Cycling past a church

James wrote:
On 08/01/14 10:51, Duane wrote:
Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Monday, January 6, 2014 7:08:12 PM UTC-5, James wrote:

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/woman-23-q...107-30efq.html


Anypne else notice that both accidents in the article James linked to
were hit from behind collisions?

Cheers

Well I did but then again I was told that I have an inordinate fear of
being hit from behind and should consider giving up cycling.

When I pointed out that I had been hit from behind when in a car and didn't
see why being on a bike would save me I was told that I should give up
driving as well.
YMMV but I expect you'll get a similar "sitting down and talking to."

I'm not so bothered by the "Danger! Danger!" about to be hit from
behind. I'm sure it could happen, but I realise it's not a likely
outcome. What I'm questioning is the likelihood of that being the crash
type that occurs. Weren't we told it's only a very small percentage of
crashes that occur that way? Like 5% or something?

Data I've seen suggests otherwise. Perhaps this is another case of
differences in driving culture and road design?

I've been bumped by an old lady at an intersection while I was stopped,
and twice, no three times, left scratches down the side of a car that
would be counted as "same direction" or "overtaking" type crashes.

Only one one of those occasion did I actually get hurt, thankfully.

Seems like we have similar experiences with cycling.

--
duane

On Tuesday, January 7, 2014 6:17:53 PM UTC-5, James wrote:

According to Traffic Accident Commission, 37.4% of fatalities have the
crash type labeled as "Same Direction". Note that the "Overtaking"
crash type is only 4.7%.

Some of the "Same Direction" may be death by hook turn I guess. But
what else?

It's also conceivable that "Overtaking" was mislabeled and actually a
hook turn death.

I don't understand their crash type categories. What exactly is the difference between "adjacent direction" and "same direction" and "overtaking"? If a passing motorist were to left hook (= USA right hook) a cyclist, is that counted as one of those three, or is it perhaps "maneuvering"? And aren't almost all of these "on road"?

Crashes that resulted in hospitalisation (not death) are different.
Same direction is 22.4%, and overtaking 1.5%. Adjacent direction is the
stand out winner at 31.2%. So it seems getting hit from behind is more
likely to kill you (which is what we hear most of in the media), but
colliding with a vehicle that crosses your path is the most likely cause
of a serious injury requiring hospitalisation.

I think that's pretty accurate, with the understanding that getting killed is FAR more rare than getting hospitalized. And getting hospitalized is also extremely uncommon, happening once per some tens of thousands of miles of riding.

If we look at all crashes, there were 107 fatalities and 3776 injuries.
Of those, there were 45 deaths and 901 injures being same direction or
overtaking crash types. 946 out of 3883 crashes, or 24%.

I wasn't sure about the time period you chose, so I tried running the site for cyclist fatalities, then hospitalizations for one year. Six fatalities, four "same direction," one "adjacent direction" (whatever that means) and one "pedestrian"! Does that mean a cyclist hit a pedestrian and the cyclist died? Very odd. But it also shows that there are few cyclist deaths in a given year; the newspaper articles partly a "man bites dog" thing. In our papers, pedestrian deaths seem to get less attention, even though they are about seven times more common.

Isn't Frank's oft repeated assertion that being hit from behind is the
minority case? Like 5% or something?

John Forester's book _Effective Cycling_ has summized data on crash types. It's supposedly based on several different sources, with one of the most important being the first study of about 350 police reports of California car-bike crashes. Here's some data, from Table A at
http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Safety/Cross01.htm


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

4.17% were "motorist collided with rear of cyclist.

Maybe that includes all single vehicle crashes that only incur a scraped
knee, and not a stay in hospital?

No, it did not include bike-only crashes.

It's true that hits from behind are cause a much higher proportion of fatal car-bike crashes; but in the U.S., something like half of those seem to be night riders without lights. I assume (almost?) nobody here would ride that way.

The question is, does it make sense to promote a behavior or a facility that reduces the likelihood of an extremely rare event (killed in a direct hit from behind, rather than "I think I can squeeze by this bike") EVEN if that same behavior or facility increases the likelihood of a much more common event (say, hook or cross crashes, or inviting "squeeze by" behavior)?

- Frank Krygowski

On Tuesday, January 7, 2014 7:34:29 PM UTC-5, James wrote:

I'm not so bothered by the "Danger! Danger!" about to be hit from
behind. I'm sure it could happen, but I realise it's not a likely
outcome. What I'm questioning is the likelihood of that being the crash
type that occurs. Weren't we told it's only a very small percentage of
crashes that occur that way? Like 5% or something?

Data I've seen suggests otherwise. Perhaps this is another case of
differences in driving culture and road design?

