lane they're riding in and passing traffic must move completely into the adjacent lane, when safe to do so, to pass the cyclist and only return to their original lane of travel after they have sufficient clearance. The law should also allow vehicles to pass cyclists on a double-yellow when its safe to do so with the same conditions as above. This will legally sanction the "take the lane" type of riding and make cyclists more visible to the rest of traffic.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
teslaberry 9y ago
Is this not totally unbelievably obvious? 'A new study has found the sky is blue' Ride a bike and you quickly realize how obvious this is.
zeep 9y ago
if everyone was riding a bicycle, bicycle riders would be safe indeed...
stordoff 9y ago
Not to dismiss the study (because other studies have certainly found counter-intuitive results before), but I've always thought this would be an obvious result. If other road users are used to dealing with cyclists, and expecting them to be there at all, it's hard to see how that would make cycling less safe.
lsjdfkljdfwkwdf 9y ago
Where's the insurance mandate for cyclists? Bikes are far bigger threat to pedestrians than cars. Cars don't usually travel on sidewalks/trails.
trevyn 9y ago
Or, generalized, more people doing X makes X safer for everyone. :)
anonu 9y ago
I ride in NYC and have for almost a decade now. The city has taken major leaps forward at becoming more bicycle friendly, thanks in part to Citi Bike proliferation and the addition of more protected bike paths. I think there's still a long way to go - especially in terms of education of riders around proper biking etiquette, especially towards pedestrians
astrostl 9y ago
I love the concept, but no way would I try to pull it off in 99% of the USA. I know a lot of road biking, bike to work, etc. enthusiasts and every damned one of 'em has some horrific hit-and-run story :-/

222 points by okket 9y ago

This doesn't show that biking has gotten safer. It may have, but later adopters of biking are also less likely to engage in risky behavior. Similarly, as the percentage of folks who use heroin increases, the relative rate of overdoses declines. But that doesn't mean that heroin itself has become any more or less safe.

nowarninglabel 9y ago
I don't know, I mean surely there are some network effects of the more users that are using heroin the more that safe practices are developed, shared, and (socially) enforced. It'd be interesting to see if anyone has studied that. Granted, a counter-argument might be that even if it were safer from greater use it may just be that greater use nearly always leads to greater regulation.
emh68 9y ago
What's missing from the heroin analogy is fact that the dangers faced by cyclists can be changed - if drivers see a cyclist every 5 minutes vs every 1 hour, they'll be looking out for bicyclists constantly.
- CydeWeys 9y ago
  What's also missing from the heroin analogy is that heroin itself is becoming safer as its use becomes widespread. It's made to a higher quality, with more standardized production processes, people know how to measure strength better, and the average person becomes more likely to know a good source for safe heroin that isn't cut with dangerous drugs like fentanyl. Take it to the logical extreme, imagining legalization of heroin and subsequent widespread use and sale in convenience stores, and it'd be way safer, because you'd always be getting a standardized product.
  - Alex3917 9y ago
    > heroin itself is becoming safer as its use becomes widespread That definitely was true for a while, not sure about in the last few years. A less controversial analogy might be with coffee, where the rate of people overdosing is probably lower now that it's no longer mainly used by Sufi mystics in enormous doses for entheogenic purposes.
lkbm 9y ago
That's a really good alternate hypothesis to explain the correlation--and one I hadn't thought of. The best way I can think to reject the risk-aversion hypothesis (without doing a RCT) would be to see a time-lag. If accident rates drop after ridership increases, that would suggest it's not risk-adverse people coming in later, whereas if ridership increases lead the rate drop, that would indicate that it's not a risk-tolerance thing. On the other hand, ridership increase proceeding accident rate dropping might need to account for newer riders being less experienced. I've read/read about other studies that found the same thing as this one, but I'm having trouble finding them right now. I found [0], but the methodology doesn't look like it would address the risk-aversion hypothesis. Personally, I think we should encourage cycling even if it doesn't lower accident rates, but evidence of improved safety makes it a more rational choice for urban planners. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/04/17/actually-cyclists-make-city-streets-safer/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/04/17/actua...
tmnvix 9y ago
I take your point, but if we are going to measure how likely it is for an activity to lead to death then total deaths and total participants (or 'participant-time') are what we will look at. Most people would agree that driving has become a safer activity if you could show them that the number of injuries or fatalities per driver or distance travelled has been falling. The same is true for cycling.
mpweiher 9y ago
You are assuming that the only/deciding factor is the behavior of the cyclists. For heroin, this is probably true, for cycling not so much.
- Alex3917 9y ago
  > You are assuming that the only/deciding factor is the behavior of the cyclists. I'm really not. Read what I actually wrote instead of projecting onto it.
  - mpweiher 9y ago
    "but later adopters of biking are also less likely to engage in risky behavior."
    - lkbm 9y ago
      Saying "x is a factor" is not the same thing as saying "only x is a factor".
      - mpweiher 9y ago
        Yeah, but saying this factor is the reason the other factors don't matter means it is the deciding factor.
        Alex3917 9y ago
        I didn't say the other factors didn't matter, or even that the theory in the article was incorrect. I was just saying that the statistical analysis in the article isn't enough to prove the explanation offered.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

