|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
The word "Accident" vs collision ( taking responsibility)
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__________ |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Non Motor Vehicle Accidents for Bicyclists (Survey forPeopleRe...
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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
The word "Accident" vs collision ( taking responsibility)
"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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Non Motor Vehicle Accidents for Bicyclists (Survey for People Residing in USA)
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
The word "Accident" vs collision ( taking responsibility)
"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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
The word "Accident" vs collision ( taking responsibility)
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 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
The word "Accident" vs collision ( taking responsibility)
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"] |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
The word "Accident" vs collision ( taking responsibility)
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__________ |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
The word "Accident" vs collision ( taking responsibility)
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"] |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|