"Cyclists Cause Less Than 10% of Bike/Car Accidents".

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 11:45:39 +0100, Wm...
wrote:

Fri, 4 Sep 2009 21:26:09 op.uzq1pvyuby8eno@sheepdog uk.rec.cycling
Colin McKenzie

Whereas if you just look at road collisions, (as I did for Ealing in
2008/9), about half are failure of a driver to give way to a cyclist,
and more than half of those are when the driver is turning right.
About 10% are doorings, and another 10% looked like the cyclist's
fault (mostly entering carriageway from pavement or path). I couldn't
tell who was to blame in another 10% or so.

In the driver turning right situation where was the cyclist most often?

It was very hard to tell, but I think generally going straight across the
side road the driver was turning into (rather than out of).

Police notes of direction of travel are hard to interpret. You often get
something like "W to N" and "turning right" for the same vehicle. To me
that makes no sense, especially when "going ahead" generally goes with
something like "S to N".

Colin McKenzie

--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the
population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

Sat, 5 Sep 2009 16:14:37 op.uzshyseuby8eno@sheepdog uk.rec.cycling
Colin McKenzie

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 11:45:39 +0100, Wm...
wrote:

Fri, 4 Sep 2009 21:26:09 op.uzq1pvyuby8eno@sheepdog uk.rec.cycling
Colin McKenzie

Whereas if you just look at road collisions, (as I did for Ealing in
2008/9), about half are failure of a driver to give way to a cyclist,
and more than half of those are when the driver is turning right.
About 10% are doorings, and another 10% looked like the cyclist's
fault (mostly entering carriageway from pavement or path). I
couldn't tell who was to blame in another 10% or so.

In the driver turning right situation where was the cyclist most often?

It was very hard to tell, but I think generally going straight across
the side road the driver was turning into (rather than out of).

So it wasn't very stupid cyclist behaviour like being immediately
alongside but out of the easy view on the RHS of a car turning right at
a T or cross junction. If I placed myself in that position I'd expect
an accident to happen. Not everyone here will like the idea that it is
best to put yourself in front of or stay behind if such a situation
occurs. Being on the RHS is inconsiderate, dangerous and silly at a
junction where you know things bigger than you are turning right. Best
to be in front or aft.

Police notes of direction of travel are hard to interpret. You often
get something like "W to N" and "turning right" for the same vehicle.
To me that makes no sense, especially when "going ahead" generally
goes with something like "S to N".

Hmmmn, I'm old fashioned enough to doubt a police person has
deliberately misrepresented. They may have their compasses upside down.

I was particularly interested in the turning right thing and you have
answered, thank you, ColinM.

--
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 21:26:09 +0100, "Colin McKenzie"
wrote:

Colin McKenzie


--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the
population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking.


No it is not:

--
Latest DfT Figures: Passenger casualty rates by mode Per billion passenger kilometers:
Killed or seriously injured: Pedal Cyclists : 527 Pedestrians 371
All casualties: Pedal Cyclists : 3494 Pedestrians : 1631
Which is more dangerous?

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 16:14:37 +0100
"Colin McKenzie" wrote:

Police notes of direction of travel are hard to interpret. You often
get something like "W to N" and "turning right" for the same vehicle.
To me that makes no sense, especially when "going ahead" generally
goes with something like "S to N".

Coming from W and heading N, if the road doubles back NW and
there's a side road N then that would be a right turn. Wouldn't it?

On 4 Sep, 10:04, Matt B wrote:
Doug wrote:
So you can stop blaming all the victims.
...

Your premise (the title) though only covers a very small percentage of
bicycle accidents.

You might be interested in a report prepared for the Scottish Executive
which looked at the causes of bicycle casualty accidents.[1]

Interesting findings from hospital data include the following:
* - 72% of accidents involved _no_ other vehicle.
* - 45% of casualties did not state who they thought was to blame.
- 41% of accidents occurred off-road (cycle tracks, etc.).
* - 29% of accidents occurred on the pavement (43% of child accidents).
* - 11% of accidents involved another bicycle.
* - 10% of accidents involved a car.
* - 7% of casualties blamed a motor vehicle (1% of child accidents).
* - 6% of casualties were performing "sporting activities" (stunts,
mountain biking, etc.)

It's worth pointing out that 40% of all injury-causing bicycle
incidents in Scotland happened at Glentress alone, where there are
world class mountain bike trails but no cars at all. As 29% happened
on the pavement, that leaves at most 31% which happened on the road.
So the 10% of incidents which involved motor cars happened in only 31%
of all incidents, which is to say that 32% of all accidents which
happened on the road involved a car. The number which involved vans,
heavy goods vehicles, motorcycles or public service vehicles is not
recorded.

