Is commuting dangerous?

For the last two mornings, my toddler and I waved goodbye to his mother as she commuted a short
urban distance to work. She returned both times complaining of near misses by automobile commuters.
The most dangerous section is ironically on a street that is part of a bike route.

P 37 of Bicycling magazine (Sept 2003) wrote on the cyclist death rate in the US: "When rates are
calculated based on distance traveled, that's 36 times greater than the automobile fatality rate and
11 times more dangerous than walking."

36 times is a lot. She is quite keen on cycling and asked for a "one less car" sticker after seeing
it on another bike, but I don't want to attend her funeral for a very long time.

I have been struck once (ambulance evac) and had many near misses on my own short bike commute and
have vastly more experience on a bike than her. The Volkswagen dealership is looking tempting
right now.

"scott" <s_____marsh@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:QPO0b.23723$at3.19982@edtnps84...
> For the last two mornings, my toddler and I waved goodbye to his mother as she commuted a short
> urban distance to work. She returned both times complaining of near misses by automobile
> commuters. The most dangerous section is ironically on a street that is part of a bike route.
>
> P 37 of Bicycling magazine (Sept 2003) wrote on the cyclist death rate in the US: "When rates are
> calculated based on distance traveled, that's 36 times greater than the automobile fatality rate
> and 11 times more dangerous than walking."
>
> 36 times is a lot. She is quite keen on cycling and asked for a "one less car" sticker after
> seeing it on another bike, but I don't want to attend her funeral for a very long time.
>
> I have been struck once (ambulance evac) and had many near misses on my own short bike commute and
> have vastly more experience on a bike than her. The Volkswagen dealership is looking tempting
> right now.
>
>
Is getting into and out of the bathtub dangerous?

Everything that you do in this life is dangerous. Granted, riding in traffic with cars is a little
more hazardous to your health than getting out of bed, but chances are, your significant other will
be fine. A little defensive (offensive?) riding will do wonders for her safety.

Define near misses. For me, it means that someone almost tagged my elbow with their mirrors (came
w/in inches). For others, it means that someone got within their personal "space." See above about
defensive riding. When I'm riding in traffic, I usually take space that the car's right tires drive
in. That way, they either see me and hit me, or see me and miss me. If they hit me, I own their
ass. If they miss me, well that's obviously better.

Just as a note, my favorite "riding in traffic" jersey/jacket color is that nifty fluorescent
yellow... aka "don't hit me yellow. Pearl Izumi was (is?) making a bright orange jersey that stands
out very well too.

The wife is either going to adapt to her new environment or quit riding to work. Either way,
she'll be OK.

Mike

In article <QPO0b.23723$at3.19982@edtnps84>, scott <s_____marsh@hotmail.com> wrote:
>For the last two mornings, my toddler and I waved goodbye to his mother as she commuted a short
>urban distance to work. She returned both times complaining of near misses by automobile commuters.
>The most dangerous section is ironically on a street that is part of a bike route.

She should immediately sign up for an Effective Cycling course (at least, that's what they used to
call it -- it may be called "BikeEd" now). This course is offered nation-wide through the League of
American Bicyclists and affiliated local bike clubs. You can hopefully find someone near you that
offers the course. See: http://www.bikeleague.org/educenter/courses.htm

>P 37 of Bicycling magazine (Sept 2003) wrote on the cyclist death rate in the US: "When rates are
>calculated based on distance traveled, that's 36 times greater than the automobile fatality rate
>and 11 times more dangerous than walking."

There are a number of statistics that show that rider safety is enormously impacted by rider skill.
Most of the people in the statistics are kids and otherwise immature riders. This doesn't have to
include you or your wife.

>36 times is a lot. She is quite keen on cycling and asked for a "one less car" sticker after seeing
>it on another bike, but I don't want to attend her funeral for a very long time.
>
>I have been struck once (ambulance evac) and had many near misses on my own short bike commute and
>have vastly more experience on a bike than her. The Volkswagen dealership is looking tempting
>right now.

Roads can be dangerous places. But you can vastly improve your odds by improving your skills.

