How much control does a cyclist have?

[genec]

You know, if they would only stand vehicularly about 4 feet further away into the street those cars would have had to avoid them.


Yeah, but then they would probably be off by three inches and not using a steely eyed gaze. :rolleyes:

[pakole]

I believe that Cyclist have a lot of control over his or her own safety. I have seen incident that can decrease safety like riding the opposite direction, where the car drivers get antsy because a vechile is coming at them, even through its a person on a bike. Also, I have seen incident that increase safety like signaling, where the car yields and allow the bike to make its manuever before continuing.

[closetbiker]

...So that pretty much makes it an even play...

If that's the way you feel, fair enough.

Like I said, cyclists are involved in 1% of traffic accidents and commuter cyclists alone make up 2% of traffic. I feel that makes me pretty safe. (I'd even bet that, of that 1% involved in traffic accidents, that the vast majority - at least three quarters - were recreational cyclists)


Surely those pedestrians are hardly to blame for simply standing on the sidewalks?

Where then does the blame come from? Are the motorists simply more agressive, driving less safely?

Traffic is predictable, individual motorists are not.

The point is risks are there for everyone and I've yet to see something that convinces me that cyclists are more vunerable to risks than others. You can be run over by a car, but so can a pedestrian standing on a sidewalk. Is it likely, or is there a clear chance it may happen? I don't think so (unless, of course, you ride like an idiot or ignore your surroundings)

[noisebeam]

The point is risks are there for everyone and I've yet to see something that convinces me that cyclists are more vunerable to risks than others.
Maybe it also depends a lot on where and when you commute. I know some commute routes that are downright pleasant and relaxing, all on minimally used 25-35mph residential routes. Others commute on highways, high speed arterials, windy narrow rural roads with heavy truck traffic, etc. Some folks have rush hour and stressed out and agressive drivers, some commute against or where there is no rush hour.

Al

[genec]

If that's the way you feel, fair enough.

Like I said, cyclists are involved in 1% of traffic accidents and commuter cyclists alone make up 2% of traffic. I feel that makes me pretty safe. (I'd even bet that, of that 1% involved in traffic accidents, that the vast majority - at least three quarters - were recreational cyclists)


The point is risks are there for everyone and I've yet to see something that convinces me that cyclists are more vunerable to risks than others. You can be run over by a car, but so can a pedestrian standing on a sidewalk. Is it likely, or is there a clear chance it may happen? I don't think so (unless, of course, you ride like an idiot or ignore your surroundings)


The issue is not whether we are at more risk than "others," but how much control do we have regarding that risk... the examples of pedestrians standing on sidewalks that are hit by motorists perfectly outlines my view that while cyclists can do everything right, bad motorists can induce risks that cannot otherwise be overcome by great cycling skills.

I have never said that gaining better skills as a cyclist is not a good thing... Heck I have even taken a Road 1 class after some 30 years as a successful commuter... I learned I do have some weaknesses to work on.

But the bottom line is that I am not the only factor out there in event of an accident... others also contribute to the situations. In fact, as a skilled cyclist, I actually am more vulnerable to the unprecidented actions of others as I already ride vehicularly, in the proper direction, and stop at signs and signals... (amoung other things... ) therefore, I am higher on the learning curve where the greatest of effort yields the smallest results.

Bear in mind we are not talking about risk in general, but how much does a cyclist have control of the factors that govern their contributions in an accident situation.

Go you one further... (ah the dreaded hypothetical situation) If there were no cars on the road, what would be the odds that I would have a collision with one? Put cars on the roads (motorists) and the odds increase that I will have a collision. Yes, that is a simplified illustration... but hey... motorists are hitting pedestrians on sidewalks... surely the pedestrians did not contribute to that situation.

[chephy]

Surely, there are risks everywhere. Nobody who voted said that a cyclist has 100% control - this is a completely silly notion, of course. But it is also clear that cyclists have significant control over their safety.

I have no statistics, but I would guess that a good percentage of all bike-car collisions are legally a fault of cyclists. I see cyclists around here breaking the law all the time: riding the wrong way, hopping on and off the sidewalk etc. Hence by just following the rules of the road one can significantly improve one's chances of survival. :) But even more can be achieved by following some rules that are not official but highly efficient. For example, I see cyclists riding right next to parked vehicles all the time! I saw a cyclist get a door prize just a few weeks ago (luckily, no injuries were sustained). I simply refuse to do that. In Toronto, most collisions of this type occur in the downtown area and the traffic doesn't move that fast there anyways, so I feel all right occupying the whole lane when necessary. There were no attemps to run over me yet. And no attempts to pass unsafely as there is simply no room to pass.

