Official pedal cyclist road deaths in 2016 ex DOT/NHTSA/FARS(Fatality Analysis Reporting System)

On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 9:27:02 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
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.

Draco would be ashamed of those wimpy MHLs. AFAIK, failing to wear a helmet is not a capital offense anywhere -- except maybe Singapore (I haven't checked). MHLs also are not a Nazi take-over, Mongol invasion or the Inquisition. Not that I'm for MHLs, but I've never found that wearing a helmet was all that oppressive. Now my property taxes, that's a whole other thing. True oppression is paying for a cup of coffee with a credit card and getting a payment screen that makes you leave a tip. For what, doing your job and ringing me up? F that! We need to get some perspective here.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 9/10/2018 1:59 PM, jbeattie wrote:
AFAIK, failing to wear a helmet is not a capital offense anywhere -- except maybe Singapore (I haven't checked). MHLs also are not a Nazi take-over, Mongol invasion or the Inquisition. Not that I'm for MHLs, but I've never found that wearing a helmet was all that oppressive. ... We need to get some perspective here.

Here, we discuss bicycle related issues. We discuss things that are of
no interest to 99.9% of the population.

We read lots of nonsense here. Over the years, I've been read that one
should replace one's pedals every few years, for safety. That it's
foolish to ever ride a bike in daytime without having a bright strobe
light. That it's fine to enter an intersection by flying through the air
from a ramp-like feature on a sidewalk. That paint stripes are like
magic, but that we can't be really safe unless we have biker cattle
chutes everywhere.

Some nonsense should be corrected. In my view, the meme that ordinary
bicycling is a terrific risk for serious brain trauma is part of that
nonsense. It's treated as "received wisdom" but data shows it to be
false. Likewise, the belief that bike helmets are the most effective and
most important bike safety measure. It's common belief, but its nuts.

I'm sure forcing helmets on all cyclists wouldn't affect you badly.
Neither would forcing lycra on all cyclists, because that's what you
choose to wear. But it's bad for bicycling to force either choice, and
neither is sensible for the great majority of cyclists.

I think we should stop promoting nonsense and certainly not mandate
nonsense. But if it doesn't interest you, fine. Write about something else.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 08:55:00 -0400, 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? I don't get your
point.

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


You seem to have missed the point completely.

In the California study more then 56% of the accidents were found to
be the fault of the cyclist not complying with the traffic laws. In
the New York study some 21% of the cyclists who died in accidents were
found to have been drinking.

Had all cyclists obeyed traffic laws and not ingested alcohol the
number of bicycle deaths would have decreased by a considerable
number. Perhaps as many as half or more.

The other point was that only 6% of drivers in auto-bicycle accidents
had been drinking, or in other words nearly three times the number of
bicyclists were boozed up as the drivers. Blaming the auto for any and
all bicycle accidents, as seems to be the norm, just doesn't represent
reality.

Why, it might even be found that obeying traffic laws and not drinking
would save more lives then wearing a Styrofoam hat.

On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 6:59:58 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:

AFAIK, failing to wear a helmet is not a capital offense anywhere

Now *sthat's* what I call a progressive idea. It could be cheap enough -- one offender, one bullet -- and even self-liquidating if the carcass were used as fertilizer in the prison vegetable garden. A Green idea, eh?

AJ

On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 7:18:23 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/10/2018 1:59 PM, jbeattie wrote:
AFAIK, failing to wear a helmet is not a capital offense anywhere -- except maybe Singapore (I haven't checked). MHLs also are not a Nazi take-over, Mongol invasion or the Inquisition. Not that I'm for MHLs, but I've never found that wearing a helmet was all that oppressive. ... We need to get some perspective here.

Here, we discuss bicycle related issues. We discuss things that are of
no interest to 99.9% of the population.

We read lots of nonsense here. Over the years, I've been read that one
should replace one's pedals every few years, for safety. That it's
foolish to ever ride a bike in daytime without having a bright strobe
light. That it's fine to enter an intersection by flying through the air
from a ramp-like feature on a sidewalk. That paint stripes are like
magic, but that we can't be really safe unless we have biker cattle
chutes everywhere.