-frank
--

"scott" <s_____marsh@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:QPO0b.23723$at3.19982@edtnps84...
> For the last two mornings, my toddler and I waved goodbye to his mother as she commuted a short
> urban distance to work. She returned both times complaining of near misses by automobile
> commuters. The most dangerous section is ironically on a street that is part of a bike route.
>
> P 37 of Bicycling magazine (Sept 2003) wrote on the cyclist death rate in the US: "When rates are
> calculated based on distance traveled, that's 36 times greater than the automobile fatality rate
> and 11 times more dangerous than walking."

Personally, I find that hard to believe. There are many cyclists that don't consider Bicycling
magazine to be a credible source for anything but consumerism. Personally I wouldn't trust
statistics in general let alone those that Bicycling magazine chose to report on. There are many
different studies with differing statistics. If you care about statistics then there are some out
there that show bicycling to be about the same danger as driving. Maybe try a google search.

>
> 36 times is a lot. She is quite keen on cycling and asked for a "one less car" sticker after
> seeing it on another bike, but I don't want to attend her funeral for a very long time.
>
> I have been struck once (ambulance evac) and had many near misses on my own short bike commute and
> have vastly more experience on a bike than her. The Volkswagen dealership is looking tempting
> right now.

Hello All -

You can find John Forester's (Mr. Effective Cycling) statistics regarding the effect of cyclist type
(that is, experience) on accident rate at http://www2.loraincounty.com/silverwheels/Biketalk.html .
Look for Table 1, which is about 30% of the way down that page.

These numbers may motivate a cyclist to take a BikeEd course.

Scott can use these statistics in an attempt to answer the question that is the subject line for
this discussion.

Regards, Ralph

Yes commuting is dangerous, whether it is done by bike, car, or foot.

when deaths per millions of hours are considered, cycling is about half as likely to kill you as
driving. But then, cyclists visit the ER about 500 times as often as they are killed in accidents,
and the typical rider is injured many times for every time they visit the ER. Fewer than 1,000
people die in bike accidents each year in the US.

Effective Cycling is a good starting point for beginners, I suppose, although it propogates the
attitude that if we just ride according to the vehicle laws, then everything will turn out ok, and
that's not true either. Cyclists should take more responsibility for themselves, rather than leaving
their safety in the hands of others.

Your wife will survive, but if she wants to avoid the typical beginners' injuries she needs to keep
her head up, her eyes forward, not daydream too much in traffic, get some skills, and avoid assuming
that she is visible to drivers in turning and crossing vehicles.

Commuting by bike brings mental and physical health benefits that far outweigh the dangers.

Robert

"Mike S." <mikeshaw2@coxDOTnet> wrote in message news:<vmP0b.9178$cj1.4361@fed1read06>...
> "scott" <s_____marsh@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:QPO0b.23723$at3.19982@edtnps84...
...
> > P 37 of Bicycling magazine (Sept 2003) wrote on the cyclist death rate in the US: "When rates
> > are calculated based on distance traveled, that's 36 times greater than the automobile fatality
> > rate and 11 times more dangerous than walking."
> >
> > 36 times is a lot. She is quite keen on cycling and asked for a "one less car" sticker after
> > seeing it on another bike, but I don't want to attend her funeral for a very long time.
> >
...
> Is getting into and out of the bathtub dangerous?
>
> Everything that you do in this life is dangerous. Granted, riding in traffic with cars is a little
> more hazardous to your health than getting out of bed, but chances are, your significant other
> will be fine. A little defensive (offensive?) riding will do wonders for her safety. ... Mike

There is a substantial difference in the crash frequency of casual bicyclists and those that have
been instructed in proper riding in traffic. In the US, the League of American Bicyclists has an
Effective Cycling (now called BikeEd) program that is designed to teach bicyclists appropriate
vehicular cycling techniques which will reduce the likelihood of being involved in a crash
substantially. See http://www.bikeleague.org/educenter/education.htm for an overview of courses and
to see if there is an instructor in your area.

For one view on bicycling safety see http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/health/risks.htm

On the flip side of dangers of cycling, there is a danger in not cycling-that being that you will
lose one terrific way to stay fit and active and avoid some of the problems so many sedentary
Americans suffer.

Bill Putnam, riding nearly every day year round in Wisconsin since 1979.

