Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009

"Traffic records for all bicyclist fatalities occurring in Arizona
during the year 2009 were categorized and listed according to manner
of collision and assignment of fault. Primary results are that 11 of
25 fatalities (44%) were determined to be the fault of the cyclist;
while 14 of 25 (56%) were the fault of a motor vehicle driver. The
most common manner of collision is when a driver strikes a cyclist
from behind"

Of the 14 driver caused fatalities there were 6 traffic citations, 7
criminal indictments and 1 neither.
Phil H

On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 19:33:10 -0800 (PST), Phil H
wrote:

"Traffic records for all bicyclist fatalities occurring in Arizona
during the year 2009 were categorized and listed according to manner
of collision and assignment of fault. Primary results are that 11 of
25 fatalities (44%) were determined to be the fault of the cyclist;
while 14 of 25 (56%) were the fault of a motor vehicle driver. The
most common manner of collision is when a driver strikes a cyclist
from behind"

Of the 14 driver caused fatalities there were 6 traffic citations, 7
criminal indictments and 1 neither.
Phil H

Dear Phil,

For anyone curious, 2007-2009 state-by-state fatal traffic crash site
data with maps:

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departm...B%20REPORT.HTM

Click on a state, such as Arizona, search down to "pedalcyclist" for
the fatalities by county, and then click on the link for the map:

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departm..._DATA_2009.HTM

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

On Nov 17, 2:33*pm, Phil H wrote:
The
most common manner of collision is when a driver strikes a cyclist
from behind"

What the ~!?

Calling Frank Krygowski to the terminal...

(He just loves to write about what he calls "fear from the rear".
According to Frank, we shouldn't be concerned at all that we might be
hit from behind.)

JS.

On Nov 16, 11:01*pm, James wrote:
On Nov 17, 2:33*pm, Phil H wrote:

The
most common manner of collision is when a driver strikes a cyclist
from behind"

What the ~!?

Calling Frank Krygowski to the terminal...

(He just loves to write about what he calls "fear from the rear".
According to Frank, we shouldn't be concerned at all that we might be
hit from behind.)

Hits from the rear are responsible for a large percentage of cyclist
fatalities. But cyclist fatalities are extremely rare. (There were
not even 700 in all the U.S. in 2009, if I recall correctly, compared
with over 4000 pedestrians, and tens of thousands of motor vehicle
occupants.) In the US, there are at _least_ 8 million miles ridden
between bike fatalities.

The vast majority of bike crashes or wrecks are caused by something
you see in front of you, not behind you. Most common causes of bike
crashes are simple road hazards - things like gravel, potholes,
slippery stuff, cracks that swallow wheels, etc. After that, there
are cars that turn left in front of you (left in the US), cars that
right hook you, cars that pull out of stop signs or driveways, car
doors that open in front of you. There are a surprising number of
bike-bike crashes, too.

If you worry about the minuscule chance of being killed from behind,
and therefore spend a lot of time gazing into your rear view mirror,
you're almost certainly _more_ likely to get into a wreck from a left
cross, a right hook, a door, a pull-out, a pothole, a slippery spot,
or even a dog.

- Frank Krygowski

On Nov 17, 12:27*am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Nov 16, 11:01*pm, James wrote:

On Nov 17, 2:33*pm, Phil H wrote:

The
most common manner of collision is when a driver strikes a cyclist
from behind"

What the ~!?

Calling Frank Krygowski to the terminal...

(He just loves to write about what he calls "fear from the rear".
According to Frank, we shouldn't be concerned at all that we might be
hit from behind.)

Hits from the rear are responsible for a large percentage of cyclist
fatalities. *But cyclist fatalities are extremely rare. *(There were
not even 700 in all the U.S. in 2009, if I recall correctly, compared
with over 4000 pedestrians, and tens of thousands of motor vehicle
occupants.) *In the US, there are at _least_ 8 million miles ridden
between bike fatalities.

The vast majority of bike crashes or wrecks are caused by something
you see in front of you, not behind you. *Most common causes of bike
crashes are simple road hazards - things like gravel, potholes,
slippery stuff, cracks that swallow wheels, etc. *After that, there
are cars that turn left in front of you (left in the US), cars that
right hook you, cars that pull out of stop signs or driveways, car
doors that open in front of you. *There are a surprising number of
bike-bike crashes, too.

