The League of American Bicyclists (and other sources) recently posted
bad news on bicycling fatalities.
https://bikeleague.org/highest-ever-reported-number-of-people-killed-while-biking-in-2022/

"The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) released
2022 fatality data showing that more bicyclists were killed by people
driving motor vehicles than in any previous year reported by NHTSA’s
Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS).

"According to NHTSA FARS data, 1,105 people riding bicycles were killed
by a person operating a motor vehicle on a public road. FARS has existed
since 1975 and the previous high was in its first year of reporting when
1,003 people riding bicycles were killed."

Of course, the LAB has positioned itself as the main organization
working to increase cycling and make things better for cyclists. So what
went wrong? What are their excuses?

From that page:

"Is this due to more people bicycling? No, there is no data from the
federal government suggesting that there has been an increase in
bicycling. Whether annual estimates from the Census Bureau on commuting
to work or occasional surveys from the Federal Highway Administration,
available data from public agencies suggests that bicycling is flat or
declining."

That's very significant! For decades the LAB has been prominent among
those organizations claiming "If you build it, they will come." And some
posters here have sung the same song. But LAB now admits that despite
decades of more and more, ever costlier (and sometimes weirder) bike
facilities, cycling is certainly not growing and may be declining.

"Is this due to distraction? No, data from NHTSA shows that fewer than
10% of bicyclist deaths involve distraction and the rate of
distraction-involved bicyclist fatalities has decreased in recent years."

That's a surprise to me. But their article goes on to say data is not
very good.

"Is this due to large pickup trucks? No, data from NHTSA shows that
pickup trucks have not increased their share of deadly bicyclist and
pedestrian crashes in recent years. Sport Utility Vehicles have
increased their share of deadly bicyclist and pedestrian crashes, and
research shows that vehicles with taller, blunter, front ends designs
cause more harm."

Sounds like it's not specifically pickups; but it could be taller
vehicles in general.

"Is this due to poor bicycle infrastructure? Likely, but no national
data on bicycle infrastructure exists and NHTSA data on where a
bicyclist was killed groups bike lanes with shoulders and parking lanes."

"Likely" is probably an inadvertent confession. I've been agreeing with
Michael Colville-Andersen that bi-directional bike lanes belong in the
"poor bicycle infrastructure" category. See
https://copenhagenize.com/2014/06/explaining-bi-directional-cycle-track.html
But LAB and LAB's allies still endorse them!

But the jump in fatalities (about 13%) can't be explained by only
bi-directional folly. Perhaps it's time to face the fact that as more
and more segregated bikeways (whether segregated by paint stripes,
wands, parked cars or concrete) have been built, bike fatalities have
increased, not decreased.

That's what's sometimes called "dose response." It's not proof of
causation, but it's often a serious clue.

NOW: This and other reports indicate that there is a big problem with
the data, making it nearly useless for year by year comparisons. For the
first time, data in this report includes "motorized bicyclists" in the
same category as ordinary bicyclists. So far, I haven't found their
definition of "motorized" - specifically, do they mean eBikes? If so,
it's a bit strange that they were ever excluded, since the bike industry
lobbied hard and almost entirely successfully to have each state's laws
treat an eBike as a regular bike - at least, for Class 1 and Class 2
eBikes.

So were ~130 eBike fatalities lumped in with in-car fatalities until
now? I'd be amazed.

Whether or not that's true, the trends remain. From 2010 to 2021, bike
fatalities rose strongly and consistently. All my points above apply to
that time period.

By posting this, I'm _not_ saying that ordinary bike rides on ordinary
streets and roads are unusually dangerous. Last I checked, there were
still over ten million miles bicycled between fatalities, and cycling
was much safer per mile than walking. This most recent jump does not
make those facts false.

