Bike Safety..you be the judge

Deaths put spin on bike stats
Heightened interest in sport raises questions about safety


08:03 AM CDT on Tuesday, August 30, 2005


By PAULA LAVIGNE / The Dallas Morning News


In the past four years, at least 22 people have died in bicycle
accidents in the Dallas metro area – including the head-on cycling
collision that recently killed an Allen man.



VERNON BRYANT/DMN
Participants in a Plano bike race passed police outlines of bicycles on
Aug. 16, two days after a cycling accident killed one man and injured
another. The accidents have garnered attention both in the news and in
cycling forums, sparking concern that such accidents are on the rise.

But a Dallas Morning News analysis of bike fatality and injury data
shows the opposite is true.

Deaths and injuries are down nationwide, and bicycle-related deaths in
Texas have held steady for more than two decades.

•In 1981, there were 961 bike fatalities nationwide. That fell to 767 in
2002. Fifty-five Texas cyclists died in 1981, compared with 57 in 2002,
with an average of 58 per year during that time period.

To put that into perspective, in both 1985 and 2002, there was one
cycling fatality for every 50,000 cyclists nationwide.

•Recently, cycling injuries nationwide have also declined, dropping by
one-third from 662,474 in 2000 to 492,900 in 2003, according to numbers
from the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.

•And few injuries – less than 4 percent – require hospitalization,
according to an analysis of about 7 million injuries from 1990 to 2002.

The accident in Plano that killed 52-year-old Michael Mahoney and
injured Jordan Muller, 37, of Richardson baffled cyclists and
noncyclists alike because it rarely happens.

Out of about 2,700 bike fatalities from 1990 to 2002 nationwide, only
about 20 were identified as collisions between two bicycles, according
to a Dallas Morning News analysis of data from the Consumer Product
Safety Commission. Most involved a motor vehicle.


Increase in interest

A greater interest in cycling could explain the assumption that
accidents are up, said Craig Raborn, program manager with the Pedestrian
and Bicycle Information Center in Chapel Hill, N.C.

An average 315,000 viewers tuned in to Outdoor Life Network's coverage
of the Tour de France to watch Texan Lance Armstrong win his
seventh-straight title, according to Nielsen Media Research.

Bike trails and bike lanes are growing in popularity nationwide, and
bicycle advocacy groups are active in state and national politics.

"When you participate in an activity, and you hear about someone killed
.... it sticks in your mind," Mr. Raborn said, adding that news of the
Plano fatality had already reached him in North Carolina.

Elizabeth Preston, spokeswoman for the League of American Bicyclists,
agreed: "Crashes are what people talk about."

"If they did a front-page story of every person who died in a car
accident and talked about the tragic ways people died ... and how the
accident could have been prevented, they would be a lot more afraid to
drive," she said.

Despite this growing awareness, there are actually fewer Americans
cycling today than there were several years ago, according to reports by
two trade associations that study outdoor recreation.

The National Sporting Goods Association estimates ridership at 40
million in 2004, down from about 51 million in 1985, according to a
survey of cycling participation. There were 2.8 million cyclists in
Texas in 2004 – the same as almost 20 years ago – even though the
state's population grew by about 41 percent over that time period.

The Outdoor Industry Association reported an almost 5 percent decrease
in cycling participants from 1998 to 2004.

Bicycle sales have also been fairly flat, said Mike Baker, spokesman for
the National Bicycle Dealers Association. About 13 million bikes were
sold in 2004.

"There is much more competition for people's attention and a lot more
opportunities for exercise," Mr. Baker said. "Everything from
PlayStation to snowboarding to computers to television is capitalizing
people's time."


'Becoming more careful'

There are several other reasons fatalities are on the decline, Mr.
Raborn and Ms. Preston said. Increased attention is likely among the
biggest.

"Cyclists are becoming more careful, and cars are becoming more aware,"
Ms. Preston said. "People are communicating more, and we believe there's
better information out there. ... [Cycling] is an inherently safe
activity as long as you're riding defensively."

Mr. Raborn said the federal government has increased its funding – from
$22.9 million in 1992 to $422.7 million in 2003 – for bicycle-friendly
highway improvements, such as making wider bike lanes and adjusting the
height of railings on bridges.

