Biking to work in the city

August 3, 2006 12:46 PM

How dangerous is riding a bicycle to work in a major city relative to driving or taking public transit?
posted by leotrotsky to health & fitness (34 comments total)

here are a few statistics on motor vehicle/bike interaction.

Based on absolutely nothing but my own experience and anecdotal reports from acquaintances, I'd say given the use of bike trails, and the fact that many bicyclists, including myself, ride on the sidewalk along especially dangerous roads, I'd say cars and bikes are probably equally safe. You get going a lot faster in a car, and you're on major, high-traffic highways, where accidents can be catastrophic.

Given the rarity of fatal urban public transit accidents, save a few high-profile subway wrecks, I'd say riding the bus is probably the safest way to go. But it's also the smelliest.
posted by M.C. Lo-Carb! at 12:58 PM on August 3, 2006

I can't imagine it's less dangerous than public transit. Driving might be a toss up. It will all depend on the city.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 12:58 PM on August 3, 2006 [1 favorite]

Plenty more dangerous, depending on a million forseeable or unforseeable variables. However that danger is part of what makes my daily bicycle commute worthwhile-- I have to be extra alert at all times, and often have to make fast decisions in order to avoid imminent danger. That, plus the exercise, make me feel way more awake and functional by the time I get to work than when I ride the subway.

Sort of like how wearing high-heels is more dangerous than wearing sneakers for walking across town, but damn if you don't feel sexier in the heels. Or... so I've heard...
posted by hermitosis at 1:00 PM on August 3, 2006

Ooh, i've been wanting to ask this too. I'm really interested in the risk of exhaust inhalation as well.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 1:02 PM on August 3, 2006

Is your city bike friendly? For instance, LA is much more bike friendly than most cities back East. Why would this matter? Motorists are more likely to see you. (I noticed this biking in LA, cars are more likely to look for you. I didn't feel that way in several cities on the East Coast).
posted by 6:1 at 1:02 PM on August 3, 2006

two grist articles on the subject:

on emissions and on other sorts of safety issues. (surprisingly, the worst place to be for emissions: inside yr car!)

also, I'm most of the way through a book called "The Art of Urban Cycling", which I highly recommend. his take on the statistics of bike safety is something of a skeptic's view of stats in general...all can be skewed any which way, and all should be taken with lots of salt.

that book has lots of good tips on being safe in traffic of various sorts.

I've been bike commuting off & on for just over a year, and I LOVE it...my one accident so far occurred in my own driveway. ;) Yay for wet leaves!
posted by epersonae at 1:11 PM on August 3, 2006

I'm in DC (well, Rockville) commuting to Bethesda. I'm considering moving closer in, and trying to figure out if a bike would make sense.
posted by leotrotsky at 1:14 PM on August 3, 2006

In 2004, there were 37,142 motor vehicle occupants killed in crashes and 2,670,000 injured. These numbers don't include people outside the vehicles. In the same year, there 725 killed and 41,000 injured in bicycle accidents. Data for deaths per 100,000 registered motor vehicles for 2004 is unavailable, but for previous years, the number hovered around 19. That translates to 190 per million registered vehicles, compared to 2.47 deaths per million population. Even if we assume one vehicle per 4 persons, that's still ~47.5 deaths for cars vs ~2.5 for bikes, so bikes are safer, there you go.

Comparing injuries, figure about 12,500 per million registered cars, and maybe 3,125 per million people (again, an approximation assuming 4 people per car), compared to about ~140 per million people for cyclists.

There are all sorts ways to break down the relevant statistics, so this is just an approximate estimation, but there you go. There are far fewer cyclists and they travel less than cars, but I'm not going to try to control for that right now. A good approximation would be deaths per miles traveled, but we don't have the data for that as far as I can find. I got the data from here and here, both via the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Also, on preview, I would disagree with hermitosis: there are just as many variables and chances for disaster present when you're driving as when you're biking.
posted by The Michael The at 1:15 PM on August 3, 2006

Purely anecdotal evidence, but I'm fairly sure that public transit is your safest bet (I ride it every day). The other options really depend on where your riding or driving (highways, city streets, market places etc.). For bikes, any major street that is heavily congested with vehicular traffic will be dangerous but there are usually alternative routes that will provide a safer trip.

Inner city driving is probably the second safest route to go (after public transit) as most vehicular casualties are caused at high speeds. The danger in the city is mostly who or what you could hit with your car, not necessarily who will hit you.

