Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009

On Nov 16, 10:29*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Nov 17, 12:27*am, Frank Krygowski wrote:



On Nov 16, 11:01*pm, James wrote:

On Nov 17, 2:33*pm, Phil H wrote:

The
most common manner of collision is when a driver strikes a cyclist
from behind"

What the ~!?

Calling Frank Krygowski to the terminal...

(He just loves to write about what he calls "fear from the rear".
According to Frank, we shouldn't be concerned at all that we might be
hit from behind.)

Hits from the rear are responsible for a large percentage of cyclist
fatalities. *But cyclist fatalities are extremely rare. *(There were
not even 700 in all the U.S. in 2009, if I recall correctly, compared
with over 4000 pedestrians, and tens of thousands of motor vehicle
occupants.) *In the US, there are at _least_ 8 million miles ridden
between bike fatalities.

The vast majority of bike crashes or wrecks are caused by something
you see in front of you, not behind you. *Most common causes of bike
crashes are simple road hazards - things like gravel, potholes,
slippery stuff, cracks that swallow wheels, etc. *After that, there
are cars that turn left in front of you (left in the US), cars that
right hook you, cars that pull out of stop signs or driveways, car
doors that open in front of you. *There are a surprising number of
bike-bike crashes, too.

If you worry about the minuscule chance of being killed from behind,
and therefore spend a lot of time gazing into your rear view mirror,
you're almost certainly _more_ likely to get into a wreck from a left
cross, a right hook, a door, a pull-out, a pothole, a slippery spot,
or even a dog.

P.S. And while data collection on this is poor, there are some strong
indications that a large percentage of the "hit from behind" cyclists
are riding in the dark without lights or reflectors.

- Frank Krygowski

Hi Frank,

I would love to get some constructive criticism -- can you be more
specific?
I am not a professional researcher but I would like to improve.

Regarding "large percentage" being dark without lights:

I think the data, poor though it may be, shows that is not at all the
case:

There were 10 hit-from-behind cases.
Only 4 were in darkness. I tend to believe that all of these victims
were meeting their lighting requirement/duty (to have a rear reflector
or light). In at least two of the cases the police specifically said
to the media words to the effect of "the bicyclist was doing
everything right", or something.
Additionally, ALL FOUR were struck by alcohol-involved drivers, and
generated indictments for manslaughter (and IIRC all 4 resulted in
conviction of either manslaughter or neg hom); I am told
authoritatively that to prove any homicide charge here the prosecution
must show the collision was the fault of the defendant, and not simply
that the defenant was DUI.
Other anecdotal evidence is that several (3 by my count) were somewhat
hard-core roadies doing night training during our (Phoenix) hot
weather months, and not, say, homeless transients just out rolling
around. (I don't say that to sound cold. every life is sacred; but all
things being equal some groups of cyclists are more likely than others
to have a reflector or light).
Oh, and by the way; all four were hit-and-run drivers.

The other 6 were in the light. One was listed as dawn and that guy
specifically had a reflector (and large/slow vehicle triangle). the
dusk victim's driver complained of sun glare.

On Nov 18, 5:43*am, Ed wrote:

The other 6 were in the light. One was listed as dawn and that guy
specifically had a reflector (and large/slow vehicle triangle). the
dusk victim's driver complained of sun glare.

We had a veteran killed earlier this year. Got run over from behind
by a bus. The bus driver said the sun was in his eyes.

JS.

On Nov 17, 10:43*am, Ed wrote:
On Nov 16, 10:29*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:





On Nov 17, 12:27*am, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Nov 16, 11:01*pm, James wrote:

On Nov 17, 2:33*pm, Phil H wrote:

The
most common manner of collision is when a driver strikes a cyclist
from behind"

What the ~!?

Calling Frank Krygowski to the terminal...

(He just loves to write about what he calls "fear from the rear".
According to Frank, we shouldn't be concerned at all that we might be
hit from behind.)

