Strength In Numbers
By Mitch Berg
“Conventional Wisdom” among anti-bicycling conservatives is that as the number of bikers rises (as it has been steadily for some time, which accelerates as gas prices rise), the carnage on the road rises with it.
Not, apparently, so, according to Quimby:
…as bicycle ridership has increased in New York City, the absolute number of bike injuries and fatalities has dropped.
That means the rate of accidents has dropped from roughly 4,000 annual casualties per 80,000 daily riders to well under 3,000 per 160,000 riders — about a three-fold improvement.
Which I’d suspected would happen, but this is the first empirical evidence I’ve seen. It’d be even more interesting to break that into accidents per rider mile – since I’d suspect as the number of bikers doubles due to gas prices, the lengths of their trips do as well.
The most interesting thing to look at of all, though? I started looking at this a few weeks ago, but haven’t had time to follow through: Compare the number of person/years lost to bike fatalities to the number of person-years gained by previous non-riders getting into better shape from the exercise they get from biking.
Example: Say in a typical year (1992, in this case) 459 cyclists above the age of 20 died in bike/vehicle accidents (we’ll discount children, since they’re not likely to be commuting or biking for fitness).
Let’s break ’em down by age group:
| 20-29 | 98 |
| 30-39 | 117 |
| 40-49 | 83 |
| 50-59 | 58 |
| 60-up | 93 |
Now, let’s figure how much life expectancy was lost (taking the US average life expectancy of 78 years and the average age in each bracket (let’s assume that the years spread evenly in each age bracket; there’ll be as many below the midrange of each bracket as above it) to figure the total person/years lost.
The result? Bike accidents claim 15174.4 person/years (using the figures above). A ghastly toll? Certainly.
But what do we gain from having thousands more people being in better – much better – physical condition? Say, having a bunch of formerly-sedentary mid-forty-something suddenly getting into the best shape of their lives? Or a bunch of twentysomethings go through their lives never falling out of shape in the first place, since biking is, along with swimming, the the most sustainable form of exercise (and a lot less likely to bore you to death than swimming)
How many person-years do we gain?
Let’s extrapolate from New Yorks’ numbers: growing from 80,000 to 160,000 bikers out of a population of 12,000,000 extrapolates a rise from 2 million to 4 million bikers nationwide; let’s arbitrarily lop those numbers in half, just to be very (what else) conservative and allow for those who live where biking just isn’t tenable (say, people who commute 60 miles to work, or farmers, the handicapped, everyone), and say that the American recreational, fitness and/or commuting biking population has risen from 1 to 2 million in recent years.
Thirty minutes of (aerobic) exercise a day adds four years to life expectancy compared to sedentary people.
So let’s say that one percent of those two million bikers rides half an hour a day (which, by the way, I do): it’s a hopelessly-low 20,000 – which translates to 80,000 person/years of life expectancy added. Ten percent (200,000 daily riders, 800,000 person/years) seems on the high side of plausible; let’s split the difference, say 100,000 Americans, like myself, ride at least five days a week for at least half an hour a day. That’s 400,000 person/years added to life expectancy (using a formula that fudges sharply toward the conservative),
But even if you take the lowest feasible figures it’s a 6-1 skunking: Biking saves 80,000 person/years to 15,000 lost to accidents, even if we take comically-low numbers, 30-or-more to one otherwise.
Some biking critics say (chant, really, more as an autonomic response than a considered position) that biking is a “dangerous hobby”. But when you look at actual numbers, it seems that not biking is the risky frippery.
June 16th, 2009 at 7:55 am
“Which I’d suspected would happen, ”
What do you think is causing the drop?
1. Greater number of riders means more visibility and awareness by motorists.
2. Newer bike riders are more cautious
June 16th, 2009 at 8:47 am
There’s nothing too complicated about it. If a bike rider obeys the rules of the road and doesn’t take stupid chances, it’s a very safe mode of transport. The problem lies with all the Lance Armstrong wannabes who dart in and out of traffic and take foolish chances. There are plenty of drivers who dart in and out of traffic and take foolish chances as well – some of the things I see on 35W coming through the construction zone in South Minneapolis and on to Burnsville are just amazingly dumb. I don’t see any reason to be more angry at bikers as a class than drivers as a class.
Have fun, Mitch. Enjoy it. If it works for you, that’s great.
June 16th, 2009 at 9:12 am
Thirty minutes of (aerobic) exercise a day adds four years to life expectancy
So I can live to 90? I’ve seen 90. It’s not pretty.