But they should indicate that whatever LAB is doing is fundamentally not
working.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> The League of American Bicyclists (and other sources) recently posted
> bad news on bicycling fatalities.
> https://bikeleague.org/highest-ever-reported-number-of-people-killed-while-biking-in-2022/
>
> "The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) released
> 2022 fatality data showing that more bicyclists were killed by people
> driving motor vehicles than in any previous year reported by NHTSA’s
> Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS).
>
> "According to NHTSA FARS data, 1,105 people riding bicycles were killed
> by a person operating a motor vehicle on a public road. FARS has existed
> since 1975 and the previous high was in its first year of reporting when
> 1,003 people riding bicycles were killed."
>
> Of course, the LAB has positioned itself as the main organization
> working to increase cycling and make things better for cyclists. So what
> went wrong? What are their excuses?
>
> From that page:
>
> "Is this due to more people bicycling? No, there is no data from the
> federal government suggesting that there has been an increase in
> bicycling. Whether annual estimates from the Census Bureau on commuting
> to work or occasional surveys from the Federal Highway Administration,
> available data from public agencies suggests that bicycling is flat or
> declining."
>
> That's very significant! For decades the LAB has been prominent among
> those organizations claiming "If you build it, they will come." And some
> posters here have sung the same song. But LAB now admits that despite
> decades of more and more, ever costlier (and sometimes weirder) bike
> facilities, cycling is certainly not growing and may be declining.
>
> "Is this due to distraction? No, data from NHTSA shows that fewer than
> 10% of bicyclist deaths involve distraction and the rate of
> distraction-involved bicyclist fatalities has decreased in recent years."
>
> That's a surprise to me. But their article goes on to say data is not
> very good.
>
> "Is this due to large pickup trucks? No, data from NHTSA shows that
> pickup trucks have not increased their share of deadly bicyclist and
> pedestrian crashes in recent years. Sport Utility Vehicles have
> increased their share of deadly bicyclist and pedestrian crashes, and
> research shows that vehicles with taller, blunter, front ends designs
> cause more harm."
>
> Sounds like it's not specifically pickups; but it could be taller
> vehicles in general.
>
> "Is this due to poor bicycle infrastructure? Likely, but no national
> data on bicycle infrastructure exists and NHTSA data on where a
> bicyclist was killed groups bike lanes with shoulders and parking lanes."
>
> "Likely" is probably an inadvertent confession. I've been agreeing with
> Michael Colville-Andersen that bi-directional bike lanes belong in the
> "poor bicycle infrastructure" category. See
> https://copenhagenize.com/2014/06/explaining-bi-directional-cycle-track.html
> But LAB and LAB's allies still endorse them!
>
> But the jump in fatalities (about 13%) can't be explained by only
> bi-directional folly. Perhaps it's time to face the fact that as more
> and more segregated bikeways (whether segregated by paint stripes,
> wands, parked cars or concrete) have been built, bike fatalities have
> increased, not decreased.
>
> That's what's sometimes called "dose response." It's not proof of
> causation, but it's often a serious clue.
>
> NOW: This and other reports indicate that there is a big problem with
> the data, making it nearly useless for year by year comparisons. For the
> first time, data in this report includes "motorized bicyclists" in the
> same category as ordinary bicyclists. So far, I haven't found their
> definition of "motorized" - specifically, do they mean eBikes? If so,
> it's a bit strange that they were ever excluded, since the bike industry
> lobbied hard and almost entirely successfully to have each state's laws
> treat an eBike as a regular bike - at least, for Class 1 and Class 2
> eBikes.
>
> So were ~130 eBike fatalities lumped in with in-car fatalities until
> now? I'd be amazed.
>
> Whether or not that's true, the trends remain. From 2010 to 2021, bike
> fatalities rose strongly and consistently. All my points above apply to
> that time period.
>
> By posting this, I'm _not_ saying that ordinary bike rides on ordinary
> streets and roads are unusually dangerous. Last I checked, there were
> still over ten million miles bicycled between fatalities, and cycling
> was much safer per mile than walking. This most recent jump does not
> make those facts false.
>
> But they should indicate that whatever LAB is doing is fundamentally not
> working.
>
>
As I think has been said number of times, cycling and cycling organisations
and infrastructure exist else where, ie Europe in particular which far as
I’m aware are not seeing increased rates.

