Here we go again with the clowns pushing MHL....
Thanks for posting. Interesting read.
$20 for running lights/signs? What an incredible deal. Pushing $175+ here.
With doorings accounting for 22% of all injury-accidents to cyclists, the city wants to create cycletracks, which often trap cyclists in a door zone? That's just nuts. Heaven forbid we do something about the scofflaw motorists who are actually killing and injuring people. Instead, let's start fining the cyclists and get them back into cars. Brilliant! And let's not forget that 18% of the incidents involved functionally blind motorists.
Almost 400 incidents have no listed cause. We'll have to wait for the real report and not the Globes interpretation of its results.
Clearly the optimal solution is stopping cyclists from disobeying traffic devices! Wait, what?Quote:
Of the 891 crashes in which causes were listed, cyclists ran a red light or rode through a stop sign before colliding with a car 12 percent of the time. Twenty-two percent of the collisions between cars and cyclists occurred when a vehicle door opened unexpectedly on a cyclist. Eighteen percent occurred when a motorist did not see a cyclist.
Given the statistics cited it seems odd that the two incentives- ticketing cyclists and mandating helmets is the response. Only 12% of the accidents were due to bicyclists running lights. Not that it's not worth it to put some effort into cutting back on those but what about the other 88% of the causes. The larger share of which seem to have to do with motorist error.
And that "didn't see the cyclist" accounted for so many of the accidents. Uh, how about stricter enforcement of distracted drivers? If there's anything I'd like to see cyclists cited for its riding without lights at night. However, bleeding heart liberal that I am I think that any fines accrued should be used to hand out free lights to those stopped at night without them- in other words, you just bought yourself a light, now use it! NO excuses! And I am NOT in favor of an MHL but a free or reduced cost helmet distribution program would be acceptable IMO.
And how about ticketing drivers that buzz too close to cyclists or right hook- and almost should count. Or opening door on a cyclist, whether an accident occurs or not, should be punishable, if a cop sees it.
For those who think the bike lanes increase a risk of doorings I'd love to see the statistics that support that assumption- especially as it relates to Boston. I've ridden there since 1980 and doorings have always been the number one danger on Mass Ave and Comm Ave long before a bike lane was even imagined on those roads. If anything, doorings on Comm Ave have dropped since the advent of bike lanes on that road.
Where do the the door zone Henny Pennys think almost all cyclists ride on urban streets with both dense traffic and parking allowed, with or without bike lanes? Answer: on the same piece of door zone real estate and not where the VC gang dreams that cyclists should ride.
It would be interesting to do an analysis of cyclist lane position in all these accidents where the driver "didn't see them". I have noticed that both here in NYC and in Boston that now that bike lanes have been in place for a few years there is a bit more expectation on the part of drivers that a bike may be in the lane. Still, NO guarantee, and never should it be, but still it may be an improvement over roads with no bike lanes where drivers just remain in their clueless states of distraction.
The full report: http://tinyurl.com/afgd5dn
I was one of many volunteers who inputted data for a few hours from Police Reports into the Pedestrian Bike Crash program. (the program was based on a pedestrian crash data system, so things like right and left hooks aren't able to be fully coded) Many of the reports were vague in how the crash occurred, and quite a few had no mention at all of how the crash occurred. The reports were in written form, no diagrams, with most proper nouns, including names, X'ed out.
I was under the impression that the data only went through 2011 and not 2012 (the bike lanes on Mass Ave and the BU Bridge were installed in December of 2011). I'll have to read the report to find out more.
So no real conclusions can be made about cyclists running those red lights. The report is a victim of poor record keeping and is therefore meaningless to draw any conclusions from, let alone make policy around it.
The A&S doomsayers who predict the imminent demise of anyone who dares to cycle in the dreaded door zone are whistling dixie to the great majority of cyclists who manage to handle this task without incident, day in and day out. The same doomsayers castigate painted lines that serve the purpose, if nothing else, to deter some motorists from riding too close to the zone where cyclists WILL be riding, despite what some A&S experts think is best for them.
So with NO reliable data, the city wants a mandatory helmet law.Quote:
Between 2010 and 2012, the BPD was not reliably recording helmet usage. The BPD does take helmet use seriously, as evidenced, by way of example, by their distribution of hundreds of helmets per year. It is recommended that BPD begin collecting helmet data moving forward.
So I have to admit that for a skilled, savvy, experienced cyclist some bike lanes can increase cyclist safety if used correctly with all the due caution of riding on the roadway.
I liken the bike lane stripe to cutting a sheet of plywood length wise. Try doing the cut without drawing a line and most likely you'll drift slightly off course. Now do it with the line. Same thing happens with the bike lane stripe. The bike rider and the driver tends to hold their line better. And the presence of the lane and white silhouette of a bike rider is a constant remind that bikes may be present on the road.
So how do the rest of you read this:
And twelve percent occurred when a cyclist rode into oncoming traffic.