Roadies, do you use rear-view mirrors

A usually reliable source wrote:

ISTR that the greatest percentage of car-bicyclist fatalities happen
when the driver is overtaking a cyclist going in the same direction.

That's absolutely incorrect. This type of collision amounts to only
about 4% of car/bike collisions, though it does represent a somewhat
higher percentage of fatalities.

Here's a chart from: http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Safety/Cross01.htm

TABLE A

Type of Accident Percent
A: Cyclist Exited Driveway Into Motorist's Path 8.59
B: Motorist Exited Driveway Into Cyclist's Path 5.73
C: Cyclist Failed to Stop/Yield at Controlled Intersection 8.33
D: Cyclist Made Improper Left Turn 11.20
E: Cyclist Rode on Wrong Side of Street 14.32
F: Motorist Collided With Rear of Cyclist 4.17-
G: Motorist Failed to Stop/Yield at Controlled Intersection 7.81
H: Motorist Made Improper Left Turn 12.76
I: Motorist Made Improper Right Turn 11.20
J: Motorist Opened Car Door into Cyclist's Path 7.29
Other 8.60

I don't mean to cite this to discourage mirror use, however. I'm a very
strong advocate of helmet-mounted mirrors, and never ride without mine.

Sheldon "Numbers" Brown
+-----------------------------------------+
| Well, the truth is usually just |
| an excuse for a lack of imagination... |
| --Garak, DS-9 |
+-----------------------------------------+
Harris Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts
Phone 617-244-9772 FAX 617-244-1041
http://harriscyclery.com
Hard-to-find parts shipped Worldwide
http://captainbike.com http://sheldonbrown.com

Sheldon Brown writes:

A usually reliable source wrote:

Why, thank you, Sheldon blush.

ISTR that the greatest percentage of car-bicyclist fatalities
happen when the driver is overtaking a cyclist going in the same
direction.

That's absolutely incorrect. This type of collision amounts to only
about 4% of car/bike collisions, though it does represent a somewhat
higher percentage of fatalities.

Here's a chart from:
http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Safety/Cross01.htm

Ummm. I've never really been quite willing to take Forester's word on
much of anything, as I found much that seemed inaccurate and
objectionable in _Effective Cycling_ when I read it years ago. Maybe
it's improved since then.

TABLE A

Type of Accident %
A: Cyclist Exited Driveway Into Motorist's Path 8.59
B: Motorist Exited Driveway Into Cyclist's Path 5.73
C: Cyclist Failed to Stop/Yield at Controlled Intersection 8.33
D: Cyclist Made Improper Left Turn 11.20
E: Cyclist Rode on Wrong Side of Street 14.32
F: Motorist Collided With Rear of Cyclist 4.17-
G: Motorist Failed to Stop/Yield at Controlled Intersection 7.81
H: Motorist Made Improper Left Turn 12.76
I: Motorist Made Improper Right Turn 11.20
J: Motorist Opened Car Door into Cyclist's Path 7.29
Other 8.60

My statement did not assume that the driver was the cause of the
accident. Notice that items A, D, F and I could all occur in an
overtaking situation. That could add up to 35.16% if every one of
these accidents was between a bicyclist and an overtaking vehicle
going in the same direction. In general, the car on the other side of
the road is far less dangerous to cyclists than the cars going in the
same direction on the same side of the road.

I don't mean to cite this to discourage mirror use, however. I'm a
very strong advocate of helmet-mounted mirrors, and never ride
without mine.

Being as how I don't always wear a helmet, a helmet-mounted mirror
would be of only occasional value. In addition to that, I find the
things somewhat difficult to use because the mirror is not in a fixed
relationship to the roadway. I'm not always sure *where* the car is
that's behind me as a result. I presume that practice can result in
perceptual learning to compensate, but the mirror seemed of such
little utility that I've never spent the time.

But to each their own. If anyone finds mirrors useful, they should
use them. Just because they're useful to you doesn't mean they're
useful to me (and of course the converse is also correct- because I
don't find them useful doesn't mean they're not useful for you).

In article ,
says...
D: Cyclist Made Improper Left Turn 11.20


What is an impropoper left turn for a cyclist? Is that when you turn
without waiting for traffic to clear?

In article ,
says...
A usually reliable source wrote:

ISTR that the greatest percentage of car-bicyclist fatalities happen
when the driver is overtaking a cyclist going in the same direction.

That's absolutely incorrect. This type of collision amounts to only
about 4% of car/bike collisions, though it does represent a somewhat
higher percentage of fatalities.

Here's a chart from: http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Safety/Cross01.htm

TABLE A

Type of Accident Percent
A: Cyclist Exited Driveway Into Motorist's Path 8.59
B: Motorist Exited Driveway Into Cyclist's Path 5.73
C: Cyclist Failed to Stop/Yield at Controlled Intersection 8.33
D: Cyclist Made Improper Left Turn 11.20
E: Cyclist Rode on Wrong Side of Street 14.32
F: Motorist Collided With Rear of Cyclist 4.17-
G: Motorist Failed to Stop/Yield at Controlled Intersection 7.81
H: Motorist Made Improper Left Turn 12.76
I: Motorist Made Improper Right Turn 11.20
J: Motorist Opened Car Door into Cyclist's Path 7.29
Other 8.60

It looks like about 43% are due to the cyclists's screw-ups.