June 16th, 2009 at 9:33 am
I’ve stayed out of this debate (on both sites) because by and large I do not have a dog in this fight – other than as a driver.
However, as a driver I do have to say one thing. Those bicyclists (and motorcyclists) who follow the rules of the road, who hit the road every day as if the driver of the car next to him was out to kill him are not the problem. The problem are the bicyclists (and motorcyclists) who dart between vehicles, who ride down the middle of two lanes and who generally ride recklessly are the ones who (for the most part) cause these bike/car collisions and are the ones that other certain bloggers take issue with. While they are the minority of bikers they are there and one side of the argument needs to admit that they are NOT the majority of bikers out there and the other side needs to admit that they EXIST and that they are a big problem for all of us.
LL (going back to her lurkers corner again)
June 16th, 2009 at 9:42 am
Mitch, by advocating biking, you are contributing to the social security problem. My solution? Ban biking and give our free smokes. If we can get the life expectancy down to about 70, problem solved.
June 16th, 2009 at 9:54 am
Mitch-
One potential flaw in your analysis is that it assumes that people who bike would otherwise be sedentary. While I’m sure there are some cases where that is true, it seems like many people who bike also participate in other physical activities.
To determine if biking or not biking was more risky for an individual, you’d probably have to break down accident rates and health statistics for the particular community where they live.
I echo what others have said, “If you like to bike to work, more power to you.” I think what sometimes grates on non-bikes is the superior attitude that some bikers give off as if they’re better than someone who drives a car to work. The whole pretending you’re wearing the yellow jersey in the Tour de France thing is also annoying. As are drivers who have watched the Fast and Furious too many times.
June 16th, 2009 at 10:00 am
It probably has a lot to do with more public acceptance of bike helmets and lots of dough spent on bike lanes and paths as well. (Thanks Rep. James ‘Bikepath Jim’ Oberstar-D, Transportation Ministry.) Did you see where the helmet was the only item of apparel participants at a recent World Naked Bike Ride event in Vermont had on?
http://www-cdn.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=105393427
June 16th, 2009 at 10:01 am
One potential flaw in your analysis is that it assumes that people who bike would otherwise be sedentary.
Right. Which is why I factored so many riders out of the equation – to fudge downward over just this sort of thing.
I’m going to assume people who ride 30+ minutes a day and also manage rigorous workout regimens are a smallish minority.
Chuck,
Hah!
June 16th, 2009 at 10:02 am
Did you see …a recent World Naked Bike Ride event
No. Just…no.
Ew.
June 16th, 2009 at 10:05 am
Nudity and bike seats is just wrong on so many levels.
June 16th, 2009 at 10:17 am
I took a look at data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Agency website and found some intersting stuff. In 2007, the number of bicycylists killed in accidents was 698, down 14% from 1997, when 814 died. The largest recorded annual toll was in 1975: 1003. Since presumably more miles are being biked, deaths per mile have declined as well. Rates among the states vary, although they are calculated per million residents rather than per miles biked, which would be more instructive. Minnesota came out looking good, with a rate of 0.77 deaths/ million people. The worst looking place was Florida (6.52) and the national average was 2.31. Delaware, Vermont, North and South Dakota and Wyoming had zero bicylclist deaths in 2007. That kind of figures, although Delaware surprises.
The most deadly demographic group was males ages 45-54. And if you drink and ride….watch out!
June 16th, 2009 at 10:25 am
I like responsible bicyclists. We could use more of them.
But I’m constantly coming across those spandex-clad “Lance Armstrong wannabes” out on country roads where they ignore every rule of the road and race across the road in front of me. When you’re towing an 8K lb trailer and someone races in front of you all you can do is hope the rider gauged the timing right and nothing breaks because there’s no way in h*ll you’re going to stop anytime soon.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:50 am
I don’t want to be the buzz kill here, but the question that came to mind reading this was — how were these statistics gathered? How reliable are they, are they subjective in terms of distances ridden or objective; how do we know the real frequency versus the answer people want you to think is true about how often they ride….. all those kinds of questions popped up.
Are there anti-bicycling conservatives? That seems so… odd. If someone wants to ride their bicycle (oh, no…there goes the replay in my head of the Queen tune), why would anyone else care one way or the other? Does anyone know reliably how many people ride the same streets as other traffic, versus those who ride bicycle-only paths?
Good for you Mitch for riding, and a heartfelt prayer in your general direction to protect you from any inattentive motorist.