moonka 9y ago

I believe it. After picking up cycling a couple years ago, I've noticed I am a lot more aware of bikes on the road, and drive with more care. I've also noticed my family driving more carefully around bikes as I've mentioned close calls I've had. I imagine it also leads to more willingness to invest in cycling infrastructure, which tends to make things safer as well.

dkarl 9y ago
I think cyclists create a halo effect because they create a stigma against harming cyclists in their social circle. People who are confident that they aren't personally connected to any cyclists openly joke about running them down. The only consequences they worry about if they hit a cyclist are legal ones, and when cycling is rare and "weird," they know there probably won't be any. When, on the other hand, they know there are cyclists among their coworkers or in their social circle, or if cycling is prevalent enough that they feel it's likely, they start to worry about the stigma that will attach to them if somebody finds out they knocked down a cyclist or carelessly put a cyclist in danger. They're forced to pay attention in a way that they didn't have to before. Many people hate this change, by the way. It scares them that an attitude they used to be able to joke about in a positive way is now something they have to hide. It makes them angry that they have to invest effort and attention for the benefit of people they feel opposed to. It's easy for progressives to simply see it as "progress" and not realize that it leaves a lot of people feeling like losers.
- BurningFrog 9y ago
  Do you actually know people who have no ethical problems killing random cyclists?
  - davidw 9y ago
    It's pretty common to talk that way on the internet. Also stuff like this is pretty common: https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10154488392421642&id=575201641 https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1015448839242164...
  - 9y ago

Theodores 9y ago

More people riding also makes it normal. 15 years ago, working for a cycling wholesale distributor I was the only one that cycled to work. Yet I felt I had to explain why I cycled just so people didn't think I was a banned drink driver. In 2017 I am glad to say that all the bike parking is taken at 8.55 in the morning and there are bike to work posters in the kitchen. There is nothing new in this study. Perceptions have changed though and I thank all who have participated in this.

mc32 9y ago
When I was growing up, biking was mostly for teenagers under 16. After that kids graduated to cars. I was an outlier biking into my twenties, eventually commuting to work meant having to drive 20 mins or taking a bus over an hour. Weekend warrior lycra cyclists, I think, cleared the path for regular cyclists. It kind of normalized adults on a bike on roads.
- revelation 9y ago
  Adults have been riding bikes for transportation for far longer than we have been giving spoiled, unsafe brats cars for "sweet 16".
  - mc32 9y ago
    True, but when I was growing up, very few adolescents rode bikes. Mostly only adults on the periphery of society did and a few enthusiasts.
Finnucane 9y ago
Also, as cycling gets more common, cities invest more in cycling infrastructure. There's nothing especially surprising here--it's consistent with what has been observed in other cities, here and in Europe.