--
Dave Kerber
Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

David Kerber writes:

It looks like about 43% are due to the cyclists's screw-ups.

I think that sounds about right, maybe still an underestimate. We
have a tendency to assume that the cyclist is always blameless, in
part because the consequences of the accident are almost always worse
for the cyclist than the driver. That's emotional reasoning and
illogical, but very common in these newsgroups.

I remember one poster 8-10 years ago haranguing the newsgrou that
*any* driver involved in an accident with a bicyclist should be
*presumed* to be at fault and that every such driver should be charged
with at least manslaughter.

Here's the deal: it we're just the victims and nothing is ever our
fault, then we have little or no power to change the situation. It's
a form of learned helplessness; it's pernicious and ultimately
disabling.

"Tim McNamara" wrote in message
...

I remember one poster 8-10 years ago haranguing the newsgrou that
*any* driver involved in an accident with a bicyclist should be
*presumed* to be at fault and that every such driver should be charged
with at least manslaughter.

Don't you mean 8-10 DAYS ago?!?

Bill "Chalo's ears burning?" S.

"Tim McNamara" wrote in message
...
David Kerber writes:

It looks like about 43% are due to the cyclists's screw-ups.

I think that sounds about right, maybe still an underestimate. We
have a tendency to assume that the cyclist is always blameless, in
part because the consequences of the accident are almost always worse
for the cyclist than the driver. That's emotional reasoning and
illogical, but very common in these newsgroups.

I remember one poster 8-10 years ago haranguing the newsgrou that
*any* driver involved in an accident with a bicyclist should be
*presumed* to be at fault and that every such driver should be charged
with at least manslaughter.

Here's the deal: it we're just the victims and nothing is ever our
fault, then we have little or no power to change the situation. It's
a form of learned helplessness; it's pernicious and ultimately
disabling.

Agreed, but 57% is a huge number.

On the other hand, just because something is not your fault, does not mean
it was unavoidable by you. If a driver pulls out in front of you, in many
instances you can defensively avoid crashing. I wonder what the % is taking
the possibilities of defensive riding into account.

For that estimate you would need more specifics about each crash. E.g., in a
particular accident where a cyclist was hit by a driver backing out, one
could query the individuals and ascertain whether an alert cyclist might
have avoided the crash. Obviously there are errors that will creep into such
a process, but an estimate could be made.


Shayne Wissler

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 19:02:47 +0000, Slartibartfast wrote:

In article ,
says...
D: Cyclist Made Improper Left Turn 11.20


What is an impropoper left turn for a cyclist? Is that when you turn
without waiting for traffic to clear?

Yes, according to the article. Seems to be usually not yielding to
oncoming traffic.

In general this is a good, sensible article. I don't agree with
everything Forester says, but this is a good study. Just ignore his
polemical editorial comments.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | The lottery is a tax on those who fail to understand
_`\(,_ | mathematics.
(_)/ (_) |

In article ,
says...
In article ,
says...
D: Cyclist Made Improper Left Turn 11.20


What is an impropoper left turn for a cyclist? Is that when you turn
without waiting for traffic to clear?

What is an improper left turn for a car? It would be the same. Might
also include turning left from the right lane.

--
Dave Kerber
Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

In article zPtvb.265020$HS4.2365128@attbi_s01,
says...

"Tim McNamara" wrote in message
...
David Kerber writes:

It looks like about 43% are due to the cyclists's screw-ups.

I think that sounds about right, maybe still an underestimate. We
have a tendency to assume that the cyclist is always blameless, in
part because the consequences of the accident are almost always worse
for the cyclist than the driver. That's emotional reasoning and
illogical, but very common in these newsgroups.

I remember one poster 8-10 years ago haranguing the newsgrou that
*any* driver involved in an accident with a bicyclist should be
*presumed* to be at fault and that every such driver should be charged
with at least manslaughter.

Here's the deal: it we're just the victims and nothing is ever our
fault, then we have little or no power to change the situation. It's
a form of learned helplessness; it's pernicious and ultimately
disabling.

Agreed, but 57% is a huge number.

On the other hand, just because something is not your fault, does not mean
it was unavoidable by you. If a driver pulls out in front of you, in many
instances you can defensively avoid crashing. I wonder what the % is taking
the possibilities of defensive riding into account.

Definitely a consideration. Usually, just looking further down the
road will alert you to possible problems ahead, which you can avoid
completely if you react in time.


For that estimate you would need more specifics about each crash. E.g., in a
particular accident where a cyclist was hit by a driver backing out, one
could query the individuals and ascertain whether an alert cyclist might
have avoided the crash. Obviously there are errors that will creep into such
a process, but an estimate could be made.

I know I've avoided crashes by being defensive in a car, for example
by waiting an extra second after my light turns green to see if that
guy coming on the cross street is going to get stopped or not, and
that attitude definitely spills over to a bike as well.

--
Dave Kerber
Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.