|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009
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. |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009
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. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009
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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009
On Nov 17, 1:43*pm, Ed wrote:
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. First, understand that any small data set may vary greatly from the averages shown in a larger sampling of data. This is true whether you're measuring temperatures around the inside of your house, or counting cyclist crashes and fatalities in a particular area. Arizona data for 2009 may be anomalous, and give far different results from Arizona between 1989 and 2009. And Phoenix data may not apply well to Santa Fe, or to Miami or Cleveland. If you don't have long-term data for your specific city, it's probably best to go with national averages, or long-term data for similar locales. Second, according to reading and corresponding I've done, there are fairly significant shortcomings in bike accident data collection. Riley Geary (whose efforts have been described in various cycling publications) has studied this intensely, and found great discrepancies in data from neighboring, near-identical counties, which led him to conclude that sometimes cops at the scene just don't get things right, probably because the forms they use aren't designed to capture data we might be interested in. One of those data types is lighting at night, according to Geary. It's just not reliably recorded by cops. There _may_ be a "Proper equipment?" box, but the cop might not even think lights matter enough to be "proper." But for contrasting data, here's a quote from http://www.floridabicycle.org/freedomfromfear.html by Mighk Wilson: "I collect a good deal of information about cycling crashes. It’s part of my job as a bike coordinator. Regrettably, what most people get to see are just raw numbers and media reports. (Some are even echoing these reports in their arguments to get cyclists removed from the roads.) "For example: in Orange, Seminole and Osceola Counties there were 644 bicyclists-versus-motorist crashes in 1994; 11 resulted in death. Scary thought, huh? But how many of those involved a cyclist driving on the right side of the roadway (not on the sidewalk) during daylight hours and obeying the signs, signals and rules of the road? Only 74, and of those not one was a fatality. Of those 11 deaths, 8 occurred at night, and 5 involved cyclists hit from behind. (How often do you see a cyclist out at night without lights?) The other 3 daytime deaths involved kids who failed to yield (ages 10, 15 and 16). These are the proportions of crash types you’ll see in most Florida cities. "Of those 74 crashes, 24 involved an overtaking motorist, and that’s the type of crash people fear most. That’s 24 daytime, non-fatal, motorist-overtaking crashes for an entire year for an area with more than 1.1 million licensed motorists (not including tourists). That means only one motorist out of 46,000 (0.002%) in our area in 1994 was so incompetent as to hit a bicyclist from behind in broad daylight. Only 13 resulted in significant injuries and only 4 in incapacitating injuries. Only 2 of the 24 motorists claimed they "did not see" the cyclist." I'll add that getting hit from behind can come from cyclist actions. Failure to control a narrow lane can certainly contribute, if a motorist is tempted to squeeze by when he shouldn't. In fact, I (and most of the skilled cyclists I know) consider controlling a lane to be the best defense against being hit from behind. But for many cyclists, fear of being run down from behind causes them to try to allow motorists to pass when they shouldn't - an exactly backwards strategy. FWIW, when riding at night or in other low-visibility conditions, I think a rear light is far, far better than just a rear reflector. But in any case, I wouldn't be overly concerned with getting hit from the rear. There's far more important stuff going on in front of you. - Frank Krygowski |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009
On Nov 17, 4:21*pm, James wrote:
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. Regarding sun in drivers' eyes: If the sun is low in the sky, and you're between a motorist and the sun, you may indeed be invisible. A sensible motorist should be using his visor properly to shade his eyes, and driving at a speed where he won't hit anything or anybody; but lots of motorists don't understand that. So be aware of low-sun situations. It's really bad only for a few minutes before sunset or after sunrise. It's probably easy enough to avoid. - Frank Krygowski |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009
On Nov 17, 1:22*am, DirtRoadie wrote:
OMG ,I 'm done with riding. Fine. - Frank Krygowski |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009
On Nov 17, 6:56*am, Peter Cole wrote:
On 11/17/2010 12:27 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote: ... 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. That's just a guess. That "guess" is from John Pucher's data, in the paper _Making Walking & Cycling Safer," from Transportation Quarterly, Vol. 54, No. 3, summer 2000. He cites Sources: U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Traffic Safety Facts; and USDOT, Federal Highway Administration, Nationwide Personal Transportation Study and Highway Statistics. That doesn't guarantee it's absolutely correct, but it's far from being a guess. I should mention, that's the lowest estimate I've seen for miles ridden between fatalities in the US. Even if true, assuming 80K bike lifetime miles (not very much for a serious cyclist), that's a 1:100 chance. Too damn high. Is there a number you would not claim "too damn high?" Probably not. And note that the estimate is the grand average, based on all the fatalities of all the riders. Your hypothetical 80k mile serious cyclist should have a far smaller chance of being one of those fatalities, because he's almost certainly riding on the right side of the road, not riding while drunk, he probably _is_ using lights if he rides at night, he's probably not riding out of driveways into the paths of motorists, etc. Remember Moritz's survey of adult bike commuters who were LAB members? They averaged 11 years or 32,000 miles between crashes that caused at least $50 damage or required any medical treatment. The problem of "hit from behind" crashes is that there's not much a cyclist can do to prevent them, that's what makes them so disturbing. Yep, it's a psychological thing. People have greater fear for rare events that they can't do anything about, than they do for common events that they _could_ control, but don't. That's why people are irrationally afraid of commercial aviation, but not of far riskier motoring. - Frank Krygowski |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009
