"Cyclists Cause Less Than 10% of Bike/Car Accidents".

So you can stop blaming all the victims.

"Whenever we write about bike/car "interactions" we get a lot of
complaints that cyclists bring much of this upon themselves by blowing
through red lights and stop signs, and generally cycling aggressively.

While convalescing after being hit by a truck, Dr. Chris Cavacuiti of
the University of Toronto had some time to study the statistics and
concluded otherwise. He is interviewed by Bet McIlroy in the U of T's
Experience Research:

Who causes accidents—cyclists or drivers?

While there is a public perception that cyclists are usually the cause
of accidents between cars and bikes, an analysis of Toronto police
collision reports shows otherwise: The most common type of crash in
this study involved a motorist entering an intersection and either
failing to stop properly or proceeding before it was safe to do so.
The second most common crash type involved a motorist overtaking
unsafely. The third involved a motorist opening a door onto an
oncoming cyclist. The study concluded that cyclists are the cause of
less than 10 per cent of bike-car accidents in this study.

The available evidence suggests that collisions have far more to do
with aggressive driving than aggressive cycling..."

Mo
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009...-accidents.php

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

Doug wrote:

The most common type of crash in
this study involved a motorist entering an intersection and either
failing to stop properly or proceeding before it was safe to do so.

Gee no kidding! Cars pulling out in front of bikes, cars cutting across to
turn left, cars pulling out before the bike had passed. These are common
occurences. If the cyclist takes the centre of the lane it reduces the
chances of this happening by making the cyclist more visible and further
away from the traffic entering or leaving the junctions. It still happens
though.

The second most common crash type involved a motorist overtaking
unsafely.

The cyclist needs to take the centre of the lane if there is not enough
width to be passed safely. The car driver (in most cases) is unable to make
that decision and will usually try to pass no matter how narrow the gap is.
Riding wide will block the unsafe overtakes.

The third involved a motorist opening a door onto an
oncoming cyclist. The study concluded that cyclists are the cause of
less than 10 per cent of bike-car accidents in this study.

While technically the person opening the door is at fault, the cyclist can
avoid this type of accident completely by riding further out and avoiding
the "door zone" completely.

Doug wrote:
So you can stop blaming all the victims.
...

Your premise (the title) though only covers a very small percentage of
bicycle accidents.

You might be interested in a report prepared for the Scottish Executive
which looked at the causes of bicycle casualty accidents.[1]

Interesting findings from hospital data include the following:
- 72% of accidents involved _no_ other vehicle.
- 45% of casualties did not state who they thought was to blame.
- 41% of accidents occurred off-road (cycle tracks, etc.).
- 29% of accidents occurred on the pavement (43% of child accidents).
- 11% of accidents involved another bicycle.
- 10% of accidents involved a car.
- 7% of casualties blamed a motor vehicle (1% of child accidents).
- 6% of casualties were performing "sporting activities" (stunts,
mountain biking, etc.)

Accidents were caused by a very wide range of circumstances and _no_
single cause stood out.

You certainly can't justifiably blame motorists.

[1] http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/55971/0015830.pdf

--
Matt B

Matt B wrote:
Doug wrote:
So you can stop blaming all the victims.
...

Your premise (the title) though only covers a very small percentage of
bicycle accidents.

You might be interested in a report prepared for the Scottish
Executive which looked at the causes of bicycle casualty accidents.[1]

Interesting findings from hospital data include the following:
- 72% of accidents involved _no_ other vehicle.
- 45% of casualties did not state who they thought was to blame.
- 41% of accidents occurred off-road (cycle tracks, etc.).
- 29% of accidents occurred on the pavement (43% of child accidents).
- 11% of accidents involved another bicycle.
- 10% of accidents involved a car.
- 7% of casualties blamed a motor vehicle (1% of child accidents).
- 6% of casualties were performing "sporting activities" (stunts,
mountain biking, etc.)

Accidents were caused by a very wide range of circumstances and _no_
single cause stood out.

You certainly can't justifiably blame motorists.

[1] http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/55971/0015830.pdf

Doug can (in what passes for his mind), and does.

On Sep 4, 4:04*am, Matt B wrote:
Doug wrote:
So you can stop blaming all the victims.
...

Your premise (the title) though only covers a very small percentage of
bicycle accidents.

You might be interested in a report prepared for the Scottish Executive
which looked at the causes of bicycle casualty accidents.[1]

Interesting findings from hospital data include the following:
* - 72% of accidents involved _no_ other vehicle.
* - 45% of casualties did not state who they thought was to blame.
* - 41% of accidents occurred off-road (cycle tracks, etc.).
* - 29% of accidents occurred on the pavement (43% of child accidents).
* - 11% of accidents involved another bicycle.
* - 10% of accidents involved a car.
* - 7% of casualties blamed a motor vehicle (1% of child accidents).
* - 6% of casualties were performing "sporting activities" (stunts,
mountain biking, etc.)