So, by just riding lawfully we eliminate all risks of colliding with the law-abiding and reasonably careful motorists. By exercising some more caution, we can prevent lots of accidents involving the less careful drivers. So the only thing we have truly no control over are the blatantly malicious and aggressive drivers. Hence the question of how much control a cyclist has really depends on the type of drivers most common in his area. I find that in Toronto there are not too many really nasty driver types. It helps that cycling is very popular in town, so the motorists are used to sharing the roadway with us. If only now those cyclists became more predictable and actually followed the rules of the road.... This no doubt would result in more driver cooperation too.

[closetbiker]

I get your point genec. It's a good line of reasoning.

I guess my angle in response was a cyclist has a much control in determining his safety in traffic as anyone else and that the likelyhood of a chance at a collision is as low as anyone else has.

If someone thinks there is a low likelyhood that one has a chance of being hit by a car while in a car or while on foot, why should they think there is a greater chance of that on a bicycle?

(This is the overwhelming response that I get as a cycle commuter - "Isn't it dangerous to ride in traffic?" - to which I reply, "It's just as dangerous (or not) as you want to make it, and by the way, weren't you in a car accident 2 years ago?")

[genec]

Surely, there are risks everywhere. Nobody who voted said that a cyclist has 100% control - this is a completely silly notion, of course. But it is also clear that cyclists have significant control over their safety.

I have no statistics, but I would guess that a good percentage of all bike-car collisions are legally a fault of cyclists. I see cyclists around here breaking the law all the time: riding the wrong way, hopping on and off the sidewalk etc. Hence by just following the rules of the road one can significantly improve one's chances of survival. :)


Why are these basic rules of the road NOT enforced? Perhaps that is a question that should be asked. If a motorist was driving the wrong way, they would get ticketed. How often does this happen to a cyclist? Just in the last two days I have confronted 3 cyclists that were going the wrong way. Not kids mind you... college age young adults. I almost got into a head on collision with one... he was in shadows coming up a road I was going quickly down.

These are the very folks that can benefit the most from a bit of education... yet there is little if any enforcement of these "users of the roadway."

[chephy]

If someone thinks there is a low likelyhood that one has a chance of being hit by a car while in a car or while on foot, why should they think there is a greater chance of that on a bicycle?

Well, in fact, bicycles are LESS likely to collide with cars than other cars (remember 2% of traffic, but 1% of collision). It's just that bike riders are MORE likely to suffer severe injuries if a collision occurs. I guess these two factors sort of balance each other out.

[webist]

I voted for only 25% in traffic. No matter how many lights, reflectors, vests, hand signals, cycling dogma (vehicular, invisible, hybrid), etc. you have, you're still at an incredible disadvantage in traffic and at the mercy of cars, trucks, and SUVs. Don't fall into the false sense of security that your particular cyclist kit & style will make you in control. The soccer mom on the phone stuffing her face and yelling at her kids and the irate businessman corporate-drone pounding down his 4th cup of coffee control 75% of your security. Why? Size matters - a 6,400# Hummer H2 SUV driven even slightly recklessly vs. a 200# bicycle + rider will control the bicycle each and every time. You can't avoid vehicles. They zoom past you at 50+ mph, barely giving you enough room. And if you "take the lane" and if they see you, they will still zoom past you unaware of the width of their monster trucks. I know, I've done it - taken a lane & taken the gutter - and still get buzzed either way.

There are a lot of unskilled and malicious drivers out there. Most of the accidents they get into are little fender-benders like a small bump here or a tap there. In vehicle vs. vehicle, it's nothing - sometimes not even enough to report to the DMV. But in vehicle vs. bicycle, even those littlest of taps is enough to injure, possibly seriously, a bicyclist.

And you can also ask this question to motorcyclists. We can wear reflective body armor, very secure helmets, be very well lit up, ride the speed limit (i.e. flow with traffic), and still get hit by left-turners or red-light runners or no-look lane-changers. Now imagine a bicyclist who can't even keep up with the flow of traffic. Sorry, but the majority of our safety in traffic is in the hands of the 16 y.o. kid in his ricer and fart-can and his two aforementioned parents.

Oh, and I forgot about the people who actively seek out cyclists to mess with them. The ones with the air-horns, paintballs, beer cans, profanities, etc. You may be doing everything safely, but that still offers zero security against these kinds of people. Even carrying a weapon won't stop them at first since they don't know you are armed.

If my view was as pessimistic as this, I'd sell my bicycle. At the very least, I'd never venture into the traffic.

