There has been quite a bit of debate on our site as of late about cyclists and the necessity of the so called safe passing law, requiring motorists to provide at least three feet of room when passing a cyclist. Some have debated the necessity of the law and whether it will be enforceable.
Enter the Freakonomics blog on the New York Times site which has been on a bit of a cycling kick lately. A few weeks ago they did a study of used bike prices based on how cycling friendly a city was. They seemed surprised that the higher the percentage of people riding bikes in a city there were, the higher the price. This doesn’t seem like a surprise to me as the whole supply-demand thing kicks in plus I’d say the more you ride, the nicer the bike you want meaning fewer cheap and crappy big box bikes in the used bike mix. But I digress.
On Friday, they posted some interesting stats about accident related cyclist deaths. In all the discussions of cyclists on the road, there seems to be a thread of how cyclists routinely break the law implying that by doing so they are the cause of their own premature deaths. While this cause and affect logic may feel karmically good, it turns out to have little basis in reality. Based on the Freakonomics research, motorists, not cyclists, are at fault in 9 of 10 bike-automobile accidents.
. . . an analysis of police reports on 2,752 bike-car accidents in Toronto found that clumsy or inattentive driving by motorists was the cause of 90 percent of these crashes. Among the leading causes: running a stop sign or traffic light, turning into a cyclist’s path, or opening a door on a biker. This shouldn’t come as too big a surprise: motorists cause roughly 75 percent of motorcycle crashes too.
What’s this? Motorists running stop signs and traffic lights? By golly, all cars should get off the road until there is 100% compliance! And inattentive . . . as in texting while driving? It seems both parts of this proposed ordinance are applicable to make our roads safer for all users, no just those who choose or can afford a car.
First he smokes, now riding without a helmet. What kind of roll model is this? Image courtesy of LA Times.
UPDATE: Meanwhile, it seems our President has a death wish as he was spotted this week while on vacation riding a bike *gasp* without a helmet! (Seen here in the video titled “Where’s Obama’s bike helmet?”) Does he not realize he is balancing on the razors edge every moment he does not have a protective head gear? Think of the millions of Americans killed since the bicycle was invented because they didn’t wear a helmet? Oops, if you read the Freakonomics article, you’ll know 52,000 Americans have died in bike related injuries in the 80 year we’ve been keeping track. A tragedy, no doubt, but only on par for the average number of people killed every year while driving a car. Not to worry. The President’s rapid response squad stepped in saying “”He supports the wearing of bicycle helmets.” More on the sillyness in the LA Times.
on Aug 30th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
Amen… now can we get this research illustrated by experts in some Idaho stop law legislative meetings and on the news.
on Aug 31st, 2009 at 12:51 am
Freakonomics links to a position piece that cites the Toronto study instead of linking to the study itself, which may be found here:
http://www.velomondial.net/velomondiall2000/PDF/TOMLINSO.PDF
Something for sidewalk riders to consider (page 2):
“In just over half of these crashes [motorist improperly entering an intersection controlled by stop sign or red light], the cyclist was struck while crossing the intersection within the pedestrian crosswalk.”
Page 3:
“Overall, the most significant secondary factor was cycling on the footpath or crosswalk. This behaviour was most frequent in collisions where the motorist was turning right at a red light (86%) or emerging from a private drive (81%).”
on Aug 31st, 2009 at 7:22 am
Thanks for pointing that out, Nate. Intersections of different transportation modes are often dangerous as it disrupts the “normal” flow and expectations. I’ve read about similar issues with at-grade rail crossings.
on Aug 31st, 2009 at 9:15 am
Faulty logic. 99% of motorist/cyclist collisions could be the fault of the motorist without it saying anything about how often motorists broke the law compared to cyclists (it depends on how many such interactions result in a collision).
on Aug 31st, 2009 at 9:31 am
Mike,
I don’t think it’s a comment on how often cyclists break the law but what the consequences are for motors when they do it or are inattentive. When the cyclist does the same, the consequences aren’t the same. That doesn’t excuse the behavior, but it is interesting to me that such a high rate of accidents is the motorist’s fault. I’m quick to defend our two wheeled brethren, but I didn’t think the rate would be so high.
on Aug 31st, 2009 at 10:30 am
Point is this doesn’t tell us anything useful without an estimate of the proportion of street traffic comprised from each mode. If 95% of street traffic in Toronto is motorized, for instance, 90% of accidents being caused by the motorized vehicle would actually suggest they’re better behaved.
on Aug 31st, 2009 at 1:00 pm
You don’t understand! Cyclists are at fault! They always are! They have to be . . . *sob*
on Aug 31st, 2009 at 2:02 pm
I think it just confirms what people know intuitively, that cars are the major danger when cycling. If you ask most any non-cyclist why they don’t ride a bike, the major concern is that it is not safe to ride on the streets with cars. They don’t say, “oh, if I cycle I’ll start breaking all the traffic laws and then I’ll have an accident”.
Why are we having these sorts of conversations? It is about wanting to be able to ride a bike, or walk, safely.
Not surprisingly, for motorists, the conversation is mostly about not being inconvenienced, since they virtually cannot be harmed by bicyclists.
Thus, when more infrastructure and accommodations are suggested for bicyclists, motorists remember their resentment, irritation, and anger at being inconvenienced, and suggest that its all the cyclists fault, and if they just obeyed the law, things would be fine, and no money would need to be diverted from road improvements for cars. (and besides, bicycles shouldn’t be allowed on the roads anyway, its not safe!)
There are several ironies here. One is that motorists pretend to be concerned for cyclists safety, but do not support infrastructure and programs that would enhance it. The other is that doing those improvements would also benefit motorists much more than they think.
People often tell me: “ride safely”, but this is not possible, because my safety cannot be assured by my actions alone.
on Aug 31st, 2009 at 2:41 pm
I like the way you are thinking, Dave.
on Aug 31st, 2009 at 4:08 pm
I commend Mr. Obama for reminding us of our freedom to choose whether or not we want to wear a helmet for bicycling, walking, swimming, sex, or anything else, for that matter.
Yay America yay!
on Jan 21st, 2012 at 7:50 am
You can argue all you want about who’s at fault. In the end it ‘s the cyclist who dies. Keep your strong opinions and keep saying your right and keep dying. What about the poor motorist who have to bear the burden after they kill one of you and then have to pay financially for it. Where is your insurance and registration? I hit a group of cyclist on my motorcycle including a little girl of seven when they all( about ten of them)turned in front of me and not one of them signaled. As I met the victims families in the hospital they blamed me even though the police blamed them. As I told them hate me all they want but if I was in a car that day they would all be dead. Who wins that argument? Stay off the road if you do not want to be hit!