Non Motor Vehicle Accidents for Bicyclists (Survey for PeopleResiding in USA)

On the other hand, if you define "accident" as requiring a trip to the
ER the incidence would no doubt go up some.

The gold standard as far as serious versus not serious cycle incidents
are concerned.

If it requires professional care, it's a serious incident.

In too many cases, collisions are called accidents. In my opinion-
there are **very few true accidents**.

I'd agree with you here, depending on how you define "accident".

Many collisions with other road users, poles, the ground, etc are
caused **mainly by inattentiveness by the driver ( of bike or motor
vehicle).

Collision statistics are interesting. See

http://mpdc.dc.gov/info/family/bikers_report99.shtm

for what is one of the most exhaustive and accessible datasets I have
seen. But the smple size is too small. If this methodology were more
widely applied we'd have better stats.

We all need to take responsibility while using trails and roads to be
totally focused on the task, which is the driving of the vehicle.

Yeah.

We should be aware of how, when and where collisions tend to occur and
steps we should take to reduce the odds. We should be considering
daytime and night time visibility, safe routes, road conditions,
knowledge of road law and safe cycling principles. Even many mechanical
problems could have been avoided.

Basic and true. Can't be said more often.

Most collisions are preventable.

Maybe. Probably yes. But it requires a higher order of analysis than
police reports to prove the contributing variables.

When riding, if I have even a slightly close call towards a collision,
even though the other vehicle operator may have broken laws- I evaluate
how that incident occurred and how I can reduce the odds of a similar
incident occurring in my vicinity.

Or in the future, I agree.

The word accident seems to reduce people's sense of responsibility to
these incredibly damaging situations in which lives are lost, people
crippled and millions of dollars in property damage occurs.

"Accident" is usually shorthand for "mistake", rarely "mechanical
failure". Deliberate intent to kill is usually not part of this
equation.

However people do make mistakes and machines do fail. That is why we
have lawyers.

--

_______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________
------------------"Buddy Holly, the Texas Elvis"------------------
in.edu__________

A good portion of my accidents have been non-auto connected. Falls on
downhill turns, collisions with stationary objects, such as trees and
rocks off road, etcetera.
However (comma) I believe the figure 90% may be a bit exaggerated, but I
do believe that many ARE the fault of the cyclist. Mostly "newbies" and
Wal-Mart Warriors, as some have pointed out.

"May you have the wind at your back.
And a really low gear for the hills!"

Chris Zacho ~ "Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman"

Chris'Z Corner
http://www.geocities.com/czcorner

"Eric S. Sande" wrote in message
...
On the other hand, if you define "accident" as requiring a trip to the
ER the incidence would no doubt go up some.

The gold standard as far as serious versus not serious cycle incidents
are concerned.

If it requires professional care, it's a serious incident.

I've had few spills - none involving autos and only one that resulted in an
er visit. And now that I think about it almost all the spills were on
off-road trails.

I'm thinking, though, if you changed it from 'accident' to 'fatality' then
the proportion in which autos are involved would increase greatly.
[...]
We should be aware of how, when and where collisions tend to occur and
steps we should take to reduce the odds. We should be considering
daytime and night time visibility, safe routes, road conditions,
knowledge of road law and safe cycling principles. Even many mechanical
problems could have been avoided.

Basic and true. Can't be said more often.

Most collisions are preventable.

Maybe. Probably yes. But it requires a higher order of analysis than
police reports to prove the contributing variables.

I can think of two close calls I've had with autos that would have been
admittedly my fault. In both cases I zoned out and almost rode into the back
of parked cars. Having said that and without sounding smugly superior I
think I usually and more situationally aware than most people if not most
cyclist. I am always very cautious about autos crossing my path. I always
assume that they do _not_ see me.

--
'And then one day you find,
Ten years have got behind you.
No one told you when to run
You missed the starting gun' -pink floyd

On 5 Feb 2004 14:43:08 -0800, (Steven
Goodridge) wrote:

I've been cycling for 20 years, both recreationally and commuting. My
only mishaps were falls, mostly off road but three were on-road. I've
never collided with a motor vehicle.

Steve Goodridge

Interesting - I can only remember one - being doored in Monterey, CA
on Forrest (Forest?) by a woman that pulled across me, slammed on the
brakes and flung open her door in one motion. Less hitting a car than
hitting an idiot.

