Who causes cyclists' deaths?

We all know the answer, but its worth having some facts at hand

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.co...clists-deaths/

In aus.bicycle on Wed, 02 Sep 2009 11:16:18 GMT
Claude wrote:
We all know the answer, but its worth having some facts at hand

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.co...clists-deaths/


According to Tom Vanderbilt's _Traffic_, 70% of truck/car crashes are
the car's fault.

Stats around the world say that 70% of motorcycle/car crashes are the
car's fault.

And now 90% of bicycle/car crashes.

Are we seeing a trend then?

Zebee

On 2009-09-02, Zebee Johnstone (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
In aus.bicycle on Wed, 02 Sep 2009 11:16:18 GMT
Claude wrote:
We all know the answer, but its worth having some facts at hand

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.co...clists-deaths/

According to Tom Vanderbilt's _Traffic_, 70% of truck/car crashes are
the car's fault.

Stats around the world say that 70% of motorcycle/car crashes are the
car's fault.

And now 90% of bicycle/car crashes.

Are we seeing a trend then?

Cars are driven by untrained dribbling morons?

What did I win?

--
TimC
I admit that X is the second worst windowing system in the world,
but all the others I've used are tied for first. -- Paul Tomblin

In aus.bicycle on Thu, 3 Sep 2009 07:27:51 +1000
TimC wrote:
On 2009-09-02, Zebee Johnstone (aka Bruce)

Are we seeing a trend then?

Cars are driven by untrained dribbling morons?

Except when driven by cyclists?

Nah, the problem is that driving a car is easy and boring.

Except when it isn't... and when it isn't it's difficult and requires
good anticipation and reflexes.

Which most people have no incentive to develop or maintain because 99%
of the time it's easy and boring.

I found flying[1] a plane easy and boring. And most of the time it is...

Zebee

[1] flying, not landing. But then I can't park cars well either.

Zebee Johnstone wrote:
In aus.bicycle on Wed, 02 Sep 2009 11:16:18 GMT
Claude wrote:
We all know the answer, but its worth having some facts at hand

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.co...clists-deaths/


According to Tom Vanderbilt's _Traffic_, 70% of truck/car crashes are
the car's fault.

Stats around the world say that 70% of motorcycle/car crashes are the
car's fault.

And now 90% of bicycle/car crashes.

Are we seeing a trend then?

Zebee

could it be that there are 70% more cars than trucks and 70% more cars
than motor bikes and 90% more cars than bicycles on the road at any
given time.

In aus.bicycle on Thu, 03 Sep 2009 14:14:26 +1000
F Murtz wrote:
Zebee Johnstone wrote:
In aus.bicycle on Wed, 02 Sep 2009 11:16:18 GMT
Claude wrote:
We all know the answer, but its worth having some facts at hand

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.co...clists-deaths/


According to Tom Vanderbilt's _Traffic_, 70% of truck/car crashes are
the car's fault.

Stats around the world say that 70% of motorcycle/car crashes are the
car's fault.

And now 90% of bicycle/car crashes.

Are we seeing a trend then?

Zebee

could it be that there are 70% more cars than trucks and 70% more cars
than motor bikes and 90% more cars than bicycles on the road at any
given time.

nope.

Because there are many many more cars than bikes of either stripe on
the road at any one time.

And many more than trucks too. Even Mk1 eyeball shows that.

Zebee

Zebee Johnstone wrote:
In aus.bicycle on Thu, 03 Sep 2009 14:14:26 +1000
F Murtz wrote:
Zebee Johnstone wrote:
In aus.bicycle on Wed, 02 Sep 2009 11:16:18 GMT
Claude wrote:
We all know the answer, but its worth having some facts at hand

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.co...clists-deaths/

According to Tom Vanderbilt's _Traffic_, 70% of truck/car crashes are
the car's fault.

Stats around the world say that 70% of motorcycle/car crashes are the
car's fault.

And now 90% of bicycle/car crashes.

Are we seeing a trend then?

Zebee
could it be that there are 70% more cars than trucks and 70% more cars
than motor bikes and 90% more cars than bicycles on the road at any
given time.

nope.

Because there are many many more cars than bikes of either stripe on
the road at any one time.

And many more than trucks too. Even Mk1 eyeball shows that.

Zebee
Which means that there are many more chances that that is the reason
that cars can be the cause not necessarily all the waffle about the
various drivers,riders capabilities.
It stands to reason that the sheer weight of numbers of cars is the
reason that they cause more accidents.

On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 21:48:21 +0000, Zebee Johnstone wrote:

I found flying[1] a plane easy and boring. And most of the time it
is...

To make that on topic, the one time I've been in control of an aircraft I
was having real trouble until the real pilot suggested I was
overcontrolling and should relax. Just like riding a bike on rough terrain!

--
Dave Hughes -
O Canada, we stand ready to sit down and discuss our problems in a
civilized fashion for thee. -- wednesday

"F Murtz" wrote in message ...
Zebee Johnstone wrote:
In aus.bicycle on Wed, 02 Sep 2009 11:16:18 GMT
Claude wrote:
We all know the answer, but its worth having some facts at hand

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.co...clists-deaths/


According to Tom Vanderbilt's _Traffic_, 70% of truck/car crashes are
the car's fault.

Stats around the world say that 70% of motorcycle/car crashes are the
car's fault.

And now 90% of bicycle/car crashes.

Are we seeing a trend then?

Zebee

could it be that there are 70% more cars than trucks and 70% more cars
than motor bikes and 90% more cars than bicycles on the road at any
given time.

Logic failure here...

On Sep 3, 3:16*pm, F Murtz wrote:

Which means that there are many more chances that that is the reason
that cars can be the cause not necessarily all the waffle about the
various drivers,riders capabilities.
It stands to reason that the sheer weight of numbers of cars is the
reason that they cause more accidents.

Erm... no.

In absolute terms, car drivers cause more accidents than bikes, but
the ratio of "reported car driver at fault accidents involving bikes"
vs. "reported bike rider at fault accidents involving bikes" will
always break down along the lines of who makes the mistakes. I.e., if
car drivers and bike riders are equally prone to making errors, we'd
see a 50%/50% breakdown of fault, even if there are 1,000 cars to
every bike. However, the ratio is more like 75% car driver at fault to
25% bike rider at fault, and that's what Zeebee is talking about.

And it isn't because car drivers are worse than bike riders; it's
mostly just that smaller (and quieter) vehicles are harder to notice.

Okay, so it's a bit more complex than that. For example, if a bicycle
rider runs into the side of a car, there's good chance that the rider
will bounce off onto the road and end up shaken, but not broken, and
will probably limp home to dab on some Dettol; whereas if a car t-
bones a bike, the rider will definitely be off to see Mr. Casualty
Ward, and Mr Plod will want to stick his nose in to see what happened.
That sort of asymmetry skews accident reporting rates.

However... it's mostly the visibility thing.


-- Phil (who learned this the hard way back in 1979)