I've been bumped by an old lady at an intersection while I was stopped,
and twice, no three times, left scratches down the side of a car that
would be counted as "same direction" or "overtaking" type crashes.

Only one one of those occasion did I actually get hurt, thankfully.

As long as we're trading tales: Over the holidays, we got a surprise visit from some young (compared to us) good friends who now live about 500 miles away. The guy rides a bike to work whenever the weather's decent. He's not so much into cycling as into environmentalism, energy efficiency, etc. And as an electrical engineer, he uses an electric assist bike, saying the distance (10 miles) would be too far for him otherwise.

Anyway, a few years ago when he'd just started biking to work, he told me that he was riding mostly on sidewalks because of the close passes he endured on the road. I discussed some of the dangers of sidewalk riding, and suggested he try claiming the lane instead.

Well, the topic came up spontaneously (not at all by me) this visit when we four were at a get-together with a few other cyclists. Someone asked him about the traffic, he mentioned what I'd told him, and said he'd been taking the lane whenever necessary ever since. He said "Oh, it's great! They just move way over to pass me! I don't have any problems at all!" He was actually grinning ear to ear. And one of the other cyclists - a lady in her 70s who's done about five coast-to-coast rides, among much else - said "Oh, yes, I do that too! It's great!"

The difficulty seems to be getting certain people to try these things. We could speculate on why some people are so resistant. But as noted before, one really doesn't have to be a strong, fearless rider to do so. See
http://cyclingsavvy.org/wp-content/u...1/05/Diana.png

- Frank Krygowski
from http://cyclingsavvy.org/2011/05/i-am-no-road-warrior/

- Frank Krygowski

On 08/01/14 12:42, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Tuesday, January 7, 2014 6:17:53 PM UTC-5, James wrote:

According to Traffic Accident Commission, 37.4% of fatalities have
the crash type labeled as "Same Direction". Note that the
"Overtaking" crash type is only 4.7%.

Some of the "Same Direction" may be death by hook turn I guess.
But what else?

It's also conceivable that "Overtaking" was mislabeled and actually
a hook turn death.

I don't understand their crash type categories. What exactly is the
difference between "adjacent direction" and "same direction" and
"overtaking"? If a passing motorist were to left hook (= USA right
hook) a cyclist, is that counted as one of those three, or is it
perhaps "maneuvering"? And aren't almost all of these "on road"?

AFAICT, adjacent means not the same or opposing direction. There's only
one "direction" left, being at approximately 90 degrees to the cyclists
direction of travel.

"On Road" is a curious one. Perhaps a single vehicle crash "on road"?

As I said, it is possible some are mislabeled or miscategorised.

Crashes that resulted in hospitalisation (not death) are
different. Same direction is 22.4%, and overtaking 1.5%. Adjacent
direction is the stand out winner at 31.2%. So it seems getting
hit from behind is more likely to kill you (which is what we hear
most of in the media), but colliding with a vehicle that crosses
your path is the most likely cause of a serious injury requiring
hospitalisation.

I think that's pretty accurate, with the understanding that getting
killed is FAR more rare than getting hospitalized. And getting
hospitalized is also extremely uncommon, happening once per some tens
of thousands of miles of riding.

If we look at all crashes, there were 107 fatalities and 3776
injuries. Of those, there were 45 deaths and 901 injures being same
direction or overtaking crash types. 946 out of 3883 crashes, or
24%.

I wasn't sure about the time period you chose, so I tried running the
site for cyclist fatalities, then hospitalizations for one year. Six
fatalities, four "same direction," one "adjacent direction" (whatever
that means) and one "pedestrian"! Does that mean a cyclist hit a
pedestrian and the cyclist died? Very odd. But it also shows that
there are few cyclist deaths in a given year; the newspaper articles
partly a "man bites dog" thing. In our papers, pedestrian deaths
seem to get less attention, even though they are about seven times
more common.

I'm not interested in the numbers or probability. A person wheeling a
bicycle across a road and gets hit by a car may count as "pedestrian".

I was careful to ensure the date range was the same for both fatalities
and injuries. My only assumption was that "Jan 2000" as the start date
for injuries was inclusive of Jan.

Isn't Frank's oft repeated assertion that being hit from behind is
the minority case? Like 5% or something?

John Forester's book _Effective Cycling_ has summized data on crash
types. It's supposedly based on several different sources, with one
of the most important being the first study of about 350 police
reports of California car-bike crashes. Here's some data, from Table
A at http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Safety/Cross01.htm


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

4.17% were "motorist collided with rear of cyclist.


Yes, I thought as much.

Maybe that includes all single vehicle crashes that only incur a
scraped knee, and not a stay in hospital?

