RobertHurst

What about semi trucks that get rear ended? Do you think the truck needed to enhance its visibility? Why can't the truck just "Be Visible" like us bicyclists?

Bekologist

....what bitter semantics.

are you suggesting riders are just as visible riding without lights at night? nijna riders just as safe as mechbgon's safety array?

do you understand the recommendation to 'be visible' from the LAB means to enhance your visibility, not a suggestion a rider can make themselves visible to every motorist on the road?

yes, semi trucks get rear ended. so do bicyclists.

that doesn't render moot the safety recommendation to 'be visible' no matter how ardently some want to disparage it. I suspect trucks with running lights are less likely to be rear ended.

RobertHurst

Of course. There are lots of ways to reduce risk. Enhancing visibility is an important one but not the most important or most effective.

Even decked out in high-vis and industrial lights, a rider may still be relying primarily on dumb luck, depending on their mindset.

RobertHurst

Don't tell me you're that lost. Has anyone made this argument? Enhancing visibility is very important. Put it at the top of the list if you want.

Judging by their invocation "Be Visible!" I'm not sure what the LAB meant, or what they think. As far as I know, from that wording, they have no clue about bicycling safety, and haven't thought much about it.

Of course running lights make the truck less likely to be rear ended. And the tremendous SIZE of the thing makes it less likely to be rear ended. And the flashing lights on the cop car make it less likely to be rear ended, but they all get rear ended anyway (And front-ended, and side-ended, etc.) with surprising frequency.

But if a truck could just "Be Visible" it would not be rear ended at all, at least, not accidentally.

Maybe the truck should just have "Been Visible."

Look, I understand this is just a word game to most of you out there. To me, it is not. It is very real. It is very important. A bicyclist can not "Be Visible." You just can't. Sorry. I know this hurts.

Change the words around so they make some sense.

chipcom 

humans

Leebo

I'm guessing intersections are more prone to accidents than some others road areas? Anyone have some stats on this?

genec

Makes loads of sense to me... I fully understand what you are saying and fully agree.

I used to state on this forum to act as if you are invisible; what I called "Casper" mode... folks that believe in cyclists will see you, those that do not, will not see you... a play on the old Casper cartoons. Of course I would then get responses about "well if you are invisible how do you keep from being run over..." etc. Sigh... the semantic games went on and on.

The bottom line is no matter what you do, you cannot make motorists actually see you... and you must keep this in mind when you are on the streets. There is no magic formula. Work to achieve the best visibility you can, but don't depend on it... that is the bottom line.

Oh and yes, one can just go full ninja and act accordingly... bearing in mind that no one can see you... I don't recommend it, but it works for some.

chipcom 

dress and equip to be visible, ride like you are invisible.

Bekologist

enhancing visibility is important. it stands to reason (sophistry?) that when a cyclist IS noticed, the car moves over, passes safely, maybe even toots the horn in dissaproval the rider is unequivocally being 'visible'

Robert, I think you need to lighten up about the bicycle safety advice, dude. You're not sure what the suggestion to 'be visible' means? Are you that willing to be that obtuse?

.....you can enhance visibility, but a rider cannot be visible, right.

i think its time for another glass of bitters.

genec

Exactamondo!!!

but YOU knew that...

Giro

A few weeks ago I learned that beginning in 2010, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHSTA) includes Pedestrian and Bicyclist Crash Analysis Tool (PBCAT) data in their extensive online & down-loadable Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) data! This is a major improvement over prior years because FARS only recorded the crash point-of-impact on the motor vehicle, not the bicycle. Not surprisingly, in most bicyclist-motor vehicle fatalities the front of the motor vehicle hits the bicyclist. What is of interest to bicyclists is, of course, from what direction the motor vehicle was approaching the bicyclist. PBCAT data has this information.

