JoeyBike

I am certainly addicted to NOT sitting in traffic jams. Even if I somehow kicked my addiction to cycling, my hate/loathing for all that goes with owning/maintaining/driving cars or using public transit would keep me on a bicycle regardless. Ditching my road bike (and the places I rode it exclusively) is just an effort to minimize a danger that I perceive is amplified on that particular bike in so many ways.

Now..."They" (distracted motorists) will have to crush me, hook me, and disrespect me on a different bike, at lower speeds, on "safer" roads and trails. I can still hold 20mph on my Long Haul Trucker with 26x2.1 Conti Traffic tires - much, much more forgiving on city streets than my road bike.

I felt that my chances of ending up here on BF in the "Another One Gone" column was drastically increased by where and how I rode that particular bike. That's it in a nutshell. As I have posted here about a million times, I believe that EVERYTHING that happens to me once I saddle up and bike on a city street or rural road is my decision and my fault. It's my choice to ride or not ride. The only thing in my control is ME. I am just trying to live by that advice. It's getting too dicey out there (IMO) to continue one aspect of my cycling life. I now choose to stop doing it.

Hey, thanks for the concern!

wphamilton

No more geek-hunts?

I-Like-To-Bike

Nothing thrives better on A&S than climate of fear ranting and fear mongering, often based on hyperbolic press/media snippets and/or fearful nightmares/dreaming of some posters.

JoeyBike

I don't need a road bike to accomplish that.

Long Haul Trucker - Geek Slayer on Vimeo

Yamato72

This happened 15 minutes from my house, on a route that I've ridden. Hoping to hear the final word on what the driver was doing at the time.

vol

It happened at 7:50 p.m.. Was it dusk-like and not completely dark yet?

spare_wheel

Nonsense. The risks are only higher when the measurement used is biased against cycling. On a per trip basis cyclis is far less risky than driving.

Yamato72

We're so far West here (but still Eastern Time) that it gets dark very late, it would still have been light out at that time. I finished a ride at 7:45 last night and still had nearly a half hour of daylight left.

vol

I wonder if the lighting condition could be part of the factor in addition to inattention (dusk and dawn are said to be least favorable for visibility, comparing to completely dark with bike lights).

genec

On a per mile basis... cycling IS more dangerous. If I am commuting, I am replacing the same miles driven with the same miles biked. Therefore the risk factor goes up. When we are speaking of transportation cycling, "per mile" is a more fair comparison.

Per trip basis is somewhat skewed as you may be comparing 30 mile car trips to 2 mile bike trips.

ItsJustMe

That's my feeling too, however, I would like to see actual stats, but ones with the cyclist doing absolutely stupid stuff removed. Take out all the children, take out idiots riding at night with no lights, take out people riding against traffic, speeding off sidewalks and into crosswalks at higher than walking speed, take out people who decide to pass garbage trucks on the right in their blind spot.

I have the feeling that once all that's corrected out of the data, it might be a lot closer than is immediately obvious.

It's almost certainly the case that if you then correct that for deaths via sedentary lifestyle, cycling will become the safer option long term (although assuming that the choices are cycling or couch potato is probably not really valid).

I-Like-To-Bike

Presumably the comparison should be made to a population of motorists that also has the data "corrected" to only include motorists doing the right thing when driving.

ItsJustMe

Since the statistics are intended to compare the safety of a single person who is presumably acting in a safe manner in two different situations, then absolutely. We want to see how safe a safe cyclist is compared to the same person safely operating a motor vehicle.

genec

This data may someday be available... through insurance company databases used to track motorists via GPS dongles that some carriers now use to promote "lower rates."

Don't know how you'd get the same data for cyclists though.

genec

The sad truth is the motor vehicle has the edge... the driver is protected by first the crash cage, then the seatbelt and finally an air bag... the cyclist is protected only by sharp reflexes, good observations, cunning and wile.

Think of it this way... if a motorist and a cyclist traveling at the same speed were to collide into each other... who is more likely to walk away.

Although as a side note... prior to the crash, the cyclist is probably healthier than the driver.

redbaybound

So a question for those with more experience - does having a rear view mirror do any good? The roads I ride on are not very busy, suburban to rural roads. I dont ride at night currently.

genec

The answer is yes... anything you do to make it easier to observe those around you can improve your odds. Those folks that deny mirrors are all doing in the name of "style." F style... avoiding crashes is the goal.

Mark Stone

Yes. A mirror is worth its weight in gold.

thrllskr

Geek Hunt is EPIC! Post more.

wphamilton

Per mile, the bicycle is 3 or 7 times as likely to have an accident IIRC. The big range because data is poor, but it's pretty clear that bicycling is more dangerous per mile in the US.

caloso

Both would walk away because the collision speed is zero.

genec

You didn't do well with word problems in math did you?

OK a motorist is traveling east bound on Mainstreet, a single lane one way road going east. A salmon cyclist is traveling west bound on the same street, going against the flow of traffic. Both are moving at 17MPH. That is the cyclists average speed... the motorist is distracted by the porn on his smartphone, thus has slowed down from his normal 30MPH. They collide head on.

A)Who walks away?
B)What is their combined collision speed?

Get it now?

JoeyBike

Cycling in certain locations without a mirror is not unlike playing Russian Roulette. It has not happened too often considering the amount of miles I have cycled in my life, but at least 3 incidents pop to mind where a mirror MIGHT have saved my life, and countless incidents where the mirror allowed me time to position myself in such a way as to avoid a likely conflict. Like an log truck bearing down behind me in a curve when a car pops around in the opposing lane forcing the log truck fully into my lane behind me. I don't have to turn my head or "wonder" what is going on back there. I already know. I just ditch it.

wphamilton

I know this one! They don't collide because the cyclist bunny-hops the curb and salmons on his merry way, while the motorist smashes into a parked car.

BTW, there is something interesting about this scenario that most people misinterpret. Say it's two cars, both going 30 mph, hitting head on. It's NOT as if the cars hit something at 60, the combined speed - it would be like hitting a wall at 30 mph, both of them. So "combined collision speed" isn't really an important factor here, although the common sense of most people would say that it is. (we're really talking about momentum, conservation thereof)

caloso

Sorry, I was just being pedantic and snarkily pointing out the sloppy wording of your hypothetical. I actually did very well with word problems because I read the entire question and did not assume any unstated information, like the salmoning cyclist or the porn watching motorist or the fact that they are traveling in opposite directions.