Drunk driver with six empty beer cans in SUV rams two cyclists, before driving over stricken rider, in shocking hit-and-run in Texas

Miller wrote:

some bad stuff inevitably happens

An awful lot of bad stuff, unfortunately. Hard to believe it's all inevitable.

It depends on where you ride in the U.S. Boise, Idaho - in the state where the "Idaho Stop'' was created - is rather nice. Some of California is pretty good. Michigan is scary, unless you stick to the trail system laid down over old railbeds, which his great except at road intersections. Parts of Washington state and Oregon are OK, though some of the bike infrastructure in bike-popular Portland is scary. Large parts of the country away from the cities and out in the hinterlands where there is little traffic are good, but the story above is fairly representative of most of urban America. Anchorage, AK, where I know live, might be among the worst places in the world to ride. Even driving in Anchorage is dangerous because of speeds, red-light runners, drivers who don't appear to give a sh*t if they run into things, and a prevailing belief cyclists shouldn't be on or near the road. Add in the widespread American view, widely shared by law enforcement and prosecutors, that any cyclist killed by a motor vehicle was just asking for it by riding a bike, and you get a pretty toxic mix of dangerous elements. 

AidanR wrote:

Terrifying. I'm genuinely not sure that I'd cycle in the US, or at least certain parts of it.

Around 120 million people do every year, not including tourists from other countries.  About 900 are killed annually -- and only about 650 of them were sober at the time.

That compares well with many countries.  For example, the Netherlands is presently at around 13 million cyclists, and sees about 250 annual deaths.  And no, the Dutch don't ride __that much__, averaging only around 2 km per day, at around 12 kph.

For another example, the United Kingdom has around 7.5 million cyclists, with about 100 annual deaths -- approximately double the US' annual fatality rate.

If you aren't drunk, and don't ride like an idiot ( against traffic, without any lights at night, etc ), you are __way__ more likely to drown in the US than be killed on your bicycle.  If you just decide to sit on your couch, you are way more likely to die early from diabetes, or heart disease, or other illness, than you are to be killed on your bicycle.

Perpetuating the myth that cycling is incredibly dangerous is extremely detrimental to cycling.

Mark Twain had it right. "Get a bicycle. You will not regret it, if you live."

dh700 wrote:

Perpetuating the myth that cycling is incredibly dangerous is extremely detrimental to cycling.

For sure, beliefs despite evidence are a thing - we're dealing with humans! However from talking to people increasingly I wonder how important that is or even if that's relevant at all.

People who don't cycle regularly cite "safety" as a concern. But a) they're not reading the statistics and b) while they are reading the media they're also doing a "gut feeling" evaluation - does it "look" safe? (And - if persuaded to give it a go - were there *any* parts that provoked a string negative response - that's psychology.)

I think people's *main* motivations for (transport) cycling or not (if not already) are things like "is it something that would be of benefit / fits in to my life?" (answer - "no, I just drove here" or "the car's just outside and my life is organised around that. Now it is it's certainly convenient enough. If I change that I have to plan how to fit the bike into my day's activities").

Or "is it something attractive" (answer "no, because some of the roads I'll need to traverse have lots of motor vehicles / ones going 30mph+ and/or buses and lorries - and it wouldn't *feel* safe or pleasant").

Or "is anyone else doing it? How will that make me look to others?" (answer - "most other people don't. Outside of cycling cliques you'll probably find it's isolating and othering")

Of course Twain was referring to riding an Ordinary - pillocks in SUV hadn't been invented at his time...

chrisonabike wrote:

Mark Twain had it right. "Get a bicycle. You will not regret it, if you live."

You may want to be less ridiculous and not quote individuals who died only about a decade after the penny-farthing did.

chrisonabike wrote:

For sure, beliefs despite evidence are a thing - we're dealing with humans!

This is an exceedingly poor excuse for spreading fake news, as the previous commenter has been doing, and you yourself are bordering on.

chrisonabike wrote:

However from talking to people increasingly I wonder how important that is or even if that's relevant at all.

Rather than speculate based on a meaningless sample size, I'm sure you can read the studies that I have previously posted, or dozens of others, and learn that "safety", or lack thereof, is the primary concern for most cyclists, and the primary factor that depresses cycling uptake.

I don't think I'll bother. Thanks anyway.

dh700 wrote:

AidanR wrote:

Terrifying. I'm genuinely not sure that I'd cycle in the US, or at least certain parts of it.

Around 120 million people do every year, not including tourists from other countries.  About 900 are killed annually -- and only about 650 of them were sober at the time.

That compares well with many countries.  For example, the Netherlands is presently at around 13 million cyclists, and sees about 250 annual deaths.  And no, the Dutch don't ride __that much__, averaging only around 2 km per day, at around 12 kph.

For another example, the United Kingdom has around 7.5 million cyclists, with about 100 annual deaths -- approximately double the US' annual fatality rate.

If you aren't drunk, and don't ride like an idiot ( against traffic, without any lights at night, etc ), you are __way__ more likely to drown in the US than be killed on your bicycle.  If you just decide to sit on your couch, you are way more likely to die early from diabetes, or heart disease, or other illness, than you are to be killed on your bicycle.

Perpetuating the myth that cycling is incredibly dangerous is extremely detrimental to cycling.

 

"This message was brought to you by 'Visit America'"

I think it's more "American exceptionalism - where we compare apples and oranges".

The US does have major differences from e.g. European states and it's wise to pay attention to those.  But it's not actually on a different planet, and it's still populated by humans!

It also has poor traffic safety figures and currently a very low modal share for cycling, even in the places where they've moved the furthest (like many countries there are a few outliers - tending to be small university towns).  The efforts of US bike advocates are to be applauded - that's really taking on motornormativity! - and I've seen plenty of thoughtful commentary from them.  Obviously along with some reactions to the US situation which can hopefully be left to history like "vehicular cycling".

I don't know how much if anything the US might learn from Europe in this regard - but they do have some comparable urban environments.  The other way round?  Not so much I can think of - maybe "quick erzatz 2nd class cycling infra via concrete barriers"?  If places in the US can turn things around e.g. going further than in the UK that would certainly be interesting.

brooksby wrote:

"This message was brought to you by 'Visit America'"

Are you attempting to insinuate that any of those statistics are inaccurate?  They are not, even if they cause your pride to sting a bit.