4 ms·
> Bicycles are somewhere from 3x to 11x more dangerous than cars. In the US, where there is effectively no bicycle infrastructure. In the Netherlands it seems
by f_devd 4y ago
> Bicycles are somewhere from 3x to 11x more dangerous than cars.
In the US, where there is effectively no bicycle infrastructure. In the Netherlands it seems to be about 1.18x (or 1.1x if you include trucks) [0].
[0]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/523310/netherlands-number-of-cyclist-road-fatalities/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/523310/netherlands-numbe...
- chroma 4y agoThe important metric is fatalities per distance traveled, not absolute numbers. In the Netherlands, bicycles have 11 fatalities per billion kilometers traveled. Cars have 1.6.
- locallost 4y agoBy that metric, walking is the most dangerous mode of transport. Somehow seems illogical.
- chroma 4y agoThe comparison is valid because people in this thread are saying that bikes should substitute for many car trips. If they were saying the same thing about walking then I’d make the point about waking safety. But walking can’t substitute for many car trips so it’s a non-issue. Cars have disadvantages and externalities, but they are much safer than bicycles. This is true even in the most bike-friendly countries on earth.
- f_devd 4y agoThey are a replacement for cities not for all road travel, same way trucks aren't going to be replaced by scooter, it's a different mode of transportation better suited for shorter distances. The comparison could be valid if you filter the car travel for <15km of planned route.
- pharmakom 4y agoWell let’s make cycling safer with proper infrastructure then.
- locallost 4y agoThe original argument did not involve which trips can be replaced by walking or cycling, merely that per distance driven cars are safer. This makes driving a car much safer than walking, which should give us pause and make us reconsider if it makes sense. It doesn't -- merely having and regularly using a car makes people travel greater distances. Without a car they wouldn't do it, and increased car dependance results in worse traffic safety. If the US had the same per capita death rate as the Netherlands, there would be around 12k deaths. Instead there are over 40k. The additional kicker is that most of the pedestrians and cyclists killed die after a collision with a car. As it is, roughly two million people in the world die in traffic per year, almost all of it involving cars. So much for safety.
- f_devd 4y agoI'm not sure that makes much sense as a safety metric, bicycles obviously travel less distance on average per instance used, so the 'rate of death' would not have the same scaling as distance traveled
- lacker 4y agoWell, when I'm considering biking or driving my car, the destination is fixed. I can drive 2 miles to the store or I can bike 2 miles to the store. I'm not choosing between, should I take an average bicycle trip right now, or should I take an average car trip right now. So the danger per mile does seem like the relevant metric there.
- f_devd 4y agoYou are correct in your consideration, but above 15 kilometers bicycling is not an option while using a car is, so the cars have a hugely larger average drive distance which skews the metric making it effectively useless.