|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
cyclist fatality statistics
I just read that in 2005 in Arizona there were a total of 1177 traffic
fatalities of which 35 were cyclists. There was no info given on rates per mile, per hour, etc. So, at just under 3% of the total how does this compare to data from other area? |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
cyclist fatality statistics
gds wrote:
I just read that in 2005 in Arizona there were a total of 1177 traffic fatalities of which 35 were cyclists. There was no info given on rates per mile, per hour, etc. So, at just under 3% of the total how does this compare to data from other area? http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd...listsTSF05.pdf shows all by state. At 3%, Arizona is the 4th highest/worst. It is 2nd worst per capita. It order to get a better picture of what is happening, the police reports of the 35 fatalities should be examined for predisposing precipitating, and contributing factors. Wayne |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
cyclist fatality statistics
Wayne Pein wrote:
gds wrote: I just read that in 2005 in Arizona there were a total of 1177 traffic fatalities of which 35 were cyclists. There was no info given on rates per mile, per hour, etc. So, at just under 3% of the total how does this compare to data from other area? http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd...listsTSF05.pdf shows all by state. At 3%, Arizona is the 4th highest/worst. It is 2nd worst per capita. I don't doubt it, but not because the cycling here is more dangerous... it's simply because a lot of people ride. Compare the number of bikes you'll see in the Phoenix east valley on a given day to the number you'll see in a suburb of Baltimore or Chicago or St. Louis and it's easy to see that there are a lot more opportunities for accidents. Add in the fact that people ride here all year round, and it's even more of a factor. Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $795 ti frame |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
cyclist fatality statistics
On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 06:22:38 -0700, Mark Hickey wrote:
Wayne Pein wrote: gds wrote: I just read that in 2005 in Arizona there were a total of 1177 traffic fatalities of which 35 were cyclists. There was no info given on rates per mile, per hour, etc. So, at just under 3% of the total how does this compare to data from other area? http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd...listsTSF05.pdf shows all by state. At 3%, Arizona is the 4th highest/worst. It is 2nd worst per capita. I don't doubt it, but not because the cycling here is more dangerous... it's simply because a lot of people ride. Compare the number of bikes you'll see in the Phoenix east valley on a given day to the number you'll see in a suburb of Baltimore or Chicago or St. Louis and it's easy to see that there are a lot more opportunities for accidents. Add in the fact that people ride here all year round, and it's even more of a factor. That may be true, and ridership does vary greatly across the country. Keep in mind that .5% to 2%, the typical range of % of trips by bike in American cities, is a fourfold difference. However, both cyclist and pedestrian fatalities seem to be increasing in real terms in most areas, an alarming trend. It's alarming enough that VDOT is starting to take it seriously, although most efforts are going into pedestrian safety because the numbers are bigger there. Matt O. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
cyclist fatality statistics
Mark Hickey wrote: Wayne Pein wrote: gds wrote: I just read that in 2005 in Arizona there were a total of 1177 traffic fatalities of which 35 were cyclists. There was no info given on rates per mile, per hour, etc. So, at just under 3% of the total how does this compare to data from other area? http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd...listsTSF05.pdf shows all by state. At 3%, Arizona is the 4th highest/worst. It is 2nd worst per capita. I don't doubt it, but not because the cycling here is more dangerous... it's simply because a lot of people ride. Compare the number of bikes you'll see in the Phoenix east valley on a given day to the number you'll see in a suburb of Baltimore or Chicago or St. Louis and it's easy to see that there are a lot more opportunities for accidents. Add in the fact that people ride here all year round, and it's even more of a factor. Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $795 ti frame Wayne, that is interesting info and it is surprising to me that AZ ranks so poorly. There is some more data. ~1 third of the cyclist fatalities occurred during periods of darkness. At least here in the Tucson metro area there are vast stretches of roads with minimal or no lighting. From my memory of the 5 Tucson area fatalities as reported in the press it seemed to skew toward folks riding at night without lights. Mark, you are suggesting that because the per capita number of cyclists in AZ is very high that goes toward explaining the high per capita number of fatalities. That could be a contiributer. As we are talking about fatalities and not all accidents I think there is another big contributer. Road speeds here are very high. Most arterials in Tucson tolerate speeds of ~50 mph. The high speed on dry, straight roads may or may not result in more accidents but I'd think that once an accident happens that the chance of a fatality is higher because of the speed (and because average vehicle size out here is also pretty big). |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
cyclist fatality statistics
On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 09:09:26 -0800, gds wrote:
