Last month Reuters reported on a study of bicycle injuries that found an increase in serious bicycling injuries in a Denver hospital from 1996 to 2006. The report, which carried the headline “Bicycle injuries in U.S. becoming more severe,” has been widely picked up, circulated, and worried over. Now it’s time to put the genie back in the bottle.
The study itself is not available – it was presented at the American College of Surgeons’ 95th annual Clinical Congress in Chicago – so we are left to interpret the Reuters article and a news release from the University of Colorado.
From Reuters:
The severity of injuries and time spent hospitalized for bicycle injuries tended to increase in the past decade, according to the findings…The number of chest injuries rose by 15 percent, while abdominal injuries increased threefold over the last five years.
It may well be true that bicycling injuries are becoming more severe, but before we jump to too many conclusions about what this means, there is a lot more we need to know. From what we already know, however, it is clear that the reporting on these findings has been overblown and sometimes plainly inaccurate.
The first obvious point to make is the limited scope of the study – 329 bicycling injuries in one Denver hospital between 1996 and 2006 – hardly justifies the headline’s claim that the study says anything about what is happening in the entire U.S. How much can we generalize about the findings from the Rocky Mountain Regional Trauma Center in Denver? The author of the study, Jeffry Kashuk, made this point in the University of Colorado release saying, “These results were stunning but we must remember that this is only a single center study. Our findings and data need to be verified by a larger, multi-centered national study.”
It is not actually clear how stunning the results are. According to the University of Colorado release, one of the researchers plotted the locations of the crashes on a Denver map, and noticed that the “major concentration of collisions took place in the downtown urban areas and the majority of riders were older males, suggesting a greater frequency of urban commuters opposed to recreational riders.”
Reuter’s continues:
The rise in injury severity likely reflects an increased rate of “motor vehicle associated injuries, which might suggest, along with a trend toward older age, that the injuries occurred in commuters more frequently than the past, as opposed to recreational riders,” Kashuk said.
He is saying that injuries are more severe when a bicyclist crashes with a car than in other types of bicycle crashes. He is not saying that there is a greater risk of crashing with a car than before. He is also not saying that car-crash injuries are getting more severe. It appears that the study did not control for the type of riding that led to the injuries, focusing instead on the change in injury severity over time. He is saying that as people ride in traffic more, there will be more “motor vehicle associated injuries.”
We know from the U.S. Census Bureau that the percentage of bicycle commuters in Denver increased 93% just between 2000 and 2006. Thus an increase in the types of injuries more associated with commuting is not surprising.
The study is not saying that bicycle commuting is becoming more dangerous – just that more people are doing it and therefore there are more serious injuries in one Denver hospital. That makes headlines like this one from Denver’s ABC affiliate – “Injuries To Cyclists Who Commute Becoming More Severe” – inaccurate and misleading. The injuries may be more severe, but the study doesn’t appear to claim that commuter injuries are becoming more severe.
The author of the report rightly calls for more safe accommodation of cyclists to avoid these injuries. And he is certainly correct that “There is a paucity of studies looking specifically at bicycle injuries”.
Headlines like the ones being attached to the Denver study may deter some people from riding. That would actually have a negative impact on the safety for the rest of us. Peter Jacobson’s famous study “Safety in Numbers” showed that as more people ride, drivers become more aware of cyclists, making everyone safer: “The likelihood that a given person walking or bicycling will be struck by a motorist varies inversely with the amount of walking or bicycling.”
Researchers John Pucher, Jennifer Dill, and Susan Handy recently published a review of the literature on bicycling, “Infrastructure, Programs, and Policies to Increase Bicycling: An International Review”. They conclude: “The combined evidence presented in these studies indicates that the health benefits of bicycling far exceed the health risks from traffic injuries, contradicting the widespread misperception that bicycling is a dangerous activity.”
