For the second year in a row, bicycle fatalities were up in 2016, as reported by NHTSA.
Bicyclist deaths (840 fatalities – the highest number since 1991) increased by 1.3 percent.
I'm not sure how they're getting a 1.3% increase when it went from 818 to 840, unless the 2015 numbers were revised upward. That happens. For example the 2014 numbers have increased by 3. A 1-2% increase is not good, but it's not surprising since all road deaths were up 5.6%. And it can't be blamed entirely on more driving because VMT was only up 2.2% so it appears our roads are just getting less safe. Pedestrian deaths were up a whopping 9%. That's crisis level.
Also, I'll point out that in this year's reporting, people on bikes were not called "pedalcyclists" but rather "bicyclists."
The total number of fatalities was 840 which makes for another bad year count-wise. It's important to note that this is not a measure of all cyclist deaths, just those that include a motor vehicle and which are reported by the police to FARS. This under counts total fatalities by about 30% according to my estimate, meaning the real total is probably closer to 1192.
Unlike in previous years (don't mention the administration...don't mention the administration...) the "Injury estimates are not yet available for 2016", thus no injury estimates were in the publication.
While fatalities have been increasing somewhat steadily for the last few years, so has the number of people biking. Unfortunately, for the last couple of years the rate of fatalities have been climbing faster than the rate of bike commuters - indicating that despite all our efforts, biking has been getting a little less safe. And it cant even be blamed on distracted driving since those fatalities are down (as are drosy-driving fatalities)
Fatalities from "distracted driving" may be down, but I really doubt that fatalities from distracted driving are down. It's just a matter of how you can measure it and how things get reported. Anecdotal I know, but almost every time some driver behaves erratically and I pass them, I look down into their car and they're fiddling with their phones or GPS. But the cop writing the report after the fact wasn't there to see the driver fiddling with the radio knob or whatever.
Then factor in that some areas have all but given up on speed enforcement. There was a 2015 New Yorker article that pointed out, among other things, that when Oregon lost tax funding such that they had to reduce enforcement, traffic fatalities went up. From that article:
“We find that Oregon would have experienced 2,302 fewer fatalities from 1979-2005 if the number of state police had been maintained at their 1979 levels...”
How Do We Build a Safer Car:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/05/04/the-engineers-lament?mbid=nl_042915_Daily&CNDID=29476325&mbid=nl_042915_Daily&CNDID=29476325&spMailingID=7703365&spUserID=NTg4MDc4NDUxOTcS1&spJobID=662847043&spReportId=NjYyODQ3MDQzS0
It also seems to be that as cars get safer for their occupants, there is less incentive for those occupants to behave safely. Nothing will make you drive safely like fear.
Posted by: DE | January 26, 2018 at 09:38 AM
If I'm no longer a "pedalcyclist", does that mean I can stop waxing my mustache?
Posted by: Crickey | January 26, 2018 at 10:27 AM
No way man. Crickey's gotta crike.
Posted by: DE | January 26, 2018 at 10:45 AM
The habit of, "multitasking" and other long-term cognitive influences of our little e-toys, take a toll on the ability to do any one thing well, even in the absence of real-time distraction. I am quite prepared to believe that people are getting less attentive in general. Remember, also, that the population is aging. Not a good combination.
It's that and all those illegal aliens.
Posted by: Smedley Burkhart | January 26, 2018 at 02:30 PM
DE is correct in his comment above. There's no way you're going to tell me that accidents from distracted driving are down. I rode 6500 miles last year, you see it time and time again. Not to mention, car manufacturers are now putting as big of a screen as they can possibly fit built into the car and the dashboard, it's like adding a full computer to the car. Next thing you know they're going to be putting video games on those things. It's simply out of control.
Posted by: Accidental FIRE | January 27, 2018 at 06:12 AM
So does a 0.1% fatality rate mean that you have a 1/1000 chance of dying in any given year? Or 1/10 if you cycle for 100 years? I know the denominator only includes commuters, but would appreciate if you could write some more about this, because it looks about 10x more deadly than driving (330 million US residents who mostly drive vs 30,000 annual deaths).
My past understanding was that (per-mile) fatality rates were comparable between driving and biking, so what am I missing? www.thewashcycle.com/2017/06/citibikes-first-fatality-how-safe-is-bikesharing.html
Posted by: xmal | February 01, 2018 at 10:17 AM
That's correct, but it's not a fair comparison because it only looks at commuters. I mean a lot of those deaths are kids or recreational cyclists.
You'll need to figure out what percentage of exposure for all cyclists is that of commuters.
Posted by: washycle | February 01, 2018 at 10:28 AM
Thanks---I wish Strava could tell us.
Posted by: xmal | February 01, 2018 at 02:25 PM
"That's correct, but it's not a fair comparison because it only looks at commuters. I mean a lot of those deaths are kids or recreational cyclists."
because of this you can't really use this number to estimate the safety of biking. Its really only useful to provide a (sort of) normalized indication of the trend. Even then its not perfect, as we don't know if the trend would be different if non-commute cycling were included (but its still better than the non normalized number of fatalities)
Posted by: ACyclistInThePortCIty | February 01, 2018 at 02:30 PM
Right. I'm only trying to define a trend, and even that is flawed.
Posted by: washcycle | February 01, 2018 at 02:33 PM
I wish FARS had a datapoint that defined what kind of bike trip the cyclist was on. To work, from work, other transportation, recreation, racing, stealing from people in Georgetown, etc..
Posted by: washcycle | February 01, 2018 at 02:35 PM
. .. .scofflawing . . .
Posted by: Crickey | February 01, 2018 at 03:02 PM
"scofflawing" as a trip purpose. Hmmm. Wouldn't that be a form of recreation? "I got the KOM for most red lights blown in 30 minutes!" "Yah well, its easy on the crabon bike"
Posted by: ACyclistInThePortCIty | February 01, 2018 at 03:49 PM