accident statistics: car vs motorcycle vs bicycle per mile travelled?
runcyc...@yahoo.com
per mile traveled. Has anyone come across a reliable statistics on
this?
I was considering to sell my car and to buy a motorcycle to save on
gas on longer trips. Then I came across a statistics saying that a
motorcyclist is 15 (or smth like that) times more likely to get killed
than a car driver, per mile traveled. So I figured the gas is not
worth it. But then I figured, perhaps me riding my bicycle to work
could be statistically even more dangerous (not that I care).
Tom Keats
"runcyc...@yahoo.com" <runcyc...@yahoo.com> writes:
> I am wondering if riding a bicycle is safer than riding a motorcycle,
> per mile traveled. Has anyone come across a reliable statistics on
> this?
If ya want stats, just do some considered & thought-out
Google'ing for a start.
World Health Organization has an whole bunch of interesting
stats.
I've found that when I do my own leg-work in terms of
research, I come away with a /purer/ sense of accomplishment.
That said, I'm not above asking direction from experts in
the respective field.
That said that said, I've found it's best to be able to show
those experts that I've already attempted some leg-work on
my own, but would still gratefully appreciate clarification
and further information.
I'm just trying to gently, politely and tactfully suggest
that truly analytical & investigative people do not initially
rely upon the kindness of strangers for answers.
Please bear with me. Y'see, you're asking a loaded question,
a question that when pursued leads to a quest. I just luvs
a good quest.
I also usually (although, honestly, not always) know when
not to kibbitz.
Yer on yer own. Enjoy it. Embrace it.
Maybe for starters, Google on World Health Organization (WHO).
Heck, just throw pertinent keywords at Google and see whatever
it coughs-up.
And please don't forget about hardcopy at your local library.
cheers,
Tom
--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
peter
Unfortunately good statistics on bicycle usage are rather hard to
find. Although getting a bit dated, the discussion at:
http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/health/risks.htm
is still a good summary. In general most studies seem to indicate
that cycling is a bit more dangerous than car driving *per mile* and a
bit less dangerous when figured *per hour*. Motorcycling is far more
dangerous by either measure. [One confounding factor is that the
people who take up motorcycling are more likely to be risk-takers and
might have a higher rate of accidents than average in other vehicles
as well.]
Frank Krygowski
wrote:
I've got some data on file. I can dig for more, I suppose, but I'm in
the middle of a big, time-consuming welding project.
The first thing I found was in a discussion paper from the Australian
Transportation Safety Board, titled "Cross Modal Safety
Comparisons." (Australia seems to generate more data than America,
for whatever reason - but the societies aren't extremely different.)
Here are the numbers for motorcyclists, bicyclists, car occupants, and
pedestrians:
Fatalities per billion km: MC = 25.38 / B = 4.24 / C=
1.05 / P = 16.12
Fatalities per million passenger hours: MC = 8.84 / B= 0.42 / C =
0.37 / P= 0.68
Some points to consider:
A friend of mine who's a noted expert on transportation safety
statistics has pointed out to me that motorcycle data is heavily
influenced by beginning motorcyclists. IOW, if you survive your first
two years, you're going to be much safer than the grand average for
motorcyclists. Young men on crotch rockets are among those who
elevate the statistics.
Car and motorcycle data benefits from the fact that much car travel is
on hyper-safe limited access roads. (I once computed that bicycling
in America was no more dangerous per mile than riding in cars driven
on country roads.) If your commute drive is on city streets, your car
or motorcycle numbers are worse.
Both of those points illustrate that average data may or may not
precisely reflect your personal situation. But it's usually futile to
try to find data that does. You simply have to exercise some
judgment.
Also, don't fall into the trap of thinking "Wow! Travel mode A is
four times as dangerous as B! I'll never travel my mode A again!"
It's entirely possible for one mode to be much more dangerous than
another, but for both modes to be safe enough. (Analogy: Washing
steak knives is more dangerous than washing plastic cups; but nobody
throws away all their steak knives just because of that!)
Finally: Look at those bicycling numbers again. Compare with the
pedestrian numbers. And think how huge a million hours, and a billion
km, are.
Bicycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is.
- Frank Krygowski
landotter
It depends. Check the down tube for a decal that says, "ACME Novelty
Exploding Bicycle". If the bike has this decal, yes--you've gotten
yourself into a pickle.
Peter H
wrote:
I wouldn't put a lot of faith in the stats that you find. I suggest
that the risks associated with bike riding are directly related to
where and when you ride.
I would not consider riding on the road during rush hour where I
live... in fact I ride on the roads here as little as possible. Most
of my riding is done on trails, where the thought of personal injury
never even enters my mind. I realize that not everyone is fortunate
enough to have a good trail system nearby for their pleasure, but am
thankful that I do.
