« The Bicycle's 200th Birthday: The first bike ride | Main | The I-66 Trail should be awesome. Right now, it is not. »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Ballpark safety is good enough for me. Using your rough approximations, you are only 30% more likely to die on a bike than die in a car, which is still a very small number. Once you consider the reduced fatality rate in other factors of life, cycling comes out WAY WAY ahead. I like saving money and being healthy.

Sample size is getting better with time, so the numbers mean more as we go along.

"(Though I prefer the minutes of exposure metric, but that's not as easy to find)."

I assume for the reason that a car can go 70 miles in the same time that a cyclist might go 18, so comparing by miles would largely overinflate the dangers of cycling compared to time spent performing the activities. (Though since it's bikeshare being used here, the speeds would be closer to the amount of time spent in the activity--cars in the city aren't going 70, so maybe 25 mph versus 12 mph or so.)

DE, I prefer the minutes metric because I think cyclists probably spend more time exposed, but not moving (since they don't cruise down the highway for hundreds of miles), and you don't have to be moving to get hit. As I like to say, the tree across the street from my old place was hit by cars three times, but it moved 0 miles.

Another factor is that we should really be comparing driver fatality rates - since I suspect that that is different than driver&passenger rates and since the choice is more like to be bike or drive, not bike or ride.

Also note that the bikesharing data is exclusively drawn from urban areas. Is the driving fatality rate a national statistic?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Banner design by creativecouchdesigns.com

City Paper's Best Local Bike Blog 2009


 Subscribe in a reader