
More people riding bikes makes cycling safer for everyone, major new study finds - okket
http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/more-people-riding-bikes-makes-cycling-safer-for-everyone-major-new-study-finds-344859
======
awjr
Denmark just worked out it stopped 55,000 sick days and where able to persuade
34% of car drivers that tried an eBike to switch to an eBike.
[https://cyclingindustry.news/danish-study-outlines-
economic-...](https://cyclingindustry.news/danish-study-outlines-economic-
savings-made-by-building-a-safe-cycling-network/)

Cycling can reduce risk of death by 41%, death by cancer 45% and death from
heart disease by 46%
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-39641122](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-39641122)

A single 10ft cycle track can carry the same number of people as 7 lanes of
car traffic.

Netherlands is currently at 10% obesity and going down to 8.5% by 2030. The UK
is at 27% and predicted to go up to 35%.

So cycling really does appear be to that miracle solution for urban transport
but you absolutely cannot 'share space'. Absolutely key to segregate. A good
end to end network is only as good as its weakest link and too many times,
town planners give in to politicians and local residents and deliver stuff
that really is does not provide inclusive ages 8-80 cycle routes.

~~~
closeparen
Basically every middle-class American child grew up riding a bicycle while
sharing space with cars on his suburban streets.

Bike lanes may be a hard requirement for you, but the quintessential American
childhood experience says that's not exactly widespread.

We go through the rite of passage of transitioning from bikes to cars at age
16 because they increase our time-efficiency and decrease physical exertion.

EDIT: A cursory Google puts the rate of cycling among children at 70%. Would
you care to explain your disagreement?

~~~
Mikeb85
Try commuting on your bike without dedicated lanes. It's dangerous as hell,
car drivers are the worst. It's also super pleasant when you do have your own
space, as it's nearly as quick as driving, but you get great exercise and it's
pretty fun too.

~~~
closeparen
If it's pleasant, you aren't exercising. 15mph is not "nearly as quick" as
60mph by any twist of the imagination. I ride regularly without dedicated
lanes and feel far safer than I do at urban public transit stations. In other
words, I don't think I can agree with anything in your post, other than that
it's fun.

~~~
awjr
I'm beginning to recognise that you are a Vehicular Cyclist and probably fight
against protected cycle lanes as this 'forces' you to use them. I've seen this
argument a lot and only seems to be prevalent within the USA.

Most of the EU has recognised that this is a failed approach that only results
in less people cycling.

------
gregdoesit
Come to Amsterdam to see first hand proof of this study. Virtually no one
wears helmets... because you don't have to. Infrastructure is designed to be
bikers first. Drivers are constantly aware of bikes and also receive training
to avoid the most common accidents (hitting a biker when opening the door -
see the Dutch Reach).

The biggest threat to a biker in this city is another (often less experienced)
biker, pedestrians not looking around or trying to cross tram tracks parallel.
However, it did take almost 40 years to get here though, changes starting in
the 1970s - I do hope many cities will follow a similar route.

~~~
paulcole
>Virtually no one wears helmets... because you don't have to.

Helmets are pretty misunderstood. They don't offer much in the way of
protection in a serious accident. The real value is in preventing serious head
injuries in an otherwise minor fall/accident.

People in Amsterdam may not wear helmets but it's because they choose not to,
not because helmets aren't needed.

~~~
dahart
> Helmets are pretty misunderstood. They don't offer much in the way of
> protection in a serious accident

Have you got a source for that claim?

[http://bhsi.org/stats.htm#effectiveness](http://bhsi.org/stats.htm#effectiveness)

"Helmets provide a 66 to 88% reduction in the risk of head, brain and severe
brain injury for all ages of bicyclists. Helmets provide equal levels of
protection for crashes involving motor vehicles (69%) and crashes from all
other causes (68%). Injuries to the upper and mid facial areas are reduced
65%.

Authors' conclusions Helmets reduce bicycle-related head and facial injuries
for bicyclists of all ages involved in all types of crashes, including those
involving motor vehicles. Our response to comments from critics are presented
in the Feedback section.

Plain Language Summary Wearing a helmet dramatically reduces the risk of head
and facial injuries for bicyclists involved in a crash, even if it involves a
motor vehicle."

~~~
exceptione
You are referring to the US situation. As a dutchie, I wouldn't even want to
bike with a helmet in the US. Of course, helmets work to an extent when the
conditions are extremely hostile. They have (limited) value. True.

The solution isn't to leave the unsafe conditions untouched and protect just a
part of the body by means of a helmet, rather it is making the driving
conditions for bikers safe.

As it turns out, those safe conditions render the helmet as unnecesary. As
pointed out, helmets could be a net loss in safety in a safe biker
environment.

Biker helmets are a sign of bad road safety.