I just now did a cross-tabulation in 2010 FARS of the PBCAT crash-type for the 640 fatal bicyclist-motor vehicle crashes. The eight most common fatal PBCAT crash-types in descending order are (the best I could do to keep the columns somewhat lined up was right justify the lines):

PBCAT Crash-Type Number Percent
Motorist Overtaking - Other/ Unknown 81 12.7%
Parallel Paths - Other / Unknown 60 9.4%
Motorist Overtaking - Undetected Bicyclist 46 7.2%
Bicyclist Ride Through - Sign-controlled Intersection 42 6.6%
Unknown Approach Paths 39 6.1%
Bicyclist Left Turn - Same Direction 38 5.9%
Bicyclist Ride Through - Signalized Intersection 28 4.4%
Bicyclist Ride Out - Other Midblock 24 3.8%

It is quite easy to do these cross-tabulations. If you want to delve deeper, you can download the entire FARS data for any year (PBCAT data reportedly only begins in 2010, however). I've done this but you need to have a reasonably good, fast relational database to trim the tables down to just the roughly 600 to 900 bicyclist-motor vehicle crashes per year. Each year will have roughly 50,000 records with potentially over 100 fields per record. Microsoft Access did this just fine, Open Office Base did not.

If you want to look at both fatal and non-fatal bicyclist crashes both involving and not involving a motor vehicle, the best recent online data I know of is the North Carolina Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Data Tool. I've downloaded cross-tabulations from this site (unlike FARS, unfortunately you can not download the raw data tables the last I checked). I've plotted the increasing frequency of Motorist Overtaking Bicyclist crashes in North Carolina in my post #9 in this past thread.

As with any large data set, these data sets are imperfect. I've done the rather tedious comparison of a recent year of North Carolina bicyclist fatalities in FARS versus North Carolina's online PBCAT data. To the extent online available newspaper and court records are accurate, the data matched up well. Each data set missed a few fatalities and I would not always agree with North Carolina's PBCAT crash-typing, but these discrepancies were not enough to make much difference in the overall analysis.

Another thread about crash data here on BikeForums: Statistics on Collisions

p.s. Of the two data sets, I suspect the North Carolina PBCAT is probably the more accurate regarding the PBCAT crash-typing. Unfortunately, you are limited to cross-tabulation inquiries because you can not download the underlying tables of data, as can be done with the FARS data.

Chris516

If they only rely on being lit up like a Christmas of course they are going to have problems. They also need to utilize lane position as an added way of enhancing visibility.

Chris516

Also lane position

Carusoswi

I would respectfully take issue with this statement. Accidents can occur when no one is breaking the law, and I doubt there is any way to legislate accidents out of the realm of our daily lives.

I do not advocate the removal of bikes from the road, or the removal of pedestrians from bike paths, but whenever you mix modes of travel in terms of relative speed, you increase the probability of accidental collisions, many of which will have no other root cause other than the fact that two travelers were moving at vastly dissimilar speeds.

While it may be easy in hindsight to blame one party or the other, reality in many of these accidents is that no one is really at fault.

You might be traveling at the legal posted speed, round a corner, and strike a cyclist, for instance. Such an accident might have been prevented had you been driving more slowly, but how many of us slow down at every curve. Likely, none of us if we want to be honest.

Now, I'm not saying that most accidents result when no one is breaking the law, but I do say that it is not a forgone conclusion that every accident can be blamed on the breaking of a law by one of the involved parties.

Caruso

Carusoswi

I would be willing to bet that virtually no one on this board actually slows down as they drive their car around a curve to the extent that the slower speed could play a significant role in avoiding the sort of accident you describe. I consider myself a very safe driver, one who remains very conscious of cyclists when I am behind the wheel. I know that I do not slow down enough around each and every curve to eliminate the sort of accident you describe. . . . and if I did drive in that manner, I would likely be pulled over by a cop on suspicion of DUI. What you are really talking about is slowing down to bike speeds at every curve that presents the opportunity for such an accident.

No one, cyclists included, drives that way in a car.