If you worry about the minuscule chance of being killed from behind,
and therefore spend a lot of time gazing into your rear view mirror,
you're almost certainly _more_ likely to get into a wreck from a left
cross, a right hook, a door, a pull-out, a pothole, a slippery spot,
or even a dog.


P.S. And while data collection on this is poor, there are some strong
indications that a large percentage of the "hit from behind" cyclists
are riding in the dark without lights or reflectors.

- Frank Krygowski

On Nov 16, 10:29*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

P.S. And while data collection on this is poor, ...

No ****? Who'd a thunk it?

On 11/17/2010 12:29 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Nov 17, 12:27 am, Frank wrote:

If you worry about the minuscule chance of being killed from behind,
and therefore spend a lot of time gazing into your rear view mirror,
you're almost certainly _more_ likely to get into a wreck from a left
cross, a right hook, a door, a pull-out, a pothole, a slippery spot,
or even a dog.


P.S. And while data collection on this is poor, there are some strong
indications that a large percentage of the "hit from behind" cyclists
are riding in the dark without lights or reflectors.


http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/st...-accident.html



This link shows some statistics regarding cycling accidents in Quebec.
While there are some rear ends at night it's not a large percentage.

http://communities.canada.com/montre...cyclistes.aspx


BTW, if you look at the table that shows the number of deaths by
category, you will see the listing "pietons" which means pedestrians
listed just below "occupants de bicyclette" which means cyclists.

Considering that cyclists comprise ~ 16% of the population

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/programs/env...ation-1971.htm

it doesn't seem that there is this vastly greater number of pedestrians
being killed than cyclists. I don't have stats on the % of people that
walk but I imagine it's higher than 16%.

What I find curious is that there have been around 15 cycling deaths per
year in a province of 8 million while there are as you say ~700 in a
country of 300 million. What is the percentage of cycling in the states
these days?

On Nov 16, 10:29*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Nov 17, 12:27*am, Frank Krygowski wrote:



On Nov 16, 11:01*pm, James wrote:

On Nov 17, 2:33*pm, Phil H wrote:

The
most common manner of collision is when a driver strikes a cyclist
from behind"

What the ~!?

Calling Frank Krygowski to the terminal...

(He just loves to write about what he calls "fear from the rear".
According to Frank, we shouldn't be concerned at all that we might be
hit from behind.)

Hits from the rear are responsible for a large percentage of cyclist
fatalities. *But cyclist fatalities are extremely rare. *(There were
not even 700 in all the U.S. in 2009, if I recall correctly, compared
with over 4000 pedestrians, and tens of thousands of motor vehicle
occupants.) *In the US, there are at _least_ 8 million miles ridden
between bike fatalities.

The vast majority of bike crashes or wrecks are caused by something
you see in front of you, not behind you. *Most common causes of bike
crashes are simple road hazards - things like gravel, potholes,
slippery stuff, cracks that swallow wheels, etc. *After that, there
are cars that turn left in front of you (left in the US), cars that
right hook you, cars that pull out of stop signs or driveways, car
doors that open in front of you. *There are a surprising number of
bike-bike crashes, too.

If you worry about the minuscule chance of being killed from behind,
and therefore spend a lot of time gazing into your rear view mirror,
you're almost certainly _more_ likely to get into a wreck from a left
cross, a right hook, a door, a pull-out, a pothole, a slippery spot,
or even a dog.

P.S. And while data collection on this is poor, there are some strong
indications that a large percentage of the "hit from behind" cyclists
are riding in the dark without lights or reflectors.

- Frank Krygowski

Hi Frank,

I would love to get some constructive criticism -- can you be more
specific?
I am not a professional researcher but I would like to improve.

Regarding "large percentage" being dark without lights:

I think the data, poor though it may be, shows that is not at all the
case:

There were 10 hit-from-behind cases.
Only 4 were in darkness. I tend to believe that all of these victims
were meeting their lighting requirement/duty (to have a rear reflector
or light). In at least two of the cases the police specifically said
to the media words to the effect of "the bicyclist was doing
everything right", or something.
Additionally, ALL FOUR were struck by alcohol-involved drivers, and
generated indictments for manslaughter (and IIRC all 4 resulted in
conviction of either manslaughter or neg hom); I am told
authoritatively that to prove any homicide charge here the prosecution
must show the collision was the fault of the defendant, and not simply
that the defenant was DUI.
Other anecdotal evidence is that several (3 by my count) were somewhat
hard-core roadies doing night training during our (Phoenix) hot
weather months, and not, say, homeless transients just out rolling
around. (I don't say that to sound cold. every life is sacred; but all
things being equal some groups of cyclists are more likely than others
to have a reflector or light).
Oh, and by the way; all four were hit-and-run drivers.