[closetbiker]

Maybe it also depends a lot on where and when you commute. I know some commute routes that are downright pleasant and relaxing, all on minimally used 25-35mph residential routes. Others commute on highways, high speed arterials, windy narrow rural roads with heavy truck traffic, etc. Some folks have rush hour and stressed out and agressive drivers, some commute against or where there is no rush hour.

Al

Good point.

I try to ride the route less travelled when and where I can. I take particular care for routes that have less intersections. It doesn't bother me if the route is heavily travelled if there are few places where traffic crosses paths with each other because of course, that's where most problems occur.

[closetbiker]

Well, in fact, bicycles are LESS likely to collide with cars than other cars (remember 2% of traffic, but 1% of collision). It's just that bike riders are MORE likely to suffer severe injuries if a collision occurs. I guess these two factors sort of balance each other out.

Yeah, I don't know about that. It's a popular thought but in reality, I don't know if that's particularily true.

The death rate for cyclists and motorists that collide with cars is pretty much the same where I live (0.64% for cyclists vs. 0.79% for motorists) but the death rate for pedestrians that collide with cars is much, much higher than those (4.2% for pedestrians).

I have a report on bicycle/car collisions prepared for ICBC over several years and there is a breakdown of injuries to cyclists when there is a collision. The most common occurrance (If I remember the percentage right) is no injury at all in 25% of the collisions. The vast majority of injuries are relatively minor (I guess everyone has a different idea of what "minor" is).

I know when I was hit by a car, my injury was classified as "serious" although I didn't think it was. I've been hit far harder and had much more pain when I was hit back in the days of playing hockey in the winter and football in the summer. I tore knee ligaments, but it was a minor problem for me (and to top it off I cleaned up in insurance money)

[genec]

Good point.

I try to ride the route less travelled when and where I can. I take particular care for routes that have less intersections. It doesn't bother me if the route is heavily travelled if there are few places where traffic crosses paths with each other because of course, that's where most problems occur.

Ahhh, the view of the seasoned traveler.

[noisebeam]

Ahhh, the view of the seasoned traveler.
Of course the seasoned traveler will take the least hazardous route.

But sometimes we (even if not yet seasoned) are faced with the reality that often the only route is a hazardous one. I know Gene faces this dillema as well with the arterials that connect the mesas where he lives. But I've cycled in some parts of the country where backroutes are practical and in fact wonderful. But I remain frustrated that 'designed' suburban sprawl where I live intentionally designs these backroutes out of the system to get distance travel on arterials and prevent residential thru traffic.

Al

[chephy]

Yeah, I don't know about that. It's a popular thought but in reality, I don't know if that's particularily true.

The death rate for cyclists and motorists that collide with cars is pretty much the same where I live (0.64% for cyclists vs. 0.79% for motorists) but the death rate for pedestrians that collide with cars is much, much higher than those (4.2% for pedestrians).

Interesting. I didn't have such statistics. I did know that most bike-car collisions are relatively minor things. As for the difference between perestrians' and cyclists' death rates, I guess that's because many bike-car collisions result from bikes (moving at a relatively low speed) running into vehicles (that might be stopped or going slowly). I had two such collisions myself - one with a parked car, another with a car coming out of a driveway. These must constitute a large chunk of all bike-car collisions and are usually inconsequential. On the other hand, when a pedestrian and a car collide, it's usually not a pedestrian walking into a car :), but a car, often fast-moving, hitting a pedestrian. I wouldn't necessarily conclude from this data that cyclists are safer on the road than pedestrians; perhaps it's just that they are better at avoiding minor collisions due to their slower speeds.

I have a report on bicycle/car collisions prepared for ICBC over several years and there is a breakdown of injuries to cyclists when there is a collision. The most common occurrance (If I remember the percentage right) is no injury at all in 25% of the collisions. The vast majority of injuries are relatively minor (I guess everyone has a different idea of what "minor" is).

Sure, this makes a lot of sense. It's just that I thought that car riders would sustain no or minor injuries in an even greater percentage of collisions. But if cyclists fare as well or better in that regard - well, I am glad. :)

[sbhikes]

I try to take the flattest route even though it's not necessarily the safest or least traveled. I don't need any gratuitous elevation changes on my way to work.

[Dchiefransom]

Right, that helps, however, the small visual image you present makes you easy to overlook... couple that with the rage of some motorists (even the nicest motorists can become irratated while waiting for anything on the road).

So that pretty much makes it an even play...

My bet would be that the numerous animal lovers, who would definitely say "I didn't see him/her" after hitting a cyclist, would instantly slam on the brakes if a small dog or cat was running along the side of the road. They would also NEVER miss seeing that small dog or cat.

