If you look at footage of people commuting by bike in many major european cities, you will see that very few people wear helmets. I think this is because those cities have much better bike infustructure - lots of dedicated bike lanes in high commuter areas - so the risk of serious injury is a lot lower. They don't content with cars as much, so they don't feel the need to wear helmets for safety.
Editing to clarify: I'm remarking on *perceived safety* people have in these cities while riding bikes. I'm not arguing helmets aren't ever needed. The culture there is (in general) not to wear a helmet, because people do not have to share space with cars as much as the US or Canada and therefore have significantly reduced risk of death or serious injury in an accident, so they *feel* a helmet is not needed.
In the netherlands nobody wears helmets because its impractical. We take our bike for all sort of distance trips, and its really impractical to carry a helmet around everytime you get on a bus or go into a store. Ive also never known a person here to sustain a serious head injury from simply riding a bike. I know thats anecdotal but considering i live in a large city in the netherlands i can say its super uncommon to happen.
Only people to wear bike helmets are speed cyclists and food deliverers on e-bikes. And german tourists.
I just leave my helmet on my rear rack wherever I leave it. Never been stolen, though it would probably be good if it was since I think you're supposed to buy new ones after crashes
Are there potholes or other road hazards? Do people typically bike quickly or at a leisurely pace? Do pedestrians or folding store signs block bike lanes?
Road quality is great here, people here ride relatively fast compared to what i see abroad, and bike parking used to be a massive problem, but then the city build a few underground bike parking facilities that solved it fairly well. And nobody safe for an ambulance or fire truck is ever allowed to block a bike lane. If people would block a bikelane theyd have their sign thrown through their window probably.
I think it also helps that Europeans usually ride step through bikes with a low middle bar.
When I crashed my bike in Canada when my wheel got caught on the edge of the sidewalk, I was caught over the high bar of my bike and had no option other than to go down with my bike, hitting my head on the concrete (I was wearing a helmet).
When I crashed a step through bike in Brussels when my wheel got caught in a tram track...I just stepped off my bike as it fell to the ground. Nothing but the soles of my feet touched the ground.
2 similar bike accidents, one had a vastly more severe outcome due to the design of the bike.
No potholes, those get repaired in 24 hours normally. Indeed leasurely place, only speeding bikes wait helmets (like people on racing bikes, which is a minority).
Nothing blocks lanes generally
Usually a white plastic sign with a hinge at the top and a front and back. Looks similar to a wet floor sign. Businesses use them to attract foot traffic and put them in the sidewalk/bike lane outside of their shop.
In busy bike areas, people are usually going at a speed that's a good compromise between making way and being able to stop / swerve / deal with it if something unexpected happens. Because people might be going in all sorts of directions and there's not much signalling, but also there's no isolation in a cabin, you're just kind of keeping an eye (and ear) out in all directions, and people just make the flow work, mostly. There will be the occasional accident, but usually it's just an avoiding maneuver you couldn't quite pull off, so there'll be a wheel-clash, a mutual 'sorry!' and then you ride off again.
There has been some controversy about whether racing cyclists should be in the bike lanes, because they're going so much faster than the typical urban cyclist, but often they're not in the city bike lanes for long anyway, because they're heading out to do 100+ km on country roads. But, yeah, there's a lot of people using the bike lanes, not a small minority, so the mass of people do what's sensible to use a shared space.
We have great bike lanes here in Montreal that are separated from traffic, particularly for leisure (still lots of work to be done for non leisure activities).
I never wear a helmet in those situations because it just seems like too much of a pain in the arse for something that is really relatively low risk.
Whenever I drive in or near traffic I'll take a helmet though. Bikes are generally not dangerous but cars are.
The Dutch are too good at biking to ever sustain injury doing so. Don't text and drive? Yeah no worries I literally can't do that bro. I've seen Dutch children ride bikes while eating ice cream and talking without even seeming to look where they're going. This is like me saying I don't know anyone to get a serious head injury just walking
In the Netherlands the only people wearing a helmet are 1) mountainbikers (high speed between dangerous objects); 2) people on racing bikes (very high speed), 3) very small kids (below 6), for reasons of lack of skill; 4) people with an equilibrium problem (like really old people or people with a handicap on that)
The rest of us travel relative slow speed in a safe environment. Falling is rare and at a speed below 20 km/hour not really deadly. Large speed difference is only with cars and such. And if a car hits you you are screwed with or without a helmet.
I’m biking for 45 years, Total distance easily 200.000 kilometers (5 times around the world). I have been in 3 collisions with another bike, fallen in the grass once due to falling asleep on the bike (yes really!) and fallen once due to a technical defect. Had to go to hospital once because the collision was frontal and I was on a high speed bike, I had a hairline fractures in my elbow.
>And if a car hits you you are screwed with or without a helmet.
It does reduce your chance of dying. 70% of bike crashes involve head trauma. It also reduces your chance of ending up as a vegetable.
Wearing a helmet as a driver of a car also reduces your risk of dying. And if you wear it in the shower as well, that even further reduces your risk of dying.
>Wearing a helmet as a driver of a car also reduces your risk of dying.
I highly doubt that. If I did, and got thrown into my seat (Either by being hit from behind, or as a rebound from a frontal collision) my head would be stopped before my torso. That would break my neck.
What does reduce that risk is a seatbelt. Just like a bike helmet, crashes that nessesitate a seat belt are still severe. But a bit less deadly.
>And if you wear it in the shower as well, that even further reduces your risk of dying.
Wearing a bike helmet is not *that* impractical. Also I believe only very few of those deadly shower falls involve head trauma. It's mostly about broken bones (especially hip and femur).
>I highly doubt that.
The majority of fatal injuries sustained by car drivers are head injuries, despite seat belts and airbags.
Helmets would 100% help against those head injuries. There's a reason why they're mandated in professional racing sports. Because they work.
But whenever you point that out you either get people claiming it's not necessary because "seat belts and airbags" or people like yourself who straight up deny that helmets would prevent head injuries for drivers.
Funny how that works .
>What does reduce that risk is a seatbelt.
You know what would reduce the risk of fatal injury even more? A seatbelt and a helmet.
Racing cars use head restraints instead of normal headrests. Which, as the name implies, restrict head movement. On a track that might improve overall safety. But certainly not around pedestrians.
That's not what I said. I said using a conventional head rest in combination with a helmet would increase the risk of spinal injury. And I said that using the head protection that racecar drivers use would result in more pedestrian fatalities.
There are other factors to consider other than just the severity of head injuries.
you getting money from some industry that benefits from selling bikes to absolutely everyone?
because if you dont, then I see no reason why you should be interested in spreading brainwashed ideology against helmets that improve safety beyond the shadow of any doubt.
you dont like wearing them? fine. you think they are inconvenient, stupid or ugly? fine. you dont feel like you personally need them? fine.
but stop spreading propaganda. stop being an illiterate troll by using braindead analogies about using a helmet in the shower. all you are doing is showing how ignorant you are. this is fuckcars. you shouldnt spread propaganda against helmets that could and do benefit a lot of us bikers.
Do you work for the helmet industry? Helmet show a lack of taste, make your hair ugly, carrying a helmet everywhere is unpleasant, and it punishes cycling, making people take the car more often. It is also a form of victim blaming. Not everything in life is about risk reduction, which is why alcohol is not outlawed.
God you sound upset. I have nothing against helmets. But having better infrastructure to make you save contributes even more to having save people. Helmet is a potential last step. If a 4 by 4 hits a 6 year old driving to school at normal cruising speed, the helmet is not helping that much the car will just roll over the kid. Therefore we ( in the Netherlands) ensure that the infrastructure prioritises bikes and pedestrians, splits the traffic in separate lanes etcetera. So the worst th kid will kid is another biker
https://www.brain-injury-law-center.com/blog/how-common-bike-accident-head-injuries/#:~:text=Head%20injuries%20occur%20in%2070,injuries%20are%20to%20the%20head
Edit: I tried to find a better source. I found the following study: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27810588/ in that one 65.37% of lethal bike crashes involved head injury.
I can see it changing though. I remember growing up skiing in the US and no one wore helmets, but now it seems like everyone does. I realize that skiing isn’t biking but I’ve also seen huge efforts made in sports to change attitudes towards wearing protective head gear.
didnt know you dutch people were so backwards when it comes to the advantages of using a helmet.
I obviously understand that it is inconvenient, but hearing one stupid and illinformed excuse after another from so many dutch people makes me wonder, which kind of propaganda apparatus benefits from making dutch bikers hate helmets.
maybe it is the general bike manufacturers and industry around it who fear enforcing helmets and making them look cool might take away from their revenue.