So do not let any scary headlines make you think that bicycling is becoming more dangerous. There certainly are risks, and education, proper care and investment from communities all over the country are extremely important. The good news is that the more of us out three riding, the safer – and healthier – we’ll all be.
b. Bicycle commuters appear to be at risk for more severe injuries than recreational cyclists
c. Too many urban areas, like Denver, are encouraging bicycle commuting with investing in the needed facilities to keep them safe
The result, he says, will be an epidemic of injuries to bike commuters.
He makes a perfectly legitimate point, as far as it goes. From the point of view of promoting safe cycling, there is a bit of a chicken and egg question here. In my view, both promotion and safe facilities are necessary to encourage safe cycling. Cities won’t invest in safe infrastructure if very few people ride, and people won’t ride if all they hear is about how dangerous cycling is. Again, Dr. Kashuk is right to call for more safe facilities, but not to call for a halt to cities’ promotion efforts. We can and should do both.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the Bike League RSS 2.0 feed.
Despite the growth in bicycle commuting, it still strikes many people as unusual. In fact, judging by this report in the “Twitter Room” section of The Hill (“Tweets you need to read”) a Congressman riding his bike to a bill signing on Capitol Hill is more noteworthy than a Congressman using Twitter. The article relates the fact that Congressman Earl Blumenauer tweeted the following:
“Biking to White House to join the President and GLBT champions for signing Hate Crimes into law.”
The article, of course, mentions the Congressional Bike Caucus. The list of the members of the Congressional Bike Caucus on Congressman Blumenauer’s website needs to be updated. The caucus has grown, thanks to enthusiasm generated at the most recent National Bike Summit. There are now 218 Bike Caucus members. View the full list of Bike Caucus Members in the 111th Congress.
Meanwhile in other Earl Blumenauer news, Streetsfilms got to tag along as Transportation Alternatives’ Paul Steely White and Noah Budnick gave him a tour of New York City’s new bicycle facilities. Good stuff…
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
USA Today’s Drive On Blog recently had a provocative piece asking whether motorists have let cyclists rights go too far – apparently missing the irony that it was cyclists in the 1880s that literally paved the way for motor vehicles, while simultaneously laboring under the misunderstanding that people’s right to use the public right of way is held at the whim of motorists.
While no doubt hoping to stir a lively debate, the author rehashed the tired – and false – notion that motorists and cyclists are at war and cannot coexist peacefully. The overwhelming majority of cyclists has absolutely no intention or desire to deliberately obstruct motorists. A tiny minority of riders may be oblivious and thoughtless about what’s going on behind them – and very, very occasionally a critical mass ride or equivalent will deliberately fill up a street or intersection for a few minutes, once a month, in a handful of cities across the country. Not exactly apocalyptic stuff.
To be honest, drivers are very much more effective at clogging up city streets, twice a day, every work day, 52 weeks of the year, all by themselves without any help from cyclists. Seriously, if a few more people walked, took transit or biked instead…?!
In one case highlighted in the article, a driver – apparently already notorious among the Los Angeles bicycling community for similar prior behavior – passed a group of cyclists heading down a canyon road and deliberately slammed on the brakes in front of them, with fairly obvious consequences. He was mad at having to wait behind them.
By chance, my son and I were in the LA area the week after this happened. As we drove down some of the amazing canyon roads, at the speed limit, we were illegally passed by impatient motorists who crossed the solid yellow center lines on blind corners and as we approached intersections – not just once or twice, but enough times that it became something of a standing joke between us. Except that it isn’t funny when people get hurt.
The other case involved a Maryland driver who hit and killed a cyclist in front of her that she “didn’t see”. The USA Today article, local mediaand evenearly statements from the Maryland Highway Patrol suggested that if the rider had been in the right portion of the lane instead of the middle, the crash might have been prevented – a little hard to fathom, given that the motorist didn’t see the cyclist when he was straight in front of her. Surely we should expect drivers to be aware of what is going on right in front of them – and surely the news media and police should bolster that expectation, not excuse careless, dangerous or inattentive driving.
The author contacted the League for a “little perspective”. He used a “little” of what Jeff Peel had to say in response. He actually managed to single out phrases that had both cyclists and motorists irritated with us at the same time, which is no small feat!