"Better facilities make it easier for more people to ride and, at the
same time, reduce the number of crashes that occur as a result of road
hazards," he said.

Helmets have become more common, he said, and more cities have passed
mandatory helmet laws. More organizations are offering bicycle safety
classes as well, he said.

One example is the Texas Bicycle Coalition in Austin, which has provided
training for about 400,000 children statewide in bike safety, said
executive director Robin Stallings.

"A recent bike industry study said that people who cycle as children are
more likely to be cyclists as adults," he said. "If they learn how to do
it properly as children, they're probably not going to forget how to do
it properly [as adults]."

E-mail

mrbubl wrote in news:gm5Re.2569$4P5.1836
@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:

Deaths put spin on bike stats
Heightened interest in sport raises questions about safety



Okay, my judgment...

The most important fact is not really stated; obliquely if at all.
Bicycles rarely kill people. This is the contrapositive of the SUV
situation -- the occupants are safe (unless it gets a blow out and rolls
over) but the family in the Ford Escort turns into a stain on the road. I
think the figure here in New York was one bicycle-caused fatality every two
years.

Also, for greater perspective, it should be noted that people in cars die
at about 10 times the rate (per driver - 10 in 50000) as people on bikes
(per cyclist - 1 in 50000) I maybe should have quoted that part in my
reply, but you're all a smart bunch and will get it.

I think biking is about my safest activity. You should see the disclaimer
on my mountain board -- may cause death or serious injury even if you
follow the instructions.

--ag

mrbubl wrote:
Deaths put spin on bike stats
Heightened interest in sport raises questions about safety


Pretty good article.

One very typical omission, though. When people write about drops in
fatalities over the years, they often mention bike helmets - which is a
laugh - but they never seem to the ever-increasing knowledge and skill
of the medical professions. (This applies to all sources of
fatalities, not just bike crashes.)

We now have improved X-rays, MRIs, and more diagnostic knowledge than
ever. We have better treatment techniques as well. I think this is
at least as important as, say, airbags in cars. I think it's more
important than bike lanes, and its _certainly_ more important than
plastic hats.

- Frank Krygowski

wrote:
mrbubl wrote:
Deaths put spin on bike stats
Heightened interest in sport raises questions about safety


Pretty good article.

One very typical omission, though. When people write about drops in
fatalities over the years, they often mention bike helmets - which is a
laugh - but they never seem to the ever-increasing knowledge and skill
of the medical professions. (This applies to all sources of
fatalities, not just bike crashes.)

We now have improved X-rays, MRIs, and more diagnostic knowledge than
ever. We have better treatment techniques as well. I think this is
at least as important as, say, airbags in cars. I think it's more
important than bike lanes, and its _certainly_ more important than
plastic hats.

MRI and CT scans reduce the fatality count and increase
the walking vegetable count. The biggest reason for the
drop in fatalities is that kids don't ride bikes as much
as they used to.

Robert

mrbubl wrote in news:gm5Re.2569$4P5.1836
@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:

Deaths put spin on bike stats
Heightened interest in sport raises questions about safety



Oh, and I forgot to mention last night --

Both Matt Drudge _and_ Al Franken called bicycle safety projects in the
transportation bill "pork."

--ag

wrote:
wrote:


One very typical omission, though. When people write about drops in
fatalities over the years, they often mention bike helmets - which is a
laugh - but they never seem to the ever-increasing knowledge and skill
of the medical professions. (This applies to all sources of
fatalities, not just bike crashes.)

We now have improved X-rays, MRIs, and more diagnostic knowledge than
ever. We have better treatment techniques as well. I think this is
at least as important as, say, airbags in cars. I think it's more
important than bike lanes, and its _certainly_ more important than
plastic hats.

MRI and CT scans reduce the fatality count and increase
the walking vegetable count.

Hmmm. Sounds doubtful to me. I'd bet that improved medical techniques
reduce all bad outcomes.

So - got data?



The biggest reason for the
drop in fatalities is that kids don't ride bikes as much
as they used to.