[chephy]

My bet would be that the numerous animal lovers, who would definitely say "I didn't see him/her" after hitting a cyclist, would instantly slam on the brakes if a small dog or cat was running along the side of the road. They would also NEVER miss seeing that small dog or cat. I find animal lovers to be nicer people generally, as compared to the average population, so they'd be less likely to do nasty things to a cyclist when driving. Conversely, the sh!theads who are happy to endanger a cyclist by their reckless driving will probably happily run over any creature that runs into the road. Of course, this doesn't always work, though.

[Brian Ratliff]

So, by just riding lawfully we eliminate all risks of colliding with the law-abiding and reasonably careful motorists. By exercising some more caution, we can prevent lots of accidents involving the less careful drivers. So the only thing we have truly no control over are the blatantly malicious and aggressive drivers. Hence the question of how much control a cyclist has really depends on the type of drivers most common in his area. I find that in Toronto there are not too many really nasty driver types. It helps that cycling is very popular in town, so the motorists are used to sharing the roadway with us. If only now those cyclists became more predictable and actually followed the rules of the road.... This no doubt would result in more driver cooperation too.

Yea, but you Canadians are so mellow anyway... ;)

[Brian Ratliff]

You know, maybe the poll makes more sense if it was worded this way:

"How much control does a cyclist have over his/her safety compared to the control of a driver?"

0% means a cyclist is has no control, 100% would mean that cyclists and drivers are on strictly even terms. If this is the case, then 90% would seem to me to be about right.

[pakole]

I will not agrue with you on that point. I was at work when I made my statement, and now, I realize there is a small part missing. There is also the case of the inconsiderate or unaware motorists, and those times of miscalucaltions that we can call human error, but mostly I believe the cyclist has a lot of control of his or her safety. Optimist? no, realist? yes.

[genec]

I will not agrue with you on that point. I was at work when I made my statement, and now, I realize there is a small part missing. There is also the case of the inconsiderate or unaware motorists, and those times of miscalucaltions that we can call human error, but mostly I believe the cyclist has a lot of control of his or her safety. Optimist? no, realist? yes.

But ask yourself this... does that extra control you believe cyclists have come from cyclists being more highly skilled "drivers" of their vehicles than most motorists are of their cars?

Granted we are more aware of our environment... based simply on having "the windows" down all the time... but do we also have more refined skills, generally?

[closetbiker]

I'd think the extra control that cyclists have doesn't come from cyclists being more skilled. I think the extra control comes from the very nature of the bicycle in the cyclist being far more aware of surroundings and far more maneuverable than autos. Add in the fact that unlike motorcycles, we often travel not directly in the path of vehicles and that may give us an extra measure of safety.

If a cyclist doesn't pay attention to traffic or just keeps to his course regardless of the traffic, he'll hit or be hit even if he's very skilled.

[genec]

I'd think the extra control that cyclists have doesn't come from cyclists being more skilled. I think the extra control comes from the very nature of the bicycle in the cyclist being far more aware of surroundings and far more maneuverable than autos.

If a cyclist doesn't pay attention to traffic or just keeps to his course regardless of the traffic, he'll hit or be hit even if he's very skilled.

So you don't believe that a skilled cyclist has better traffic handling skills than the typical motorist.

Interesting as these are the type of skills that a seasoned cyclist must have as promoted by Helmet Head and others that promote "defensive driving skills" for cyclists. Most motorists do not have these types of skills.

Hence, in my opinion, that means that cyclists have to be better "drivers" then most of the motorists they face.

[closetbiker]

So you don't believe that a skilled cyclist has better traffic handling skills than the typical motorist.

I believe a skilled cyclist has better traffic handling skills than the typical motorist and even a typically skilled cyclist has better traffic handling than the equally skilled motorist.

[pakole]

While your statement is interesting, I think there is some parts missing. Most people bike because they make the choose to bike. A lot of people drive cars because its "the next step in growing up," or "everyone else drive," or "its the only way to get around." A lot of people drive cars because they want to get somewhere not because they like to drive while the opposite is ture with most cyclists. Thus the average cyclist is a better operator of his or her vechile then the average motorist due to increase average interest. Yet, this increase average ability does mean each individual ability is increase automatically. There are those who do not ride approriately and do manuevers that are irresponible. Thus, each cyclist still control his or her safety, but most cyclist are more aware than most motorist not due to environmental effects ("the windows" down all the time, but due to interest.

[genec]

Interesting... I had not thought of it in that manner... of course this does not apply to individuals that are only interested in bikes as transportation... due to economic or other reasons. Although they will still have more awareness of their environment when compared to motorists.