Hits from the rear are responsible for a large percentage of cyclist
fatalities. *But cyclist fatalities are extremely rare. *(There were
not even 700 in all the U.S. in 2009, if I recall correctly, compared
with over 4000 pedestrians, and tens of thousands of motor vehicle
occupants.) *In the US, there are at _least_ 8 million miles ridden
between bike fatalities.

The vast majority of bike crashes or wrecks are caused by something
you see in front of you, not behind you. *Most common causes of bike
crashes are simple road hazards - things like gravel, potholes,
slippery stuff, cracks that swallow wheels, etc. *After that, there
are cars that turn left in front of you (left in the US), cars that
right hook you, cars that pull out of stop signs or driveways, car
doors that open in front of you. *There are a surprising number of
bike-bike crashes, too.

If you worry about the minuscule chance of being killed from behind,
and therefore spend a lot of time gazing into your rear view mirror,
you're almost certainly _more_ likely to get into a wreck from a left
cross, a right hook, a door, a pull-out, a pothole, a slippery spot,
or even a dog.

P.S. And while data collection on this is poor, there are some strong
indications that a large percentage of the "hit from behind" cyclists
are riding in the dark without lights or reflectors.

- Frank Krygowski

Hi Frank,

I would love to get some constructive criticism -- can you be more
specific?
I am not a professional researcher but I would like to improve.

Regarding "large percentage" being dark without lights:

I think the data, poor though it may be, shows that is not at all the
case:

There were 10 hit-from-behind cases.
Only 4 were in darkness. I tend to believe that all of these victims
were meeting their lighting requirement/duty (to have a rear reflector
or light). In at least two of the cases the police specifically said
to the media words to the effect of "the bicyclist was doing
everything right", or something.
Additionally, ALL FOUR were struck by alcohol-involved drivers, and
generated indictments for manslaughter (and IIRC all 4 resulted in
conviction of either manslaughter or neg hom); I am told
authoritatively that to prove any homicide charge here the prosecution
must show the collision was the fault of the defendant, and not simply
that the defenant was DUI.
Other anecdotal evidence is that several (3 by my count) were somewhat
hard-core roadies doing night training during our (Phoenix) hot
weather months, and not, say, homeless transients just out rolling
around. (I don't say that to sound cold. every life is sacred; but all
things being equal some groups of cyclists are more likely than others
to have a reflector or light).
Oh, and by the way; all four were hit-and-run drivers.

The other 6 were in the light. One was listed as dawn and that guy
specifically had a reflector (and large/slow vehicle triangle). the
dusk victim's driver complained of sun glare.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The full report Manner and Fault in Bicyclist Traffic Fatalities:
Arizona 2009 is aavailable in pdf format:

http://azbikelaw.org/report/2009CyclistFatals.pdf

Phil H

On Nov 17, 1:43*pm, Ed wrote:

Hi Frank,

I would love to get some constructive criticism -- can you be more
specific?
I am not a professional researcher but I would like to improve.

Regarding "large percentage" being dark without lights:

I think the data, poor though it may be, shows that is not at all the
case:

There were 10 hit-from-behind cases.
Only 4 were in darkness. I tend to believe that all of these victims
were meeting their lighting requirement/duty (to have a rear reflector
or light). In at least two of the cases the police specifically said
to the media words to the effect of "the bicyclist was doing
everything right", or something.
Additionally, ALL FOUR were struck by alcohol-involved drivers, and
generated indictments for manslaughter (and IIRC all 4 resulted in
conviction of either manslaughter or neg hom); I am told
authoritatively that to prove any homicide charge here the prosecution
must show the collision was the fault of the defendant, and not simply
that the defenant was DUI.
Other anecdotal evidence is that several (3 by my count) were somewhat
hard-core roadies doing night training during our (Phoenix) hot
weather months, and not, say, homeless transients just out rolling
around. (I don't say that to sound cold. every life is sacred; but all
things being equal some groups of cyclists are more likely than others
to have a reflector or light).
Oh, and by the way; all four were hit-and-run drivers.

