Comments on: Portland study finds drivers and cyclists 50/50 at fault in accidents

By: M1EK

M1EK — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 19:51:47 +0000

c /drive like lunatics/bike like lunatics. Ironic, huh?

By: M1EK

M1EK — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 19:41:42 +0000

Dave, I live near UT; and, again, commuted thousands of miles over ten years.

In my experience, those who claim they are constantly getting into accidents or nearly so are exactly the ones who drive like lunatics.

By: Dave

Dave — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 21:59:13 +0000

Perhaps it is an exaggeration, certaintly it depends quite a lot on the circumstances under which you are riding. Say you live in the university neighborhood, and you don’t own a car. The Texas Driver’s handbook is not going to really tell you all that you need to know. It is not for nothing that there are courses specifically to help people learn to deal with city riding.

“It’s the kind of attitude that underlies…”

I don’t believe you know what kind of attitude it is, thus your spurious remarks.

By: M1EK

M1EK — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 14:16:51 +0000

Your statement is still objectively false. You said, basically, that if you follow the traffic laws but don’t pay much attention to anything else, you’ll be seriously injured or dead within a year – this is absurd on its face. It’s the kind of attitude that underlies the “well, I’m safer if I run this red light to get out of the way” idiocy.

By: Dave

Dave — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 01:27:01 +0000

Let me be perfectly clear (TM)

“but your advice that “if you actually obey the rules” you’re somehow unsafe is, well, strikingly unsafe.”

My position is that just obeying the rules will not ensure your safety. It is certainly better than not obeying the rules (in a large majority of cases…).

Every road user is subject to accidents, no matter how alert or mindful of the law they are. When you are riding a bicycle, the consequences of an accident are much more serious, and it is impossible to ensure your safety by your actions alone.

By: M1EK

M1EK — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 20:02:27 +0000

Dave, your first paragraph is objectively false. I commuted thousands of miles on my bike over a decade or so before the arthritis kicked me off, and had precisely one accident – and no motor vehicle was involved (went over handlebars after I had to brake suddenly on an oily patch south of San Marcos). I had a handful of near-misses, of course, so your advice to pay attention is well given, but your advice that “if you actually obey the rules” you’re somehow unsafe is, well, strikingly unsafe.

By: Dave

Dave — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 05:35:24 +0000

LOL, if you actually obey the rules, etc. and think you are safe, you’re going to be seriously injured or dead in about a year. I’d say the incidence of left hooks, right hooks, and being driven into from a side street are about once every 3-4 months. Quite a lot depends upon where you are riding on a regular basis. Most of these are avoidable if you are very alert.

I am still looking at reports. One of the interesting things I noticed is that in NYC, pedestrians are the largest fatality group, outnumbering motorists, bicyclists, etc. by a large margin. I am sure they are blasting thru those stop signs and traffic lights…

Another interesting thing is the disparity in cause factors between fatal and non-fatal accidents. In the NYC study, “bicyclists factors” only were cited in 42% of the accidents, “vehicle only” 20%, and both 36%. Yet in non-fatal crashes, “bicyclists factors” only were cited in 13%, “vehicle only” 35%, and both, 6%, no factors documented, 45%. They go on to say something like: because both parties are available to recount the accident, the non-fatal crash factors assignment may be more accurate. Well, as they say, history is written by the winners…

In the Toronto study, which got presented as “90% of bike/car accidents are the fault of the car driver” they specifically say: “Finally, any attempt to quantify such
factors as driver and cyclist error, inattention, negligence, or culpability must be carefully thought through. Assessing these always involves many layers of subjective judgements, in the statements from the individuals, the evaluation of the investigating officer, and the eventual interpretation by the researcher.” The Toronto study does not explicitly present its data in terms of culpability.

Another interesting item is the relatively high incidence of trucks and other large vehicles in fatalities. This was a sub-focus of the London study, and also turned up in a few others.

“Failure to yield right of way” is not always used in the manner in which I think this discussion is using it, but I’d say that generally about 6-13% of crashes involve cyclists running stop signs and stop lights.

A heartening item (to me) is that several studies don’t show significant levels of drunk driving as a factor in cyclists deaths. By this I mean perhaps 2-4% involve DUI for the motorist. The percentage is higher for cyclists BUI, I think.

By: M1EK

M1EK — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 21:58:03 +0000

“among the top reasons” != “the top reason” – I don’t even remember the order of the reasons – this would inevitably come up in a helmet discussion in the “how dangerous is bicycling, really, if you actually obey the rules” sense (showing that if you ride with lights on at night, ride the right direction, and don’t run red lights or stop signs, you’re unlikely to be hurt or killed).

And elliott is correct in a pedantic sense.

By: elliott

elliott — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 16:46:12 +0000

Dave,
The reason your probably coming up with those results is that the top reason cyclists die is their impact with the car. The behavior of the cyclist and driver as well as road conditions are contributing factors but the impact is the reason for injury or death.

By: Dave

Dave — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 16:07:11 +0000

Well, I am heartened to hear there *is* some data, but I’m not too confident in the analysis if they feel this is the top reason. It doesn’t jibe with my subjective experience and news I’ve read. Accident “causes” can be very different depending upon who is making the evaluation.

To be a little silly, in the last hour or two of surveying stuff I could find online, I’ve found the top reason cyclists have died has been head injuries.

It seems to me that many studies are simply devoted to helmet use and its impact on fatalities. Maybe I’m looking in the wrong places, do you have any pointers?