3 ms·

Bikes are not that dangerous, they are less dangerous than cars. So, yes, the danger is infrastructure that puts bikes next to cars instead of giving bikes thei

Bikes are not that dangerous, they are less dangerous than cars. So, yes, the danger is infrastructure that puts bikes next to cars instead of giving bikes their own space.

topkai22 5y ago
A cursory look at the data says that bikes are more dangerous than cars in the current environment. The US Bureau of Transportation Statistics says that in 2017 806/37473 fatalities were cyclists, or 2.2%, but the NHTSA data indicates that only 1% trips are by bicycle. That is a worse percentage than pedestrians (16.2 % of fatalities but 10.5% of trips) but substantially better than motorcycles (13.9% of fatalities but only 0.2% of trips!) I think you are trying to say these statistics would change if we created an entirely separate set of infrastructure for cyclists, but that is not the world we live in currently and can't be realized quickly in any sane and humane scenario. Ed- I'm a big electric bike fan, but we have to work within the world we live in, not the world we'd like to see. Right now using a bike or an e-bike for most tasks is more dangerous to the user than using an automobile. Doesn't mean we shouldn't use them or encourage them (after all they in the same ballpark as walking), but there is a lot of work to do to make them "safer" than cars. BTW- I don't think this was always the case- there were 5x as many fatalities per mile traveled in automobile in the 1960s then there are today, primarily due to the addition of vehicle safety features. I wonder what sort of active and passive safety features could be incorporated into cycles now? (1) https://www.bts.gov/content/transportation-fatalities-mode https://www.bts.gov/content/transportation-fatalities-mode (2) https://nhts.ornl.gov/person-trips https://nhts.ornl.gov/person-trips
- quadrangle 5y ago
  Yeah, but the point is: It's not bikes that are dangerous, it's the biking situation with bikes mixed with cars. Of that fatality number for cyclists, how much of that is because of cars? I suspect near 100%. Almost every cycling fatality I've ever heard of is because of a cyclist hit by a car. So, it doesn't make sense to say that bikes are dangerous. It's the cars that are dangerous to cyclists. And the reason it's worse than pedestrians is because proportionally less of the time that pedestrians are out walking are they in conflict-zone with cars. It remains the case that cars are dangerous. It's not walking that's dangerous. Walking in car traffic is dangerous. On a side note, I think collisions between bikes and collisions with a bike and a pedestrian are less often fatal than collisions with cars. If I were to get hit by someone running a red light while I'm walking across the street, I'd prefer to get hit by a cyclist than by an SUV.

Bikes are not that dangerous, they are less dangerous than cars. So, yes, the danger is infrastructure that puts bikes next to cars instead of giving bikes their own space.

topkai22 5y ago

A cursory look at the data says that bikes are more dangerous than cars in the current environment. The US Bureau of Transportation Statistics says that in 2017 806/37473 fatalities were cyclists, or 2.2%, but the NHTSA data indicates that only 1% trips are by bicycle. That is a worse percentage than pedestrians (16.2 % of fatalities but 10.5% of trips) but substantially better than motorcycles (13.9% of fatalities but only 0.2% of trips!) I think you are trying to say these statistics would change if we created an entirely separate set of infrastructure for cyclists, but that is not the world we live in currently and can't be realized quickly in any sane and humane scenario. Ed- I'm a big electric bike fan, but we have to work within the world we live in, not the world we'd like to see. Right now using a bike or an e-bike for most tasks is more dangerous to the user than using an automobile. Doesn't mean we shouldn't use them or encourage them (after all they in the same ballpark as walking), but there is a lot of work to do to make them "safer" than cars. BTW- I don't think this was always the case- there were 5x as many fatalities per mile traveled in automobile in the 1960s then there are today, primarily due to the addition of vehicle safety features. I wonder what sort of active and passive safety features could be incorporated into cycles now? (1) https://www.bts.gov/content/transportation-fatalities-mode https://www.bts.gov/content/transportation-fatalities-mode (2) https://nhts.ornl.gov/person-trips https://nhts.ornl.gov/person-trips

quadrangle 5y ago
Yeah, but the point is: It's not bikes that are dangerous, it's the biking situation with bikes mixed with cars. Of that fatality number for cyclists, how much of that is because of cars? I suspect near 100%. Almost every cycling fatality I've ever heard of is because of a cyclist hit by a car. So, it doesn't make sense to say that bikes are dangerous. It's the cars that are dangerous to cyclists. And the reason it's worse than pedestrians is because proportionally less of the time that pedestrians are out walking are they in conflict-zone with cars. It remains the case that cars are dangerous. It's not walking that's dangerous. Walking in car traffic is dangerous. On a side note, I think collisions between bikes and collisions with a bike and a pedestrian are less often fatal than collisions with cars. If I were to get hit by someone running a red light while I'm walking across the street, I'd prefer to get hit by a cyclist than by an SUV.