[pakole]

I am assuming that your comment is a reply to my most recent post. If not, please disregard.

1. We must included all cyclists. If we are going to include the SUV-driving, cell-phone-talking, DVD-watching soccer mom into the category of motorist then we must include the here and there cyclist as well.

2. Increase awareness does not equal increase control. For instance, I am aware of the War on Terror, but i have little control over it. Awareness is the information, but control is processed information. If one has not trained their mind and body, he or she will not be able to effectively used the increase amount of awareness.

[genec]

I am assuming that your comment is a reply to my most recent post. If not, please disregard.

1. We must included all cyclists. If we are going to include the SUV-driving, cell-phone-talking, DVD-watching soccer mom into the category of motorist then we must include the here and there cyclist as well.

2. Increase awareness does not equal increase control. For instance, I am aware of the War on Terror, but i have little control over it. Awareness is the information, but control is processed information. If one has not trained their mind and body, he or she will not be able to effectively used the increase amount of awareness.

It is... and:

1) Regarding your earlier comment, those doing the "here and there cycling" often are not inherently interested in cycling... just like those that cycle for economic or legal reasons... Therefore their skills may only be at a minimum, such as most motorists.

2) Your awareness of any situation raises your ability to potentially respond to that situation. If you have no awareness, for instance: if you are in a car with rolled up windows and a blaring sound system you may not hear the ambulance approaching, you cannot respond.


1a) Now again regarding your earlier comment... Those "here and there cyclists" should be taken into account as frankly they do represent a larger proportion of daily cyclists (don't remember the actual citing, it may have been a Philadelphia study). In fact those "here and there cyclists" have perhaps the most to gain on the learning curve of cyclist education, but may be the hardest to reach. They are not likely to read cycling magazines, nor drop into bike shops on a periodic basis.

So for those that wish to see wide spread cyclist education, they are faced with the same issues as evanglists... those that they want to reach, are the hardest to reach... otherwise one is simply "preaching to the choir."

[I-Like-To-Bike]

I believe a skilled cyclist has better traffic handling skills than the typical motorist and even a typically skilled cyclist has better traffic handling than the equally skilled motorist.
I believe oranges taste different than apples but I wouldn't say I believe one tastes better than the other. What the heck are you two comparing to what?

[genec]

I believe oranges taste different than apples but I wouldn't say I believe one tastes better than the other. What the heck are you two comparing to what?

I thought closet biker put it into a pretty clear easy to understand sentence...


I believe a skilled cyclist has better traffic handling skills than the typical motorist and even a typically skilled cyclist has better traffic handling than the equally skilled motorist.


If you go back and read the thread, I proposed that most motorists reach a basic skill level and rarely go beyond that... they do not persue nor attempt to increase their driving skills.

Cyclists by the very nature of their exposure to both the environment, and agressive motorists, either gain more traffic skills or don't fare very well (perhaps quitting after too many close calls or being injured.)

[I-Like-To-Bike]

I thought closet biker put it into a pretty clear easy to understand sentence...

If you go back and read the thread, I proposed that most motorists reach a basic skill level and rarely go beyond that... they do not persue nor attempt to increase their driving skills.

Cyclists by the very nature of their exposure to both the environment, and agressive motorists, either gain more traffic skills or don't fare very well (perhaps quitting after too many close calls or being injured.)
The only thing that is clear is that an undefined bicycling "skill level" (oranges) is being compared with an undefined motorist "skill level" (apples) with additional speculation on potential effects of the two unrelated variables on an undefined population of cyclists.

The vagueness of the whole exercise is of course ideal material for the pollster to conjure into a predetermined conclusion for his upcoming tome on bicyling safety

[genec]

The only thing that is clear is that an undefined bicycling "skill level" (oranges) is being compared with an undefined motorist "skill level" (apples) with additional speculation on potential effects of the two unrelated variables on an undefined population of cyclists.

The vagueness of the whole exercise is of course ideal material for the pollster to conjure into a predetermined conclusion for his upcoming tome on bicyling safety

Yup, all this is pure speculation... Apples and oranges that just happen to be in the same fruit basket... while the oranges try to avoid the apples who can, in an instant bruise said oranges.

Just opinions. Just like you have opinions.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Yup, all this is pure speculation... Apples and oranges that just happen to be in the same fruit basket... while the oranges try to avoid the apples who can, in an instant bruise said oranges.

Just opinions. Just like you have opinions.
Now that's a fact!!

[closetbiker]

Yeah, it's all just a matter of how each of us think things are. How things really are, could be much different.