Roger Merriman

On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 21:51:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Last I checked, there were
>still over ten million miles bicycled between fatalities, and cycling
>was much safer per mile than walking.

<LOL> Safer per mile is a ridiculously stupid statistic. I'll wager
that cycling is much safer *per mile* than mountain climbing, too.

On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 02:18:54 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:

>On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 21:51:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski
><frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Last I checked, there were
>>still over ten million miles bicycled between fatalities, and cycling
>>was much safer per mile than walking.
>
>
><LOL> Safer per mile is a ridiculously stupid statistic. I'll wager
>that cycling is much safer *per mile* than mountain climbing, too.
>
But it justifies his arguments so perfectly.

But evening things up perhaps hour of use would be more accurate.
After all a cyclist roaring down the road at 15 MPH can hardly be
compared with an auto traveling, sat, 70-80 MPH or an old lady
waddling along at 4 MPH.

Just as aircraft accidents are measured at hour of use not MPH

--
Cheers,

John B.

On 4/10/2024 1:54 AM, John B. wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 02:18:54 -0400, Catrike Ryder
> <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 21:51:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Last I checked, there were
>>> still over ten million miles bicycled between fatalities, and cycling
>>> was much safer per mile than walking.
>>
>>
>> <LOL> Safer per mile is a ridiculously stupid statistic. I'll wager
>> that cycling is much safer *per mile* than mountain climbing, too.
>>
> But it justifies his arguments so perfectly.
>
> But evening things up perhaps hour of use would be more accurate.
> After all a cyclist roaring down the road at 15 MPH can hardly be
> compared with an auto traveling, sat, 70-80 MPH or an old lady
> waddling along at 4 MPH.
>
> Just as aircraft accidents are measured at hour of use not MPH
>
Welcome back, Mr Slocumb.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 4/10/2024 2:54 AM, John B. wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 02:18:54 -0400, Catrike Ryder
> <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 21:51:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Last I checked, there were
>>> still over ten million miles bicycled between fatalities, and cycling
>>> was much safer per mile than walking.
>>
>>
>> <LOL> Safer per mile is a ridiculously stupid statistic. I'll wager
>> that cycling is much safer *per mile* than mountain climbing, too.
>>
> But it justifies his arguments so perfectly.
>
> But evening things up perhaps hour of use would be more accurate.

It always puzzles me that some avid cyclists are SO determined to
pretend that simply riding a bike is terribly dangerous! Why would that be?

Some possibilities:
1) Those afraid to ride anywhere but on segregated facilities use the
fiction to excuse their own timidity.

2) Those who have invested in expensive, or extreme, or conspicuous
"safety" gear use the fiction to justify their purchases.

3) Some may bolster their dwindling feelings of masculinity by saying
"Yeah, ya gotta be a _real_ man to ride a bike! I'm that tough!" (As
some lady rides past on a step-through 3 speed with flowers in the front
basket.)

And of course it could be all three. Meanwhile, some data. I've got plenty!

================================================================

Risk relative to cycling based on fatality rates per participant (UK)

Relative risk per participant

Airsports 450
Climbing 137
Motor sports 81
Fishing 41
Horse riding 29
Swimming 7.0
Athletics 5.7
Football 4.9
Tennis 4.2
Cycling 1.0
Golf 0.83
Rambling 0.06

Figures relate to 1986 and are derived from OPAS Monitors from the
Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, UK.
The number of fatalities are taken from Coroner's Court records and
information on participation rates from the General Household Survey.
Risk by time (US)

........................................................