Again, this is all from experience.
posted by purephase at 1:19 PM on August 3, 2006

I'm in DC (well, Rockville) commuting to Bethesda. I'm considering moving closer in, and trying to figure out if a bike would make sense.

I bike downtown from Columbia Heights daily, and I would say that riding in DC during rush hour is a killer form of assertiveness training. Though not literally. Yet.
posted by kittyprecious at 1:20 PM on August 3, 2006

Inner city driving is probably the second safest route to go (after public transit) as most vehicular casualties are caused at high speeds.

Vehicular casualties in which the driver of the vehicle is killed. I would imagine that there is a lot more external casualties related to inner city driving that makes it a lot less safe for non-vehicular transport.
posted by purephase at 1:22 PM on August 3, 2006

It's my perception and expereience that people who don't bicycle regularly find the notion of bicycle commuting far more dangerous than those of us who cycle to work.

As for specifics, it kinda depends on your location. Rockville to Bethesda? It'd be a blast, zipping past all those cars waiting in traffic along Rockville Pike/Wisconsin Ave, but the volume of traffic would become wearying after a while, and I'd seek out alternate routes. And those long grades can get mighty tedious and tiresome, slogging uphill.
posted by Rash at 1:23 PM on August 3, 2006

I haven't driven to work in six months, and I ditto what hermitosis said. I'm a 38 year old woman, for whatever that's worth (demographics).

That said, there are a few variables to consider: I am, and have been, both a cycle courier and accomplished bike racer for going on 20 years. Therefore, not only am I a very good bike handler in traffic and close quarters, I also have a very high threshold for risk aversion, meaning (like hermitosis) I get my jollies from the whole adrenaline-rush experience of dodging busses, landscaping trailers and cell-phone-addicted drivers on a daily basis.

I also live in one of the most bike-friendly cities in North America, judging by what people elsewhere have told me, and by my own personal experiences.

I couriered in both Cincinnati and Pittsburgh as a youngster, and have ridden, raced and commuted by bike in D.C., London, Baltimore, Chicago, Hamburg, Germany and various places in Ohio, Kentucky, Pennsylvania and Indiana.

Riding a bike in traffic is as safe as *you* make it. You can go about this many ways, but I absolutely recommend the book Effective Cycling, by John Forester.

You also don't have to commit full-on. I completely understand and sympathise with the fact that very few people have the desire to ride a brakeless, fixed gear bicycle to work everyday, like I do. When I was just a wee muppet, and before I lost my mind and let a Hawt Boy talk me into couriering and racing, I was as scared of cars as any rookie would be. Because I was too poor to afford a car, I rode a cheap, mellow hybrid bike to work on the residential back roads and bike paths through the suburbs of the town I grew up in.

I've commuted on and off by bike in varying degrees of competence and aggressiveness throughout my adult life. I submit that you can absolutely convert to commuting in stages, and make it as fun and challenging as your ability, desire and financial means allow.

Ride to work in whatever capacity works well for you. A surprising number of public transit systems will even accomodate bicycles these days, so you don't have to even fully commit to the entire route by bike, if you don't want to.

good luck!
posted by lonefrontranger at 1:30 PM on August 3, 2006 [2 favorites]

FARS is your friend here.

How pedalcyclists die.

Bike riders account for around 2% of deaths on US roads, yet account for less than 1% of all trips. The major factor here is length and quality of exposure to other traffic during the trip, and how many intersections the bicyclist must traverse. Intersections are the equivalent of a Sarajevo shooting gallery in mortality terms.

You may also be interested in:
Mortality Risk Associated With Leaving Home: Recognizing the Relevance of the Built Environment
posted by meehawl at 1:36 PM on August 3, 2006

Based on absolutely nothing but my own experience and anecdotal reports from acquaintances, I'd say given the use of bike trails, and the fact that many bicyclists, including myself, ride on the sidewalk along especially dangerous roads, I'd say cars and bikes are probably equally safe. You get going a lot faster in a car, and you're on major, high-traffic highways, where accidents can be catastrophic.

I ride in San Francisco every day. I am deffinately a lot faster than a car. Most of my friends who also bike would agree that a big incentive of riding to work is that it allows them to sleep in an extra 15 minutes. How safe is it? debatable. How good a rider are you?
posted by atom128 at 1:39 PM on August 3, 2006

I rode a bike to work in New York City for a while, but went back to the subway.

