In article said:"scott" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de
news:QPO0b.23723$at3.19982@edtnps84...
Quoted message 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 haven't read that specific piece of sh** (i.e. Bicycling) but have seen numbers similar to that.
However, these numbers typically lump in the same bag responsable cyclists, wrong-way cyclists,
sidewalk cyclists and other road users on bike, yet car drivers who would have a similar behaviour
would generally be ticketed. These numbers also include mountain trail riders and BMX riders who
typically have more chance for mishaps (especially when accounted per mile) than on-road cyclists.
Yeah, but the numbers for motorists include the drunkards, the novices, the irresponsible, etc. as
well. Just as you can reduce the danger to yourself by riding on the road, in the right direction,
and obeying the rules of the road, so too can motorists get out of the "danger zone" by, mainly, not
being drunk, not driving at irresponsible speeds, and maintaining following distances.
BMX and MTB riders are nonexistent in accident figures, because these figures are generally taken
from MVA reports. Even if you run into another rider head-on on your favourite dirt trail, chances
are neither of you will file an accident report; at worst you'll both need medical attention, and
will end up in the hospital's files as a pair of injuries due to outdoor recreation.
Quoted message said:johnforester.comjohnforester.comOpen ↗ and kenkifer.comkenkifer.comOpen ↗ have good explanations on the problem.
I didn't really find that, but this report seems to give some good numbers on bike accidents
and danger:
bikexprt.comhelsinki.htmOpen ↗
Quoted message said:Just for comparison, what would be your chance of fatality if you were *driving* your car while
drunk, asleep, talking on the phone, shaving your face and eating at the same time? It seems that
quite a few cyclists have equivalently-irresponsable behaviours.
Except that quite a few motorists also drive while drunk, asleep, talking on the phone, shaving,
eating, or in one memorable case I observed, practicing the trumpet.
Absent figures on the relative numbers of "bad" drivers and "bad" cyclists, we really can't say how
safe the "good" cyclists are, and whether the "good" drivers are still safer. My hunch is that car
driving is basically safer per km traveled by any measure. It may be safer than driving per hour of
exposure, but when you're talking about bicycles and cars as means of transportation rather than
recreation, you usually care about getting to destinations that stay a fixed distance from you,
regardless of how long it takes to get there.
The report I cited above does indicate you can dramatically reduce your risk exposure by being a
"vehicular" cyclist rather than using sidewalks and the dreaded separated bike paths.
Returning to the original poster's question, is cycling dangerous? Well, life is dangerous. Cycling
fatalities are rare: most bike commuters die in bed at a very old age of something like dementia or
cancer, since regular riding is a great way to banish the spectre of heart disease. I am the king of
risk-reward analyses, since I used to ride a motorcycle, and while there is much that a safe
motorcyclist can do to separate themselves from the dangers that plague most motorcyclists, it is
still about the most hazardous vehicular activity around, far more so than cycling or walking.
Think about it this way: you'll see terrific injuries in soccer, old-boy rugby clubs probably
average about 15 chronic back injuries per team, and people die climbing mountains, swimming, and
even training for football all the time. At some point avoiding the hazards of life gets you stuck
inside watching TV and working out on a LifeCycle, because all outdoor activities are hazardous, and
only venturing into the bathroom and kitchen in the rarest of circumstances, since that's where most
in-home accidents happen. And oh yeah, take public transit everywhere because it's safer than
driving yourself.
But at some point here, I suspect my vision of a safety-obsessed agoraphobe has repulsed you by the
very deadness of its lifestyle. The trick is to be aware of the risks you take in life, be aware of
sensible steps you can take to mitigate those risks, and then take the risk anyways because you want
to enjoy your life. Let your wife ride the bike. If you're really concerned, get a tandem so you can
ride happily together and die in each other's arms. Did I just say that?
Got badly scratched up picking blackberries this week,
--
Ryan Cousineau, [email hidden] sfu.ca~rcousineOpen ↗ President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club