~~~
mahyarm
Even if your the only person on a closed smooth track, you can get a pretty
bad TBI injury if you crash. Wear a helmet for yourself, not because it's
against the culture of where you live.

Look at this guy without a helmet get one because he screwed up on a track:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVZz8EN_NKw&feature=youtu.be...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVZz8EN_NKw&feature=youtu.be&t=508)
The crash didn't look that bad, but it was enough.

~~~
Fricken
We always go off about helmets, no one talks about learning how to wipe out.
That guy didn't know how to go to the ground correctly.

Getting on a skateboard or a bike without having learned how to wipeout is
about as irresponsible as going into a boxing match not knowing how to dodge
or block a punch. Like, if there was a match between a guy with a helmet and
no boxing experience, and a guy with no helmet but plenty of boxing
experience, who would you bet on?

Pro skateboarders and BMXers rarely wear helmets and regularly walk away from
spectacular, cringe inducing accidents that would kill or cripple a less
skilled individual, and of course, they've been mastering the art of wiping
out for as long as they've been riding.

A friend of mine once stood on a skateboard for not even 2 seconds before it
rolled out from under him, he fell back and broke his elbow, he just hadn't
conditioned himself to react properly in that situation. I saw another guy on
a bike go sailing over the hood of a car that cut him off, and he did a face-
plant on the other side, he didn't think to tuck his head or get his arms
between himself and the pavement. His face was all bloody and his front teeth
were knocked out, his helmet didn't do him much good. Being able to react
instinctively to something like that takes training.

Strapping some styrofoam to your head is probably better than nothing, but
framing bicycle safety as a binary depending on whether someone has a helmet
on is a gross oversimplification. Between skateboarding, various styles of
cycling, and general horsing around I've had hundreds, if not thousands of
wipeouts and the only time I suffered a concussion was when I was mugged by a
guy who came up behind me.

~~~
mahyarm
Most people can strap on a helmet and pay $20. Figuring how to wipe out is a
entire different level that isn't that scaleable to an entire populace.

Not to mention its not very enjoyable to learn unless you are in some large
padded room.

------
moonka
I believe it. After picking up cycling a couple years ago, I've noticed I am a
lot more aware of bikes on the road, and drive with more care. I've also
noticed my family driving more carefully around bikes as I've mentioned close
calls I've had. I imagine it also leads to more willingness to invest in
cycling infrastructure, which tends to make things safer as well.

~~~
dkarl
I think cyclists create a halo effect because they create a stigma against
harming cyclists in their social circle. People who are confident that they
aren't personally connected to any cyclists openly joke about running them
down. The only consequences they worry about if they hit a cyclist are legal
ones, and when cycling is rare and "weird," they know there probably won't be
any. When, on the other hand, they know there are cyclists among their
coworkers or in their social circle, or if cycling is prevalent enough that
they feel it's likely, they start to worry about the stigma that will attach
to them if somebody finds out they knocked down a cyclist or carelessly put a
cyclist in danger. They're forced to pay attention in a way that they didn't
have to before.

Many people _hate_ this change, by the way. It scares them that an attitude
they used to be able to joke about in a positive way is now something they
have to hide. It makes them angry that they have to invest effort and
attention for the benefit of people they feel opposed to. It's easy for
progressives to simply see it as "progress" and not realize that it leaves a
lot of people feeling like losers.