First, you breathe deeper when you exercise, and thus inhale more exhaust and carbon monixide. I was dizzy half the morning when I biked.

Second, it's as a practical matter impossible to stay in the middle of a traffic lane and move with the traffic. The middle is coated with oil and pebbles, because tires don't rub there. You have to avoid depressions and manholes. Most important, the taxi and truck drivers get wildly angry if you don't move out of their way. Thus you move between lanes, where it's easy to get squeezed.

Because you move slower than free-moving traffic, you constantly get passed by fast-moving vehicles a few inches away. Combine that with the irresistible urge to dive between stopped or low-moving lines of traffic and to go through red lights, and you end up being in danger all the time.

Most buildings forbid you to bring a bike inside, even if you carry it, and unless you have an office, it's difficult to find a place to put it.
posted by KRS at 1:40 PM on August 3, 2006

meehawl, that 'FARS' link doesn't take into account either the AGE or the DEMOGRAPHIC of the cyclist. A bike advocasy / commuting advocasy article I recently read in the Denver Post (can't seem to find it) indicated that the VAST majority of U.S. bike-related traffic fatalities come from kids and/or very low income unskilled urban riders who do things like riding without helmets, riding against the flow of traffic, crossing busy entrances from the wrong direction on sidewalks, and generally riding in an unsafe, unpredictable and unskilled manner.

in otherwords: you can make statistics say whatever you want. I refer to my original statement:

Bicycle commuting is as safe as YOU. MAKE. IT. Arm yourself with knowledge, be alert, and personally, I think riding a bike in a *responsible* manner is much safer than driving. Especially since there's very little chance of you getting lulled into doing various attention sapping tasks common to driving... and I'll shut up right now before this turns into another derail-rant-against-inattentive-drivers post.

KRS, depending on the route(s) you take, a lot of your negatives can be mitigated. And IME the area of D.C. the OP is referring to is quite a bit more suburban and doesn't have the downtown congestion problems / pollution issues you encountered, except for maybe on the worst ozone-alert days.

NYC (and I've ridden there, too) isn't really a normal situation.

When I was in D.C. (I am a Maryland native actually), I found that a lot of public transit hubs and office buildings had bike lockers. You just have to investigate. The same applies to finding a safe route. My cycling route very rarely correlates to the route I'd take in a car or on the bus. You just have to branch out and be creative.

Also, many, many office buildings have a 'no-bikes-inside' policy on the public entrances... but that's to keep the dirty couriers from bringing bikes in, or to force them use the freight elevators. since I've been both a courier *and* a bike-commuting office slave, I think I'm qualified to comment on both angles of this equation.

In reality, usually all you have to do is get in tight with your facilities / building supervisor. If you're an employee there, often he/she will allow you to lock up in the dock, along the railing by the dumpsters. I found this to be the case in at least a half dozen urban buildings I've worked in as an office slave.
posted by lonefrontranger at 2:01 PM on August 3, 2006

I would disagree with hermitosis: there are just as many variables and chances for disaster present when you're driving as when you're biking.

The Michael The, I was only taking public transit into account, not driving. As a New-York-City-an, biking or transit are really the only feasible options.
posted by hermitosis at 2:26 PM on August 3, 2006

the VAST majority of U.S. bike-related traffic fatalities come from kids and/or very low income unskilled urban riders

What percentage is VAST? Do you mean as a percentage of total biker riders in a cohort, or as an overall quantity within a demographic? What point exactly are you trying to make? That upper-income white people have thicker craniums and can expect to survive accidents better? I have no particular axe to grind, owning neither a bicycle nor a car.

From:

In 1994, the average age of pedalcyclists killed in traffic crashes was 28.9; in 2004 the average age of those killed was 38.7, and the average age of those
injured was 28.6.

Nearly one-fifth (19%) of the pedalcyclists killed in traffic crashes in 2004 were between the ages of 5 and 15. The pedalcyclist fatality rate for this age group in 2004 was 3.1 per million population — about 24 percent higher than the rate for all pedalcyclists (2.5 per million population).