The other 6 were in the light. One was listed as dawn and that guy
specifically had a reflector (and large/slow vehicle triangle). the
dusk victim's driver complained of sun glare.

First, understand that any small data set may vary greatly from the
averages shown in a larger sampling of data. This is true whether
you're measuring temperatures around the inside of your house, or
counting cyclist crashes and fatalities in a particular area. Arizona
data for 2009 may be anomalous, and give far different results from
Arizona between 1989 and 2009. And Phoenix data may not apply well to
Santa Fe, or to Miami or Cleveland. If you don't have long-term data
for your specific city, it's probably best to go with national
averages, or long-term data for similar locales.

Second, according to reading and corresponding I've done, there are
fairly significant shortcomings in bike accident data collection.
Riley Geary (whose efforts have been described in various cycling
publications) has studied this intensely, and found great
discrepancies in data from neighboring, near-identical counties, which
led him to conclude that sometimes cops at the scene just don't get
things right, probably because the forms they use aren't designed to
capture data we might be interested in. One of those data types is
lighting at night, according to Geary. It's just not reliably
recorded by cops. There _may_ be a "Proper equipment?" box, but the
cop might not even think lights matter enough to be "proper."

But for contrasting data, here's a quote from
http://www.floridabicycle.org/freedomfromfear.html
by Mighk Wilson:

"I collect a good deal of information about cycling crashes. It’s part
of my job as a bike coordinator. Regrettably, what most people get to
see are just raw numbers and media reports. (Some are even echoing
these reports in their arguments to get cyclists removed from the
roads.)

"For example: in Orange, Seminole and Osceola Counties there were 644
bicyclists-versus-motorist crashes in 1994; 11 resulted in death.
Scary thought, huh? But how many of those involved a cyclist driving
on the right side of the roadway (not on the sidewalk) during daylight
hours and obeying the signs, signals and rules of the road? Only 74,
and of those not one was a fatality. Of those 11 deaths, 8 occurred at
night, and 5 involved cyclists hit from behind. (How often do you see
a cyclist out at night without lights?) The other 3 daytime deaths
involved kids who failed to yield (ages 10, 15 and 16). These are the
proportions of crash types you’ll see in most Florida cities.

"Of those 74 crashes, 24 involved an overtaking motorist, and that’s
the type of crash people fear most. That’s 24 daytime, non-fatal,
motorist-overtaking crashes for an entire year for an area with more
than 1.1 million licensed motorists (not including tourists). That
means only one motorist out of 46,000 (0.002%) in our area in 1994 was
so incompetent as to hit a bicyclist from behind in broad daylight.
Only 13 resulted in significant injuries and only 4 in incapacitating
injuries. Only 2 of the 24 motorists claimed they "did not see" the
cyclist."

I'll add that getting hit from behind can come from cyclist actions.
Failure to control a narrow lane can certainly contribute, if a
motorist is tempted to squeeze by when he shouldn't. In fact, I (and
most of the skilled cyclists I know) consider controlling a lane to be
the best defense against being hit from behind. But for many
cyclists, fear of being run down from behind causes them to try to
allow motorists to pass when they shouldn't - an exactly backwards
strategy.

FWIW, when riding at night or in other low-visibility conditions, I
think a rear light is far, far better than just a rear reflector. But
in any case, I wouldn't be overly concerned with getting hit from the
rear. There's far more important stuff going on in front of you.

- Frank Krygowski

On Nov 17, 4:21*pm, James wrote:
On Nov 18, 5:43*am, Ed wrote:

The other 6 were in the light. One was listed as dawn and that guy
specifically had a reflector (and large/slow vehicle triangle). the
dusk victim's driver complained of sun glare.

We had a veteran killed earlier this year. *Got run over from behind
by a bus. *The bus driver said the sun was in his eyes.

Regarding sun in drivers' eyes: If the sun is low in the sky, and
you're between a motorist and the sun, you may indeed be invisible. A
sensible motorist should be using his visor properly to shade his
eyes, and driving at a speed where he won't hit anything or anybody;
but lots of motorists don't understand that.