.... at least partly because people keep associating bicycling with
words like "walking vegetables."



- Frank Krygowski

Andy Gee writes:

Also, for greater perspective, it should be noted that people in cars
die at about 10 times the rate (per driver - 10 in 50000) as people on
bikes (per cyclist - 1 in 50000) I maybe should have quoted that part
in my reply, but you're all a smart bunch and will get it.

But we cyclists die in greater numbers per mile travelled, according to
the numbers I've seen (e.g. those the BBC published). Car drivers tend
to go much greater distances, after all.

I think biking is about my safest activity.

According to http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/comparat.html, in terms of
deaths per hour, cycling is more dangerous than flying the airlines,
hunting & travelling in a school bus (but less dangerous than driving).
The figures are over a decade old, though.

fatalities
Activity per million hrs
-------- ---------------
Skydiving 128.71
General Aviation 15.58
On-road Motorcycling 8.80
Scuba Diving 1.98
Living (all causes of death) 1.53
Swimming 1.07
Snowmobiling .88
Passenger cars .47
Water skiing .28
Bicycling .26
Flying (scheduled domestic airlines) .15
Hunting .08
Cosmic Radiation from transcontinental flights .035
Home Living (active) .027
Traveling in a School Bus .022
Passenger Car Post-collision fire .017
Home Living, active & passive (sleeping) .014
Residential Fire .003

Compiled by Failure Analysis Associates, Inc. (Design News, 10-4-93)

I think that in terms of evaluating the safety of transport, deaths per
hour or deaths per driver are not as useful as deaths per mile: one
needs to travel a certain distance, and should consider the risks.

But I think cycling wins even though it is more dangerous because it's
exercise, and thus helps prevents diabetes, obesity and other such
phenomena. Given the number of US adults who are contracting
adult-onset diabetes, and the portion which are overweight, this benefit
possibly outweighs the risk of death-while-cycling. Plus it has
intangible benefits such as letting one smell the flowers as one rides
by, and the positive psychological benefits of getting the heart
a-pumping.

--
Robert Uhl http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl
12 is an integer-perfect number. A number is integer-perfect if you can
make choices of + or - in front of all the divisors less than it and get
the number. (12=1-2+3+4+6)

Robert Uhl wrote:
Andy Gee writes:


I think biking is about my safest activity.

According to http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/comparat.html, in terms of
deaths per hour, cycling is more dangerous than flying the airlines,
hunting & travelling in a school bus (but less dangerous than driving).
The figures are over a decade old, though.

fatalities
Activity per million hrs
-------- ---------------
Skydiving 128.71
General Aviation 15.58
On-road Motorcycling 8.80
Scuba Diving 1.98
Living (all causes of death) 1.53
Swimming 1.07
Snowmobiling .88
Passenger cars .47
Water skiing .28
Bicycling .26
Flying (scheduled domestic airlines) .15
Hunting .08
Cosmic Radiation from transcontinental flights .035
Home Living (active) .027
Traveling in a School Bus .022
Passenger Car Post-collision fire .017
Home Living, active & passive (sleeping) .014
Residential Fire .003

Compiled by Failure Analysis Associates, Inc. (Design News, 10-4-93)

I think it's best to say that cycling is sufficiently safe. It's safer
than activities that people normally consider sufficiently safe - that
is, not worth worrying about.

And it's good to remember that, on average, cycling is done rather
badly. I'd say competent cycling is much safer than average cycling,
so even less deserving of worry.

I think that in terms of evaluating the safety of transport, deaths per
hour or deaths per driver are not as useful as deaths per mile: one
needs to travel a certain distance, and should consider the risks.

Well, perhaps so, perhaps not. Cars, bikes, shoes and motorcycles are
all used for "traveling a certain distance." IIRC (no references at
hand, sorry) walking has a higher per-mile fatality rate than cycling.
And much auto travel is on very safe limited access highways.
Averaging that into the auto figure probably gives undeserved
confidence to the person evaluating the risk of driving through traffic
to the mall.

