A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 17th 10, 04:33 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Phil H
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 391
Default 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
  #2  
Old November 17th 10, 04:57 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,934
Default Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009

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
  #3  
Old November 17th 10, 05:01 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
James[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,153
Default Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009

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.
  #4  
Old November 17th 10, 06:27 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,511
Default Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009

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
  #5  
Old November 17th 10, 06:29 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,511
Default Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009

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
  #6  
Old November 17th 10, 07:30 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
DirtRoadie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,915
Default Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009

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?
  #7  
Old November 17th 10, 03:09 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Duane Hébert
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 384
Default Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009

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?
  #8  
Old November 17th 10, 07:43 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Ed[_9_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default 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.
  #9  
Old November 17th 10, 10:21 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
James[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,153
Default 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.
  #10  
Old November 18th 10, 12:11 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Phil H
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 391
Default 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
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2022 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.