Caruso

CB HI

Then that motorist has violated the basic speed law in which they are required to be able to safely stop for a stationary object/person within their line of sight. Therefore your example is not an accident, the motorist is at fault.

Stop driving at a speed that exceeds your line of sight, you are endangering the rest of us for your selfish convenience.

bikecommuter99

Seems to me that visibility is really the probability that the driver will see you. Biking in all black at night with no lights or reflectors has different odds of visibility from biking in white with lights and reflectors.

Chipcom - Texas did kill a corporation - ENRON!

genec

Sorry, you've lost your bet... I drive in a cautious manner... not in a manner wherein I am expecting to win at some imaginary race. (as so many motorists appear to be engaged in)

I have not always driven in this manner, nor have I always driven. I was for a number of years a car free cyclist.

These days I do have a car and drive it when the need suits me. I tend to drive below the speed limit except on interstate freeways where I often attempt to drive at the speed limit, but find that I more likely follow the flow of traffic... I work to maintain a safe following distance and am rather appalled that so few motorists on high speed roads do this at all.

I slow when cresting hills, when approaching curves, and when approaching any situation that I don't immediately understand... such as slowed or stopped traffic in front of me.

I also abhor the use of cell phones by drivers, but have no objection to their use by passengers.
Many of these habits come from experience, and old defensive driving training I received as a driver, and safety classes I took as a motorcyclist.

I also tout and have mentioned here on BF my habit of "looking twice;" this is merely a habit of checking out the traffic situation with not one glance but with two distinct looks... I find this enables me to better judge the traffic situation and the speeds of anything moving that I should be aware of. I have taught my son these same habits. We also make a joke of motorists that follow too closely... my immediate family all calls such motorists "butt sniffers" in a very derogatory way... in doing so, it reinforces the habit of keeping a safe following distance.

I find little reason to drive in the poor manner I so often observe of others. I am not by any means a perfect driver, but I do strive to drive safely. I feel if we all did our part, the roads would be far safer. Good habits are easy to make.

As a long time cyclist, I find that I see cyclists in traffic easily, and often, from a long way off. I make a game of asking drivers in cars in which I am a passenger the question "did you see the cyclist... if so, what were they wearing." This often prompts drivers to consider what they really were observing on the road.

mechBgon

I really haven't found that to be the case in overtaking situations. Out on the divided highway, the Christmas-tree approach results in many motorists changing lanes to get even further from me before they're within 200 meters, and that's despite my being at the right edge of a 12-foot shoulder already. It's extremely predictable.

If you meant a situation where lane position determines whether the motorist can actually get a direct line of sight or not, then I see your point. Good example: riding next to a line of parked vehicles can make the cyclist seem to pop out of nowhere when someone's trying to pull out in front of the cyclist, or cross the street in a crosswalk for that matter. In that case, it does pay to move away from the obstructions so line-of-sight is available much sooner, for both parties.

Carusoswi

If you drive enough, it's just a matter of time before you encounter a situation where your slowness was not slow enough, your caution level not high enough to avoid an accident (whether involving a cyclist or some other type of vehicle). Unless you slow to 15 mph as you approach every curve or crest every hill, then, it's just a matter of time before you will be surprised by some slow-moving or stationary object around the bend or over the hill.

Based upon what you assert, all the auto-deer collisions that occur on the freeways is the fault of the driver going so fast that he/she is not able to avoid the moving or stationary object. I would say that those auto-animal accidents are the result of poor design in which the unknowing animals are mixed in with motorists conditioned to think that they are driving on a restricted roadway where it is legal and acceptable to drive at highway speeds.

I challenge any driver driving at posted speeds at night to spot a deer standing in the middle of a freeway in time to brake or otherwise safely avoid a collision.

The same idea applies to auto-cycle interaction.

It's easy to thump the bible and declare, after the fact, that the motorist is, by definition, at fault whenever a collision between otherwise law-abiding motorist/cyclist occurs.
Your "rule" seems over-simplified to me.

