Opus wrote:
On Sep 29, 1:08 pm, Frank wrote
snip
So far, you've done none of that. You've just said "Ignore that data."
So seriously, what have you got for evidence that Phoenix data is
significantly in error?

--
- Frank Krygowski

Well one well-established form of bias against bicycles in wrecks is
"windshield bias" where a driver will pull "facts" out of his butt to
establish that the cyclist was at fault including the physically
impossible (Trying to beat a traffic signal that was facing away from
the rider had they been going in the direction specified in the
report, which was away from the cyclist's destination and back towards
his point of origin for that trip, in Portland. Or specifying a
physically impossible speed for the cyclist35 MPH uphill in order to
justify a ticket against an unconscious cyclist in Tucson). One that I
am personally familiar with was a cyclist run over in Chattanooga
where they blamed the cyclist's panniers for getting caught on the
back bumper of a truck causing the cyclist to be ^thrown forward and
to the left when hit on the left side of the bike^ under the rear
wheels of the truck. Another one was a wreck in Texarkana where the
motor vehicle contacted the right side of the bike with the left
(driver's) side of the vehicle, and they tried to blame the cyclist
for "swerving from the shoulder". I have seen **** like that almost
every day for more than 5 years as I collect and post links to
articles on bike wrecks. Some of the bias is so prevalent that
acronyms have been made: SMIDSY, SWSS, SWCC... Se, yes, bias has been
well established against cyclists by LEO.

I'm not doubting that there are incidents of bias. What I'm doubting is
that by citing a bias incident in Texarkana or Chattanooga, we can say
"All the data from Phoenix is worthless."

--
- Frank Krygowski