Fatalities per million hours

Sky diving 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 0.88
Passenger cars 0.47
Water skiing 0.28
Bicycling 0.26
Flying (scheduled domestic airlines) 0.15
Hunting 0.08
Cosmic radiation from transcontinental flights 0.035
Home living (active) 0.027
Traveling in a school bus 0.022
Passenger car post-collision fire 0.017
Home living (including sleeping) 0.014
Residential fire 0.003

Data from Failure Analysis Associates, Inc (now Exponent Inc), Design
News, 10 April 1993.
=========================================================

And let's recall that in at least five studies, bicycling has been found
to be safer than _not_ bicycling. That is, its benefits have been shown
to greatly outweigh its tiny risks.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 4/10/2024 2:54 AM, John B. wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 02:18:54 -0400, Catrike Ryder
>> <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 21:51:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Last I checked, there were
>>>> still over ten million miles bicycled between fatalities, and cycling
>>>> was much safer per mile than walking.
>>>
>>>
>>> <LOL> Safer per mile is a ridiculously stupid statistic. I'll wager
>>> that cycling is much safer *per mile* than mountain climbing, too.
>>>
>> But it justifies his arguments so perfectly.
>>
>> But evening things up perhaps hour of use would be more accurate.
>
> It always puzzles me that some avid cyclists are SO determined to
> pretend that simply riding a bike is terribly dangerous! Why would that be?
>
> Some possibilities:
> 1) Those afraid to ride anywhere but on segregated facilities use the
> fiction to excuse their own timidity.
>
> 2) Those who have invested in expensive, or extreme, or conspicuous
> "safety" gear use the fiction to justify their purchases.
>
> 3) Some may bolster their dwindling feelings of masculinity by saying
> "Yeah, ya gotta be a _real_ man to ride a bike! I'm that tough!" (As
> some lady rides past on a step-through 3 speed with flowers in the front
> basket.)
>
> And of course it could be all three. Meanwhile, some data. I've got plenty!
>
> ================================================================
>
> Risk relative to cycling based on fatality rates per participant (UK)
>
> Relative risk per participant
>
> Airsports 450
> Climbing 137
> Motor sports 81
> Fishing 41
> Horse riding 29
> Swimming 7.0
> Athletics 5.7
> Football 4.9
> Tennis 4.2
> Cycling 1.0
> Golf 0.83
> Rambling 0.06
>
> Figures relate to 1986 and are derived from OPAS Monitors from the
> Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, UK.
> The number of fatalities are taken from Coroner's Court records and
> information on participation rates from the General Household Survey.
> Risk by time (US)
>
> .......................................................
>
> Fatalities per million hours
>
> Sky diving 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 0.88
> Passenger cars 0.47
> Water skiing 0.28
> Bicycling 0.26
> Flying (scheduled domestic airlines) 0.15
> Hunting 0.08
> Cosmic radiation from transcontinental flights 0.035
> Home living (active) 0.027
> Traveling in a school bus 0.022
> Passenger car post-collision fire 0.017
> Home living (including sleeping) 0.014
> Residential fire 0.003
>
> Data from Failure Analysis Associates, Inc (now Exponent Inc), Design
> News, 10 April 1993.
> =========================================================
>
> And let's recall that in at least five studies, bicycling has been found
> to be safer than _not_ bicycling. That is, its benefits have been shown
> to greatly outweigh its tiny risks.
>
>
Yes it’s your Fan club though seem to have lost Tom! But that aside the
complaint is about the way of expressing the risk ie per distance compared
to risk vs time say which is arguably more useful metric.

Though by both measures cycling is safe, so doesn’t seem to change much!

Roger Merriman

On 4/10/2024 1:45 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>
> Though by both measures cycling is safe, so doesn’t seem to change much!

Exactly.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 12:26:27 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 4/10/2024 2:54 AM, John B. wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 02:18:54 -0400, Catrike Ryder
>> <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 21:51:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Last I checked, there were
>>>> still over ten million miles bicycled between fatalities, and cycling
>>>> was much safer per mile than walking.
>>>
>>>
>>> <LOL> Safer per mile is a ridiculously stupid statistic. I'll wager
>>> that cycling is much safer *per mile* than mountain climbing, too.
>>>
>> But it justifies his arguments so perfectly.
>>
>> But evening things up perhaps hour of use would be more accurate.
>
>It always puzzles me that some avid cyclists are SO determined to
>pretend that simply riding a bike is terribly dangerous! Why would that be?