On 4 Sep, 14:07, Judith M Smith wrote:
On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 09:13:23 +0100, "mileburner"

wrote:

snip

While technically the person opening the door is at fault, the cyclist can
avoid this type of accident completely by riding further out and avoiding
the "door zone" completely.

The further out in to the centr of the road you cycle - the closer to
you will overtaking traffic drive.

The closer you are to overtaking traffic - the more chance there is of
accident.

Judith, how many thousand miles have you cycled on the the roads this
year?

The reason I ask is because I suspect the number is zero, and you have
literally no idea what you are talking about. Correct me if I'm wrong,
of course.

On 4 Sep, 15:43, RudiL wrote:

I *never* get overtaken too closely when I am in primary position,
occasionally when I am in secondary, and often if I am closer to the
pavement than that (not that I often am these days as experience has
taught me to ride further out).

Yes, that's my experience, too.

On Sun, 6 Sep 2009 07:36:38 -0700 (PDT), Simon Brooke
wrote:

On 4 Sep, 14:07, Judith M Smith wrote:
On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 09:13:23 +0100, "mileburner"

wrote:

snip

While technically the person opening the door is at fault, the cyclist can
avoid this type of accident completely by riding further out and avoiding
the "door zone" completely.

The further out in to the centr of the road you cycle - the closer to
you will overtaking traffic drive.

The closer you are to overtaking traffic - the more chance there is of
accident.

Judith, how many thousand miles have you cycled on the the roads this
year?

The reason I ask is because I suspect the number is zero, and you have
literally no idea what you are talking about. Correct me if I'm wrong,
of course.

I'm sorry - I've been told many times in here that anecdotal evidence
is worth nothing. So I wasn't going off my own experiences.

I was quoting a research paper as reported in the March 2007 issue of
Accident Analysis & Prevention.

If what they said is wrong - why not write and tell them of *your*
research which proves it so.

You do have some, don't you?

--
Latest DfT Figures: Passenger casualty rates by mode Per billion passenger kilometers:
Killed or seriously injured: Pedal Cyclists : 527 Pedestrians 371
All casualties: Pedal Cyclists : 3494 Pedestrians : 1631
Which is more dangerous?

On 4 Sep, 21:26, "Colin McKenzie" wrote:
On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 10:04:26 +0100, Matt B *
wrote:

You might be interested in a report prepared for the Scottish Executive *
which looked at the causes of bicycle casualty accidents.[1]

Interesting findings from hospital data include the following:
* - 72% of accidents involved _no_ other vehicle.
* - 45% of casualties did not state who they thought was to blame.
* - 41% of accidents occurred off-road (cycle tracks, etc.).
* - 29% of accidents occurred on the pavement (43% of child accidents).
* - 11% of accidents involved another bicycle.
* - 10% of accidents involved a car.
* - 7% of casualties blamed a motor vehicle (1% of child accidents).
* - 6% of casualties were performing "sporting activities" (stunts, *
mountain biking, etc.)

This says nothing about severity. While it is true that many cycling *
injuries are single-vehicle and are not reported as road crashes (because *
most of them aren't) they tend to be the less severe ones. Do the same *
analysis for severe injuries and (especially) fatalities, and you'll get *
very different results.

Scotland has a large number of excellent mountain bike centres, most
of which have 'black' grade routes. A very high proportion of all the
injury accidents in Scotland happen at the Glentress/Innerleithen
centre in Peebleshire, which is the most heavily used of these
centres, and serious injuries are not uncommon. Black grade routes are
marked 'black' because they're tricky and dangerous.

When hundreds of people do stuff like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnrqR...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvzMD...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krnKt...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkycK...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvzMD...eature=related
http://www.mtbrider.com/mtbr/showthread.php?t=6508
every single weekend, some serious accidents are inevitable. And if
you lose your line and hit a tree at that speed you break stuff. So I
would expect Scotland has a higher proportion of serious injury
accidents off-road than England.

The fact that downhilling is inherently not at all safe has absolutely
nothing to do with how safe it is to cycle on the road. It's just a
pity that statistics for all types of cycling accident get conflated
like this.

On 4 Sep, 07:41, Doug wrote:
The third involved a motorist opening a door onto an
oncoming cyclist.

In those cases, however, the cyclist is at fault. Like all other road
users, cyclists should be able to stop if a foreseeable obstruction
appears.

Ian