Our Smart Cycling program teach that there are times when cyclists do need to take the lane, even on streets with bike lanes: when the bike lane or right hand side of the travel lane is blocked, or has a dangerous drainage grate or pothole, or has broken glass, piles of snow or leaves – all things which can cause a cyclist to crash. It’s really no different for motorists encountering delivery trucks, wheel-swallowing potholes, broken down vehicles, illegally parked cars, etc. You don’t just drive over them if you can help it.
There may be times when the travel lane is simply too narrow to share side by side with a car, and rather than ride in the gutter or on the sidewalk (surprising to many, sidewalks are among THE most likely places for everyday cyclists to get in a crash with a car) it is safer for the bicyclist and the motorist for the cyclist to ride in the center of the lane. Not to get in the way; and not on the interstate. A cyclist is more visible, and frankly more predictable, where you can see them and see their intentions.
There are times when a cyclist may be going straight ahead and there’s a right turn only lane – to the motorist, it may appear that the cyclist is “in the middle of the road”; to the cyclist, they are just trying to get where they are going without having someone turn right in front of them. The same is true if a cyclist is making a left turn – they should usually be making it from the left side of the lane or left-turn lane.
Truthfully, this whole debate isn’t really just about bicyclists and bicycling versus motorists and cars – even though that makes for better copy and more strident discussion. It’s about civility and safety on our streets, for which we all share responsibility. There are rogue cyclists and rogue drivers; and failure to comply with traffic laws – be they stop signs for cyclists or speed limits for motorists – is sadly endemic in our culture, and we tolerate it at our individual and collective peril every time we hit the road.
See a slide show of Balance Bikes in the New York Times.
Lucky kid
From the New York Times:
BALANCE bikes, long popular in Europe, are making inroads in the United States as a way to teach children to ride a two-wheel bicycle without the need for training wheels. The bikes do not have pedals; instead, toddlers use their feet to steady themselves, propel forward and brake. Eventually they learn to coast — and balance.
Technically, the bikes are ride-on toys, because they lack gears. But they do look like small bicycles, with rubber tires, adjustable seats and adjustable handlebars (on the metal-frame ones, at least). All are low to the ground, so that diminutive riders can straddle them while standing on both feet.
“This makes them a better option than taking the pedals off a regular kids’ bike, since the bike may still be too tall to stand over,” said Tim Blumenthal, the executive director of Bikes Belong, a nonprofit advocacy group in Boulder, Colo. Velo Bartolome, age 2, recently tested five balance bikes, each no more than 11 pounds or $98. His father, Arsenio, a sales representative for City Bikes in Chevy Chase, Md., and Washington, D.C., said that a lightweight bike was easier for younger riders to control. “The learning curve for building and riding the bikes was quick,” Mr. Bartolome said. “About 15 minutes for each of us.”
A program in recently awarded Bronze Level Bicycle Friendly Community Sioux Falls, SD recently made NBC Nightly News. The story, dubbed “Cash for Two-wheel Clunkers”, highlights a Bike-to-Work program that provides affordable bikes for adults needing transportation. This program was one of the highlights of the Sioux Falls application for designation, and we’re happy to seeing it get the attention it deserves!
We’ve seen other programs like this be successful across the country. For example, in Platinum Portland, Ore. the Community Cycling Center (CCC) offers their Create a Commuter program, partnering with job placement programs in helping the unemployed get back on their feet and access to jobs without the expensive of a car. Local shop Joe Bike has lent a hand to the CCC and set-up their own Cash for Clunkers program.
We know that 1/3 of the population are either too old or too young to drive, and an article in last week’s New York Times even highlights the fact that when given enough choices, people may even choose to give up their cars. However, programs like Bikes for Work and Create a Commuter are reaching those who are looking for a new transportation option, not out of choice to be personally more sustainable, but out of economic necessity. We’ve shown there are economic benefits to creating the infrastructure needed to support cycling, but how is your community serving those with the greatest need for affordable transportation options? Email the League, and let us know!