No, it did not include bike-only crashes.

It's true that hits from behind are cause a much higher proportion of
fatal car-bike crashes; but in the U.S., something like half of those
seem to be night riders without lights. I assume (almost?) nobody
here would ride that way.

The question is, does it make sense to promote a behavior or a
facility that reduces the likelihood of an extremely rare event
(killed in a direct hit from behind, rather than "I think I can
squeeze by this bike") EVEN if that same behavior or facility
increases the likelihood of a much more common event (say, hook or
cross crashes, or inviting "squeeze by" behavior)?


That is not the question I asked at all.

--
JS

On Tuesday, January 7, 2014 6:51:05 PM UTC-5, Duane wrote:
Sir Ridesalot wrote:

On Monday, January 6, 2014 7:08:12 PM UTC-5, James wrote:

On 07/01/14 08:05, James wrote:



On 07/01/14 02:32, Sir Ridesalot wrote:



On Monday, January 6, 2014 10:05:40 AM UTC-5, Duane wrote:











http://bikinginla.com/2013/12/27/bre...ths-this-year/











Notice that the death in Duane's link was yet another hit from behind



one? Too bad the article isn't clearer on exactly where the bicyclist



was positioned on the road when he was struck.







13 more bicycle deaths each year for the past two years. Makes



onewonder aboutthe assertions some people make.











We had two separate crashes on Sunday, hit from behind and the offender



doth flee the scene, near Sydney, NSW. Not a good start to the year.







http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/second-cyc...106-30cy2.html











Progress...







http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/woman-23-q...107-30efq.html







--



JS



Anypne else notice that both accidents in the article James linked to

were hit from behind collisions?



Cheers



Well I did but then again I was told that I have an inordinate fear of

being hit from behind and should consider giving up cycling.



When I pointed out that I had been hit from behind when in a car and didn't

see why being on a bike would save me I was told that I should give up

driving as well.

YMMV but I expect you'll get a similar "sitting down and talking to."

--

duane

I'm trying to avoid invoking the name of F.K. in the hopes of not getting that spiel. If the spiel does come I'll just ignore it as it's useless to try and change his thinking.

Cheers

Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Tuesday, January 7, 2014 6:51:05 PM UTC-5, Duane wrote:
Sir Ridesalot wrote:

On Monday, January 6, 2014 7:08:12 PM UTC-5, James wrote:

On 07/01/14 08:05, James wrote:



On 07/01/14 02:32, Sir Ridesalot wrote:



On Monday, January 6, 2014 10:05:40 AM UTC-5, Duane wrote:











http://bikinginla.com/2013/12/27/bre...ths-this-year/











Notice that the death in Duane's link was yet another hit from behind



one? Too bad the article isn't clearer on exactly where the bicyclist



was positioned on the road when he was struck.







13 more bicycle deaths each year for the past two years. Makes



onewonder aboutthe assertions some people make.











We had two separate crashes on Sunday, hit from behind and the offender



doth flee the scene, near Sydney, NSW. Not a good start to the year.







http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/second-cyc...106-30cy2.html











Progress...







http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/woman-23-q...107-30efq.html







--



JS



Anypne else notice that both accidents in the article James linked to

were hit from behind collisions?



Cheers



Well I did but then again I was told that I have an inordinate fear of

being hit from behind and should consider giving up cycling.



When I pointed out that I had been hit from behind when in a car and didn't

see why being on a bike would save me I was told that I should give up

driving as well.

YMMV but I expect you'll get a similar "sitting down and talking to."

--

duane

I'm trying to avoid invoking the name of F.K. in the hopes of not getting
that spiel. If the spiel does come I'll just ignore it as it's useless to
try and change his thinking.

Cheers

Hmm. I don't remember using the F word. Sounds like a good plan though.

--
duane

Frank Krygowski writes:

On Tuesday, January 7, 2014 7:34:29 PM UTC-5, James wrote:

I'm not so bothered by the "Danger! Danger!" about to be hit from
behind. I'm sure it could happen, but I realise it's not a likely
outcome. What I'm questioning is the likelihood of that being the crash
type that occurs. Weren't we told it's only a very small percentage of
crashes that occur that way? Like 5% or something?

Data I've seen suggests otherwise. Perhaps this is another case of
differences in driving culture and road design?

I've been bumped by an old lady at an intersection while I was stopped,
and twice, no three times, left scratches down the side of a car that
would be counted as "same direction" or "overtaking" type crashes.

Only one one of those occasion did I actually get hurt, thankfully.