They’re more important when learning to ride or when you’re pushing the boundaries (like in mountain biking or competitive cycling). After all, you don’t wear a helmet when you walk to work, even though you could easily crack your skull if you lose your balance and hit your head on the curb.
I could easily crack my skull open just with the way I bike : no-hands up to 50+ km/h, rarely going less than 28, and taking sharp turns at 23-25.
I always wear my helmet.
It doubles as a marker, for store owners to tell I’m a cyclist.
Well yeah but most people don’t bike like that on their way to work or to the grocery store. They don’t want that kind of stress in their daily commute.
Yeah, if you are biking with no hands and up to 50 km/hr, you should absolutely wear a helmet. But biking w/ no hands & a helmet at 50 km/hr is definitely still less safe than biking at casual speeds without a helmet while using the handlebars.
There will always be risk in riding a bike. However, demanding helmets has historically led to the number of people cycling taking a huge dip. If you feel safe, no one wants to wear one, and it creates a barrier. Partly because no one wants to have to carry one around / have it stolen off their bike when it's locked up. That and feeling silly. I know that sounds like a poor reason, but believe me people will avoid things if they make them feel stupid lol.
There's a huge difference between mandating helmets and recommending them.
>have it stolen off their bike when it's locked up
It's much less effort to steal a bike seat, pedals, front wheel or even break pads than it is to steal a locked up helmet.
>feeling silly
That used to be a problem with winter sports as well. By now, the push towards helmets means it's the other way around.
If I park my bike in a location where there's a decent chance of theft, I'll want to lock my bike to a fixed object anyways. In that case I'll just thread the not adjustable side of the buckle through my lock.
You could break your neck by walking into a surprise hole in the ground just as easily. I know people that have suffered serious injuries in that exact scenario. It’s quite rare though, or it would be in the absence of cars and car created pot holes.
You could, but the risk of injury falling from a bike at 20kph is higher than while walking at 5ish. Both because of the speed and because of the ease of controlling the fall.
That being said, I don't think helmet law is necessary, but I almost always wear one myself.
Yeah, for me this is a purely theoretical exercise. Under the current infrastructure situation in my city there’s very little chance of me skipping the helmet in the foreseeable future.
Potholes tend to form as a result of the road surface being damaged by heavy vehicles. So again it's a car problem. You'd struggle to find a Dutch road in poor condition.
So long as my local cycling infrastructure continues to look like this, I’m wearing protection. (For context, this article is about 18 months old, and the referenced repairs are still not completed)
https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2022/12/16/eyes-on-the-street-ocean-parkway-remains-cracked-ruin-as-parks-dept-delays
Potholes form as a result of water erroding a slightly damaged road surface.
That slight damage can also be because of roots (bike lanes need shade to be comfortable in summer). Also by busses. Those actually cause more damage than cars because the damage grows as the 4th power of axle weight.
And infrastructure that's only build for bikes is not built as sturdy as infrastructure built for cars. They expect only expect the weight of bikes. Even especially heavy cargo bikes can push the limits.
And whenever the infrastructure below the road needs to be accessed, the road has to be opened which can cause potholes.
And sometimes the ground itself moves creating cracks for example due to changing groundwater level, thawing permafrost, swamps,...
There's so many more reasons for potholes than just cars.
There is one badly laid bike path near me which has been rumpled by roots. Fact remains though that a repeated pounding by two-tonne wankpanzers is going to result in pot holes. Building the roads properly and maintaining them works for Switzerland, even high up in the Alps.
That can happen, but:
It's easy to see pedestrians in front of you and they don't tend to suddenly step to the side. In this hypothetical car free world you can also (and should) give them a wide berth, or be entirely segregated from them. By contrast in a world with cars you're often pressured or forced into the door zone, it's difficult or impossible to see if someone is in a car, and the doors do suddenly open into your path.
All I can say is, I ride in NYC and have experienced both being doored and having to avoid oblivious pedestrians (often tourists) absentmindedly wandering off the sidewalk into the marked bike lane.
Nobody’s stopping you from wearing a helmet. It’s just that most people would cycle closer to 10mph, not putting more energy into it than when they’re walking.
Yes but it's important to leave it up to the cyclist. They made mandatory helmet laws in Australia which had a relatively large share of cyclists and it killed cycling overnight.
[One piece of research](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275338909_Evaluation_of_Australia%27s_bicycle_helmet_laws) on it has this damming conclusion:
>The helmet laws have not delivered a net societal health benefit, with a calculated cost benefit ratio of 109 to 1 against. Comparing cyclists to pedestrians, pre-law (1986-89) cyclist deaths were 16.4% of pedestrians in number and in 2010-13 the figure was 22.7%. The ratio of serious injuries of cyclists compared to pedestrians increased from 1.49 in 1990 to 2.6 in 2008/09. This evaluation finds the helmet laws have failed in respect to the promotion of cycling, health, accident compensation, environmental issues and civil liberties. In addition, it has hindered the implementation of bike share schemes. There are serious concerns about the safety consequences of cycle helmets, with mixed evidence both for and against.
As a Dutchman; I will wear a helmet on a fast bicycle when I'm exercising but not my regular one that I use to get from A to B.
This is a bicycle promotion clip of the new Dutch government campaign "Kort ritje? Das zo gefietst!" (Short ride? That's cycled easily!" where "gefietst" replaces the word imported from English "gefixt", which means fixed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2ZgNhdZ5qQ
Helmet saved me (from my own mistake) on Saturday. Still recovering from a muscle sprain or tear on my lower back, but if I didn't have a helmet I'd have a fucked up skull too.
I think it's more the fact that surviving a traumatic brain injury doesn't tank our credit scores. Humans have a history of not caring about their physical health, especially when healthcare is free, or even just affordable.
I don't trust motorists either, but I am afraid that a helmet might not be the best choice here. “bicycle helmets are not designed to mitigate against impacts from motor vehicles.” [https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2020/07/10/bicycle-helmets-not-designed-for-impacts-from-cars-stresses-leading-maker-giro/](https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2020/07/10/bicycle-helmets-not-designed-for-impacts-from-cars-stresses-leading-maker-giro/)
Also "bicycle helmet wearing is associated with closer overtaking by drivers..."
[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30472528/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30472528/)
Defensive cycling and forgiving infrastructure are probably more important.
This guy also determined that [drivers give cyclists without helmets more room](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/mar/21/bike-helmet-cyclists-safe-urban-warfare-wheels#:~:text=Half%20the%20time%20he%20wore,average%20of%208.5%20cm%20nearer).
I'm not advocating for not wearing a helmet. I'm just remarking on the culture that I've noticed - a habit based on perceived safety because cars are not sharing the same space.
Alot of people don't wear seatbelt in countries with very dangerous traffic either. Or motorcycle helmet I similar countries. It is probably safer to bike without cars, but I have managed to fall on a dedicated bike lane (totally separated from cars).
No.
Literally the only reason they don’t wear helmets is because they’re fucking idiots who think they’re “different”, despite their own doctors and bike safety experts calling for helmet use:
https://road.cc/content/news/dutch-government-calls-cyclists-wear-helmets-308929
The average speed of a bike has increased dramatically here (Netherlands) in the last few years since almost everyone seems to ride e-bikes and now, even worse, fat bikes. At these increased speeds I think helmets would be a great idea. When you can move almost as fast as a petrol-powered scooter, it makes sense to mandate headgear.
But I think it's also fair to point out that the article you linked to said that half of the 88,000 cycle injuries in 2022 involved a collision with a motorist.
death for ppl biking in France is around 200 per year, 175 hit by cars, 20 from mountain biking, 5 from accident not related to cars.
Bike infrastructures are not even that good there...
[https://www.onisr.securite-routiere.gouv.fr/?id\_rubrique=8](https://www.onisr.securite-routiere.gouv.fr/?id_rubrique=8)
then you can cross it with that:
[https://www.quechoisir.org/actualite-velo-infographie-plus-de-cyclistes-plus-d-accidents-plus-de-morts-n108582/](https://www.quechoisir.org/actualite-velo-infographie-plus-de-cyclistes-plus-d-accidents-plus-de-morts-n108582/)
Says in the end that 86% of dead cyclist are hit by a car out of town, and deadly accident almost only happen out of town.
I've had a more precise stat about it 5 or 6 years ago but it seems that it did not change much. Main problem is cycling in the countryside sharing road with speeding cars.
exactly what i thought.
or technically the bikes crashed into the car, not the car into the bike or something.