ilaksh 9y ago

You mean less dangerous. To me, San Diego and Ft. Worth are average areas. In these places bicycles are relatively rare compared to cars. I am always surprised when I see them. Cars weigh thousands of pounds. Consider the safety precautions for cars with air bags, crumple zones, and crash testing. There is no protection from cars for someone on a bicycle. They try to say riding on the sidewalk with a bike is more dangerous because cars do not look out for bicycles at driveways and such. But personally in most areas I don't feel safe biking on the street, and would rather stay on the sidewalk like I did when I was a kid. I would just have to pause to check before crossing driveways and intersections. I believe that there will eventually be something like a smart safe city where 2000+ pounds vehicles do not freely mix with pedestrians, cyclists, and baby strollers. There should be physical barriers or totally separate walkways. Think about it. They can't even sell a car without an airbag anymore. Yet what chance do you have from a physics standpoint to be truly safe when the other vehicle exceeds your mass by 2000+ pounds?

soared 9y ago
What point are you trying to make? Obviously cars have safety features for people inside them. Are you arguing for safety features on cars for the people outside of cars, or safety features on bikes to combat cars? All I read from your post is that cars are big and heavy, which would hurt unprotected people. In some cities people bike less. Ft worth is way too hot to bike, and definitely not average for bike culture.
- afarrell 9y ago
  One safety feature that cars could have for bicycles is Wide-angle rear-view mirrors[1] by default. I put one on my car when I lived in Austin to soothe my anxiety that I would kill someone and it did wonders for my situational awareness. https://www.amazon.com/Fit-System-RM011-Clip-Mirror/dp/B001A0J2JO https://www.amazon.com/Fit-System-RM011-Clip-Mirror/dp/B001A...
- ilaksh 9y ago
  The point is that one of the main reasons that there aren't more people biking may be that people feel unsafe because of the physics and that one way to see that is to compare the standard of what is safe for people riding in cars to what is safe for people riding on bicycles. Would you buy a car if it received less than average safety scores? But all of the cars with those below average safety scores have large metal frames, a body, and a huge amount of mass that as I said, due to the basic physics equations means that the occupants of a car will be much, much less likely to be injured or killed if there is a collision. So considering how seriously people take car safety regulations, this is a bit of a crazy double standard.

caub 9y ago

when you are a cyclist, you would drive cars much less fast since you're already visualizing how faster you're than a bike, and you have much more attention and respect to bikes of course Which should have priority to cars!

throwaway12124 9y ago

Apparently the negative effects on pedestrian safety are not considered to be worthy of study, or even mention. One of the worst things about walking around Manhattan is being buzzed by fast-moving bicyclists riding on the sidewalk, through crosswalks against the lights, and even the wrong way on one-way streets. Cars and trucks are at least predictable--bicyclists are a chaotic menace in NYC.

discombobulate 9y ago

Bike network effects!

gregdoesit 9y ago

Come to Amsterdam to see first hand proof of this study. Virtually no one wears helmets... because you don't have to. Infrastructure is designed to be bikers first. Drivers are constantly aware of bikes and also receive training to avoid the most common accidents (hitting a biker when opening the door - see the Dutch Reach). The biggest threat to a biker in this city is another (often less experienced) biker, pedestrians not looking around or trying to cross tram tracks parallel. However, it did take almost 40 years to get here though, changes starting in the 1970s - I do hope many cities will follow a similar route.