As long as we're trading tales: Over the holidays, we got a surprise visit from some young (compared to us) good friends who now live about 500 miles away. The guy rides a bike to work whenever the weather's decent. He's not so much into cycling as into environmentalism, energy efficiency, etc. And as an electrical engineer, he uses an electric assist bike, saying the distance (10 miles) would be too far for him otherwise.

Anyway, a few years ago when he'd just started biking to work, he told me that he was riding mostly on sidewalks because of the close passes he endured on the road. I discussed some of the dangers of sidewalk riding, and suggested he try claiming the lane instead.

Well, the topic came up spontaneously (not at all by me) this visit when we four were at a get-together with a few other cyclists. Someone asked him about the traffic, he mentioned what I'd told him, and said he'd been taking the lane whenever necessary ever since. He said "Oh, it's great! They just move way over to pass me! I don't have any problems at all!" He was actually grinning ear to ear. And one of the other cyclists - a lady in her 70s who's done about five coast-to-coast rides, among much else - said "Oh, yes, I do that too! It's great!"

The difficulty seems to be getting certain people to try these things. We could speculate on why some people are so resistant. But as noted before, one really doesn't have to be a strong, fearless rider to do so.


Then why do you suggest anyone who doesn't needs to
"grow some balls"?

See

http://cyclingsavvy.org/wp-content/u...1/05/Diana.png

from http://cyclingsavvy.org/2011/05/i-am-no-road-warrior/


"Intact males" (heh-heh)

On 08/01/14 13:00, Frank Krygowski wrote:

The difficulty seems to be getting certain people to try these
things. We could speculate on why some people are so resistant. But
as noted before, one really doesn't have to be a strong, fearless
rider to do so. See
http://cyclingsavvy.org/wp-content/u...1/05/Diana.png

I have no idea why Diana needs to ride so far from the edge of the road
on that road.

She does not seem to be as far right as practicable.

There does not appear to be a reason for her to need to "take the lane".

--
JS

On Wednesday, January 8, 2014 5:46:58 PM UTC-5, James wrote:

http://cyclingsavvy.org/wp-content/u...1/05/Diana.png

I have no idea why Diana needs to ride so far from the edge of the road
on that road.

She does not seem to be as far right as practicable.

There does not appear to be a reason for her to need to "take the lane".

The lane does not appear to be very wide - perhaps ten feet, maybe less. That's not shareable. The pickup truck behind her is probably close to 8 feet wide, counting mirrors. If she skims the pavement edge and he keeps his left mirror inside the lane, she gets one foot or less clearance. That's not a safe way to ride. Cyclists around the world are calling for three feet or one meter, _minimum_. I think that's a reasonable request.

Yes, she could ride the edge and hope the pickup driver will "straddle pass," going partly into the next lane. But that opens her to danger if that road edge goes bad, or if the driver is a bad judge of his vehicle's width. And by experience, I know that riding that "edge" way will invite many drivers will try to squeeze by entirely in the lane.

Also, it's possible she's planning to move into the next leftward lane, to prepare for a left turn. And of course, it could be something she did just for the photo, to hint that a person doesn't get run flat (as some claim) when they ride that way.

In the end, I think a cyclist should be allowed to judge for himself or herself when to control the lane; and I think most cyclists should learn more about how to properly judge. But I certainly prefer to err on the side of being further left, rather than further right.

- Frank Krygowski

On 09/01/14 15:08, Phil W Lee wrote:
James considered Wed, 08 Jan 2014 10:17:53
+1100 the perfect time to write:

On 08/01/14 08:45, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Monday, January 6, 2014 7:08:12 PM UTC-5, James wrote:


http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/woman-23-q...107-30efq.html


Anypne else notice that both accidents in the article James linked to were hit from behind collisions?


You want more?

http://www.examiner.com.au/story/199...tamar-highway/

Next report on same crash...

http://www.examiner.com.au/story/201...rash-analysed/

According to Traffic Accident Commission, 37.4% of fatalities have the
crash type labeled as "Same Direction". Note that the "Overtaking"
crash type is only 4.7%.

How do you overtake if you are not going in the same direction?

Yes, the characterisation of crash type is not particularly good.


Some of the "Same Direction" may be death by hook turn I guess. But
what else?

Sideswipe, partial overtake forcing cyclist onto unsuitable road
surface, tailgating distracting rider so that they hit an obstruction
and fall under the tailgater. That's just off the top of my head -
I'm sure there are more.

Partial overtake forcing cyclist onto unsuitable road surface could also
be "run off a straight road".


It's also conceivable that "Overtaking" was mislabeled and actually a
hook turn death.

One common characteristic of fatal collisions is that only the
survivor gets to tell their story.

Perhaps with increasing numbers of people recording their daily dramas
on video cameras, that will slowly change.

--
JS