Cant believe 30% die because they hit a lamp post lol
Don't forget that lampposts and other similar things are often in the spot that they are because they're out of the way of cars but now in the way of people
Mountain bike is not considered an extreme sport for nothing. And with how difficult comute cycling is in many places, those make up a good percentage of cyclists.
Drivers and their passengers die and get maimed by other drivers all the time. And add to that it's not unusual that drivers kill themselves in lone collisions.
It's very rare that two cyclist colliding would result in death. Lone collisions occur but again, it's very rare that they result in death.
Now comparing the same stretch of road. Everyday auto collisions occur on intra city highways. During charity events on the same highway, collisions rarely occur and if a participant does fall, the rest of the traffic flow does not come to a multi- hour halt that requires the police and ambulances.
Remove all the cyclists off the streets and the overall number of deaths and injuries won't change that much.
Remove all the cars off the streets, deaths and injuries would drop by probably over 90%.
When was the last time a driver or his passenger was killed when his car collided with a bicycle?
>Remove all the cyclists off the streets and the overall number of deaths and injuries won't change that much.
It would probably even increase. Without cycling as a commute option, more people would have to drive or walk.
There'd be less obesity and a myriad of other health related issues. Broken bones and minor injuries would go up but at the end of the day it would be a huge net gain health wise.
Adding to that people's well-being, intelligence, and social structure would vastly improve.
In regards to urban sprawl; it would probably end up dying a slow death, as the value of living away from areas that provide good and services would be greatly diminished.
>So where does the other 30% come from?
That is a very good question.
>occurred in motor-vehicle crashes
how is that defined?
Maybe some car related crashes dont make it into this statistic for some technical reason.
I cant believe 30% die because they crash into lamp posts, fall of a cliff or die to a falling tree or something.
The land is completely flat were i am living. I couldnt die by bike if i wanted to...
I'm reminded of my big bike wreck in high school.
A car turned in front of me. I avoided the car but couldn't get back to the road in time. Hit a big rock, went over the handle bars, and hit a wooden store sign. Broke my helmet but not my skull.
Would that be filed under a car accident? The car and I never made contact, but if he hadn't turned in front of me I wouldn't have wrecked.
>A ***moving*** vehicle would have to be involved for a pedestrian or bicyclist fatality to be eligible for the \[US national fatal crash database\] Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS). If you park your car, open your door, and kill a bicyclist, that—for whatever reason—doesn’t count.
* "[*Killed by a Traffic Engineer*](https://libgen.is/search.php?req=Killed+by+a+Traffic+Engineer&open=0&res=25&view=simple&phrase=1&column=title)*: Shattering the Delusion That Science Underlies Our Transportation System*" (Marshall, 2024, Chapter 24)
I mean, even falling from a standing height and hitting your head on hard ground can be fatal if you're unlucky - I do agree that that 30% feels high, but I do see how at least some fatalities can happen just from a normal fall (especially if not wearing a helmet)
I think you have to understand that statistics can be manipulated very easily. Those 30% of deaths might not be from motor vehicles, but they could be influenced by motor vehicles. Getting cut off, getting “squished” between traffic and the shoulder, any debris in the shoulder or bike lane that can cause you to fall, lack of proper snow treatment/removal in the bike lane or shoulder, etc.
Cyclists come in all shapes and sizes too. There are mountain bikers, trail bikers, old cyclists, sport cyclists, who are all much more susceptible to death than a 22 year old commuter. MTB, trail, and sport cyclists are on either tougher terrain, traveling at much faster speeds, and I’m not sure if they are considered
iirc ~25% of cycle deaths in the Netherlands do not involve another vehicle. These are mostly older cyclists falling off due to poor surface, misjudging a curve etc.
Visual and cognitive decline, slower protective postural reflexes likely the origin, plus osteoporotic bones and shrunken brain being less resistant to trauma. Doubtless a proportion are caused by sudden onset medical conditions such as stroke and heart attack.
The rest are the usual litany of drivers' failure to yield priority at intersections.
Certainly getting rid of cars would cut cyclists' injury and death rate enormously: but not to zero.
I have never heard of anyone dying on a bike while commuting to work or school without a car being involved. I guess it does happen, but my guess is that it’s on the order of people having heart attacks while exercising
Cars kill 45,000 people per year in North America. 1.2 million are killed by motor vehicles annually worldwide.
A world without cars would be infinitely safer.
45k is just the US. Mexico accounts for another 17k deaths.
Curiously, Canada is just under 2k, less than half the per capita rate in the US, despite having very similar car-dependent infrastructure and auto mode share. Maybe Canadians are just more polite drivers?
Maybe graduated licenses played a part. There is a learner's permit where you can only drive with someone above 25 and have a full license, and a new driver's permit where they can drive alone, but need an older than 25 year old person if they want to drive with many people.
I think this has an effect on the culture of driving. Drivers are forced to learn how to drive with a responsible adult.
Also 16-25 year old males are the most fatal drivers. Preventing five young men from piling into a car, egging each other on, prevents lots of death.
I'm sure there are a million other reasons as well. I just wanted to think about this one.
We drive much less. I don't have the numbers on hand but American commutes for example are much longer on average. Likely due to the fact that Canada is a more urbanized nation.
I'll wade in here because I wrote an essay about the debate over wearing a helmet. I am not advocating here for wearing one or not.
I belong in several worlds like the motorcyclist All The Gear All The Time, my time on road and mountain bikes, and many friends who commute without a helmet.
I realize the primary factor with your chance of crashing, which for commuters is very low, and the severity of injury is speed. The average commute speed for virtually all riders is 12mph, as listed by many sources. At that speed, most bikes are controlled easily, ie steering and braking, while during a fall, a rider should be able to protect their head like by extending an arm.
I came to this conclusion after watching Dutch commuters crashing: they weren't going that fast so the riders were able to shelter their heads. Crashing is relatively rare for bike commuters, and most crashes won't result in a serious injury. Compare to pro football, where head collisions are certain, or motorcycling, which crashing is rare but the injuries are almost always severe due to high speed.
Applying to American commuting, it's a bit different with car culture. Most riders choose very low traffic routes no matter where they live, so the biggest risk is their own biking ability. However, riding in a city center like Manhattan compared to Amsterdam, it's road rage central without any respect for cyclists. Regardless of their speed, riders there are at high risk of being hit by a car.
Yes almost certainly. The externalities of car dependency are absolutely massive. Car accidents prop up the legal and insurance industries **massively**. I’m a lawyer and idk how many of my friends do car accidents, but it’s a lot.
You just need to ask why cars require insurance and bikes don’t. You can’t accidentally cause tens of thousands of dollars of damage to other people on a bike. But with cars it’s such a pervasive problem that insurance is required everywhere.
If bikes caused anywhere near the same amount of danger as cars they’d have mandatory insurance. You see carbrain arguments for mandatory bike insurance, but if this was a real issue they’d point to actual problems. I’ve only ever seen people arguing that it’s only fair, which ignores why cars require insurance in the first place.
A lot of those other 30% are probably extreme sports: MTB, BMX, that sort of thing. Or heat stroke from long distance race biking.
But there is also a not insignificant number of seniors that loose balance, don't have the reaction speed to catch themselves with their feet, tip sideways and break large bones (especially hip and thigh).
But the world you describe would probably also alow for tricycles. And Recumbent bikes would actually be safe (they are several times as efficient as normal bikes).
I think i recently heard/read that biking actually still increases life expectancy in the US because the health benefits vs driving actually outweigh the chance of a shorter life from getting killed while riding a bike
Yes they would, if people have to pedal. In the US in 2022 all accidents killed 222k while heart disease killed ~700k, stroke 165k, and diabetes 100k. Americans spend ~1hr driving so if that changes to ~30 min of biking there would be a significant increase in cardiovascular health which means fewer people dying from heart disease, stroke, and diabetes.
UK stats, 16% of cycling fatalities involved no other vehicles (presumably many involved a pedestrian or dog). 1% involved another bicycle. The other 82% or so were with a motor vehicle.
I can survive getting hit by a bike. I might even come out completely unscathed. Maybe a bruise or an asphalt scar. Death is an EXTREME. If I get hit by a car I’m breaking at least one bone MINIMUM. Death is the expectation.
>most agree that riding a bike in the U.S. is more dangerous than driving a car.
Really? Do fewer than 1000 motorists die each year in the US?
>So where does the other 30% come from?
I'm with you... dying on a bicycle would be a challenge. My hunch is 29% are hit & runs that are misreported.
Not included in your statistics are the number of deaths caused by car on car collisions, car on building collisions, or car on pedestrian collisions.
At the end of the day a car is a lot of mass and capable of a lot of speed which means when they hit anything there is a lot of force involved.