paulcole 9y ago
>Virtually no one wears helmets... because you don't have to. Helmets are pretty misunderstood. They don't offer much in the way of protection in a serious accident. The real value is in preventing serious head injuries in an otherwise minor fall/accident. People in Amsterdam may not wear helmets but it's because they choose not to, not because helmets aren't needed.
- akvadrako 9y ago
  This is what the anti-cycling agenda wants you to think. In reality, helmets are not worth the trouble. They potentially could make a difference in a very small percent of bike accidents and they slightly discourage biking, leading to worse overall safety and health. It's just absurd to say they are "needed".
  - CydeWeys 9y ago
    > In reality, helmets are not worth the trouble. Who are you to say that? Most of my cycling is to and from work, on my own bike. Wearing a helmet costs me nothing in the way of inconvenience. I simply leave the helmet on the bike when I park it at home and at work (both secure locations). Who are you to issue some blatant proclamation that "in reality" this isn't worth the nonexistent trouble?
    - 9y ago

awjr 9y ago

Denmark just worked out it stopped 55,000 sick days and where able to persuade 34% of car drivers that tried an eBike to switch to an eBike. https://cyclingindustry.news/danish-study-outlines-economic-savings-made-by-building-a-safe-cycling-network/ https://cyclingindustry.news/danish-study-outlines-economic-... Cycling can reduce risk of death by 41%, death by cancer 45% and death from heart disease by 46% http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-39641122 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-39641122 A single 10ft cycle track can carry the same number of people as 7 lanes of car traffic. Netherlands is currently at 10% obesity and going down to 8.5% by 2030. The UK is at 27% and predicted to go up to 35%. So cycling really does appear be to that miracle solution for urban transport but you absolutely cannot 'share space'. Absolutely key to segregate. A good end to end network is only as good as its weakest link and too many times, town planners give in to politicians and local residents and deliver stuff that really is does not provide inclusive ages 8-80 cycle routes.

closeparen 9y ago
Basically every middle-class American child grew up riding a bicycle while sharing space with cars on his suburban streets. Bike lanes may be a hard requirement for you, but the quintessential American childhood experience says that's not exactly widespread. We go through the rite of passage of transitioning from bikes to cars at age 16 because they increase our time-efficiency and decrease physical exertion. EDIT: A cursory Google puts the rate of cycling among children at 70%. Would you care to explain your disagreement?
- danbolt 9y ago
  What's your take on urban density and neighbourhood? I can visualize a child getting around the suburbs well, but a busy city street or highway sound less pleasant for a daily commute.
  - analog31 9y ago
    I have a rule of thumb, to designate "busy" streets as having 2+ lanes going in each direction. That's when traffic gets faster, and more dense, so that drivers are no longer in complete control of their cars. This is just convenient in order to have a definition. I avoid those streets if possible. I also don't like fast traffic and parked cars on the side. That's just me. Safety aside, calm streets are more pleasant. In my locale, there are enough slow side streets interspersed with the higher density neighborhoods, that I can generally avoid fast streets. In some places, a bike path along an old rail line solves the problem. There's a sort of "Jane Jacobs utopia" neighborhood on the other side of town, where cars drive on one street and bikes / buses on the next street over. If it's dense enough, then people can walk. The odd thing is that the suburbs aren't necessarily great. They might not have sidewalks -- an issue for pedestrians and the smallest kids -- and everything is great until you have to get past a high speed road or intersection. Plus, due to lower density, distances are longer. I live in a moderately dense urban area. My friends who live in suburbs are the ones who drive everywhere.

newy 9y ago

I've always believed this. More bikers on the road creates more awareness from drivers, and also more investment by cities into bike infrastructure, including dedicated and protected bike lanes. More bikes available also means more bikers, something we're working on at Spin for US cities. Get in touch (email in profile) if this seems like a problem space interesting to you :)

projektir 9y ago

I'm still deeply uncomfortable about riding a bike next to / in front of a car compared to the sidewalk, and I'm not sure how to overpower that fear...

