Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009

"Traffic records for all bicyclist fatalities occurring in Arizona
during the year 2009 were categorized and listed according to manner
of collision and assignment of fault. Primary results are that 11 of
25 fatalities (44%) were determined to be the fault of the cyclist;
while 14 of 25 (56%) were the fault of a motor vehicle driver. The
most common manner of collision is when a driver strikes a cyclist
from behind"

Of the 14 driver caused fatalities there were 6 traffic citations, 7
criminal indictments and 1 neither.
Phil H

On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 19:33:10 -0800 (PST), Phil H
wrote:

"Traffic records for all bicyclist fatalities occurring in Arizona
during the year 2009 were categorized and listed according to manner
of collision and assignment of fault. Primary results are that 11 of
25 fatalities (44%) were determined to be the fault of the cyclist;
while 14 of 25 (56%) were the fault of a motor vehicle driver. The
most common manner of collision is when a driver strikes a cyclist
from behind"

Of the 14 driver caused fatalities there were 6 traffic citations, 7
criminal indictments and 1 neither.
Phil H

Dear Phil,

For anyone curious, 2007-2009 state-by-state fatal traffic crash site
data with maps:

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departm...B%20REPORT.HTM

Click on a state, such as Arizona, search down to "pedalcyclist" for
the fatalities by county, and then click on the link for the map:

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departm..._DATA_2009.HTM

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

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.)

JS.

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.

- Frank Krygowski

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

On Nov 16, 10:27*pm, Frank Krygowski 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,
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.

Wow! Now there's the voice of reason.
I especially like the "if....therefore" part.

Let's recognize the other issues.
If you are obsessed with the possibilty of being hit from the right
you will undoubtedly never look to the left and will be creamed by
something coming from the left that you didn't see. It's pretty
obvious, isn't it?
Geez if you are watching for potholes you will never see dogs.
OMG ,I 'm done with riding. There is just NO way to keep track of what
's going on around you.

DR

On Nov 16, 10:29*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

P.S. And while data collection on this is poor, ...

No ****? Who'd a thunk it?

On 11/17/2010 12:27 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Nov 16, 11:01 pm, wrote:
On Nov 17, 2:33 pm, Phil 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.

That's just a guess.

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


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.

The Portland study was interesting in that it recorded that about 50% of
"serious traumatic events" involved motor vehicles.


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.

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.

On Nov 16, 10:27*pm, Frank Krygowski 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, ........

This also makes CLEAR the danger of rear view mirrors. They should be
outlawed immediately.
DR

On 11/17/2010 12:29 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Nov 17, 12:27 am, Frank 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,
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.


http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/st...-accident.html



This link shows some statistics regarding cycling accidents in Quebec.
While there are some rear ends at night it's not a large percentage.

http://communities.canada.com/montre...cyclistes.aspx


BTW, if you look at the table that shows the number of deaths by
category, you will see the listing "pietons" which means pedestrians
listed just below "occupants de bicyclette" which means cyclists.

Considering that cyclists comprise ~ 16% of the population

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/programs/env...ation-1971.htm

it doesn't seem that there is this vastly greater number of pedestrians
being killed than cyclists. I don't have stats on the % of people that
walk but I imagine it's higher than 16%.

What I find curious is that there have been around 15 cycling deaths per
year in a province of 8 million while there are as you say ~700 in a
country of 300 million. What is the percentage of cycling in the states
these days?