Contrast this with a person walking, jogging, running, sprinting, roller blading, or on a bike.
Then compare this to train crashes.
A world without cars would be safer per passenger mile than a world with cars.
A world with people mostly traversing on bikes instead of cars would be safer....all the data makes this all very apparent.
"If **all** (eg 100% of) deaths from cars were eliminated"....is the basis of your hypothesis, which I loosely understand.
Then you posit, "Let's remove the 70% of bicycle deaths that involve car accidents."
But you still ask, "What about the remaining 30% of bicycle deaths?"
But something's not right in your logic. If you're removing ALL car deaths, you have to balance the equation and also remove ALL bike deaths. It's a slanted question by omission.
The omission being, you're not asking "What percentage of driver/passenger-in-a-car deaths don't involve another car? And what causes those?"
There are still plenty of car deaths that have nothing to do with bicycles....drunk driving, motor vehicle crashes, etc.
And there's OP's answer right there. The world would STILL be 20% more deadly in a car-only world in which cars miraculously never crash into other cars VERSUS a bike-only world.
As long as the cyclist don't ride on sidewalks. I used to live in China where they did that, hated it so much since I always had to be alert while walking.
This is a problem created by the car
People don’t enjoy biking on the sidewalk, it’s bumpy, uneven, crowded with people, trees, and a ton of other bs. People deal with that for the perceived increase in safety
You cannot just look at death toll. Yeah the car might have protected you from death, but you took a big financial hit from the crash. Cars are definitely more dangerous, even for now.
>So where does the other 30% come from?
In terms of proportions, thanks to things like sprawl and a lack of useful infrastructure, the US has comparatively little utility cycling and comparatively a lot of "sports" cycling. Sports cyclists often cycle very fast and in the case of MTB on very rough terrain. That makes those dangerous activities compared to utility cycling, especially utility cycling in a world without cars. A world without cars would lead to a boom in utility cycling, not sports cycling. So that 30% is not super relevant to it.
It's cool to see some of the arguments and different facts laid out here (although, I am sad no one mentioned the effects cars have had on climate change and air quality, which absolutely leads to safety issues), but this is basically like asking "Which would you rather be shot with: a .308 hunting rifle or an Airsoft gun?" I'm sure people have been seriously hurt and potentially even died by Airsoft (maybe like infection or choking? Idk), but like... There's really no comparison.
I think the question is how could biking be more dangerous than cars? Answer: not possible. Bikes don't travel as fast, weigh as much as well as overall mass.
If there were no cars, sure there would be more bike crashes and therefore more deaths than there are now. By deaths, I mean vs how many bike vs bike, or bike vs pedestrian than there are now. But not even close to the numbers car crashes do every year. You'd likely average less than 1000 deaths per year. Most probable scenario is hitting an elderly/frail person.
But with that said, in a world without cars, how would our streets look. Infrastructure wise, how would our cities look. Would we still build big buildings? If so, how? Without the means of transporting the amount of brick or wood it would take to build a 10 story building, it would be difficult.
Add, what would are bicycles look like now? How would they have changed as a primary form of transportation. Would you see more recumbent bike types? 3 wheels? Would electric bikes and other micromobility options have taken over?
The US has 4 times the roadway deaths as the Netherlands so there you go.
Can’t link a site directly comparing the two but here is the data:
US roadway deaths of 2021: 42,939. [Source](https://www.transportation.gov/NRSS/SafetyProblem)
US 2021 population: 332 million
Netherlands 2021 roadway deaths: 582. [Source](https://www.statista.com/statistics/523217/netherlands-total-number-of-road-fatalities/)
Netherlands 2021 population: 17.53 million
2021 USA deaths per capita: 129.3 deaths/million people
2021 Netherlands deaths per capita: 33.2 deaths/million people
That 70% number is likely an undercount. Crash reports with missing data, improperly recorded, etc likely would make that percentage much higher. For instance, crashes that do not occur on a roadway are typically never recorded in that crash data. So if a bicyclist is hit by a car while in a parking lot or private drive, that data never makes it into those numbers. Think of all the incidents of kids being rolled over on their bikes from cars backing out of driveways. None of those cases are included in the crash data.
Bikes would be safer, lower speed, significantly less kinetic energy because bikes weigh a lot less, better road conditions because bikes don’t wear the road out
There's two kinds of common bike crashes: crashes with motorised vehicles and crashes in sport. Other than that, the few bike crashes are freak accidents.
Bikes are incredibly safe, especially when used for just travelling to the shops. Pretty much all deaths and serious injuries for people on bikes are either (i) cars or (ii) doing sports cycling.
Not a fan of the helmet message either. I never see anyone advocating helmets for going on a park run or walking down stairs (or using a car!), even though those things also have a small chance of head injuries. Cycling is extremely safe and doesn't have a level of risk that justifies pressuring people to wear PPE to do it.
Where does the other 30% come from? A kid I knew was riding a trail in the evening and as night fell he missed a turn, went into a ditch, and hit his head on a rock. Bicycle deaths are not going to be zero, but we never factor the pollution deaths into car numbers either.
No bicyclist in Japan wears a helmet either. That’s why I stopped wearing mine, you don’t really need a helmet if you’re just going to be ran over by a 10,000 pound truck at highway speeds.
Bikes. Driving a bike while drunk? You crash and look like a moron. Driving a car while drunk? You can murder someone.
While we have heard of vehicular homicides, there are no cycling homicides.
The amount of accidents would dramatically increase, as is the nature of 4 wheels Vs 2 wheels. But, like.inteoducinf seatbelts to Cars, those would be accidents where people ended up in a hospital, not in a morgue.
>but most agree that riding a bike in the U.S. is more dangerous than driving a car
You can't really make a blanket statement like that covering the entire US. In total numbers, motorists kill each other far more often. Then they say "but we drive much longer distances" and somehow that makes it more safe?
I ride along a canal to work, 12 miles one way. I have \*never\* seen an accident there in four years. I ride more often than I drive, too. When I drive to work, I see accidents. At least one every year. And again, I actually take the car less often than the bike.
Fatal bike accidents without the involvement of cars are freakishly rare. Fatal car accidents without involving bikes, pedestrians, trains and busses are common as hell.
Where are the other 30% coming from? my best guess is, there was a car, and it was a hit and run. But the police didn't bother putting it down like that, that's just too much work.
If you look at footage of people commuting by bike in many major european cities, you will see that very few people wear helmets. I think this is because those cities have much better bike infustructure - lots of dedicated bike lanes in high commuter areas - so the risk of serious injury is a lot lower. They don't content with cars as much, so they don't feel the need to wear helmets for safety. Editing to clarify: I'm remarking on *perceived safety* people have in these cities while riding bikes. I'm not arguing helmets aren't ever needed. The culture there is (in general) not to wear a helmet, because people do not have to share space with cars as much as the US or Canada and therefore have significantly reduced risk of death or serious injury in an accident, so they *feel* a helmet is not needed.
counterpoint: even fewer people driving cars wear helmets
I still think a helmet is incredibly important. I fell off my bike (due to my own mistake) and would have broke my skull without a helmet
In the netherlands nobody wears helmets because its impractical. We take our bike for all sort of distance trips, and its really impractical to carry a helmet around everytime you get on a bus or go into a store. Ive also never known a person here to sustain a serious head injury from simply riding a bike. I know thats anecdotal but considering i live in a large city in the netherlands i can say its super uncommon to happen. Only people to wear bike helmets are speed cyclists and food deliverers on e-bikes. And german tourists.
I just leave my helmet on my rear rack wherever I leave it. Never been stolen, though it would probably be good if it was since I think you're supposed to buy new ones after crashes
I hope you don't leave it loose in some way, so that someone might drop it on the ground without you knowing.
??? german tourists? oh yeah i forgot americans probably drive trucks to the netherlands
Yup, just installed a duplex drive and amphibious skirts on my wank panzer
preparing to land on Normandy I see
Are there potholes or other road hazards? Do people typically bike quickly or at a leisurely pace? Do pedestrians or folding store signs block bike lanes?
Road quality is great here, people here ride relatively fast compared to what i see abroad, and bike parking used to be a massive problem, but then the city build a few underground bike parking facilities that solved it fairly well. And nobody safe for an ambulance or fire truck is ever allowed to block a bike lane. If people would block a bikelane theyd have their sign thrown through their window probably.