In case you missed it on our homepage or Facebook update, this past Monday we announced our Fall round of new Bicycle Friendly Communities! We are excited to add 15 new Bicycle Friendly Communities (BFC) and three renewing BFCs. Notably, 10 out of the 15 new awardees are from the Midwest to the East coast, disproving the myth that building great cities for cycling only works in the West. Three new states, Arkansas, Louisiana, and South Dakota have their first BFCs with this designation cycle.
Additionally, the American Community Survey (ACS) recently released their 2008 report, which includes community bicycle mode share percentages from 2000 to 2008. We crunched the numbers and found that BFCs had higher levels of bicycle commuting than cities not participating in the program. The average BFC bicycle commuter share is 1.5 percent, 2.5 times the national average. St. Louis, MO, for example, is one of the 70 largest cities surveyed in the ACS and a new bronze level BFC. The community nearly doubled their number of bicycle commuters from 2000 to 2008. The city has completed several noteworthy projects within the past year, including 53 new miles of on-street additions to the bikeway system, a $10 million investment, and an expansion of bicycling education offerings for children and adults. This shows that like cities across the country, making smart investments in building a welcoming community for biking that will inevitably lead to more, healthier and sustainable transportation options and increased recreational opportunities.
We’ve seen the BFC program revolutionize the way states and communities evaluate their quality of life, sustainability and transportation networks, while allowing them to benchmark their progress and work toward improving their bicycle-friendliness. The application process to become a BFC is rigorous (though staff is on hand to assist!); currently only 124 of the 318 total applicants have a BFC four-year designation. The renewal process and four levels of the award – platinum, gold, silver and bronze – provide a clear incentive for communities to continuously improve.
Interested in learning more about how your community stacks up? Take a minute and rate it with our new quick scorecard, or get in touch with Bicycle Friendly Community program staff at info@bicyclefriendlycommmunity.org or 202.822.1333.
2009 Fall Bicycle Friendly Community Winners (Bronze award unless otherwise noted)
Breckenridge, CO (Silver)
Anchorage, AK
Baton Rouge, LA
Calistoga, CA
Grand Rapids, MI
Greensboro, NC
Greenville, SC
Indianapolis & Marion County, IN
Iowa City, IA
North Little Rock, AR
Riverside, CA
Sioux Falls, SD
Sonoma, CA
St. Louis, MO
Tallahassee, FL
Boca Raton, FL (Renewal)
Chandler, AZ (Renewal)
Eugene, OR (Renewal, Gold)
2009 Honorable Mentions
Annapolis, MD; Baltimore, MD; Cedar Rapids, IA; Charleston, SC; Cumberland, MD; Emerald Isle, NC
Gresham, OR; Hamilton County, OH; Jacksonville, FL; Nashville, TN; New Orleans, LA; Norman, OK
Palm Desert, CA; Portland, ME; Rockville, MD; Sumter County, SC; Warrenville, IL
The report tracks local use of federal bicycle and pedestrian funds since they became available under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). The authors rank the 50 largest metropolitan areas according to annual per capita spending on bicycle and pedestrian projects between 1991 and 2006. Investments ranged from $0.18 per person per year in the Virginia Beach, VA metropolitan area to $2.50 in the Providence, RI area. They also tracked how much of the funding came from Transportation Enhancements (TE) and the number of other federal funding programs the metropolitan areas tapped into.
Perhaps the most striking finding of the report is the role of sub-allocations. Federal funding can flow either through the state or be sub-allocated through Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs). The federal government recommends that states devolve funding authority to MPOs, but many states choose not to. According to the report, this impacts the chances of bicycling and walking projects being funded. Cities in states that sub-allocated TE spent an average of 44 percent more on bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure than cities in states without sub-allocation. This is probably because the positive impact of bicycle and pedestrian facilities is more apparent on the city-scale rather than the state-scale.