~~~
BurningFrog
Do you actually know people who have no ethical problems killing random
cyclists?

~~~
dahart
I don't know any personally, but I know they exist. A friend of mine was
killed by one intentionally in South Carolina.

[https://www.bikelaw.com/2011/10/s-c-driver-convicted-of-
felo...](https://www.bikelaw.com/2011/10/s-c-driver-convicted-of-felony-for-
killing-cyclist/)

"Throughout the country, cycling deaths are regularly dismissed by law
enforcement as mere traffic ‘accidents.’ But often they are not accidental,
the needless fatalities are tragic consequences of reckless driving and
lawless drivers."

------
u801e
I think a lot of the problems that cyclists have when riding amongst motor
vehicles have to do with existing laws (such as riding as far right as
practicable when going less than the normal speed of traffic).

In reality, most traffic lanes are not wide enough for a cyclist and a car to
travel side by side with sufficient clearance between the two vehicles. A
cyclist is about 2.5 to 3 feet wide and many states have laws requiring at
least feet of distance between them and the cyclist. The cyclist will also
ride about 2 to 3 feet from the right edge of the lane. A car is a little less
than 6 feet wide on average.

If you add those distances up, you end up with a total of 14 to 15 feet. Even
on interstate highways, lanes may only 12 feet wide. On surface streets, they
may only be 10 feet wide. Because of this, you end up with the situation where
cars will "lane split" while passing a cyclist and frequently misjudge how far
they are from the cyclist when passing them. Also, the lane splitting car
cannot leave enough room for cars in the adjacent lane because the lanes do
not have sufficient width to accommodate a vehicle and half of another
vehicle.

Another problem is that cyclists riding to the right aren't as visible to
traffic as opposed to those who are "taking the lane". They're more vulnerable
to collisions such as "right-hooks", traffic entering from side streets and
opposing left turning traffic who didn't see them.

The laws should be changed to say that cyclists are like slow moving vehicles
who are entitled to the full use of the lane they're riding in and passing
traffic must move completely into the adjacent lane, when safe to do so, to
pass the cyclist and only return to their original lane of travel after they
have sufficient clearance. The law should also allow vehicles to pass cyclists
on a double-yellow when its safe to do so with the same conditions as above.

This will legally sanction the "take the lane" type of riding and make
cyclists more visible to the rest of traffic.

------
Theodores
More people riding also makes it normal. 15 years ago, working for a cycling
wholesale distributor I was the only one that cycled to work. Yet I felt I had
to explain why I cycled just so people didn't think I was a banned drink
driver.

In 2017 I am glad to say that all the bike parking is taken at 8.55 in the
morning and there are bike to work posters in the kitchen.

There is nothing new in this study. Perceptions have changed though and I
thank all who have participated in this.

~~~
mc32
When I was growing up, biking was mostly for teenagers under 16. After that
kids graduated to cars. I was an outlier biking into my twenties, eventually
commuting to work meant having to drive 20 mins or taking a bus over an hour.

Weekend warrior lycra cyclists, I think, cleared the path for regular
cyclists. It kind of normalized adults on a bike on roads.

~~~
revelation
Adults have been riding bikes for transportation for far longer than we have
been giving spoiled, unsafe brats cars for "sweet 16".

~~~
mc32
True, but when I was growing up, very few adolescents rode bikes. Mostly only
adults on the periphery of society did and a few enthusiasts.

------
ilaksh
You mean less dangerous. To me, San Diego and Ft. Worth are average areas. In
these places bicycles are relatively rare compared to cars. I am always
surprised when I see them.

Cars weigh thousands of pounds. Consider the safety precautions for cars with
air bags, crumple zones, and crash testing. There is no protection from cars
for someone on a bicycle.

They try to say riding on the sidewalk with a bike is more dangerous because
cars do not look out for bicycles at driveways and such.

But personally in most areas I don't feel safe biking on the street, and would
rather stay on the sidewalk like I did when I was a kid. I would just have to
pause to check before crossing driveways and intersections.

I believe that there will eventually be something like a smart safe city where
2000+ pounds vehicles do not freely mix with pedestrians, cyclists, and baby
strollers. There should be physical barriers or totally separate walkways.

Think about it. They can't even sell a car without an airbag anymore. Yet what
chance do you have from a physics standpoint to be truly safe when the other
vehicle exceeds your mass by 2000+ pounds?

~~~
crispyambulance

        > I don't feel safe biking on the street, and would rather stay on the sidewalk like I did when I was a kid. I would just have to pause to check before crossing driveways and intersections.
    

This is a common misconception among folks who don't cycle. Cyclists are
actually safer on the street. If you ride on the sidewalk, you have to deal
with more potential issues such as pedestrians, driveways and intersections
become even more dangerous because you're behaving as both a pedestrian and a
vehicle with the all the disadvantages of both. In general, cyclists are the
most unsafe where cars are not expecting them. Large suburban parking lots,
for example, are particularly hazardous for cyclists-- experienced cyclists
use extreme caution in parking lots, believe it or not.

Cycling is not particularly dangerous, depending on how you define
"dangerous".

Most car-bike collisions occur at intersections and are "right-hooks". This is
when a car turns right, cutting across the path of the the cyclist and the
cyclist hits the car because there's not enough room to stop or turn. These
accidents typically result in bruises, damage to bike and sometimes a broken
collarbone. They're rarely fatal unless the right-turning vehicle is a truck
and the cyclist ends up under the truck.

The accident you're probably thinking of is a car hitting a cyclist from
behind with a huge difference in speed. This, I believe, results in the most
fatalities for car-bike accidents. It is relatively rare.

    
    
        > ...what chance do you have from a physics standpoint to be truly safe...
    

None. You have no chance to be truly safe. That's an unrealistic goal for any
kind of traffic system.