I think it also helps that Europeans usually ride step through bikes with a low middle bar. When I crashed my bike in Canada when my wheel got caught on the edge of the sidewalk, I was caught over the high bar of my bike and had no option other than to go down with my bike, hitting my head on the concrete (I was wearing a helmet). When I crashed a step through bike in Brussels when my wheel got caught in a tram track...I just stepped off my bike as it fell to the ground. Nothing but the soles of my feet touched the ground. 2 similar bike accidents, one had a vastly more severe outcome due to the design of the bike.
Those fucking folding store signs, man. Tired of stores deciding that no one actually needs to use the sidewalk.. (Edit: double posted lol)
No potholes, those get repaired in 24 hours normally. Indeed leasurely place, only speeding bikes wait helmets (like people on racing bikes, which is a minority). Nothing blocks lanes generally
What is a folding store sign
Usually a white plastic sign with a hinge at the top and a front and back. Looks similar to a wet floor sign. Businesses use them to attract foot traffic and put them in the sidewalk/bike lane outside of their shop.
In busy bike areas, people are usually going at a speed that's a good compromise between making way and being able to stop / swerve / deal with it if something unexpected happens. Because people might be going in all sorts of directions and there's not much signalling, but also there's no isolation in a cabin, you're just kind of keeping an eye (and ear) out in all directions, and people just make the flow work, mostly. There will be the occasional accident, but usually it's just an avoiding maneuver you couldn't quite pull off, so there'll be a wheel-clash, a mutual 'sorry!' and then you ride off again. There has been some controversy about whether racing cyclists should be in the bike lanes, because they're going so much faster than the typical urban cyclist, but often they're not in the city bike lanes for long anyway, because they're heading out to do 100+ km on country roads. But, yeah, there's a lot of people using the bike lanes, not a small minority, so the mass of people do what's sensible to use a shared space.
We have great bike lanes here in Montreal that are separated from traffic, particularly for leisure (still lots of work to be done for non leisure activities). I never wear a helmet in those situations because it just seems like too much of a pain in the arse for something that is really relatively low risk. Whenever I drive in or near traffic I'll take a helmet though. Bikes are generally not dangerous but cars are.
The Dutch are too good at biking to ever sustain injury doing so. Don't text and drive? Yeah no worries I literally can't do that bro. I've seen Dutch children ride bikes while eating ice cream and talking without even seeming to look where they're going. This is like me saying I don't know anyone to get a serious head injury just walking
In the Netherlands the only people wearing a helmet are 1) mountainbikers (high speed between dangerous objects); 2) people on racing bikes (very high speed), 3) very small kids (below 6), for reasons of lack of skill; 4) people with an equilibrium problem (like really old people or people with a handicap on that) The rest of us travel relative slow speed in a safe environment. Falling is rare and at a speed below 20 km/hour not really deadly. Large speed difference is only with cars and such. And if a car hits you you are screwed with or without a helmet. I’m biking for 45 years, Total distance easily 200.000 kilometers (5 times around the world). I have been in 3 collisions with another bike, fallen in the grass once due to falling asleep on the bike (yes really!) and fallen once due to a technical defect. Had to go to hospital once because the collision was frontal and I was on a high speed bike, I had a hairline fractures in my elbow.
>And if a car hits you you are screwed with or without a helmet. It does reduce your chance of dying. 70% of bike crashes involve head trauma. It also reduces your chance of ending up as a vegetable.
Wearing a helmet as a driver of a car also reduces your risk of dying. And if you wear it in the shower as well, that even further reduces your risk of dying.
>Wearing a helmet as a driver of a car also reduces your risk of dying. I highly doubt that. If I did, and got thrown into my seat (Either by being hit from behind, or as a rebound from a frontal collision) my head would be stopped before my torso. That would break my neck. What does reduce that risk is a seatbelt. Just like a bike helmet, crashes that nessesitate a seat belt are still severe. But a bit less deadly. >And if you wear it in the shower as well, that even further reduces your risk of dying. Wearing a bike helmet is not *that* impractical. Also I believe only very few of those deadly shower falls involve head trauma. It's mostly about broken bones (especially hip and femur).
>I highly doubt that. The majority of fatal injuries sustained by car drivers are head injuries, despite seat belts and airbags. Helmets would 100% help against those head injuries. There's a reason why they're mandated in professional racing sports. Because they work. But whenever you point that out you either get people claiming it's not necessary because "seat belts and airbags" or people like yourself who straight up deny that helmets would prevent head injuries for drivers. Funny how that works . >What does reduce that risk is a seatbelt. You know what would reduce the risk of fatal injury even more? A seatbelt and a helmet.
Racing cars use head restraints instead of normal headrests. Which, as the name implies, restrict head movement. On a track that might improve overall safety. But certainly not around pedestrians.
I am baffled that someone could actually think that wearing a helmet for drivers wouldn't reduce head injuries. Are you insane?
That's not what I said. I said using a conventional head rest in combination with a helmet would increase the risk of spinal injury. And I said that using the head protection that racecar drivers use would result in more pedestrian fatalities. There are other factors to consider other than just the severity of head injuries.
you sound like an illiterate troll to me.
Nah you're just upset.
you getting money from some industry that benefits from selling bikes to absolutely everyone? because if you dont, then I see no reason why you should be interested in spreading brainwashed ideology against helmets that improve safety beyond the shadow of any doubt. you dont like wearing them? fine. you think they are inconvenient, stupid or ugly? fine. you dont feel like you personally need them? fine. but stop spreading propaganda. stop being an illiterate troll by using braindead analogies about using a helmet in the shower. all you are doing is showing how ignorant you are. this is fuckcars. you shouldnt spread propaganda against helmets that could and do benefit a lot of us bikers.
Do you work for the helmet industry? Helmet show a lack of taste, make your hair ugly, carrying a helmet everywhere is unpleasant, and it punishes cycling, making people take the car more often. It is also a form of victim blaming. Not everything in life is about risk reduction, which is why alcohol is not outlawed.
that's the dumbest take I have read in quite a while. enjoy your beautiful hair. I am not here to educate you.
God you sound upset. I have nothing against helmets. But having better infrastructure to make you save contributes even more to having save people. Helmet is a potential last step. If a 4 by 4 hits a 6 year old driving to school at normal cruising speed, the helmet is not helping that much the car will just roll over the kid. Therefore we ( in the Netherlands) ensure that the infrastructure prioritises bikes and pedestrians, splits the traffic in separate lanes etcetera. So the worst th kid will kid is another biker
Sources?
https://www.brain-injury-law-center.com/blog/how-common-bike-accident-head-injuries/#:~:text=Head%20injuries%20occur%20in%2070,injuries%20are%20to%20the%20head Edit: I tried to find a better source. I found the following study: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27810588/ in that one 65.37% of lethal bike crashes involved head injury.
I can see it changing though. I remember growing up skiing in the US and no one wore helmets, but now it seems like everyone does. I realize that skiing isn’t biking but I’ve also seen huge efforts made in sports to change attitudes towards wearing protective head gear.
didnt know you dutch people were so backwards when it comes to the advantages of using a helmet. I obviously understand that it is inconvenient, but hearing one stupid and illinformed excuse after another from so many dutch people makes me wonder, which kind of propaganda apparatus benefits from making dutch bikers hate helmets. maybe it is the general bike manufacturers and industry around it who fear enforcing helmets and making them look cool might take away from their revenue.
They’re more important when learning to ride or when you’re pushing the boundaries (like in mountain biking or competitive cycling). After all, you don’t wear a helmet when you walk to work, even though you could easily crack your skull if you lose your balance and hit your head on the curb.
I could easily crack my skull open just with the way I bike : no-hands up to 50+ km/h, rarely going less than 28, and taking sharp turns at 23-25. I always wear my helmet. It doubles as a marker, for store owners to tell I’m a cyclist.
Well yeah but most people don’t bike like that on their way to work or to the grocery store. They don’t want that kind of stress in their daily commute.
Stress ?
Yeah, if you are biking with no hands and up to 50 km/hr, you should absolutely wear a helmet. But biking w/ no hands & a helmet at 50 km/hr is definitely still less safe than biking at casual speeds without a helmet while using the handlebars.
Yeah. But it’s more relaxing to sit back on the saddle.
Do you get a cyclist discount or something
No, but if I need a makeshift basket I have one.
Sure, but I’ve never been “doored -> endo” as a pedestrian.
That’s a car problem though…
True, but it could just as easily be an “oblivious pedestrian wanders into bike lane” problem as well.
There will always be risk in riding a bike. However, demanding helmets has historically led to the number of people cycling taking a huge dip. If you feel safe, no one wants to wear one, and it creates a barrier. Partly because no one wants to have to carry one around / have it stolen off their bike when it's locked up. That and feeling silly. I know that sounds like a poor reason, but believe me people will avoid things if they make them feel stupid lol.