Believe/state what you will until, at some point, when driving, one of these no-fault accidents happens to you. I've not ever hit a cyclist in my car, but I've experienced two deer collisions. No safe driver could reasonably be expected to have avoided either.

Respectfully,
Caruso

genec

A deer I doubt I could avoid... but it happens rarely enough that the American public is not racking up huge statistical numbers of such incidents. And cyclists rarely frequent interstates... country highways are a different matter... And as an experienced touring cyclist... I drive such roads with caution knowing that around the next tight corner could be one of me.

I won't say it cannot happen though, just that it would be more likely to occur to other less cautious drivers. And yes, this is why I am not of the mind to chant the "take the lane" mantra... there are times when motorists may not see cyclists... especially when the motorist is driving too fast for the situation, and may also be distracted.

BTW I learned to drive in Texas... in and around an area where cattle were frequently on the country highways. They don't move like deer, but hitting one would sure ruin your day.

mikeybikes

Damn those humans. If only we could get rid of them, cycling would be safe.

genec

I disagree with chipcom... imagine a world of nothing but cyclists... how many cycling fatalities would we then have?

The real issue is human drivers. They even kill their own.

martl

Clothing colour is less important than one might think, as are reflectors, which have a tendency to encourage cyclists from taking care of their active lighting (which non-existance is surprisingly rare from causing severe accidents, according to all accident statistics i've seen).
Visibility also includes taking bicycle traffic out of sight of the rest of the traffic, as bike lanes tend to do. Which is the reason bicycling lobbyist organisations in the old world (where using bicycles for commuting has a long history) advocate against them, or at least against laws that force their use. According to surveys done in several cities in germany, a cyclist has a 3-10 times higher chance of getting hit by a car when using a bike lane against using the road, which may *feel* more dangerous because cars are closer, compared to using a bike lane, where one might be hidden from view by parking cars or similar.

Giro

Clothing yes, for example:

Cyclist visibility at night: Perceptions of visibility do not necessarily match reality. Journal of the Australasian College of Road Safety – August 2010
Abstract
Visibility limitations make cycling at night particularly dangerous. We previously reported cyclists’ perceptions of their own visibility at night and identified clothing configurations that made them feel visible. In this study we sought to determine whether these self-perceptions reflect actual visibility when wearing these clothing configurations. In a closed-road driving environment, cyclists wore black clothing, a fluorescent vest, a reflective vest, or a reflective vest plus ankle and knee reflectors. Drivers recognised more cyclists wearing the reflective vest plus reflectors (90%) than the reflective vest alone (50%), fluorescent vest (15%) or black clothing (2%). Older drivers recognised the cyclists less often than younger drivers (51% vs 27%). The findings suggest that reflective ankle and knee markings are particularly valuable at night, while fluorescent clothing is not. Cyclists wearing fluorescent clothing may be at particular risk if they incorrectly believe themselves to be conspicuous to drivers at night. (underlining added, I believe you can google up the entire article; edit- here is the LINK)

The safety of bike lanes (portion of roadway marked off but not physically separated from motor vehicles) and bike /multi-use paths (physically separated from motor vehicles EXCEPT at grade-level crossings) may be a bit more complex. It could depend upon design details, rural vs. urban, actual speed of motor vehicles, etc.

For example in North Carolina, USA of 4,824 bicycle-motor vehicle crashes, the "Bicyclist position prior to the crash" was "Bike lane/Paved shoulder" in 4.7%, "Multi-use path" in 0.6%, but "Travel lane" in 62.2%. It would be interesting to do a rural vs. urban or night vs day, so I'll "crowd source" that short project for another poster to browse over to their site and do the cross-tabulation (it is not that hard, start HERE).

As always, the problem is what is the denominator or how many cyclists are at risk it each setting or what is the "exposure" (hours? distance?) to the risk?