I've just read the ATA blog post about Bobby Cann's death (so maddening). The article opens by stating that "[i]n Chicago there are on average 12 people killed each year while biking." I have often wondered about the relative safety of biking versus driving in Chicago. Has anyone worked up these numbers? In other words, I am wondering whether it is safer to bike in Chicago or to drive here. This means I am curious about how the estimated number of bikers and biker deaths per year compares to the estimated number of drivers in Chicago and driver deaths per year here. Has anyone done any work on this?
Tags:
I am almost positive that number (12) is high.
Comparing deaths of cyclists per total cyclist versus deaths of people in vehicles versus total people in vehicles is tricky to compute. I believe there are decent numbers available for cars/mileage/time spent in cars, etc. But less good numbers for bikes. Maybe Steven can find some.
Agreed. Steven had 2012 Chicago cyclist fatalities at 8, which I believe was the same number as 2011.
Alex Z said:
I am almost positive that number (12) is high.
[snip]
This is probably a bit tough because there is a lot more data for automobile fatalities than there is for cycling fatalities. The best metric is probably fatalities per vehicle per mile driven. I don't think such data really exists in any volume for bicycle fatalities, but if you look at fatalities per mile driven I am pretty sure that the figure for cars is a lot higher. Cycling is one of those things that is, statistically, a lot safer than it seems.
Here's some car data for Chicago:
http://www.city-data.com/accidents/acc-Chicago-Illinois.html
Should we use the bat signal to call him?
Jennifer on the lake said:
This sounds like a job for Steven Vance.
In other words, I am wondering whether it is safer to bike in Chicago or to drive here.
I think the annual death toll for each is just one possible metric for assessing overall safety. Luckily, on the input side of the equation there are many variables that are completely within your control for affecting a positive outcome: namely when, where, and how you ride.
I don't know how the data on injuries and fatalities are collected, but I have a hunch that it is on the conservative side. Dig: there are more than 2.7 million people in the 234 square-mile area that is Chicago, as well as 1.3 million (registered) vehicles. I suspect there is more happening in the streets than just the tragedies that we hear about. One cop told me that he alone gets called to about 4 bike-car incidents a day.
That said, I think it's possible to bike and be extremely safe.
Thanks everyone. You all raise valid points. I am after a crude, but closest possible, estimation--the difficulties related to reporting etc notwithstanding.
Who is this Steve Vance and where is he when we need him? :-)
If it turns out driving is safer then what?
I don't think OP is out to prove cycling is safer than driving. What is the point of your question?
Flying is safer than both driving and cycling, now what?
Juan 2-8 mi. said:
If it turns out driving is safer then what?
It's perfectly legitimate to want to put relative safety of biking in perspective. Whenever I hear about biking fatalities, and learn about lovely people's lives ended, it is of course upsetting. And so I, and fellow bikers I know, wonder about how to put these numbers in perspective. We can do that for car and airplane fatalities; I'm just curious about the mode of transportation that I use the most.
Anyone from ATA care to weigh in about how you guys arrived at that number?
203 members
1 member
270 members
1 member
261 members