Some nonsense should be corrected. In my view, the meme that ordinary
bicycling is a terrific risk for serious brain trauma is part of that
nonsense. It's treated as "received wisdom" but data shows it to be
false. Likewise, the belief that bike helmets are the most effective and
most important bike safety measure. It's common belief, but its nuts.

I'm sure forcing helmets on all cyclists wouldn't affect you badly.
Neither would forcing lycra on all cyclists, because that's what you
choose to wear. But it's bad for bicycling to force either choice, and
neither is sensible for the great majority of cyclists.

I think we should stop promoting nonsense and certainly not mandate
nonsense. But if it doesn't interest you, fine. Write about something else.

--
- Frank Krygowski

What a humorless asshole you are, Franki-boy. Everyone knows which of your buttons to push to switch on the Krygowski hysterics. See, it's funny. You're the only one who doesn't get it. Everyone owns you.

Andre Jute
Thumb on the button aaaand -- duck so that Franki-boy's bile doesn't splash you

On 10/09/2018 7:15 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 08:55:00 -0400, 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? I don't get your
point.

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


You seem to have missed the point completely.

In the California study more then 56% of the accidents were found to
be the fault of the cyclist not complying with the traffic laws. In
the New York study some 21% of the cyclists who died in accidents were
found to have been drinking.

Had all cyclists obeyed traffic laws and not ingested alcohol the
number of bicycle deaths would have decreased by a considerable
number. Perhaps as many as half or more.


You seemed to miss my point. If all road users obeyed traffic laws and
didn't ingest alcohol the number of road deaths would be decreased by a
considerable number. Why single out cyclists?


The other point was that only 6% of drivers in auto-bicycle accidents
had been drinking, or in other words nearly three times the number of
bicyclists were boozed up as the drivers. Blaming the auto for any and
all bicycle accidents, as seems to be the norm, just doesn't represent
reality.


What universe do you inhabit where motorists are blamed for all cycling
accidents? Here it is actually the exact opposite. Motorists are
rarely even charged. The usual "cause" is the motorist didn't see the
cyclist. The usual result is the cyclist is killed and the driver is
taken to the hospital for shock.

Even the idiot that fell asleep with his cruise control on and hit 6
women, killing 3 or them was not prosecuted.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/quebec-police...lists-1.512664

Why, it might even be found that obeying traffic laws and not drinking
would save more lives then wearing a Styrofoam hat.


Isn't one straw man per thread enough?

On Sunday, September 9, 2018 at 4:23:42 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Sunday, September 9, 2018 at 9:41:45 PM UTC+1, wrote:
On Sunday, September 9, 2018 at 10:10:18 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Sunday, September 9, 2018 at 4:45:39 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/9/2018 2:31 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

or another and reports from autopsies of cyclists killed in accidents
showed that (in New York) as many as 21% had been drinking (

Year after year, it's been consistently shown that a quarter of dead
bicyclists have been drinking.

John's "as many as 21%" is nearer to a fifth than your inflated "quarter". Show us proof, Franki-boy, not your prejudices. Oh, and "consistently" requires several separate, independent pieces of proof.

It's this sort of hostile exaggeration that causes other cyclists to consider you an enemy of cycling, Franki-boy.

Andre Jute
Cycling is definitely kinder to your knees than jogging

Andre, I don't know where you live but it is pretty much a common problem in California that we have homeless encampments everywhere. Until they finally cleaned it up after months there was one in Oakland three blocks from city hall. All of these people ride bicycles everywhere and these are eventually cleaned out not because of the horror of that many homeless being on the streets but because of used hypodermic needles in large piles and the sidewalks being covered with human feces. If they clean out an encampment of 50 people they are likely to find 1,000 bicycles mostly stolen and broken down. Do you live on Mars? The city allows this sort of thing when they could put portapoties there and clean them daily for a pittance what it eventually costs.

You should take that up with the council, Tom.

Do you live on Mars?

That's funny. I live in an area where "crime" is a council employee starting cutting the hedgerows back from the lanes before 1 October. Maybe somebody let her dog poop on the sidewalk a few years ago. But hey, there was a murder here once, when two dumb Poles murdered a third one, and threw the body into the river within sight of the police headquarters for the region. The crime was solved the same day before I even got out of bed, so I missed all the excitement. There is so little violent crime in my country, the state pathologist, singular, arrived from the capital by helicopter -- and it turned out she's only a part-timer.