As we are talking about fatalities and not all accidents I think there is another big contributer. Road speeds here are very high. Most arterials in Tucson tolerate speeds of ~50 mph. The high speed on dry, straight roads may or may not result in more accidents but I'd think that once an accident happens that the chance of a fatality is higher because of the speed (and because average vehicle size out here is also pretty big). Well, I don't think that adds up. For one thing, in lots of states what speeds are "tolerate"d are well in excess of the posted limits, and it is the excess that makes it dangerous. Someone driving 50mph on a typical Western artery, straight and level with wide, multiple lanes, and wide shoulders is far less dangerous to cyclists than someone driving the same speed on a narrow road typical of Eastern cities, with no shoulder, cars parked all over the place, with dips and curves that date back to the 18th century when the road was "designed". Vehicle sizes out here are pretty big, too. Imagine a Hummer trying to pass a group of cyclists on a narrow street packed with traffic. Driver gets ****ed off when he is delayed 5 seconds and guns it. It takes that tank a while to build up speed, but he keeps at it, blowing by the cyclists with inches of clearance since the damn thing is so wide it hardly fits in the lane. I don't have to imagine it; it happened to me and the group I was with on Saturday. Not uncommon. -- David L. Johnson __o | The lottery is a tax on those who fail to understand _`\(,_ | mathematics. (_)/ (_) | |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
cyclist fatality statistics
David L. Johnson wrote: Well, I don't think that adds up. For one thing, in lots of states what speeds are "tolerate"d are well in excess of the posted limits, and it is the excess that makes it dangerous. Someone driving 50mph on a typical Western artery, straight and level with wide, multiple lanes, and wide shoulders is far less dangerous to cyclists than someone driving the same speed on a narrow road typical of Eastern cities, with no shoulder, cars parked all over the place, with dips and curves that date back to the 18th century when the road was "designed". I don't know that we are disagreeing. I agree with you that driving 50 mph on a dry straight road out here may not result in a higher rate of accidents. However, once an accident happens I'm suggesting that a big pickup doing 50 mph is going to cause a lot of damage. So, perhaps the accident rate here is not so bad but the fatality rate certainly is. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
cyclist fatality statistics
Generally the higher the exposure rate (there are several ways to
consider this) the higher the body count. Fatalities obviously generally occur from high speed differential impacts, but it doesn't take much differential to make a fatal impact. A 20 mph impact is often fatal with pedestrians, and while bicyclist impacts have different mechanics, the the 20 mph figure is probably fairly accurate for bicyclists as well. I was ringside, while on my bike, at a roughly 25 mph collision between 2 cars, and the energy involved was enormous. I'm sure some of the fatalities involved getting hit from the rear, and most of those will involve unlit bicyclists, but I'm also sure the bulk are from turning/merging movements, and many of those will involve unlit bicyclists too. Alcohol/impairment will often be involved for one or both participants, and the percentage of children is another important consideration. Wayne |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
cyclist fatality statistics
David L. Johnson wrote:
On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 09:09:26 -0800, gds wrote: As we are talking about fatalities and not all accidents I think there is another big contributer. Road speeds here are very high. Most arterials in Tucson tolerate speeds of ~50 mph. The high speed on dry, straight roads may or may not result in more accidents but I'd think that once an accident happens that the chance of a fatality is higher because of the speed (and because average vehicle size out here is also pretty big). Well, I don't think that adds up. For one thing, in lots of states what speeds are "tolerate"d are well in excess of the posted limits, and it is the excess that makes it dangerous. Someone driving 50mph on a typical Western artery, straight and level with wide, multiple lanes, and wide shoulders is far less dangerous to cyclists than someone driving the same speed on a narrow road typical of Eastern cities, with no shoulder, cars parked all over the place, with dips and curves that date back to the 18th century when the road was "designed". Vehicle sizes out here are pretty big, too. Imagine a Hummer trying to pass a group of cyclists on a narrow street packed with traffic. Driver gets ****ed off when he is delayed 5 seconds and guns it. It takes that tank a while to build up speed, but he keeps at it, blowing by the cyclists with inches of clearance since the damn thing is so wide it hardly fits in the lane. I don't have to imagine it; it happened to me and the group I was with on Saturday. Not uncommon. David, I generally agree with your point, but your Hummer example doesn't quite fit either. When a driver does what you describe (it happens on my group rides all the time too), it sucks and is risky, but the driver is calculating and aware of the situation. This is not the typical fatality situation. A fatality typically occurs when the motorist has no time to react or makes an egregious mistake, unless of course it is an assault. Wayne |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
cyclist fatality statistics
Wayne Pein wrote: I'm sure some of the fatalities involved getting hit from the rear, and most of those will involve unlit bicyclists, but I'm also sure the bulk are from turning/merging movements, and many of those will involve unlit bicyclists too. Alcohol/impairment will often be involved for one or both participants, and the percentage of children is another important consideration. Wayne That does seem to hold true. We have had two cycist fatalities within the past couple of weeks. The first involved a teenager riding a night on an unlit street with no lights. The driver was not cited. The second involved an impaired driver (at night) who swerved onto the shoulder and hit a cyclist. She was arrested! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Yet another fatality :-( | [email protected] | Australia | 0 | September 18th 06 02:26 PM |
Another fatality | warrwych | Australia | 1 | January 20th 06 04:05 AM |
Update on a.b thread from May 05: Another Cyclist Fatality (in Canada) | cfsmtb | Australia | 2 | January 11th 06 01:54 AM |
Fatality in D.C. | C_Axibal | General | 2 | August 10th 05 09:55 PM |
Another Cyclist Fatality (in Canada) | Gags | Australia | 0 | May 14th 05 11:08 AM |