.
>
> Roads can be dangerous places. But you can vastly improve your odds by improving your skills.
>
> -frank
> --

I agree somewhat. I didn't feel competent until I hit the 15,000 mile mark. Basically you have
to become a car, but you must be able to have the strength and endurance to make the right moves
at the right time. I don't know how a bike ed course would help, but if you know how to drive a
car correctly, that's half the battle. But you do have to be agressive, if you are too timid,
you shouldn't commute on a bike. Of the commuters I have seen, about half I would say have a
death wish. No helmets, they ride too slow, or ride against traffic. There is no doubt that some
kamakazi driver can take you out, but that can happen while you're driving a car also. It helps
if you commute in an area where other cyclists ride often. If you're the only one, then that
would be a red flag for me.

scott <s_____marsh@hotmail.com> writes:

>P 37 of Bicycling magazine (Sept 2003) wrote on the cyclist death rate in the US: "When rates are
>calculated based on distance traveled, that's 36 times greater than the automobile fatality rate
>and 11 times more dangerous than walking."

Long, Long ago I read that proper helmet use reduces the death rate per accident of cyclists by 90%.
About the same time, i read that cycling may be dangerous on a per-mile basis, but I supposedly it
was the least fatal form of transportation on a per-hour basis.

When you consider that riding in a car probably implicitly shortens your life (lost opportunity
to exercise), and cycling does not contribute to air pollution which kills us all, on balance
cycling might stack up much better against automotive transportation than the shallow
one-dimensional studies.

- Don Gillies San Diego, CA

RE/
>P 37 of Bicycling magazine (Sept 2003) wrote on the cyclist death rate in the US: "When rates are
>calculated based on distance traveled, that's 36 times greater than the automobile fatality rate
>and 11 times more dangerous than walking."

I'm probably out on the fringe here, but I'd say it's more like "36 times greater and rising....".

I rode a *lot* of miles before cell phones came along - mostly racing city traffic to and from work
during the week and doing a 90-mile ride to the shore on Sundays. Had my share of close calls and
near-death experiences, but it was nothing, absolutely *nothing* like it is today.

Today, you don't just have people talking on cell phones - you have people simultaneously talking on
cell phones and taking notes or making entries in their PDA.

In addition, you have a growing population of people who are working 50-60 hours a week....and
trying to do some of that work behind the wheel.

I don't think things have reached any kind of equilibrium yet either...
-----------------------
PeteCresswell

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 18:09:52 GMT, scott <s_____marsh@hotmail.com> may have said:

>For the last two mornings, my toddler and I waved goodbye to his mother as she commuted a short
>urban distance to work. She returned both times complaining of near misses by automobile commuters.
>The most dangerous section is ironically on a street that is part of a bike route.
>
>P 37 of Bicycling magazine (Sept 2003) wrote on the cyclist death rate in the US: "When rates are
>calculated based on distance traveled, that's 36 times greater than the automobile fatality rate
>and 11 times more dangerous than walking."
>
>36 times is a lot. She is quite keen on cycling and asked for a "one less car" sticker after seeing
>it on another bike, but I don't want to attend her funeral for a very long time.
>
>I have been struck once (ambulance evac) and had many near misses on my own short bike commute and
>have vastly more experience on a bike than her. The Volkswagen dealership is looking tempting
>right now.

Part of making it safer is carefully choosing your routes so that you can be where the auto traffic
isn't. Where that's not possible, the danger rises considerably.

Part of the problem also is what city you're in. Local attitudes toward road courtesy vary
considerably, both from driver to driver and place to place. All it takes is one asshole at the
wrong time.

Part of it also is how the "bike routes" are chosen and designated. If they're on quiet side
streets, they tend to be less likely to get scary than if they're 4 foot wide "lanes" carved from
the right side of a major street...but at rush hour, when too many people are in too much of a
hurry, *any* street can become a hazard zone. (The virtually unused sidewalks are, in many cases,
off limits to bikes; this is governmental lunacy at its finest.)

You and your wife will have to assess the realities in your area and decide what the solution needs
to be, either bike, car, or something else. Yes, riding a bike is *statistically* more hazardous
than walking, but that's not surprising. Look at the stats for who's involved in the majority of the
incidents; males under 25. That's the same group that tends to do stupid things and take foolish
risks most often. Yes, they also account for the largest single group of riders overall, but the
stats say that they have a disproportionate representation in collisions. By using a helmet, good
riding habits, and common sense, I personally believe that in most cases, it's possible to ride with
an acceptable hazard level in most parts of the US.