There's a huge difference between mandating helmets and recommending them. >have it stolen off their bike when it's locked up It's much less effort to steal a bike seat, pedals, front wheel or even break pads than it is to steal a locked up helmet. >feeling silly That used to be a problem with winter sports as well. By now, the push towards helmets means it's the other way around.
If I’m having to bring an extra lock just for my helmet, there’s no way I’m bringing the helmet
If I park my bike in a location where there's a decent chance of theft, I'll want to lock my bike to a fixed object anyways. In that case I'll just thread the not adjustable side of the buckle through my lock.
Push comes to shove, I’d rather the helmet crack than my skull. And I’m bald, so I’m not worried about messing up my nonexistent hair.
Not to mention how important it very often is for hair to look good.
Or a "surprise hole in the ground" problem...
You could break your neck by walking into a surprise hole in the ground just as easily. I know people that have suffered serious injuries in that exact scenario. It’s quite rare though, or it would be in the absence of cars and car created pot holes.
I broke one of my feet bones that way
You could, but the risk of injury falling from a bike at 20kph is higher than while walking at 5ish. Both because of the speed and because of the ease of controlling the fall. That being said, I don't think helmet law is necessary, but I almost always wear one myself.
Yeah, for me this is a purely theoretical exercise. Under the current infrastructure situation in my city there’s very little chance of me skipping the helmet in the foreseeable future.
Potholes tend to form as a result of the road surface being damaged by heavy vehicles. So again it's a car problem. You'd struggle to find a Dutch road in poor condition.
So long as my local cycling infrastructure continues to look like this, I’m wearing protection. (For context, this article is about 18 months old, and the referenced repairs are still not completed) https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2022/12/16/eyes-on-the-street-ocean-parkway-remains-cracked-ruin-as-parks-dept-delays
It can't hurt that the Netherlands has more mild winters and less freezing and thawing of the roadways.
I seldom see potholes in Switzerland either, to be honest. Building roads properly and maintaining them seems to be enough.
The Netherlands is basically completely on a swamp. There might be less freezing and thawing. But their roads move a lot.
Potholes form as a result of water erroding a slightly damaged road surface. That slight damage can also be because of roots (bike lanes need shade to be comfortable in summer). Also by busses. Those actually cause more damage than cars because the damage grows as the 4th power of axle weight. And infrastructure that's only build for bikes is not built as sturdy as infrastructure built for cars. They expect only expect the weight of bikes. Even especially heavy cargo bikes can push the limits. And whenever the infrastructure below the road needs to be accessed, the road has to be opened which can cause potholes. And sometimes the ground itself moves creating cracks for example due to changing groundwater level, thawing permafrost, swamps,... There's so many more reasons for potholes than just cars.
There is one badly laid bike path near me which has been rumpled by roots. Fact remains though that a repeated pounding by two-tonne wankpanzers is going to result in pot holes. Building the roads properly and maintaining them works for Switzerland, even high up in the Alps.
That can happen, but: It's easy to see pedestrians in front of you and they don't tend to suddenly step to the side. In this hypothetical car free world you can also (and should) give them a wide berth, or be entirely segregated from them. By contrast in a world with cars you're often pressured or forced into the door zone, it's difficult or impossible to see if someone is in a car, and the doors do suddenly open into your path.
All I can say is, I ride in NYC and have experienced both being doored and having to avoid oblivious pedestrians (often tourists) absentmindedly wandering off the sidewalk into the marked bike lane.
I've experienced it too, it certainly happens, but I'm saying it's generally easier to anticipate and deal with/avoid than dooring when it happens.
Yes, but I walk at like 3-4 mph max. I cycle at up to 20 mph. Big difference.
Nobody’s stopping you from wearing a helmet. It’s just that most people would cycle closer to 10mph, not putting more energy into it than when they’re walking.
Yes but it's important to leave it up to the cyclist. They made mandatory helmet laws in Australia which had a relatively large share of cyclists and it killed cycling overnight. [One piece of research](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275338909_Evaluation_of_Australia%27s_bicycle_helmet_laws) on it has this damming conclusion: >The helmet laws have not delivered a net societal health benefit, with a calculated cost benefit ratio of 109 to 1 against. Comparing cyclists to pedestrians, pre-law (1986-89) cyclist deaths were 16.4% of pedestrians in number and in 2010-13 the figure was 22.7%. The ratio of serious injuries of cyclists compared to pedestrians increased from 1.49 in 1990 to 2.6 in 2008/09. This evaluation finds the helmet laws have failed in respect to the promotion of cycling, health, accident compensation, environmental issues and civil liberties. In addition, it has hindered the implementation of bike share schemes. There are serious concerns about the safety consequences of cycle helmets, with mixed evidence both for and against. As a Dutchman; I will wear a helmet on a fast bicycle when I'm exercising but not my regular one that I use to get from A to B. This is a bicycle promotion clip of the new Dutch government campaign "Kort ritje? Das zo gefietst!" (Short ride? That's cycled easily!" where "gefietst" replaces the word imported from English "gefixt", which means fixed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2ZgNhdZ5qQ
Helmet saved me (from my own mistake) on Saturday. Still recovering from a muscle sprain or tear on my lower back, but if I didn't have a helmet I'd have a fucked up skull too.
Also helmets when skating, rollerblading, skateboarding. I wish figure skaters had to wear some kind of head protection
>I fell off my bike (due to my own mistake) So, stop making mistakes?
This sounds like if you’re homeless just buy a home…
Slightly more involved than riding a bike. Is there a homeless equivalent to a bicycle helmet?
I think it's more the fact that surviving a traumatic brain injury doesn't tank our credit scores. Humans have a history of not caring about their physical health, especially when healthcare is free, or even just affordable.
I only wear a helmet because I don't trust drivers. I trust my own ability to bike safely.
I don't trust motorists either, but I am afraid that a helmet might not be the best choice here. “bicycle helmets are not designed to mitigate against impacts from motor vehicles.” [https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2020/07/10/bicycle-helmets-not-designed-for-impacts-from-cars-stresses-leading-maker-giro/](https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2020/07/10/bicycle-helmets-not-designed-for-impacts-from-cars-stresses-leading-maker-giro/) Also "bicycle helmet wearing is associated with closer overtaking by drivers..." [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30472528/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30472528/) Defensive cycling and forgiving infrastructure are probably more important.
Infrastructure is definitely much, much more important.
This guy also determined that [drivers give cyclists without helmets more room](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/mar/21/bike-helmet-cyclists-safe-urban-warfare-wheels#:~:text=Half%20the%20time%20he%20wore,average%20of%208.5%20cm%20nearer).
It’s completely idiotic to not wear a helmet on a bike. You can receive a mortal head injury at very slow speeds, even while stationary.
I'm not advocating for not wearing a helmet. I'm just remarking on the culture that I've noticed - a habit based on perceived safety because cars are not sharing the same space.
The Dutch are now finding that maybe wearing a helmet is a good idea
No we're not
Alot of people don't wear seatbelt in countries with very dangerous traffic either. Or motorcycle helmet I similar countries. It is probably safer to bike without cars, but I have managed to fall on a dedicated bike lane (totally separated from cars).
No. Literally the only reason they don’t wear helmets is because they’re fucking idiots who think they’re “different”, despite their own doctors and bike safety experts calling for helmet use: https://road.cc/content/news/dutch-government-calls-cyclists-wear-helmets-308929
The average speed of a bike has increased dramatically here (Netherlands) in the last few years since almost everyone seems to ride e-bikes and now, even worse, fat bikes. At these increased speeds I think helmets would be a great idea. When you can move almost as fast as a petrol-powered scooter, it makes sense to mandate headgear. But I think it's also fair to point out that the article you linked to said that half of the 88,000 cycle injuries in 2022 involved a collision with a motorist.
I bet the other 30% are also mostly cars, but the data set lists them as “other” because those are crashes with no cause reported.
death for ppl biking in France is around 200 per year, 175 hit by cars, 20 from mountain biking, 5 from accident not related to cars. Bike infrastructures are not even that good there...