The study seemed to say that the most dangerous environment for bicyclists were exurbs. These are not, as far as I am aware, generally highly populated with low-income unskilled urban riders.
posted by meehawl at 2:28 PM on August 3, 2006

hermitosis: fair enough, having lived in NYC myself, I agree completely. I would put cars and bikes on a level together, but public transit is easy.
posted by The Michael The at 2:33 PM on August 3, 2006

To tie together a couple of lonefrontranger's points, John Forester's book discusses accident rates for bikes (so does his site). I don't have the book right in front of me, but IIRC, accident rates for experienced cyclists were about 1/10th that of naïve cyclists, since the experienced cyclists simply didn't do a lot of the dumb stuff that can result in bike vs car accidents, like riding the wrong way down the street, turning left from the curb, etc.

That said, of course, an experienced cyclist inevitably rides more miles, and therefore has more opportunities to get into an accident. I've had my share.
posted by adamrice at 2:40 PM on August 3, 2006

I wonder how these risks compare to scooters, mopeds and the like.
posted by unknowncommand at 2:41 PM on August 3, 2006

ok fair enough, it wasn't a fact. and I can't seem to locate the article on the Denverpost site, but anyhow.

Devil's Advocate: they cited Dallas in their exurbs study. My question is, in these studies, did they make any correction / mitigation for how bike-friendly that particular exurb is??

my point: Dallas is a well-known, very unsafe bicycle commuting area. D.C. and surrounding communities, OTOH, are not. Suburban MD is well networked with bicycle routes and bike paths. Dallas, and IME most of Texas, as well as many places in the urban Deep South, have historically been pretty behind the times in embracing alternative transportation (exceptions being liberal arts college hubs such as Austin, Athens, GA, etc...)

for example, I ride to work daily in Boulder, because it's extremely safe and there are numerous efforts made to encourage cycling. I've also done a lot of riding in downtown Denver, where bikes are expected, assimilated and tolerated extremely well.

However, if I lived, say... in the exurbs of Arvada or Westminster along the U.S. 287/Wadsworth corridor, I'd be very reluctant to cycle to work. Reason being? Wadsworth and the entire southwest-of-36 corridor is insanely unsafe to bike on/in/around because the infrastructure is extremely car-centric.

I sure wish I could find a link to that article, as it was published last summer and it seems you're going to be a statistics proof Nazi.

What I'm saying is pure common sense, and echoes what the Post article said: if you are an unskilled cyclist, who rides in the dark without adequate lighting/visibility measures, bike drunk, ride against traffic, bike on the sidewalk, and otherwise generally don't ride responsibly, then your risk vastly increases.

Nowhere did I ever say or try to imply that suburban Caucasians have thicker skulls or whatever the hell that was. WTF dude?

personal anecdote: I have been hit by cars twice. Both times were when I was young, insane, unskilled and messenging. Neither (fortunately) was serious but... yeah.

/personal anecdote

my point is that if you ride responsibly and arm yourself with knowledge, you CAN safely cycle to work in areas like metro D.C./MD that have infrastructures that nominally to moderately encourage alternative transportation.

to the OP: sorry for the derail. If you want real-world experience of cycle commuting within D.C., and not just lame statistics (which can be biassed to say whatever the hell the article's authour wants them to) I strongly encourage you to read posts and threads on the Commuting/Touring forums in roadbikereview, particularly those from MB1, as he and his wife are an older couple who have both been car-free for years.
posted by lonefrontranger at 2:51 PM on August 3, 2006

I live in Arlington Virginia (Ballston metro) and commute by bike to Bethesda (medical center metro), park my bike there, and then hop on the Metro up to my current office at the Rockville metro. I used to work near the White Flint Metro stop, and there is a very safe and nice ride from there down to Bethesda using hiker biker trails away from cars. However, if riding between White Flint and Rockville Metro, there are few riding options that don't involve major detours to avoid riding on the very busy and dangerous Rockville Pike. Consider where you live, and make your own determination of safety based on your route. I'd also avoid any Rockville pike riding for the smog issue.
posted by jldindc at 3:42 PM on August 3, 2006

From my time riding through Perth city, you're much safer if you stay off the bus routes.
posted by krisjohn at 3:42 PM on August 3, 2006

Good question and good answers.

Here in Victoria Australia Bicycle Victoria addressed the question about bike safety and pointed to a Danish study that indicated that riding reduced overal mortality by 40% because of increased fitness.

Mind you, compared to DC we have it pretty good. There are so called 'European cycle paths' almost everywhere. These are marked lanes on the side of the road specifically for bikes. My ~20km ride to work only has about 1-2km of riding that isn't on a path or on one of these paths.