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail. Yes, I have a killfile. If I
don't respond to something, it's also possible that I'm busy.

In article <QPO0b.23723$at3.19982@edtnps84>, scott <s_____marsh@hotmail.com> wrote:
>P 37 of Bicycling magazine (Sept 2003) wrote on the cyclist death rate in the US: "When rates are
>calculated based on distance traveled, that's 36 times greater than the automobile fatality rate
>and 11 times more dangerous than walking."

Many times journalists feel that they can take a statistic and re-write it to something completely
different, as long as they keep the numbers the same. County officials, trying to pass certain
mandatory safely equipment laws, will do the same thing.

This quote here looks a lot like one from "Making Walking and Cycling Safer: Lessons from Europe",
by John Pucher and Lewis Dijkstra, Transportation Quarterly vol 54 no 3.

"Pedestrian fatalities are 36 times higher than car occupant fatalities per km traveled, and
bicycling fatalities are 11 times higher than car occupant fatalities per km."

That's probably what Bicycling was trying to refer to, but they changed it around it make it
sound better.

Eleven times sounds bad too, but that figure isn't as authoritative as it sounds. The authors used
the most pessimistic statistics to estimate bicycling mileage. There are other statistics out there
that place cycling lower in risk than driving. If you take into account the health difference
between aerobic exercise and sitting in a car, they balance tips to favor cycling as the safest more
of transportation by a huge margin. If you want a more balanced and complete look at the dangers of
cycling, try this web site:

http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/health/risks.htm

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 18:09:52 GMT, scott <s_____marsh@hotmail.com> wrote:

>For the last two mornings, my toddler and I waved goodbye to his mother as she commuted a short
>urban distance to work. She returned both times complaining of near misses by automobile commuters.
>The most dangerous section is ironically on a street that is part of a bike route.
>
>P 37 of Bicycling magazine (Sept 2003) wrote on the cyclist death rate in the US: "When rates are
>calculated based on distance traveled, that's 36 times greater than the automobile fatality rate
>and 11 times more dangerous than walking."
>
>36 times is a lot. She is quite keen on cycling and asked for a "one less car" sticker after seeing
>it on another bike, but I don't want to attend her funeral for a very long time.
>
>I have been struck once (ambulance evac) and had many near misses on my own short bike commute and
>have vastly more experience on a bike than her. The Volkswagen dealership is looking tempting
>right now.

Perhaps you could be generous enough to this group, which is giving you a lot of advice, to explain
in detail the two close calls. I'm interested in some particular details:

Was your wife riding with or against traffic?

Was it a two lane road (ie one lane each way)?

Was she riding very far to the right of the road, allowing cars to pass her, or was she "taking the
lane" thus forcing cars to swerve into the opposing lane in order to pass her?

Which direction was the sun, and how high?

Thanks, Thunder9

Heh, funny I just looked at the Bike Ed page and there's NO courses in California. Figured I'd
stick my daughters through the kids 2 course.

Ralph Bean wrote:

> Hello All -
>
> You can find John Forester's (Mr. Effective Cycling) statistics regarding the effect of cyclist
> type (that is, experience) on accident rate at
> http://www2.loraincounty.com/silverwheels/Biketalk.html . Look for Table
1,
> which is about 30% of the way down that page.
>
> These numbers may motivate a cyclist to take a BikeEd course.
>
> Scott can use these statistics in an attempt to answer the question that
is
> the subject line for this discussion.
>
> Regards, Ralph

--
Mark Wolfe http://www.wolfenet.org gpg fingerprint = 42B6 EFEB 5414 AA18 01B7 64AC EF46 F7E6 82F6
8C71 What would happen if you ran up to Hitler and mentioned Usenet?
- Kibo

RE/
>Fewer than 1,000 people die in bike accidents each year in the US.

A number like that only has meaning as a percent of miles ridden.

Only 5 people die from playing Russian roulette each year in the entire world. Unfortunately, the
Russian-roulette-playing population of the world at any given time is only 30 people.

I just made that up....but you get the idea.
-----------------------
PeteCresswell