peller 9y ago
Well, same as any other fear, you have 1) face it and 2) do that bit by bit. Ride one block on the street. Did you survive? Cool; your fear is now ever so slightly diminished. The next day, two blocks. And so on. It does help if you are confident in your ability to ride in a straight line and to brake on a dime (aka using mostly the front brake). And, same as passing a truck on the highway in a car, it's generally not a good idea to hang out in a car's blind spot. As for cars that are scared to pass you, yea, that's really obnoxious. But as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, the vast majority of bike-car accidents don't happen on the straight-aways; they mostly happen in intersections.
- projektir 9y ago
  The other fears are mostly irrational, though. This one doesn't appear to be: it seems to be a cultural thing that US bikers are OK with riding next to cars, while to me it just seems... not prudent. How does that protect me from a car just ramming into me from behind? There just doesn't seem to be anything I can do about that. I'm always relying on the hope that the driver behind me is paying attention and I'm not big on hope. Riding on the street to me is usually very rattling because of how many cars repeatedly pass me, it doesn't really reduce my fear.
analog31 9y ago
YMMV of course, but it has helped me to have a rear view mirror on my bike. I do not use it as a substitute for turning my head and looking when I'm going to change lanes or make a turn. But it lets me comfortably maintain a sort of "inventory" of what's behind me at any given moment. I'm much less likely to get taken by surprise. I tend to be conspicuously and gratuitously polite. For instance I will wave if I see that someone is stuck behind me, and will pull aside when possible. One thing I realize is that i'm often in someone's neighborhood, so they'll probably see me again.

u801e 9y ago

I think a lot of the problems that cyclists have when riding amongst motor vehicles have to do with existing laws (such as riding as far right as practicable when going less than the normal speed of traffic). In reality, most traffic lanes are not wide enough for a cyclist and a car to travel side by side with sufficient clearance between the two vehicles. A cyclist is about 2.5 to 3 feet wide and many states have laws requiring at least feet of distance between them and the cyclist. The cyclist will also ride about 2 to 3 feet from the right edge of the lane. A car is a little less than 6 feet wide on average. If you add those distances up, you end up with a total of 14 to 15 feet. Even on interstate highways, lanes may only 12 feet wide. On surface streets, they may only be 10 feet wide. Because of this, you end up with the situation where cars will "lane split" while passing a cyclist and frequently misjudge how far they are from the cyclist when passing them. Also, the lane splitting car cannot leave enough room for cars in the adjacent lane because the lanes do not have sufficient width to accommodate a vehicle and half of another vehicle. Another problem is that cyclists riding to the right aren't as visible to traffic as opposed to those who are "taking the lane". They're more vulnerable to collisions such as "right-hooks", traffic entering from side streets and opposing left turning traffic who didn't see them. The laws should be changed to say that cyclists are like slow moving vehicles who are entitled to the full use of the lane they're riding in and passing traffic must move completely into the adjacent lane, when safe to do so, to pass the cyclist and only return to their original lane of travel after they have sufficient clearance. The law should also allow vehicles to pass cyclists on a double-yellow when its safe to do so with the same conditions as above. This will legally sanction the "take the lane" type of riding and make cyclists more visible to the rest of traffic.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

teslaberry 9y ago

Is this not totally unbelievably obvious? 'A new study has found the sky is blue' Ride a bike and you quickly realize how obvious this is.

zeep 9y ago

if everyone was riding a bicycle, bicycle riders would be safe indeed...

stordoff 9y ago

Not to dismiss the study (because other studies have certainly found counter-intuitive results before), but I've always thought this would be an obvious result. If other road users are used to dealing with cyclists, and expecting them to be there at all, it's hard to see how that would make cycling less safe.

lsjdfkljdfwkwdf 9y ago

Where's the insurance mandate for cyclists? Bikes are far bigger threat to pedestrians than cars. Cars don't usually travel on sidewalks/trails.

trevyn 9y ago

Or, generalized, more people doing X makes X safer for everyone. :)

anonu 9y ago

I ride in NYC and have for almost a decade now. The city has taken major leaps forward at becoming more bicycle friendly, thanks in part to Citi Bike proliferation and the addition of more protected bike paths. I think there's still a long way to go - especially in terms of education of riders around proper biking etiquette, especially towards pedestrians

astrostl 9y ago

I love the concept, but no way would I try to pull it off in 99% of the USA. I know a lot of road biking, bike to work, etc. enthusiasts and every damned one of 'em has some horrific hit-and-run story :-/