Hopefully bikers in the DC area will get together and push for these sorts of things to.
posted by sien at 3:48 PM on August 3, 2006

I've lived and biked in Amsterdam and Toronto. A'dam is awesome, there are bike lanes everywhere. Toronto is scary for biking, but I've found that it works fine as long as you realize that you are absolutely invisible to anyone else except other cyclists.
-Pedestrians that properly check left-right-left before crossing only look for cars and just don't seem to register that a bike is coming at them at high speed. They also don't realize that in inner city traffic bikes go at least as fast as cars, and misjudge the time it takes for you to get to them.
-Cars don't see you either: they check for either cars or pedestrians. If they see you, they assume you're a pedestrian and also misjudge the speed you're going at. Be especially careful for parked cars: they expect to be able to swing open their doors and get out, but the door swings open into exactly the path of a passing cyclist.
-Buses/vans/trucks can't see you in their blindspot so NEVER, NEVER EVER be right next to one of them waiting at an intersection. If they turn right, they can't see you and they don't expect there to be anything in between them and the sidewalk. No matter how good of a cyclist you are, you can't get away in time, and being clipped by a truck is pretty much fatal.
posted by easternblot at 3:52 PM on August 3, 2006

here's a link to a Ken Kifer article where he does a very good job of putting statistics behind everything I was saying above, and furthermore outlining reasons why people in the U.S. percieve cycling to be dangerous, when in fact, it really is not.

leotrotsky, I suggest you read through this article. It answers a lot of your questions about safety. I'd also recommend browsing thru the rest of Kifer's site while you're at it.

Fearmongering, indeed.
posted by lonefrontranger at 4:23 PM on August 3, 2006

This is a statistically difficult, if not impossible, answer to pin down. One of the reasons is that fatalities and injuries to children riding bicycles are often included in published statistics for all bicyclists, invalidating comparisons between adult bicyclists and drivers.

Anecdotally, as a long-time adult bicycle commuter, I'd suggest that, assuming you don't behave like and idiot and learn to cycle sensibly, the dangers of bicycling are vastly overstated. I can't give you robust statistical evidence of that, however. I'd also read anything by anyone who claims they can very carefully. I'm not convinced any officially collected and published statistics are sufficiently robust to make such a claim confidently. I've never seen any official statistics that attempt to control for any measure of cycling proficiency or experience, for example.
posted by normy at 5:59 PM on August 3, 2006

I should add that what has been established reliably is that the more people cycle in a particular locality, the fewer bicycling fatalities and injuries there are in that locality. The theory to explain this is that other road users become more accustomed to bicyclists in their environment and adjust their behavior accordingly.

Furthermore, people who bicycle regularly, unsurprisingly, on average, live longer than sedentary folk. A famous (among UK cyclists) article in the British Medical Journal a few years ago claimed an increase of 10 years in lifespan.

So, by cycling, not only are you doing yourself a favor, but you're helping other cyclists, as well, just by being out and about on a bike.
posted by normy at 6:18 PM on August 3, 2006

Erm. It's dangerous, from personal experience -- certainly more dangerous than public transportation. But it's also one of the most enjoyable and extraordinary things you can choose to do to as someone who needs to get from point A to point B on a daily basis.

I bike-commuted thirty+ miles round trip for several years in Metro Boston. I was hit by cars and hospitalized twice during that period of time, neither time suffering any permanent damage. My bike was destroyed both times, and neither of the collisions was remotely my fault.

Despite the risk, when I return to a work/life situation that requires commuting, I'll ride the bike -- no question.
posted by killdevil at 7:16 PM on August 3, 2006

as long as you realize that you are absolutely invisible to anyone else except other cyclists.

I think any experienced city cyclist has learned this, and rides defensively and proactively, because of. Worth repeating for the newbies, however.
posted by Rash at 10:48 AM on August 4, 2006

it's definitely dangerous, but the upside is increased fitness, for sure.

i find that careful route selection is critical to managing the overall danger factor. i bike commute daily into boston, twenty miles roundtrip, and i do not take the most direct route. i'm not saying go way out of your way, either, but i find that it's worth an extra ten minutes if you detour through a warehouse district or try to cut over to a bike path to get off of city streets. that, combined with the assumption that i am completely invisible to all traffic, automotive and pedestrian alike, has served me well. so far.
posted by the painkiller at 10:50 AM on August 4, 2006

Some recent postings in Gothamist should give you a sense of the situation in NYC.
posted by NYCinephile at 2:53 PM on August 4, 2006