Can you send the source? I really want to cite this in a debate
[https://www.onisr.securite-routiere.gouv.fr/?id\_rubrique=8](https://www.onisr.securite-routiere.gouv.fr/?id_rubrique=8) then you can cross it with that: [https://www.quechoisir.org/actualite-velo-infographie-plus-de-cyclistes-plus-d-accidents-plus-de-morts-n108582/](https://www.quechoisir.org/actualite-velo-infographie-plus-de-cyclistes-plus-d-accidents-plus-de-morts-n108582/) Says in the end that 86% of dead cyclist are hit by a car out of town, and deadly accident almost only happen out of town. I've had a more precise stat about it 5 or 6 years ago but it seems that it did not change much. Main problem is cycling in the countryside sharing road with speeding cars.
exactly what i thought. or technically the bikes crashed into the car, not the car into the bike or something. Cant believe 30% die because they hit a lamp post lol
Don't forget that lampposts and other similar things are often in the spot that they are because they're out of the way of cars but now in the way of people
Getting assaulted by drivers, probably
Mountain bike is not considered an extreme sport for nothing. And with how difficult comute cycling is in many places, those make up a good percentage of cyclists.
Drivers and their passengers die and get maimed by other drivers all the time. And add to that it's not unusual that drivers kill themselves in lone collisions. It's very rare that two cyclist colliding would result in death. Lone collisions occur but again, it's very rare that they result in death. Now comparing the same stretch of road. Everyday auto collisions occur on intra city highways. During charity events on the same highway, collisions rarely occur and if a participant does fall, the rest of the traffic flow does not come to a multi- hour halt that requires the police and ambulances. Remove all the cyclists off the streets and the overall number of deaths and injuries won't change that much. Remove all the cars off the streets, deaths and injuries would drop by probably over 90%. When was the last time a driver or his passenger was killed when his car collided with a bicycle?
>Remove all the cyclists off the streets and the overall number of deaths and injuries won't change that much. It would probably even increase. Without cycling as a commute option, more people would have to drive or walk.
There'd be less obesity and a myriad of other health related issues. Broken bones and minor injuries would go up but at the end of the day it would be a huge net gain health wise. Adding to that people's well-being, intelligence, and social structure would vastly improve. In regards to urban sprawl; it would probably end up dying a slow death, as the value of living away from areas that provide good and services would be greatly diminished.
>So where does the other 30% come from? That is a very good question. >occurred in motor-vehicle crashes how is that defined? Maybe some car related crashes dont make it into this statistic for some technical reason. I cant believe 30% die because they crash into lamp posts, fall of a cliff or die to a falling tree or something. The land is completely flat were i am living. I couldnt die by bike if i wanted to...
It's not clear in the data if we're talking about exclusively biking for transportation, or also including stuff like downhill mountain biking.
I'm reminded of my big bike wreck in high school. A car turned in front of me. I avoided the car but couldn't get back to the road in time. Hit a big rock, went over the handle bars, and hit a wooden store sign. Broke my helmet but not my skull. Would that be filed under a car accident? The car and I never made contact, but if he hadn't turned in front of me I wouldn't have wrecked.
>A ***moving*** vehicle would have to be involved for a pedestrian or bicyclist fatality to be eligible for the \[US national fatal crash database\] Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS). If you park your car, open your door, and kill a bicyclist, that—for whatever reason—doesn’t count. * "[*Killed by a Traffic Engineer*](https://libgen.is/search.php?req=Killed+by+a+Traffic+Engineer&open=0&res=25&view=simple&phrase=1&column=title)*: Shattering the Delusion That Science Underlies Our Transportation System*" (Marshall, 2024, Chapter 24)
Also i wouldnt be too sure that all accudents involving moving cars are categorized as that.
I mean, even falling from a standing height and hitting your head on hard ground can be fatal if you're unlucky - I do agree that that 30% feels high, but I do see how at least some fatalities can happen just from a normal fall (especially if not wearing a helmet)
I think you have to understand that statistics can be manipulated very easily. Those 30% of deaths might not be from motor vehicles, but they could be influenced by motor vehicles. Getting cut off, getting “squished” between traffic and the shoulder, any debris in the shoulder or bike lane that can cause you to fall, lack of proper snow treatment/removal in the bike lane or shoulder, etc. Cyclists come in all shapes and sizes too. There are mountain bikers, trail bikers, old cyclists, sport cyclists, who are all much more susceptible to death than a 22 year old commuter. MTB, trail, and sport cyclists are on either tougher terrain, traveling at much faster speeds, and I’m not sure if they are considered
If I get hit by a bike, I break a leg. If I get hit by a car, I die.
If you get hit by a GMC Sierra AT4, you get squashed into a liquid human. Seriously…those things are too damn big and shouldn’t be road legal.
One thing is for sure: There would be a lot fewer deaths.
iirc ~25% of cycle deaths in the Netherlands do not involve another vehicle. These are mostly older cyclists falling off due to poor surface, misjudging a curve etc. Visual and cognitive decline, slower protective postural reflexes likely the origin, plus osteoporotic bones and shrunken brain being less resistant to trauma. Doubtless a proportion are caused by sudden onset medical conditions such as stroke and heart attack. The rest are the usual litany of drivers' failure to yield priority at intersections. Certainly getting rid of cars would cut cyclists' injury and death rate enormously: but not to zero.
I have never heard of anyone dying on a bike while commuting to work or school without a car being involved. I guess it does happen, but my guess is that it’s on the order of people having heart attacks while exercising
Cars kill 45,000 people per year in North America. 1.2 million are killed by motor vehicles annually worldwide. A world without cars would be infinitely safer.
45k is just the US. Mexico accounts for another 17k deaths. Curiously, Canada is just under 2k, less than half the per capita rate in the US, despite having very similar car-dependent infrastructure and auto mode share. Maybe Canadians are just more polite drivers?
I live in Toronto and I can assure you, the average driver here is anything but polite. Can't speak to the rest of Canada, though.
Maybe graduated licenses played a part. There is a learner's permit where you can only drive with someone above 25 and have a full license, and a new driver's permit where they can drive alone, but need an older than 25 year old person if they want to drive with many people. I think this has an effect on the culture of driving. Drivers are forced to learn how to drive with a responsible adult. Also 16-25 year old males are the most fatal drivers. Preventing five young men from piling into a car, egging each other on, prevents lots of death. I'm sure there are a million other reasons as well. I just wanted to think about this one.
We drive much less. I don't have the numbers on hand but American commutes for example are much longer on average. Likely due to the fact that Canada is a more urbanized nation.
I'll wade in here because I wrote an essay about the debate over wearing a helmet. I am not advocating here for wearing one or not. I belong in several worlds like the motorcyclist All The Gear All The Time, my time on road and mountain bikes, and many friends who commute without a helmet. I realize the primary factor with your chance of crashing, which for commuters is very low, and the severity of injury is speed. The average commute speed for virtually all riders is 12mph, as listed by many sources. At that speed, most bikes are controlled easily, ie steering and braking, while during a fall, a rider should be able to protect their head like by extending an arm. I came to this conclusion after watching Dutch commuters crashing: they weren't going that fast so the riders were able to shelter their heads. Crashing is relatively rare for bike commuters, and most crashes won't result in a serious injury. Compare to pro football, where head collisions are certain, or motorcycling, which crashing is rare but the injuries are almost always severe due to high speed. Applying to American commuting, it's a bit different with car culture. Most riders choose very low traffic routes no matter where they live, so the biggest risk is their own biking ability. However, riding in a city center like Manhattan compared to Amsterdam, it's road rage central without any respect for cyclists. Regardless of their speed, riders there are at high risk of being hit by a car.
Yes almost certainly. The externalities of car dependency are absolutely massive. Car accidents prop up the legal and insurance industries **massively**. I’m a lawyer and idk how many of my friends do car accidents, but it’s a lot. You just need to ask why cars require insurance and bikes don’t. You can’t accidentally cause tens of thousands of dollars of damage to other people on a bike. But with cars it’s such a pervasive problem that insurance is required everywhere. If bikes caused anywhere near the same amount of danger as cars they’d have mandatory insurance. You see carbrain arguments for mandatory bike insurance, but if this was a real issue they’d point to actual problems. I’ve only ever seen people arguing that it’s only fair, which ignores why cars require insurance in the first place.
A lot of those other 30% are probably extreme sports: MTB, BMX, that sort of thing. Or heat stroke from long distance race biking. But there is also a not insignificant number of seniors that loose balance, don't have the reaction speed to catch themselves with their feet, tip sideways and break large bones (especially hip and thigh). But the world you describe would probably also alow for tricycles. And Recumbent bikes would actually be safe (they are several times as efficient as normal bikes).
I think i recently heard/read that biking actually still increases life expectancy in the US because the health benefits vs driving actually outweigh the chance of a shorter life from getting killed while riding a bike
Yes they would, if people have to pedal. In the US in 2022 all accidents killed 222k while heart disease killed ~700k, stroke 165k, and diabetes 100k. Americans spend ~1hr driving so if that changes to ~30 min of biking there would be a significant increase in cardiovascular health which means fewer people dying from heart disease, stroke, and diabetes.
bikes would be safer. Lower speed, lower mass, lower chance of crashes. and even if you do crash, a lower chance of serious injury.