So be aware of low-sun situations. It's really bad only for a few
minutes before sunset or after sunrise. It's probably easy enough to
avoid.

- Frank Krygowski

On Nov 17, 1:22*am, DirtRoadie wrote:

OMG ,I 'm done with riding.

Fine.

- Frank Krygowski

On Nov 17, 6:56*am, Peter Cole wrote:
On 11/17/2010 12:27 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
... cyclist fatalities are extremely rare. *(There were
not even 700 in all the U.S. in 2009, if I recall correctly, compared
with over 4000 pedestrians, and tens of thousands of motor vehicle
occupants.) *In the US, there are at _least_ 8 million miles ridden
between bike fatalities.

That's just a guess.

That "guess" is from John Pucher's data, in the paper _Making Walking
& Cycling Safer," from Transportation Quarterly, Vol. 54, No. 3,
summer 2000. He cites Sources: U.S. Department of Transportation,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Traffic Safety Facts;
and USDOT, Federal Highway Administration, Nationwide Personal
Transportation Study and Highway Statistics.

That doesn't guarantee it's absolutely correct, but it's far from
being a guess. I should mention, that's the lowest estimate I've
seen for miles ridden between fatalities in the US.

Even if true, assuming 80K bike lifetime miles (not very much for a
serious cyclist), that's a 1:100 chance. Too damn high.

Is there a number you would not claim "too damn high?" Probably not.

And note that the estimate is the grand average, based on all the
fatalities of all the riders. Your hypothetical 80k mile serious
cyclist should have a far smaller chance of being one of those
fatalities, because he's almost certainly riding on the right side of
the road, not riding while drunk, he probably _is_ using lights if he
rides at night, he's probably not riding out of driveways into the
paths of motorists, etc.

Remember Moritz's survey of adult bike commuters who were LAB
members? They averaged 11 years or 32,000 miles between crashes that
caused at least $50 damage or required any medical treatment.

The problem of "hit from behind" crashes is that there's not much a
cyclist can do to prevent them, that's what makes them so disturbing.

Yep, it's a psychological thing. People have greater fear for rare
events that they can't do anything about, than they do for common
events that they _could_ control, but don't. That's why people are
irrationally afraid of commercial aviation, but not of far riskier
motoring.

- Frank Krygowski

On Nov 17, 8:07*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Nov 17, 1:22*am, DirtRoadie wrote:

If you worry about the minuscule chance of being killed from behind,
and therefore spend a lot of time gazing into your rear view mirror...

OMG, I'm done with riding.

Fine.

Frank you PROMISED you were through with me. Now go away and let me
criticize your looney logic (nice oxymoron) in peace.
So do you or do you not use a rear view mirror?
Now don't lie. The archives will catch up with you.
DR

On 11/17/2010 9:21 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
[...]
Yep, it's a psychological thing. People have greater fear for rare
events that they can't do anything about, than they do for common
events that they _could_ control, but don't. That's why people are
irrationally afraid of commercial aviation, but not of far riskier
motoring.


butbutbut, you do not have to deal with TSA goons while motoring.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 19:21:21 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

And note that the estimate is the grand average, based on all the
fatalities of all the riders. Your hypothetical 80k mile serious
cyclist should have a far smaller chance of being one of those
fatalities, because he's almost certainly riding on the right side of
the road, not riding while drunk, he probably _is_ using lights if he
rides at night, he's probably not riding out of driveways into the
paths of motorists, etc.


Dear Frank,

Speaking of not riding while drunk . . .

"One In Three Fatal Bicycle Accidents Linked To Alcohol"

Drinking alcohol and bicycling don’t mix well, say Johns Hopkins
researchers, whose study of 466 Maryland bicyclists found that a third
of fatally injured riders had elevated blood alcohol levels at the
time of their accident. In addition, a blood alcohol concentration of
0.08 grams per deciliter – the legal level of drunkenness in most
states – was found to increase the rider’s risk of fatal or serious
injury by 2,000 percent. . . .
http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/press...ARY/010220.HTM

***

A few examples, the first from today's newspaper . . .