CMAQ-funded bike sharing program in Fort COllins, CO
funds spent in Sacramento, Calif. and Baltimore, Md. to demonstrate the point. California sub-allocates their CMAQ funds to MPOs, whereas Maryland administers the program from the state level. Forty-four percent of the federal bicycle and pedestrian funding in Sacramento came from the CMAQ program, an even larger share than came from TE. In contrast, Baltimore relied heavily on TE funds and did not spend any CMAQ money on bicycle and pedestrian projects over the 14 year period. It appears that bicycle and pedestrian projects fare best when funding decisions are made at the lowest level of government possible.
I was in New York City recently and planners and advocates there expressed the desire to have federal funding flow directly through the sophisticated and well-staffed city DOT instead of their Metropolitan Planning Organization, the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council. Compared to some places, though, New York has it good.
CMAQ funded 80 percent of the $1.35 million McDonald’s Cycle Center in Chicago’s Millennium Park.
When it comes to finding federal funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects, many people have heard about the Transportation Enhancements program, by far the largest, which provided 64 percent of the federal funding to bike and pedestrian projects between 1992 and 2008. However, a number of other federal funding programs for which bicycle and pedestrian projects are eligible are not as well known. As part of the Advocacy Advance partnership with the Alliance for Bicycle and Walking, the League has prepared a series of reports to inform advocates of these programs and provide guidance on getting bicycle and pedestrian projects funded.
The first report in this series is on the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program. CMAQ funds bicycle and pedestrian projects that replace car trips with biking and walking trips. The federal government covers 80 percent of most projects, with a 20 percent local contribution. For states that have areas (usually cities) that have not met air quality standards, CMAQ funds must be spend in those areas.
Advocates should know about CMAQ because bicycle and pedestrian projects are explicitly eligible and commonly funded. Thirteen percent of projects and 5 percent of total funding from CMAQ goes to bicycle and pedestrian projects. CMAQ funds have been used on a wide variety of capital projects including bicycle paths and lanes, racks and lockers, and for marketing materials and operating costs for bicycle sharing projects. The report includes about 20 examples of CMAQ-funded bicycle and pedestrian projects.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has released its estimate of the amount spent (obligated) on bicycle and pedestrian projects and programs in FY 2009 — and at $1.2 billion, its a record high. Of that, $405 million comes from comes from American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) stimulus funds. Even without the stimulus, the amount spent on bike/ped projects increased 45 percent from FY 2008, though its still only 2 percent of federal transportation spending. More still needs to be done: the stimulus has so far funded only 20 percent of the amount of shovel-ready projects identified by America Bikes, rescissions disproportionately hit bicycle and pedestrian programs, and bicycle and pedestrian safety is being underfunded.
Federal spending on bicycle and pedestrian projects totaled nearly $1.2 billion in fiscal year 2009, according to an estimate released this week by the FHWA. This unprecedented investment—more than double that of FY 2008—comes at a time when bicycle commuting is growing swiftly nationwide. New U.S. Census Bureau figures peg this growth at 43 percent since 2000, and 14 percent since 2007.
America Bikes, a coalition of eight national non-profit organizations, has analyzed this new data and issued comments, as the group intensifies its efforts to make sure the next federal transportation bill properly supports bicycling facilities and programs.
America Bikes notes that bicycle and pedestrian project funding grew in part because of new money provided by the ARRA, which contributed $405 million to job-rich, green infrastructure projects such as building and improving sidewalks, curb ramps, bike lanes and multi-use trails. Independent of this stimulus funding, more than $780 million was invested in bike/ped efforts—an increase of 45 percent on FY 2008.
“State and local agencies are increasingly realizing that investing in improved conditions for bicycling and walking is good for their local economies, the environment, and for the overall quality of life,” said Andy Clarke, America Bikes board member and President of the League of American Bicyclists. “Broad-based support for bicycling has never been stronger—from the Administration, Congress, community and business leaders, health-care professionals, and individual citizens.”