Andre Jute
Martian

I stopped for lunch after the ride on the way home. In downtown Hayward just a couple of blocks from the police station there were FWD trucks with reverse rims and open pipes digging out and making so much noise that two blocks over they hurt my hearing. Then you could hear a couple of cars drag racing between stop lights. If you cannot get the police to enforce something as simple as driving laws exactly why should the citizens of this country be paying them? To come out in uniforms and fill out paperwork after crimes have been committed?

On Sunday, September 9, 2018 at 5:00:33 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, September 9, 2018 at 4:18:44 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Sunday, September 9, 2018 at 3:55:31 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Sunday, September 9, 2018 at 9:19:34 PM UTC+1, wrote:
On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 4:58:33 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 12:24:47 AM UTC+1, wrote:
On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 11:18:17 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
The ï¿¼ï¿¼ï¿¼ï¿¼ï¿¼ï¿¼ï¿¼ï¿¼ï¿¼ï¿¼ï¿¼ï¿¼ï¿¼ï¿¼ï¿¼ï¿¼ï¿ ¼ï¿¼ï¿¼ï¿¼ï¿¼ï¿¼ï¿¼ï¿¼ï¿¼ï¿¼ï¿¼ï¿¼ï¿¼ï¿¼ï¿¼ï¿¼ï¿¼ï ¿¼ï¿¼ï¿¼ï¿¼ï¿¼ï¿¼ï¿¼ï¿¼ï¿¼ï¿¼ï¿¼ï¿¼ï¿¼ï¿¼ï¿¼ï¿¼ï¿¼ ï¿¼ï¿¼ï¿¼ï¿¼ï¿¼ï¿¼ï¿¼ï¿¼ï¿¼ï¿¼ï¿¼ï¿¼ï¿¼ï¿¼ï¿¼ï¿¼ï¿ ¼ï¿¼ï¿¼ï¿¼ï¿¼ï¿¼ï¿¼ï¿¼ï¿¼ï¿¼ï¿¼ï¿¼ï¿¼ï¿¼ï¿¼ï¿¼ï¿¼ï ¿¼ï¿¼ï¿¼ï¿¼US national road safety facts for 2016 were published in May 2018 but I haven't seen them mentioned here yet. From the FARS (Fatality Analysis Reporting System):

Overview:
• In 2016, there were 840 pedalcyclists killed in motor vehicle traffic crashes in the United States, an increase from 829 in 2015. Pedalcyclist deaths accounted for 2.2 percent of all motor vehicle traffic fatalities (Table 1).
• The number of pedalcyclists killed in 2016 is 1.3 percent higher than the 829 pedalcyclists killed in 2015.

Key Findings:
• There were 840 pedal cyclist deaths in 2016, which accounted for 2.2 percent of all traffic fatali- ties during the year.
• Seventy-one percent of pedal cyclists who died in motor vehicle crashes in 2016 died in crashes in urban areas.
• From 2007 to 2016, the average age of pedal cyclists killed in motor vehicle crashes increased from 40 to 46.
• The pedal cyclist fatality rate per million people was 5.6 times higher for males than females in 2016.
• Alcohol involvement—either for the motor vehicle operator or for the pedalcyclist—was reported in 35 percent of all fatal pedal cyclist crashes in 2016.
• More than 26 percent of the pedal cyclists who died in 2016 had blood alcohol concentrations (BACs) of .01 g/dL or greater.

See much more analysis via the DOT portal at: https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api...ication/812507

Andre Jute
The facts illuminate and calm emotions

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.

Unless you cite a verifiable authority or analysis from linked studies, that's just straightforward slander. It's also a regular mantra from the nastiest of the local AHZ.

Andre Jute

What do you need Andre? The article shows 71% in urban areas, 62% not at an intersection or in a bicycle lane and 49% after dark or at dawn or dusk. Do you find that hard to interpret or is it simply your position that anyone other than me can use deductive reasoning?

Come off it, Tom; you know better than to think I'd pick on you for no reason at all. The thing is, for a radical conclusion such as yours, you need more than one supporting reference point. This is especially true in this forum because the execrable Krygowski, a generally unreliable witness and wannabe polemicist of unbelievable malice, has long sullied the water with pejorative exaggerations about cycle fatalities. There's another one of Krygowski's distortions just yesterday, where he inflated the 21% that you quoted to "a quarter".

