A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » General
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

cyclist fatality statistics



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 8th 06, 12:27 AM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
gds
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 375
Default 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  
Old December 8th 06, 02:39 AM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
Wayne Pein
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 657
Default 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  
Old December 8th 06, 02:22 PM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
Mark Hickey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,083
Default 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  
Old December 8th 06, 05:08 PM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
Matt O'Toole
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 657
Default 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  
Old December 8th 06, 06:09 PM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
gds
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 375
Default 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  
Old December 8th 06, 06:41 PM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
David L. Johnson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,048
Default 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  
Old December 8th 06, 06:46 PM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
gds
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 375
Default 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  
Old December 8th 06, 07:09 PM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
Wayne Pein
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 657
Default 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  
Old December 8th 06, 07:14 PM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
Wayne Pein
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 657
Default 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  
Old December 8th 06, 07:37 PM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
gds
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 375
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 05:05 AM
Update on a.b thread from May 05: Another Cyclist Fatality (in Canada) cfsmtb Australia 2 January 11th 06 02:54 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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.