~~~
ilaksh
As I said, I am aware that you are supposedly in danger at driveways etc. I
said I would pause to check at driveways and those places. You did not
acknowledge or read what I wrote, you just took the opportunity to give me a
patronizing lecture.

It is realistic to try to avoid putting myself in a position where I may avoid
being hit or run over by a car with no steel or anything to protect me. And we
are making massive strides in terms of safety with things like self-driving
cars.

~~~
crispyambulance
Sorry, don't mean to be patronizing.

You may know that risk can qualitatively be thought of as a product of two
factors: the severity of the outcome and the probability of occurrence.

In the case of cycling a high-speed rear collision with a car is very unlikely
but very severe in its outcome. How common is this accident? Not very common--
it ends up on the news when it does occur.

Many many cyclists enjoy riding, on the street, for their whole lives and
never have a serious accident or injury.

------
stordoff
Not to dismiss the study (because other studies have certainly found counter-
intuitive results before), but I've always thought this would be an obvious
result. If other road users are used to dealing with cyclists, and expecting
them to be there at all, it's hard to see how that would make cycling less
safe.

------
astrostl
I love the concept, but no way would I try to pull it off in 99% of the USA. I
know a lot of road biking, bike to work, etc. enthusiasts and every damned one
of 'em has some horrific hit-and-run story :-/

------
projektir
I'm still deeply uncomfortable about riding a bike next to / in front of a car
compared to the sidewalk, and I'm not sure how to overpower that fear...

~~~
mmariani
Everyone that cycles on open roads had at some point to work on that fear.
Though a little challenging at first, it's pretty simple.

Hold your line, if you have to deviate from it make sure you use your hands to
signal your intention. There's tech to help you with that too. Garmin makes a
proximity sensor that you can install on your bike that you let you know when
cars are getting close to you; and there's my favorite solution, a Bontrager
Flare RT rear light. Finally, you should use your bike to explore
alternate/less trafficked routes. Bonus tip sourced from anecdata: I've found
out that if you can keep up with the traffic speed most drivers will leave you
alone.

Keep cycling and have a nice ride! :)

~~~
projektir
Yeah, mostly I plan to drive on trails and such, and, honestly, probably a lot
of sidewalks. But sometimes you can't avoid it / the foot traffic is very busy
so it makes sense not to bother the pedestrians.

Proximity sensor + rear mirror sound like good ideas to at least make one feel
safer, I didn't know these were a thing (don't bike much due to aforementioned
fears), thanks!

------
anonu
I ride in NYC and have for almost a decade now. The city has taken major leaps
forward at becoming more bicycle friendly, thanks in part to Citi Bike
proliferation and the addition of more protected bike paths. I think there's
still a long way to go - especially in terms of education of riders around
proper biking etiquette, especially towards pedestrians

------
newy
I've always believed this. More bikers on the road creates more awareness from
drivers, and also more investment by cities into bike infrastructure,
including dedicated and protected bike lanes.

More bikes available also means more bikers, something we're working on at
Spin for US cities. Get in touch (email in profile) if this seems like a
problem space interesting to you :)

------
trevyn
Or, generalized, more people doing X makes X safer for everyone. :)

------
discombobulate
Bike network effects!

------
zeep
if everyone was riding a bicycle, bicycle riders would be safe indeed...

------
Alex3917
This doesn't show that biking has gotten safer. It may have, but later
adopters of biking are also less likely to engage in risky behavior.

Similarly, as the percentage of folks who use heroin increases, the relative
rate of overdoses declines. But that doesn't mean that heroin itself has
become any more or less safe.

~~~
emh68
What's missing from the heroin analogy is fact that the dangers faced by
cyclists can be changed - if drivers see a cyclist every 5 minutes vs every 1
hour, they'll be looking out for bicyclists constantly.

~~~
CydeWeys
What's also missing from the heroin analogy is that heroin itself _is_
becoming safer as its use becomes widespread. It's made to a higher quality,
with more standardized production processes, people know how to measure
strength better, and the average person becomes more likely to know a good
source for safe heroin that isn't cut with dangerous drugs like fentanyl.

Take it to the logical extreme, imagining legalization of heroin and
subsequent widespread use and sale in convenience stores, and it'd be way
safer, because you'd always be getting a standardized product.

~~~
Alex3917
> heroin itself is becoming safer as its use becomes widespread

That definitely was true for a while, not sure about in the last few years. A
less controversial analogy might be with coffee, where the rate of people
overdosing is probably lower now that it's no longer mainly used by Sufi
mystics in enormous doses for entheogenic purposes.

