5 ms·
> They’re significantly more likely to injure you than a car Are there reputable statistics that attest to this? I agree that your odds as the cyclist in a bic
by giaour 4y ago
> They’re significantly more likely to injure you than a car
Are there reputable statistics that attest to this? I agree that your odds as the cyclist in a bicycle v auto accident aren't good, but driving is (statistically speaking) a pretty dangerous activity in its own right.
> They offer no protection from the elements. You have to wear a helmet and mess up your hair.
FWIW, this is also true of motorcycles, which aren't exactly a rarity in much of the rural US.
- jamilton 4y agoCycling is more dangerous per mile traveled than cars [1]: "So we’ll compare risk at both the 6.2 billion and 21 billion miles traveled levels. 784 cyclists died in 2005 (p. 86). That would make the death rate of 0.37 to 1.26 deaths per 10 million miles. 33,041 motorists/passengers died (p. 86) from 3 trillion miles traveled (p. 15), making their death rate 0.11 per 10 million miles traveled. So cyclists are either 3.4x or 11.5x as likely to die as motorists, per passenger mile. Neither conclusion is very happy." Motorcycles are about 30x more dangerous per mile than cars, for reference. I've seen it said that walking somewhere is also more dangerous per mile than driving, but I can't find a source for that. The page links to a source which suggests cycling is much (6x) safer per hour than driving, which intuitively seems like a more reasonable measure of safety to me, but I'm unsure. 1:https://bicycleuniverse.com/bicycle-safety-almanac/ https://bicycleuniverse.com/bicycle-safety-almanac/
- goosedragons 4y agoHow many of those deaths involve a car though?
- yunwal 4y agoI would also love to see the comparison when you account for secondary health effects like obesity and pollution
- frosted-flakes 3y agoBasically all of them, I predict. Cycling in and of itself is extremely safe. It's only when you force cyclists onto busy city streets in the same space as fast-moving cars that cycling becomes dangerous. Put another way, cars kill people. Bicycles do not.
- AndyKluger 4y agoYeah I think comparing on a per mile basis is really skewy due to the typical usage patterns.
- adgjlsfhk1 4y agoThe better comparison is probably significant injury per city mile. Accidents on highways are way less common (both per mile and per hour) than city since there are way fewer points of interaction on highways (although occupant deaths are more likely on highways since speed is higher). Unfortunately, I'm not finding good breakdowns for car crashes based on road type.
- mattmaroon 4y agoPeople who have motorcycles in most locales don’t rely on them as their only form of transportation and typically have a car also. Which is exactly what I think would happen with bikes unless this infrastructure includes climate controlled structures.
- giaour 3y agoYou're right, but I don't see that as a point in the negative column for bikes. If people can use a bike for trips that would have previously required a car, that's a positive development, even if the bike isn't able to replace every trip made by car. I try to use my e-bike whenever possible, but it's seasonal and dependent on destination and cargo (e.g., taking my cat to the vet when it's snowing? car! going to the gym or on a small grocery run in the spring? bike!). If I only had to use a car rarely, I might consider giving it up and renting as needed (like how I rent a uhaul van or pickup from Home Depot then ~1-2 times a year I need to haul a lot of cargo), but I'm a long way from that goal.