I have noticed that when I do ride on the roads some vehicles take
great care to ensure that they do not move one inch to the left of the
middle of their lane, whether there's room there or not. There's
something about having a 1 1/2 ton machine drive by you 18" from your
left elbow that gives me the heebeegeebees.
Peter H
Zen Cohen
"Peter H" <hane...@rogers.com> wrote in message
I wouldn't put a lot of faith in the stats that you find. I suggest
that the risks associated with bike riding are directly related to
where and when you ride.
I would not consider riding on the road during rush hour where I
live...
----
I imagine it's much more dangerous riding on busy streets. This is where I
usually ride and despite bike lanes on most roads I travel, I've had many
close calls that could easily have resulted in serious injury/death, the
most recent where a speeding car didn't see me, suddenly braked and veered
at the last second, clipping my rear wheel. I've gotten pretty fed up with
it and just ride less now.
Frank Krygowski
>
> I imagine it's much more dangerous riding on busy streets. This is where I
> usually ride and despite bike lanes on most roads I travel, I've had many
> close calls that could easily have resulted in serious injury/death, the
> most recent where a speeding car didn't see me, suddenly braked and veered
> at the last second, clipping my rear wheel. I've gotten pretty fed up with
> it and just ride less now.
It sounds like you just described a "right hook," and right hooks by
motorists are just one of the common car-bike crash types that are
made worse by bike lanes.
When you're approaching a place where a motorist behind you is likely
to turn right, it's better to be further out in the roadway. That way
they're much less likely to right hook you.
- Frank Krygowski
r15...@aol.com
> It sounds like you just described a "right hook,"
Read it again.
Frank Krygowski
I read it again. It still sounds like a right hook to me.
Zen Cohen might want to explain the situation a little more clearly.
Which way did the car "veer" and why? I was envisioning a quick right
turn in front of the cyclist.
- Frank Krygowski
Kristian M Zoerhoff
I saw it as a straight-up rear-end collision, averted only at the last
second.
--
Kristian Zoerhoff
kristian...@gmail.com
Zen Cohen
"Kristian M Zoerhoff" <kristian...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:slrng4ogg1.b6c.k...@faeroes.freeshell.org...
I wasn't very clear but that's pretty much it. I've also been the recipient
of a right hook, though. Another reason that riding on the street has not
been much fun these days.
DennisTheBald
> On Jun 6, 10:20 pm, "runcyclexc...@yahoo.com"
>
> Unfortunately good statistics on bicycle usage are rather hard to
> find. Although getting a bit dated, the discussion at:http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/health/risks.htm
> is still a good summary. In general most studies seem to indicate
> that cycling is a bit more dangerous than car driving *per mile* and a
> bit less dangerous when figured *per hour*. Motorcycling is far more
> dangerous by either measure. [One confounding factor is that the
> people who take up motorcycling are more likely to be risk-takers and
> might have a higher rate of accidents than average in other vehicles
> as well.]
I suspect that the per hour statistic is more meaningful than the per
mile version. When you are planning routes for a bicycle rather than
a car you tend to try harder to shorten your route. Motorists tend to
go out miles and miles out of route to drive faster, even with $4 a
gallon gasoline. On the other hand I've changed jobs to make make my
commute (by bike) shorter as I've gotten older and fatter.
DennisTheBald
Gee, my experience has been just the opposite... I have only been
injured while bicycling off the road, I have never gone endo on my
daily commute.
Bill
Ummm, Dennis,
I can lose about a pound a day when I go out on long rides and limit my
food intake, and I am a few months from turning 60. Just avoid the junk
food places like Mcyou-know-who and you should be OK.
Off topic again.
Bye.
Bill Baka
DennisTheBald
> Bicycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is.
>
> - Frank Krygowski
Roger that!
There is nothing dangerous about bicycles, well unless you derive a
significant amount of your income from the manufacture and or sale of
motor vehicles, motor fuel, or the advertising revenue from those
industries. But that aside, it's a logic fallacy anyway, Bikes just
aren't dangerous. But don't expect the media that lives on advertising
to spread that word.
Cars on the other hand are plenty dangerous. They're dangerous to the
people driving & riding in them, to the people living or working near
where they are driven, to the people that manufacture them, they're
just plain dangerous. But don't expect the media that lives on
advertising to spread that word either.