I never met anyone like that. Must be some of Krygowski's cycle club.
Snip

>And let's recall that in at least five studies, bicycling has been found
>to be safer than _not_ bicycling.

Krygowski demonstrates his inability to understand logic by posting
ridiculously illogical statistics. It all depends on what a person
does when they're not_ bicycling.

On 4/10/2024 4:38 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 12:26:27 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> It always puzzles me that some avid cyclists are SO determined to
>> pretend that simply riding a bike is terribly dangerous! Why would that be?
>
> I never met anyone like that.

I'm not surprised! This tricycle rider brags at every opportunity that
he hates interacting with people. He's described scowling at and
ignoring people who say hello to him.

I'm sure he meets very few people! ;-)

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 08:39:14 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 4/10/2024 1:54 AM, John B. wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 02:18:54 -0400, Catrike Ryder
>> <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 21:51:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Last I checked, there were
>>>> still over ten million miles bicycled between fatalities, and cycling
>>>> was much safer per mile than walking.
>>>
>>>
>>> <LOL> Safer per mile is a ridiculously stupid statistic. I'll wager
>>> that cycling is much safer *per mile* than mountain climbing, too.
>>>
>> But it justifies his arguments so perfectly.
>>
>> But evening things up perhaps hour of use would be more accurate.
>> After all a cyclist roaring down the road at 15 MPH can hardly be
>> compared with an auto traveling, sat, 70-80 MPH or an old lady
>> waddling along at 4 MPH.
>>
>> Just as aircraft accidents are measured at hour of use not MPH
>>
>Welcome back, Mr Slocumb.

Thank you. Been enjoying the pleasures of foreign lands.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 21:29:40 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 4/10/2024 4:38 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 12:26:27 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> It always puzzles me that some avid cyclists are SO determined to
>>> pretend that simply riding a bike is terribly dangerous! Why would that be?
>>
>> I never met anyone like that.
>
>I'm not surprised! This tricycle rider brags at every opportunity that
>he hates interacting with people. He's described scowling at and
>ignoring people who say hello to him.

I don't scowl. Scowling would be an interaction.

>I'm sure he meets very few people! ;-)

But do I care that Krygowski is not happy and satisfied with who and
what he is and I am.

On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 13:54:08 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 02:18:54 -0400, Catrike Ryder
><Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 21:51:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>><frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Last I checked, there were
>>>still over ten million miles bicycled between fatalities, and cycling
>>>was much safer per mile than walking.
>>
>>
>><LOL> Safer per mile is a ridiculously stupid statistic. I'll wager
>>that cycling is much safer *per mile* than mountain climbing, too.
>>
>But it justifies his arguments so perfectly.
>
>But evening things up perhaps hour of use would be more accurate.

That's what I suggested, but like you suggested, justifying his
arguments is important than logic.

>After all a cyclist roaring down the road at 15 MPH can hardly be
>compared with an auto traveling, sat, 70-80 MPH or an old lady
>waddling along at 4 MPH.
>
>Just as aircraft accidents are measured at hour of use not MPH

On 4/10/2024 9:42 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 08:39:14 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>> On 4/10/2024 1:54 AM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 02:18:54 -0400, Catrike Ryder
>>> <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 21:51:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Last I checked, there were
>>>>> still over ten million miles bicycled between fatalities, and cycling
>>>>> was much safer per mile than walking.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <LOL> Safer per mile is a ridiculously stupid statistic. I'll wager
>>>> that cycling is much safer *per mile* than mountain climbing, too.
>>>>
>>> But it justifies his arguments so perfectly.
>>>
>>> But evening things up perhaps hour of use would be more accurate.
>>> After all a cyclist roaring down the road at 15 MPH can hardly be
>>> compared with an auto traveling, sat, 70-80 MPH or an old lady
>>> waddling along at 4 MPH.
>>>
>>> Just as aircraft accidents are measured at hour of use not MPH
>>>
>> Welcome back, Mr Slocumb.
>
>
> Thank you. Been enjoying the pleasures of foreign lands.

We haven't yet received your postcards.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971