I saw the news footage of the nekked bicycle riding; indeed, EW. Sunscreen alone is not sufficient cover.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:51 am
Sorry, Mitch.
You can put up all the safety statistics in the world and tell me how it’s leading us to energy independence and it won’t matter to me.
I’m not getting on the bicycle bandwagon.
Probably the only way I will is if we can get rid of the idiots who arrogantly believe that they are better than the rest of us because they ride a bicycle and as such traffic laws do not apply to them.
The ones who won’t stop for stop signs and red lights.
And ride the wrong way down one-way streets.
And on the sidewalk.
And dart out in front of oncoming traffic while listening to their iPod.
And ignore pedestrians (bicycles are vehicles, not pedestrians and bicycles do not always have the right of way).
And want to call themselves “bikers”.
Bikers rider motorcycles.
They’re “bicyclists”.
I’m not saying that there aren’t bad car drivers (there are), nor that all bicyclists are bad (they’re not).
But get rid of these meatheads (of which there are VERY MANY) and then maybe.
June 16th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Are there anti-bicycling conservatives?
I think the main complaint is the hundreds of millions of transportation dollars being spent on bike paths. Designating bicycles as “transport” allows the environmental faction to divert badly need funding for highway and bridge projects. I northern tier states this is seen as impractical, since the bike is only an option for part of the year.
June 16th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
I agree with the Master . . . more bicycle riders means more visibility and more attentive drivers.
I notice the same thing every Spring on my motorcycle. Takes a good month before drivers are expecting to see me, instead of surprised to see me.
June 16th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
JM.
Bikers (or bicyclists; both are gramatically correct, and both are used on this blog, and bikes came before motorcycles anyway) who…:
ride the wrong way down one-way streets.
And on the sidewalk.
And dart out in front of oncoming traffic while listening to their iPod.
And ignore pedestrians (bicycles are vehicles, not pedestrians and bicycles do not always have the right of way).
…need to be set straight. One should NEVER ride in the city while listening to an IPod, in particular; your ears are among your best defenses on the road.
As far as riding on the sidewalk; there are times when it’s both right and advisable – but bikes should defer and yield to pedestrians.
As to “The ones who won’t stop for stop signs and red lights” – there’s a legitimate safety case to be made for “Boise Stops” – where bikes treat stop signs as “Yield” signs, and stoplights as stop signs. Think about it: yielding to traffic that is crossing or turning across their paths, but going ahead otherwise, makes perfect sense; crossing at a red if there is NO traffic coming – just like a stop sign – additionally causes no harm whatsoever, to people or traffic, and makes it safer for car drivers (by clearing bikes out of their sides and blind spots when the lights are green).
And want to call themselves “bikers”.
Bikers rider motorcycles.
They’re “bicyclists”.
Incorrect. We’re both.
June 16th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Interesting points, Mitch.
I disagree on the sidewalks (it’s a sideWALK not a sideRIDE and for much of the state it’s illegal to ride a bicycle on the sidewalk–it’s up to local municipality ordinance).
I also disagree on the stop signs. Bicycles are vehicles and too many cyclists forget that they are vehicles and have to follow the same traffic laws as cars, trucks, motorcycles, road graters, Amish horse buggies etc.
Furthermore, are you saying that if you don’t see traffic is coming it’s okay for a car to run a stop sign or a red light ? After all if it “causes no harm to people or traffic whatsoever” for one vehicle, why not for all vehicles ? I’m not sure that defense will fly in court.
Apart from that, if other vehicles need to get used to seeing bicycles, and not stopping ” makes it safer for car drivers (by clearing bikes out of their sides and blind spots when the lights are green).” isn’t that self-defeating ? Shouldn’t you WANT bicycles to stop so that drivers get used to seeing them and looking for them ?
Of course generally local law enforcement won’t ticket violators, so what’s their incentive to follow the law anyway ?
I do agree that many bicyclists need to be set straight. Of course, most of the ones I see around town don’t follow traffic laws, so there’s a LOT of educationg to do…
June 16th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Impotence is on the rise.
Sounds dangerous!
*Fade to scene… Mitch and AssClown pedal into a “biker” bar… Swiftee is following wearing his “assless” chaps…*
June 16th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
KRod,
I’m a pretty tolerant guy. I put up with a lot of crap from commenters because, hey, who really cares?
But I REALLY don’t care for the tone of your last comment. You’re in my house here. Either remember who’s on your side, or find another venue.
Word to the wise.
June 16th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
Bicycles are vehicles and too many cyclists forget that they are vehicles and have to follow the same traffic laws as cars, trucks, motorcycles, road graters, Amish horse buggies etc.