I'm not certain about your religion, and I'm not gonna ask. But mine
teaches that the Good Lord looks after each and every one of us, not a
sparrow falls from the sky without His knowing. And that there is no
fear in dying, we're all gonna do it sooner or later. My religion
also teaches that it's wrong to kill, unequivocally. I'm not all that
pious and I'm willing to make some exceptions; I'm willing to pack
heat in case one of those exceptional situations arises. But I'm not
willing to kill somebody with a car just because I don't want to get
sweaty on my way to work, or because I'm just in a big hurry, or
because I'm scared. If I were to succumb to the fear that some nimrod
in a hotrod might run me down and kill me and join the ranks of the
motoring behind that fear I would not be making the world any safer,
but more dangerous.
DennisTheBald
> Ummm, Dennis,
> I can lose about a pound a day when I go out on long rides and limit my
> food intake, and I am a few months from turning 60. Just avoid the junk
> food places like Mcyou-know-who and you should be OK.
> Off topic again.
> Bye.
> Bill Baka
A pound a day? That sounds like you're measuring your fluid loss,
either that or you must have been really fat. Me, I've been cycling
for years and I still keep getting older and heavier in spite of it.
I might want to do something about the older, but I'm not too
concerned about the heavier. I would like to be as fast as I was when
I was 40 again. I'd like to see as clearly as I did when I was 40
again for that matter, but I'm not willing to give up seeing my
children grown to go back to it. And I'm not willing to go on
'training rides' to recoup my former speed.
My point is that people that do their business by bike tend to be more
considerate of distances than people who do theirs by motor, but we
all live on the same 24 hour clock. So we are all constrained to
limit the amount of time we spend with the various activities... I
know people that spend an hour and a half each way driving back and
forth to work, I used to spend that same amount of time cycling back
and forth - granted I was going a much shorter distance than Cayce was
in his car... but we both came to the same conclusion: that was too
much time to spend commuting each day. I think it's gonna make more
sense to compare hours than miles as most folks will change the
parameters of their lives to conform to the time they are allotted.
People that are dead set on driving will keep moving further and
further afield in order to continue to spend a couple hours a day in
their beloved autos and people that switch from motoring to pedaling
will start to trade closer to home when they do.
Bill
>> Ummm, Dennis,
>> I can lose about a pound a day when I go out on long rides and limit my
>> food intake, and I am a few months from turning 60. Just avoid the junk
>> food places like Mcyou-know-who and you should be OK.
>> Off topic again.
>> Bye.
>
>> Bill Baka
>
>
> A pound a day? That sounds like you're measuring your fluid loss,
> either that or you must have been really fat. Me, I've been cycling
> for years and I still keep getting older and heavier in spite of it.
> I might want to do something about the older, but I'm not too
> concerned about the heavier. I would like to be as fast as I was when
> I was 40 again. I'd like to see as clearly as I did when I was 40
> again for that matter, but I'm not willing to give up seeing my
> children grown to go back to it. And I'm not willing to go on
> 'training rides' to recoup my former speed.
I agree with you in principle, since I have one daughter, a
stepdaughter, and her 5 kids call me grandpa. I just became a great
grandpa a few days back. Older does not mean fatter. 2 years ago I got
so fanatic about cycling I got down to 140 pounds and people thought I
had cancer or was doing drugs. My wife pushed me to gain weight after
seeing me kicked back with my stomach almost touching my backbone.
I did look like a POW, but damn, I sure felt good and could run my
teenage grandkids into the ground.
The pound a day was and is real if you go out on a 9-12 hour ride/hike
as I do sometimes in the summer. I just go to bed hungry and only eat on
the bike when I am absolutely wiped and out of blood sugar.
As to the heavier part, chew on this.
You see really really old people, and you see really really fat people,
but you never ever see a really really old and really really fat person.
Does that compute?
>
> My point is that people that do their business by bike tend to be more
> considerate of distances than people who do theirs by motor, but we
> all live on the same 24 hour clock. So we are all constrained to
> limit the amount of time we spend with the various activities... I
> know people that spend an hour and a half each way driving back and
> forth to work, I used to spend that same amount of time cycling back
> and forth - granted I was going a much shorter distance than Cayce was
> in his car... but we both came to the same conclusion: that was too
> much time to spend commuting each day. I think it's gonna make more
> sense to compare hours than miles as most folks will change the
> parameters of their lives to conform to the time they are allotted.
> People that are dead set on driving will keep moving further and
> further afield in order to continue to spend a couple hours a day in
> their beloved autos and people that switch from motoring to pedaling
> will start to trade closer to home when they do.
For what it's worth I have 2 cars and haven't driven either for 2 years
now. I finally took out the batteries and put them on a float charger,
actually a lab supply that I dialed into 13.6 volts. My wife drives
everywhere in the third car. I walk/run/or ride.
Bill