Accidents were caused by a very wide range of circumstances and _no_
single cause stood out.

You certainly can't justifiably blame motorists.

[1] http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/55971/0015830.pdf

--
Matt B

Did you fail to read the title of the post, "bike/car accidents" not
bike accidents in general. From your numbers I guess we're talking
about the 10% of accidents involving a car. I'd be interested to see
if this 10% of accidents contributes the most to the number of deaths
from cycling accidents in general.

On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 09:13:23 +0100, "mileburner"
wrote:

snip


While technically the person opening the door is at fault, the cyclist can
avoid this type of accident completely by riding further out and avoiding
the "door zone" completely.



The further out in to the centr of the road you cycle - the closer to
you will overtaking traffic drive.

The closer you are to overtaking traffic - the more chance there is of
accident.

Hence - the further out you ride - then the chance of an accident
increases.

HTH

--
Latest DfT Figures: Passenger casualty rates by mode Per billion passenger kilometers:
Killed or seriously injured: Pedal Cyclists : 527 Pedestrians 371
All casualties: Pedal Cyclists : 3494 Pedestrians : 1631
Which is more dangerous?

Marz wrote:
On Sep 4, 4:04 am, Matt B wrote:
Doug wrote:
So you can stop blaming all the victims.
...
Your premise (the title) though only covers a very small percentage of
bicycle accidents.

You might be interested in a report prepared for the Scottish Executive
which looked at the causes of bicycle casualty accidents.[1]

Interesting findings from hospital data include the following:
- 72% of accidents involved _no_ other vehicle.
- 45% of casualties did not state who they thought was to blame.
- 41% of accidents occurred off-road (cycle tracks, etc.).
- 29% of accidents occurred on the pavement (43% of child accidents).
- 11% of accidents involved another bicycle.
- 10% of accidents involved a car.
- 7% of casualties blamed a motor vehicle (1% of child accidents).
- 6% of casualties were performing "sporting activities" (stunts,
mountain biking, etc.)

Accidents were caused by a very wide range of circumstances and _no_
single cause stood out.

You certainly can't justifiably blame motorists.

[1] http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/55971/0015830.pdf

Did you fail to read the title of the post, "bike/car accidents" not
bike accidents in general.

No I didn't fail to read that. The evidence is in my opening remark:
"Your premise (the title) though only covers a very small percentage of
bicycle accidents." Did /you/ fail to read that?

To narrow the scope to just bike/car accidents gives a grossly
unrepresentative picture of bike accident causes.

From your numbers I guess we're talking
about the 10% of accidents involving a car. I'd be interested to see
if this 10% of accidents contributes the most to the number of deaths
from cycling accidents in general.

That isn't covered by the title either though - are you still interested?

--
Matt B

"Judith M Smith" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 09:13:23 +0100, "mileburner"
wrote:

snip


While technically the person opening the door is at fault, the cyclist can
avoid this type of accident completely by riding further out and avoiding
the "door zone" completely.



The further out in to the centr of the road you cycle - the closer to
you will overtaking traffic drive.

The closer you are to overtaking traffic - the more chance there is of
accident.

Hence - the further out you ride - then the chance of an accident
increases.

You miss the point :-(

Riding further out eliminates the possibility of having a door opened in you
path.

And the further out you are, the less chance there is that a driver will be
trying to overtake - they will instead be forced to wait until there is
enough width to do so safely.

On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 14:50:59 +0100, "mileburner"
wrote:


"Judith M Smith" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 09:13:23 +0100, "mileburner"
wrote:

snip


While technically the person opening the door is at fault, the cyclist can
avoid this type of accident completely by riding further out and avoiding
the "door zone" completely.



The further out in to the centr of the road you cycle - the closer to
you will overtaking traffic drive.

The closer you are to overtaking traffic - the more chance there is of
accident.

Hence - the further out you ride - then the chance of an accident
increases.

You miss the point :-(

Riding further out eliminates the possibility of having a door opened in you
path.

And the further out you are, the less chance there is that a driver will be
trying to overtake - they will instead be forced to wait until there is
enough width to do so safely.

"Forced to wait" - I think not always.

they will still overtake you and much too closely for safety

and you become a statistic.

--

"Primary position" the middle of a traffic lane. To take the "primary position" : to ride a bike in the middle of the lane in order to obstruct other road vehicles from overtaking.

A term invented by and used by psycholists and not recognised in the Highway Code.

Highway Code Rule 168 : "Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass."

On 4 Sep, 15:20, Judith M Smith wrote:
On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 14:50:59 +0100, "mileburner"

"Forced to wait" - I think not always.

they will still overtake you and much too closely for *safety

and you become a statistic.


I *never* get overtaken too closely when I am in primary position,
occasionally when I am in secondary, and often if I am closer to the
pavement than that (not that I often am these days as experience has
taught me to ride further out). It is clear you do not cycle regularly
(if at all) in traffic or your experience would tell you the same
thing.

Rudi