That’s the way the law treats them – but different vehicles have incrementally different laws. You can’t drive a tanker truck on a residential street; you can’t ride a bicycle on a freeway – tractors either; you can’t ride a motorized skateboard on the street; it’s a “vehicle” that follows basically pedestrian rules.
Bikes are vehicles, and generally follow the same rules, but as with any kind of vehicle, some variations can be useful.
Furthermore, are you saying that if you don’t see traffic is coming it’s okay for a car to run a stop sign or a red light ?
It’s called a “Boise Stop” because in Boise, that’s the law. Bicycles are allowed to treat stop signs as yields, and lights as signs – not because Boise’s governnment is a bunch of treehuggers, but because it makes good sense from a traffic-flow and safety sense. Portland (who are tree-huggers, admittedly) adopted the law, and other cities are looking at it – not becuase “bikes are better”, but because it is a sensible variation on vehicle laws.
After all if it “causes no harm to people or traffic whatsoever” for one vehicle, why not for all vehicles ?
Because bikes are different than cars? They don’t obstruct intersections as much, they can react faster to traffic.
And in terms of Minnesota – where side streets are clogged with “Stop” signs that very well should be “Yield” signs, the question isn’t “should bikes obey stop signs” so much as “should we use as many Stops as we do?”
I’m not sure that defense will fly in court.
Irrelevant, since this presupposes the “Boise Stop” has been accpeted as law.
Apart from that, if other vehicles need to get used to seeing bicycles, and not stopping ” makes it safer for car drivers (by clearing bikes out of their sides and blind spots when the lights are green).” isn’t that self-defeating ? Shouldn’t you WANT bicycles to stop so that drivers get used to seeing them and looking for them ?
Not sure that one follows the other.
Of course generally local law enforcement won’t ticket violators, so what’s their incentive to follow the law anyway ?
So meet halfway: ticket violators, but make the laws more sensible.
I do agree that many bicyclists need to be set straight. Of course, most of the ones I see around town don’t follow traffic laws, so there’s a LOT of educationg to do…
You’re half right. There’s some educating to be done (for example, it’s SUPPOSED to be illegal to wear headphones on bikes; the morons wearing their IPod earbuds should be getting pulled over).
June 16th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
Not that it matters now, but I threw in the Naked Bike Ride piece above only because I wanted to make a point about how bike riding which is fun and (can be-if you don’t get hit by a car) healthful has gotten all tangled up with political connotations. I ran out of time to finish that reply though. Whatever.
I’ll never understand why people who call themselves Conservative or Libertarian really give a crap about bike riding they way they appear to here in the reply section of this blog. Yes, plenty of whack-job, nut-fudge Demmies/lefties ride bikes and act as if the riding of a bike makes them superior to those who don’t. That ‘Church Lady’ mentality, that is so rampant on the left, is what annoyed me enough to walk out of a College Democrats meeting decades ago and never look back (that and the fact that no one cared that the president of our chapter got caught stealing from the activity fund to buy flowers and gifts for his girlfriends – just practicing for later higher office I suppose). Bicyclists should obey the law, but then so should my neighbor who runs the stop sign at the end of our street in a McCain-Palin bumper sticker clad SUV. I’m not going to give up my SUV or do a Church Lady ‘superior dance’ on his front lawn just because I at least slow to a perceptible stop at the stop sign while he blows right through it.
Lefty bicyclists pull stunts like the World Naked Bike Ride and the Critical Mass rides because they honestly believe change in the car culture of the US will only come from applying the first law of Animal House –
“this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture, be done on somebody’s part.”
Riding a bike should have no more political consequence than walking a dog or pushing a baby stoller. Shockingly, all three of these activities have come to have meaning to certain piss-ants on all sides who believe that they are in charge of the ant hill.
June 17th, 2009 at 10:56 am
😆 😆 😆
June 17th, 2009 at 10:17 pm
“Conventional Wisdom” among anti-bicycling conservatives is that as the number of bikers rises (as it has been steadily for some time, which accelerates as gas prices rise), the carnage on the road rises with it.
Oh, the carnage will rise, all right- the next cycling Luddite who runs a red light in front of me, thinks he can “ram” my car, or otherwise run me over on the fucking sidewalk is gone.
June 18th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
How dare you!!!
bud, How do you know that Luddite wasn’t just performing a “Boise Stop”?
September 14th, 2011 at 11:52 am
[…] But if you read this blog, you knew that two years ago. […]