Good News, But…
While America Bikes welcomes the increasing federal investment and growing participation in bicycling and walking, the Coalition cites ongoing concerns:
1. Last fall, America Bikes identified nearly $3.8 billion in cost-effective “shovel-ready” bike-ped projects nationwide, but less than 20 percent of them have since been funded.
2. While 71 percent of Americans say they want to bike more, some state Departments of Transportation aren’t getting the message and aren’t spending available bike project money. The proof: State DOTs this year returned to the federal government more than TWICE the required sum of Transportation Enhancement fund rescissions. (Transportation Enhancements rank as the single largest category of federal funding for bike and pedestrian improvements.)
3. America Bikes continues to be concerned about the lack of federal investment in making bicycling and walking safer. While cyclists and pedestrians account for 13 percent of annual U.S. traffic fatalities, less than one half of one percent of federal Highway Safety Improvement Program funding is spent on bicycle and pedestrian projects.
4. During fiscal year 2009, about two percent of federal transportation funds were spent on bicycling and walking—a figure that continues to fall far short of the 10 percent of U.S. trips that are currently made on foot or by bike. America Bikes believes that additional investments in bicycling and walking will make these activities safer, more convenient, and more popular, and will help our nation reduce obesity, road congestion, air pollution and dependence on imported fuel.
Randy Neufeld, President of America Bikes, said, “The increased federal spending this year is a great first step, but it’s still a fraction of the investment that is appropriate given the increase in use and utility of bicycling. Most Americans support increased spending on bicycle lanes and paths.”
America Bikes is a coalition of leaders from the bicycling community advocating for positive outcomes for bicycling in the federal transportation bill. America Bikes Coalition members include: Adventure Cycling Association, Alliance for Biking and Walking, Bikes Belong, International Mountain Bicycling Association, League of American Bicyclists, National Center for Bicycling and Walking and the Rails to Trails Conservancy.
The League has been busy following several issues on Capitol Hill ranging from livable communities to the many complexities of the Transportation Bill and transportation funding. Below is a summary of what is on our radar and their recent developments. Please visit the League of American Bicyclists Advocacy Center to view all the federal legislation we are tracking. Although we currently do not have an immediate action item, we hope you will take the opportunity to call your Members of Congress to urge them to sign all of these important issues.
Representative Blumenauer Announces Creation of Livable Communities Task Force
Rep. Earl Blumenauer (OR-3) announced today, October 20 the creation of the Livable Communities Task Force, a collection of Congressmen united in improving and expediting legislation that builds more livable communities. The task force, made up of 20 Representatives, is charged with working to improve our communities through federal legislation that helps reduce our nation’s dependence on oil, protect the environment, improve public health and invest in housing and transportation projects that create jobs and can give people more commuting choices.
Rep. Blumenauer, Chairman of the task force, announced its formation on Streetsblog and explains further on the task force’s website.
Climate Bill Moving Forward on Transportation Funding
The Climate Bill, introduced on September 30th by Senators Kerry (D-MA) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA), is a comprehensive bill posed to fight global warming by putting a cap and trade on CO2 emissions.
The funding levels for the bill, which are still being negotiated, have been expected to give only a small percentage of increase to green transportation, such as bicycling and walking, despite the fact that 30 percent of our nation’s emissions are from the transportation sector. The League of American Bicyclists, along with the Transportation for America (T4) Coalition, participated in a Senate lobby day on October 7 and met with 23 offices to advocate for robust funding for green transportation in the Climate Bill going with hopes to combat emissions from the transportation sector.
Senate Majority Leadership Recognizes Need for Shorter Extension
Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), the Assistant Majority Leader, recently stated that he would like to see a transportation bill passed by early 2010, much sooner than expected. This announcement, made at a summit of regional business leaders in Iowa, comes as a break from the 18-month extension proposed by the Obama administration and Senator Boxer (D-CA), Chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee (the body posed to write the bill).
Elena Schor at Streetsblog analyzes the possible repercussions of the Senator’s statement. Read the original story from the Quincy Herald Whig.
Blog
