On 9/10/2018 8:55 AM, Duane wrote:
On 09/09/2018 2:31 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 09 Sep 2018 00:02:17 -0500, Tim McNamara
wrote:

On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 16:24:45 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

I take that to indicate that a large number of bicyclists deaths are
the homeless or nearly homeless, drunk or nearly so, and riding
probably at night with no lights.

Or the driver of the motor vehicle was drunk or nearly so.

As for homeless/nearly homeless and/or riding at night without lights,
you are reading into the small amount of information Jute provided.
Perhaps there is more detail in the NHTSA link he provided, which I have
not yet looked at.

A number of surveys of bicycle accidents indicate that as many as
half, or more, involve the cyclist disobeying one traffic regulation,
or another and reports from autopsies of cyclists killed in accidents
showed that (in New York) as many as 21% had been drinking (6% of auto
drivers who were involved in a auto - bicycle accident had been
drinking).

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/...v22-story.html

https://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2...d-bike-deaths/


It might be noted that these reports are not of the "Well, it is
estimated..." or "It seems as though...", but are statistics, for
example:

"in 2011, officers determined fault in 701 crashes between a bicyclist
and a motorist in which a cyclist was hurt or killed, according to the
reports, submitted to California's Statewide Integrated Traffic
Records System. Cyclists were found to be the party most at fault in
390 of those crashes, or 56 percent of the time, the records show."

It seems odd, to say the least, that these facts, and facts they are,
are never mentioned by bicycle safety advocates.

As Pogo said, "we have met the enemy... and he is us."
(at least 56% of the time)


Why are you surprised that with auto/bicycle accidents in one study it
indicates that the fault is mostly evenly distributed?Â* I don't get your
point.

Accidents happen.Â* Painting cyclists that are victims of accidents as
incompetent drunks serves what purpose?

Personally, I think some people do need negative reinforcement. That
includes bad or aggressive drivers, but it also includes bicyclists who
ride drunk, ride with no lights at night, ride facing traffic or do
other blatantly stupid things.

Why do I care? Because there are enough of those bicyclists that the
"Danger! Danger!" people propose stupidly draconian measures to remedy
the supposed dangers to _all_ cyclists. Measures proposed or enacted
have included forcing every cyclist to always wear a helmet; making it
illegal to leave a bike lane, even a terrible one; making it illegal to
ride on any road whose speed limit is 35 mph or more; requiring a
minimum number of square inches of hi-viz fabric on every bicyclist's
clothing; designing cattle chutes that hide bicyclists from view until
they zoom across an intersection from a "surprise!" direction; and many
more.

In the broadest statistical sense - either miles ridden per fatality, or
benefits vs. risks - _average_ cycling is already very safe. Estimates
for the U.S., Canada, Britain and Australia exceed ten million miles
ridden between fatalities, and every study done on the topic has
concluded cycling's benefits _greatly_ outweigh its risks.

Those data are based on _average_ cycling, so they include the drunks,
nighttime ninja cyclists, wrong-way riders, etc. If we could get data on
the the truly competent cyclists, I'm sure cycling would look even better.

So when someone screws up, it should be pointed out. Again, some people
need negative reinforcement.

--
- Frank Krygowski