Another when avoiding a car, crossing a roadway on a bike path. So you
can give the car half a point.

Other than that, either other cyclists or by myself, in 40 years of
bike riding.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

"Eric S. Sande" wrote in message
...
On the other hand, if you define "accident" as requiring a trip to the
ER the incidence would no doubt go up some.

The gold standard as far as serious versus not serious cycle incidents
are concerned.

If it requires professional care, it's a serious incident.

I've had few spills - none involving autos and only one that resulted in an
er visit. And now that I think about it almost all the spills were on
off-road trails. I did have to close calls with autos but both would have
been admnittedly my fault: I zoned out and almost rode into the back of a
parked car. Other than that my only other 'almosts' regarding autos is the
old 'passing wa-a-a-ay too close and crowding me off the road'. No accidents
but some concerned moments.

--
'And then one day you find,
Ten years have got behind you.
No one told you when to run
You missed the starting gun' -pink floyd

Jay wrote in message ...
In too many cases, collisions are called accidents.
In my opinion- there are **very few true accidents**.

According to http://www.drivers.com/article/327

"Sabey (1979) concluded that 95% of road collisions result solely or
partly from human error."

Maybe this is right and maybe not, but it sure makes you think . . .

"Sabey" is: Sabey, B.E.; Taylor, H. (1979) . The known risks we run:
the highway No. P/A 660/79). U.K. Transport and Road Research
Laboratory Report.

--Brent
bhugh [at] mwsc.edu
www.MoBikeFed.org

In article ,
says...
Jay wrote in message ...
In too many cases, collisions are called accidents.
In my opinion- there are **very few true accidents**.

According to http://www.drivers.com/article/327

"Sabey (1979) concluded that 95% of road collisions result solely or
partly from human error."

Maybe this is right and maybe not, but it sure makes you think . . .

Actually I'm surprised it's not more like 98%, when you include things
like driving a few mph too fast to get stopped on a snow-covered street
and the like. About all that's left is mechanical failure at speed.

.....

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

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

Eric S. Sande wrote:

On the other hand, if you define "accident" as requiring a trip to the
ER the incidence would no doubt go up some.


The gold standard as far as serious versus not serious cycle incidents
are concerned.

If it requires professional care, it's a serious incident.

I disagree that this is a "gold standard." Whether or not an injured
person is taken to the ER depends on a lot more than the injury. It's a
judgement call affected by the person's economic status, insurance
coverage, general level of caution, and even what was mentioned on the
news last night. ER visits run the entire range from fevers to fatalities.

In too many cases, collisions are called accidents. In my opinion-
there are **very few true accidents**.


I'd agree with you here, depending on how you define "accident".

I'm going to have to disagree here, too. There seems to be a move about
to redefine the word "accident." What it means is: something which
happened unintentionally. There's no need to try to redefine it as
"something which was completely beyond human power to prevent." There
are other words that can convey that.

That being said, sure, there are plenty of times people are too careless
or incompetent. And sure, people should work to reduce those.

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, omit what's between "at" and "cc"]

I disagree that this is a "gold standard." Whether or not an injured
person is taken to the ER depends on a lot more than the injury. It's
a judgement call affected by the person's economic status, insurance
coverage, general level of caution, and even what was mentioned on the
news last night. ER visits run the entire range from fevers to
fatalities.

No arguement. I said:

If it requires professional care, it's a serious incident.

Requires, Frank.

--

_______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________
------------------"Buddy Holly, the Texas Elvis"------------------
in.edu__________

Eric S. Sande wrote:

I disagree that this is a "gold standard." Whether or not an injured
person is taken to the ER depends on a lot more than the injury. It's
a judgement call affected by the person's economic status, insurance
coverage, general level of caution, and even what was mentioned on the
news last night. ER visits run the entire range from fevers to
fatalities.


No arguement. I said:


If it requires professional care, it's a serious incident.


Requires, Frank.


Right, but who's going to judge that?

I'm closely related to an ER physician. According to what he tells me,
they don't turn anyone away, even if the injury is laughably minor.

IOW, one guy with a scraped knee will get treated in the ER, and to
everyone there, that was "required." Another with an identically
scraped knee will self-treat at home, so professional care was _not_
required.

The supposed "gold standard" can't distinguish between those.

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, omit what's between "at" and "cc"]