The other 6 were in the light. One was listed as dawn and that guy
specifically had a reflector (and large/slow vehicle triangle). the
dusk victim's driver complained of sun glare.

On Nov 18, 5:43*am, Ed wrote:

The other 6 were in the light. One was listed as dawn and that guy
specifically had a reflector (and large/slow vehicle triangle). the
dusk victim's driver complained of sun glare.

We had a veteran killed earlier this year. Got run over from behind
by a bus. The bus driver said the sun was in his eyes.

JS.

On Nov 17, 10:43*am, Ed wrote:
On Nov 16, 10:29*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:





On Nov 17, 12:27*am, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Nov 16, 11:01*pm, James wrote:

On Nov 17, 2:33*pm, Phil H wrote:

The
most common manner of collision is when a driver strikes a cyclist
from behind"

What the ~!?

Calling Frank Krygowski to the terminal...

(He just loves to write about what he calls "fear from the rear".
According to Frank, we shouldn't be concerned at all that we might be
hit from behind.)

Hits from the rear are responsible for a large percentage of cyclist
fatalities. *But cyclist fatalities are extremely rare. *(There were
not even 700 in all the U.S. in 2009, if I recall correctly, compared
with over 4000 pedestrians, and tens of thousands of motor vehicle
occupants.) *In the US, there are at _least_ 8 million miles ridden
between bike fatalities.

The vast majority of bike crashes or wrecks are caused by something
you see in front of you, not behind you. *Most common causes of bike
crashes are simple road hazards - things like gravel, potholes,
slippery stuff, cracks that swallow wheels, etc. *After that, there
are cars that turn left in front of you (left in the US), cars that
right hook you, cars that pull out of stop signs or driveways, car
doors that open in front of you. *There are a surprising number of
bike-bike crashes, too.

If you worry about the minuscule chance of being killed from behind,
and therefore spend a lot of time gazing into your rear view mirror,
you're almost certainly _more_ likely to get into a wreck from a left
cross, a right hook, a door, a pull-out, a pothole, a slippery spot,
or even a dog.

P.S. And while data collection on this is poor, there are some strong
indications that a large percentage of the "hit from behind" cyclists
are riding in the dark without lights or reflectors.

- Frank Krygowski

Hi Frank,

I would love to get some constructive criticism -- can you be more
specific?
I am not a professional researcher but I would like to improve.

Regarding "large percentage" being dark without lights:

I think the data, poor though it may be, shows that is not at all the
case:

There were 10 hit-from-behind cases.
Only 4 were in darkness. I tend to believe that all of these victims
were meeting their lighting requirement/duty (to have a rear reflector
or light). In at least two of the cases the police specifically said
to the media words to the effect of "the bicyclist was doing
everything right", or something.
Additionally, ALL FOUR were struck by alcohol-involved drivers, and
generated indictments for manslaughter (and IIRC all 4 resulted in
conviction of either manslaughter or neg hom); I am told
authoritatively that to prove any homicide charge here the prosecution
must show the collision was the fault of the defendant, and not simply
that the defenant was DUI.
Other anecdotal evidence is that several (3 by my count) were somewhat
hard-core roadies doing night training during our (Phoenix) hot
weather months, and not, say, homeless transients just out rolling
around. (I don't say that to sound cold. every life is sacred; but all
things being equal some groups of cyclists are more likely than others
to have a reflector or light).
Oh, and by the way; all four were hit-and-run drivers.

The other 6 were in the light. One was listed as dawn and that guy
specifically had a reflector (and large/slow vehicle triangle). the
dusk victim's driver complained of sun glare.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The full report Manner and Fault in Bicyclist Traffic Fatalities:
Arizona 2009 is aavailable in pdf format:

http://azbikelaw.org/report/2009CyclistFatals.pdf

Phil H