Of course Andre, but you are resisting facts because your BELIEFS are different. This is exactly what today's media is doing with Trump.

They hate the made DESOITE the fact that he is doing EXACTLY what he promised to do except for building the wall. And they are APPLAUDING NOT BUILDING THE WALL even though we have some 30,000,000 illegal aliens here and some 700,000 falsely obtained H1B visas obtained each year. Fully 10% of those visas go to people for the high tech industry in Silicon Valley. They cannot do the jobs since a large number of them have counterfeit credentials and they simply disappear into the population.

And WHY do they hate him? Because he doesn't believe in socialism. And he is destroying the Deep State. The facts are that this is improving the lives of the very media monsters who are attempting to destroy Trump but since their beliefs do not allow them to recognize such they continue to attack him from a false position.

Comrade, wait until Trump digs down and weeds out the massive socialist programs that are Social Security and Medicare. You better hope the Deep State covers your back on those.

-- Jay Beattie.

Too bad you didn't have enough education in economics to have the slightest idea what you're talking about. The numbers are ALL out there to anyone with enough intelligence to ask the right questions. But you obviously don't have those questions.

On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 08:48:53 -0400, Duane
wrote:

On 10/09/2018 7:15 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 08:55:00 -0400, 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? I don't get your
point.

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


You seem to have missed the point completely.

In the California study more then 56% of the accidents were found to
be the fault of the cyclist not complying with the traffic laws. In
the New York study some 21% of the cyclists who died in accidents were
found to have been drinking.

Had all cyclists obeyed traffic laws and not ingested alcohol the
number of bicycle deaths would have decreased by a considerable
number. Perhaps as many as half or more.


You seemed to miss my point. If all road users obeyed traffic laws and
didn't ingest alcohol the number of road deaths would be decreased by a
considerable number. Why single out cyclists?

Well, we are on a bicycle site and there is considerable fear and
loathing expressed about all the close calls and dangers of riding a
bicycle, thus my discussing things that appear to concern cyclists.


The other point was that only 6% of drivers in auto-bicycle accidents
had been drinking, or in other words nearly three times the number of
bicyclists were boozed up as the drivers. Blaming the auto for any and
all bicycle accidents, as seems to be the norm, just doesn't represent
reality.


What universe do you inhabit where motorists are blamed for all cycling
accidents? Here it is actually the exact opposite. Motorists are
rarely even charged. The usual "cause" is the motorist didn't see the
cyclist. The usual result is the cyclist is killed and the driver is
taken to the hospital for shock.

Where have you been? This site has, since I've been reading it never
mentioned that there just might have been some reason that a motorist
is not at blame any time that a bicycle/auto crash is mentioned.

Even the idiot that fell asleep with his cruise control on and hit 6
women, killing 3 or them was not prosecuted.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/quebec-police...lists-1.512664

Why, it might even be found that obeying traffic laws and not drinking
would save more lives then wearing a Styrofoam hat.


Isn't one straw man per thread enough?

You don't seem to get the point at all, or deliberately avoid it. I
read here innumerable arguments that a Styrofoam bicycle helmet will
protect you. I am simply pointing out that if all cyclists were to
obey traffic regulations and not consume alcohol before riding that
their might not even require a helmet to feel safe.

On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 5:55:03 AM UTC-7, 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? I don't get your
point.

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

Well, firstly you have to understand that there are TWO main categories of bicyclists - people who ride bicycle because they have to - they're homeless or from drug and alcohol abuse have more or less permanently lost their licenses. And then there are people that ride bicycle because they want to and not because they have to.

Having some drugged up homeless person swerving around on city streets in the dark of night wearing old dark and dirty clothing without so much as a reflector is not a recipe for a long life.

And that is entirely different from someone that commutes on a bicycle for whatever reason he decides - whether it is environmentalism, economics or as it would be in my case - because of traffic through areas I might have to commute it is actually faster to ride a bicycle.

This second group is almost entirely in accidents in broad daylight and from the drivers breaking basic driving laws such as stopping at stop signs or even at lights. Perhaps like occurred to me on Saturday where a moron pulled out of his driveway at unsafe speed looking the wrong way and talking on his cell phone. I was alert enough to avoid him but you can only do this so many times before your time is up.