But remember, there's lots of recreational cycling, walking and
motoring that are done without a "per mile" sort of objective. People
frequently go out to just see the sights or, when biking or walking, to
get a little exercise. In those cases, the activity is more
time-limited than mileage limited.

The nice thing about comparing per hour is that it allows comparing a
wide range of activities. This is useful regarding cycling, partly
because cycling can meet a wide range of needs - transportation, fun,
exercise, sport, relaxation...

But I think cycling wins even though it is more dangerous because it's
exercise, and thus helps prevents diabetes, obesity and other such
phenomena. Given the number of US adults who are contracting
adult-onset diabetes, and the portion which are overweight, this benefit
possibly outweighs the risk of death-while-cycling.

Certainly!

See http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetyS...SafetyQuiz.htm for more
data, with sources.

- Frank Krygowski

mrbubl wrote:

'Becoming more careful'

There are several other reasons fatalities are on the decline, Mr.
Raborn and Ms. Preston said. Increased attention is likely among the
biggest.

"Cyclists are becoming more careful, and cars are becoming more aware,"
Ms. Preston said.


Is it the high tech hybrid cars that are becoming more aware?
Intelligent design?

Mr. Raborn said the federal government has increased its funding – from
$22.9 million in 1992 to $422.7 million in 2003 – for bicycle-friendly
highway improvements, such as making wider bike lanes and adjusting the
height of railings on bridges.

"Better facilities make it easier for more people to ride and, at the
same time, reduce the number of crashes that occur as a result of road
hazards," he said.

Watch out! The BS meter is about to blow up!


Helmets have become more common, he said, and more cities have passed
mandatory helmet laws. More organizations are offering bicycle safety
classes as well, he said.

One example is the Texas Bicycle Coalition in Austin, which has provided
training for about 400,000 children statewide in bike safety, said
executive director Robin Stallings.

"A recent bike industry study said that people who cycle as children are
more likely to be cyclists as adults," he said. "If they learn how to do
it properly as children, they're probably not going to forget how to do
it properly [as adults]."


Explosion of the BS meter!

Wayne

Robert Uhl wrote in news:m3psruw14d.fsf@
4dv.net:

Andy Gee writes:



I think biking is about my safest activity.

According to http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/comparat.html, in terms of
deaths per hour, cycling is more dangerous than flying the airlines,
hunting & travelling in a school bus (but less dangerous than
driving).
The figures are over a decade old, though.

fatalities
Activity per million hrs
-------- ---------------
Skydiving 128.71
NO
General Aviation 15.58
SOMETIMES
On-road Motorcycling 8.80
NO
Scuba Diving 1.98
SKIN-DIVING?
Living (all causes of death) 1.53
I guess I should live on my bicycle. Anyone remember the bike-a-bago
guy?
Swimming 1.07
OCEAN, HIGH WAVES
Snowmobiling .88
NO
Passenger cars .47
SOMETIMES
Water skiing .28
CROSS COUNTRY SKIING?
Bicycling .26
YES!
Flying (scheduled domestic airlines) .15
sometimes, and sometimes charter
Hunting .08
NO

Everything below here is just a partition of existing items, except for
school buses, which I don't ride. And the list doesn't have rafting,
canoeing, hiking, spelunking, or sex. So i think it's safe to say that
biking is pretty much my safest activity outside of sitting around my
apartment.


Cosmic Radiation from transcontinental flights .035
Home Living (active) .027
Traveling in a School Bus .022
Passenger Car Post-collision fire .017
Home Living, active & passive (sleeping) .014
Residential Fire .003

Compiled by Failure Analysis Associates, Inc. (Design News, 10-4-
93)

I think that in terms of evaluating the safety of transport, deaths
per
hour or deaths per driver are not as useful as deaths per mile: one
needs to travel a certain distance, and should consider the risks.

But I think cycling wins even though it is more dangerous because it's
exercise, and thus helps prevents diabetes, obesity and other such
phenomena. Given the number of US adults who are contracting
adult-onset diabetes, and the portion which are overweight, this
benefit
possibly outweighs the risk of death-while-cycling. Plus it has
intangible benefits such as letting one smell the flowers as one rides
by, and the positive psychological benefits of getting the heart
a-pumping.