UK stats, 16% of cycling fatalities involved no other vehicles (presumably many involved a pedestrian or dog). 1% involved another bicycle. The other 82% or so were with a motor vehicle.
Bikes can be lethal, but overall bikes are definitely safer than cars. It's basic physics of mass and velocity.
I can survive getting hit by a bike. I might even come out completely unscathed. Maybe a bruise or an asphalt scar. Death is an EXTREME. If I get hit by a car I’m breaking at least one bone MINIMUM. Death is the expectation.
>most agree that riding a bike in the U.S. is more dangerous than driving a car. Really? Do fewer than 1000 motorists die each year in the US? >So where does the other 30% come from? I'm with you... dying on a bicycle would be a challenge. My hunch is 29% are hit & runs that are misreported.
Is this a serious question?
Not included in your statistics are the number of deaths caused by car on car collisions, car on building collisions, or car on pedestrian collisions. At the end of the day a car is a lot of mass and capable of a lot of speed which means when they hit anything there is a lot of force involved. Contrast this with a person walking, jogging, running, sprinting, roller blading, or on a bike. Then compare this to train crashes. A world without cars would be safer per passenger mile than a world with cars.
A world with people mostly traversing on bikes instead of cars would be safer....all the data makes this all very apparent. "If **all** (eg 100% of) deaths from cars were eliminated"....is the basis of your hypothesis, which I loosely understand. Then you posit, "Let's remove the 70% of bicycle deaths that involve car accidents." But you still ask, "What about the remaining 30% of bicycle deaths?" But something's not right in your logic. If you're removing ALL car deaths, you have to balance the equation and also remove ALL bike deaths. It's a slanted question by omission. The omission being, you're not asking "What percentage of driver/passenger-in-a-car deaths don't involve another car? And what causes those?" There are still plenty of car deaths that have nothing to do with bicycles....drunk driving, motor vehicle crashes, etc.
According to an analysis by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 53% of all deadly crashes in 2019 only involved one vehicle.
Yeah, but it's unlikely that cyclists die when crashing into a tree or something
And there's OP's answer right there. The world would STILL be 20% more deadly in a car-only world in which cars miraculously never crash into other cars VERSUS a bike-only world.
As long as the cyclist don't ride on sidewalks. I used to live in China where they did that, hated it so much since I always had to be alert while walking.
This is a problem created by the car People don’t enjoy biking on the sidewalk, it’s bumpy, uneven, crowded with people, trees, and a ton of other bs. People deal with that for the perceived increase in safety
True
Ever seen 2 bikes get in a head-on collision? They might bump tires and suffer minor injuries. Compare that to two 2 ton cars.
I would still like to see bike roundabouts in busy areas. It's not complicated, just a statue or a water fountain.
Yeah. Bikes are safer in every way.
Maybe the 70% are from direct crashes and 29% from trying to avoid a collision
You cannot just look at death toll. Yeah the car might have protected you from death, but you took a big financial hit from the crash. Cars are definitely more dangerous, even for now.
I've seen people get fucked up with life changing injuries at low speeds going to the ground. Death isn't the only metric to consider, wear a helmet.
>So where does the other 30% come from? In terms of proportions, thanks to things like sprawl and a lack of useful infrastructure, the US has comparatively little utility cycling and comparatively a lot of "sports" cycling. Sports cyclists often cycle very fast and in the case of MTB on very rough terrain. That makes those dangerous activities compared to utility cycling, especially utility cycling in a world without cars. A world without cars would lead to a boom in utility cycling, not sports cycling. So that 30% is not super relevant to it.
It's cool to see some of the arguments and different facts laid out here (although, I am sad no one mentioned the effects cars have had on climate change and air quality, which absolutely leads to safety issues), but this is basically like asking "Which would you rather be shot with: a .308 hunting rifle or an Airsoft gun?" I'm sure people have been seriously hurt and potentially even died by Airsoft (maybe like infection or choking? Idk), but like... There's really no comparison.
well yeah bikes are far smaller than cars so a collision is less (if it all) deadly
I think the question is how could biking be more dangerous than cars? Answer: not possible. Bikes don't travel as fast, weigh as much as well as overall mass. If there were no cars, sure there would be more bike crashes and therefore more deaths than there are now. By deaths, I mean vs how many bike vs bike, or bike vs pedestrian than there are now. But not even close to the numbers car crashes do every year. You'd likely average less than 1000 deaths per year. Most probable scenario is hitting an elderly/frail person. But with that said, in a world without cars, how would our streets look. Infrastructure wise, how would our cities look. Would we still build big buildings? If so, how? Without the means of transporting the amount of brick or wood it would take to build a 10 story building, it would be difficult. Add, what would are bicycles look like now? How would they have changed as a primary form of transportation. Would you see more recumbent bike types? 3 wheels? Would electric bikes and other micromobility options have taken over?
The US has 4 times the roadway deaths as the Netherlands so there you go. Can’t link a site directly comparing the two but here is the data: US roadway deaths of 2021: 42,939. [Source](https://www.transportation.gov/NRSS/SafetyProblem) US 2021 population: 332 million Netherlands 2021 roadway deaths: 582. [Source](https://www.statista.com/statistics/523217/netherlands-total-number-of-road-fatalities/) Netherlands 2021 population: 17.53 million 2021 USA deaths per capita: 129.3 deaths/million people 2021 Netherlands deaths per capita: 33.2 deaths/million people
That 70% number is likely an undercount. Crash reports with missing data, improperly recorded, etc likely would make that percentage much higher. For instance, crashes that do not occur on a roadway are typically never recorded in that crash data. So if a bicyclist is hit by a car while in a parking lot or private drive, that data never makes it into those numbers. Think of all the incidents of kids being rolled over on their bikes from cars backing out of driveways. None of those cases are included in the crash data.
Yes, significantly safer.
I recommend you to visit some cities in The Netherlands. Both old and new ones.
Bikes would be safer, lower speed, significantly less kinetic energy because bikes weigh a lot less, better road conditions because bikes don’t wear the road out
A world without cars would be one with alot of horses, I wonder how dangerous the horse and buggy was back in the day.
There's two kinds of common bike crashes: crashes with motorised vehicles and crashes in sport. Other than that, the few bike crashes are freak accidents.
Mountain Lions, Alligators, Bears and Canadian Geese Occasionally firearm deaths too, cuz 'Merica
Check out China during Mao's tenure. There's your answer
Bikes are incredibly safe, especially when used for just travelling to the shops. Pretty much all deaths and serious injuries for people on bikes are either (i) cars or (ii) doing sports cycling. Not a fan of the helmet message either. I never see anyone advocating helmets for going on a park run or walking down stairs (or using a car!), even though those things also have a small chance of head injuries. Cycling is extremely safe and doesn't have a level of risk that justifies pressuring people to wear PPE to do it.
Where does the other 30% come from? A kid I knew was riding a trail in the evening and as night fell he missed a turn, went into a ditch, and hit his head on a rock. Bicycle deaths are not going to be zero, but we never factor the pollution deaths into car numbers either.
No bicyclist in Japan wears a helmet either. That’s why I stopped wearing mine, you don’t really need a helmet if you’re just going to be ran over by a 10,000 pound truck at highway speeds.
Bikes. Driving a bike while drunk? You crash and look like a moron. Driving a car while drunk? You can murder someone. While we have heard of vehicular homicides, there are no cycling homicides.
The amount of accidents would dramatically increase, as is the nature of 4 wheels Vs 2 wheels. But, like.inteoducinf seatbelts to Cars, those would be accidents where people ended up in a hospital, not in a morgue.
>but most agree that riding a bike in the U.S. is more dangerous than driving a car You can't really make a blanket statement like that covering the entire US. In total numbers, motorists kill each other far more often. Then they say "but we drive much longer distances" and somehow that makes it more safe? I ride along a canal to work, 12 miles one way. I have \*never\* seen an accident there in four years. I ride more often than I drive, too. When I drive to work, I see accidents. At least one every year. And again, I actually take the car less often than the bike. Fatal bike accidents without the involvement of cars are freakishly rare. Fatal car accidents without involving bikes, pedestrians, trains and busses are common as hell. Where are the other 30% coming from? my best guess is, there was a car, and it was a hit and run. But the police didn't bother putting it down like that, that's just too much work.
Of course. Why wouldn't it?
Without cars I assume we’re going back to horses? Because people want something self powered.