***

Cyclist gets DUI ticket after unsteady ride through major Boulder
intersection
By John Aguilar, Camera Staff Writer
Posted: 11/16/2010 12:53:58 PM MST

A University of Colorado student who steered her bicycle into a car on
28th Street and then careened into a median twice -- falling to the
ground each time -- got up and kept right on riding until an officer
finally pulled her over, police said.

Patricia Forget, 19, was arrested Saturday night on suspicion of
driving a bike under the influence and riding a bike in a careless
manner.

"I shouldn't ride my bike home," she told police, according to a
report. "I'm too drunk."

Police said Forget's blood alcohol level was 0.215, more than twice
the legal level for driving.

The incident made for the fifth arrest this year by Boulder police of
a suspected drunken cyclist. DUI arrests of cyclists in the city have
steadily increased over the last few years -- one was recorded in
2007, three in 2008 and five last year.

Forget declined to speak to the Camera on Tuesday.

She was spotted by a Boulder police officer around 11:30 p.m. heading
northbound on 28th Street toward Valmont Road on a Gary Fisher
mountain bike. She entered the intersection on a red light and crashed
into a vehicle that was going westbound on Valmont, the officer
reported. He said the driver of the car apparently saw Forget coming
and remained stationary as she approached.

The officer said Forget -- who had stuck her hand out on the hood of
the vehicle -- pushed herself off and continued riding until she
slammed into a median on the north side of Valmont Road. She fell off
her bicycle, got back on, and again struck the curb of the median,
falling to the ground a second time.

The officer flipped on his lights and pulled Forget over at 29th
Street and Valmont Road.

He reported that her eyes were red and watery and that she laughed at
inappropriate moments. Forget failed voluntary roadside maneuvers, the
officer said, and admitted to having three or four drinks that
evening.

She was booked into jail, and her bicycle was confiscated and placed
into evidence.
http://www.dailycamera.com/cu-news/ci_16627639

***

Boulder bicyclist suspected of drunken pedaling
Denver Post staff and wire reports
Posted: 08/11/2010 01:00:00 AM MDT

Police arrested a 38-year-old Boulder man Monday on suspicion of
biking while intoxicated after he admitted to hitting a car and trying
to run a red light, according to the Daily Camera.

Officers who were on foot near 28th Street and Valmont Road saw Jonas
Rizzo almost crash his bike about 4:40 p.m. Monday, Detective Melissa
Kampf told the Camera. When police contacted him, Kampf said, he was
visibly drunk and he told them he hit a car while trying to run a red
light.

He was booked and released from the Boulder County Jail.
http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_15736744

***

Suspected drunken bicyclist dies in Weld wreck
By Kieran Nicholson
The Denver Post
Posted: 08/28/2009 09:51:11 AM MDT
Updated: 08/28/2009 03:52:05 PM MDT

A 44-year-old bicyclist, suspected of being drunk, died Thursday night
in Weld County when he was hit by one car and then a second vehicle.

Jeff Cleveland of Longmont was riding a bicycle west on Colorado 119
near Weld County Road 7 at about 8:50 p.m. when he was hit by a 2006
Hyundai Accent in the right lane of the road, according to a media
release by the Colorado State Patrol.

Cleveland was thrown from the bicycle and then hit by a second car, a
gold 2001 Dodge Stratus, which also was heading west and was in the
left lane, the State Patrol said.

Cleveland, who died at the scene, is suspected of bicycling under the
influence of alcohol, said Trooper David Hall, a State Patrol
spokesman.

Cleveland was riding his bike on the right shoulder and turned into
the path of the car in the right lane, according to the patrol.

"It's not safe to drink and drive anything, even a bike," Hall said.

Neither of the motorists, Chandler Jeff, 46, of Longmont and Luis
Molina, 19, of Dacono, was injured in the incident.

An investigation into the fatal accident shut the highway for about
three hours Thursday night.

The incident remains under investigation.
http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_13222992

***

Cheers,

Carl Fogel