On Nov 17, 8:07*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Nov 17, 1:22*am, DirtRoadie 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... OMG, I'm done with riding. Fine. Frank you PROMISED you were through with me. Now go away and let me criticize your looney logic (nice oxymoron) in peace. So do you or do you not use a rear view mirror? Now don't lie. The archives will catch up with you. DR |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009
On 11/17/2010 9:21 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
[...] Yep, it's a psychological thing. People have greater fear for rare events that they can't do anything about, than they do for common events that they _could_ control, but don't. That's why people are irrationally afraid of commercial aviation, but not of far riskier motoring. butbutbut, you do not have to deal with TSA goons while motoring. -- Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007 I am a vehicular cyclist. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009
On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 19:21:21 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote: And note that the estimate is the grand average, based on all the fatalities of all the riders. Your hypothetical 80k mile serious cyclist should have a far smaller chance of being one of those fatalities, because he's almost certainly riding on the right side of the road, not riding while drunk, he probably _is_ using lights if he rides at night, he's probably not riding out of driveways into the paths of motorists, etc. Dear Frank, Speaking of not riding while drunk . . . "One In Three Fatal Bicycle Accidents Linked To Alcohol" Drinking alcohol and bicycling don’t mix well, say Johns Hopkins researchers, whose study of 466 Maryland bicyclists found that a third of fatally injured riders had elevated blood alcohol levels at the time of their accident. In addition, a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08 grams per deciliter – the legal level of drunkenness in most states – was found to increase the rider’s risk of fatal or serious injury by 2,000 percent. . . . http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/press...ARY/010220.HTM *** A few examples, the first from today's newspaper . . . *** Cyclist gets DUI ticket after unsteady ride through major Boulder intersection By John Aguilar, Camera Staff Writer Posted: 11/16/2010 12:53:58 PM MST A University of Colorado student who steered her bicycle into a car on 28th Street and then careened into a median twice -- falling to the ground each time -- got up and kept right on riding until an officer finally pulled her over, police said. Patricia Forget, 19, was arrested Saturday night on suspicion of driving a bike under the influence and riding a bike in a careless manner. "I shouldn't ride my bike home," she told police, according to a report. "I'm too drunk." Police said Forget's blood alcohol level was 0.215, more than twice the legal level for driving. The incident made for the fifth arrest this year by Boulder police of a suspected drunken cyclist. DUI arrests of cyclists in the city have steadily increased over the last few years -- one was recorded in 2007, three in 2008 and five last year. Forget declined to speak to the Camera on Tuesday. She was spotted by a Boulder police officer around 11:30 p.m. heading northbound on 28th Street toward Valmont Road on a Gary Fisher mountain bike. She entered the intersection on a red light and crashed into a vehicle that was going westbound on Valmont, the officer reported. He said the driver of the car apparently saw Forget coming and remained stationary as she approached. The officer said Forget -- who had stuck her hand out on the hood of the vehicle -- pushed herself off and continued riding until she slammed into a median on the north side of Valmont Road. She fell off her bicycle, got back on, and again struck the curb of the median, falling to the ground a second time. The officer flipped on his lights and pulled Forget over at 29th Street and Valmont Road. He reported that her eyes were red and watery and that she laughed at inappropriate moments. Forget failed voluntary roadside maneuvers, the officer said, and admitted to having three or four drinks that evening. She was booked into jail, and her bicycle was confiscated and placed into evidence. http://www.dailycamera.com/cu-news/ci_16627639 *** Boulder bicyclist suspected of drunken pedaling Denver Post staff and wire reports Posted: 08/11/2010 01:00:00 AM MDT Police arrested a 38-year-old Boulder man Monday on suspicion of biking while intoxicated after he admitted to hitting a car and trying to run a red light, according to the Daily Camera. Officers who were on foot near 28th Street and Valmont Road saw Jonas Rizzo almost crash his bike about 4:40 p.m. Monday, Detective Melissa Kampf told the Camera. When police contacted him, Kampf said, he was visibly drunk and he told them he hit a car while trying to run a red light. He was booked and released from the Boulder County Jail. http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_15736744 *** Suspected drunken bicyclist dies in Weld wreck By Kieran Nicholson The Denver Post Posted: 08/28/2009 09:51:11 AM MDT Updated: 08/28/2009 03:52:05 PM MDT A 44-year-old bicyclist, suspected of being drunk, died Thursday night in Weld County when he was hit by one car and then a second vehicle. Jeff Cleveland of Longmont was riding a bicycle west on Colorado 119 near Weld County Road 7 at about 8:50 p.m. when he was hit by a 2006 Hyundai Accent in the right lane of the road, according to a media release by the Colorado State Patrol. Cleveland was thrown from the bicycle and then hit by a second car, a gold 2001 Dodge Stratus, which also was heading west and was in the left lane, the State Patrol said. Cleveland, who died at the scene, is suspected of bicycling under the influence of alcohol, said Trooper David Hall, a State Patrol spokesman. Cleveland was riding his bike on the right shoulder and turned into the path of the car in the right lane, according to the patrol. "It's not safe to drink and drive anything, even a bike," Hall said. Neither of the motorists, Chandler Jeff, 46, of Longmont and Luis Molina, 19, of Dacono, was injured in the incident. An investigation into the fatal accident shut the highway for about three hours Thursday night. The incident remains under investigation. http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_13222992 *** Cheers, Carl Fogel |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Reduce fatalities or danger rates instead? | Doug[_3_] | UK | 3 | September 19th 10 08:05 AM |
Three cycling fatalities in London last month. | Daniel Barlow | UK | 4 | July 7th 09 12:58 PM |
Child cyclist fatalities in London | Tom Crispin | UK | 13 | October 11th 08 05:12 PM |
Car washes for cyclist fatalities | Bobby | Social Issues | 4 | October 11th 04 07:13 PM |
web-site on road fatalities | cfsmtb | Australia | 4 | April 23rd 04 09:21 AM |