Advocacy & Safety - How much control does a cyclist have?

How much control do you believe a cyclist has in determining his own safety when cycling in traffic?

In terms of percentage? Perhaps 75%. The bulk of one's personal safety is based on two things: precautions taken and the environmental / outside forces. You can't stop a car from hitting you, but you can make every effort to make yourself visible and ride in a vehicular fashion.

15 views, and only 1 vote???
Why is no one voting?

15 views, and only 1 vote???
Why is no one voting?

There are so many variables envolved in VC safety, plus maybe some of us don't want to think about the chances of something going wrong.

I'd say it's 50/50 . . .with the key to safety being that both cyclist and car-driver are visable and predictable to one another.

I voted 90% because I try to anticipate anything that might happen as best I can. Still...

In terms of percentage? Perhaps 75%. The bulk of one's personal safety is based on two things: precautions taken and the environmental / outside forces. You can't stop a car from hitting you, but you can make every effort to make yourself visible and ride in a vehicular fashion.
That is what I thought, and then somedays it seems no matter what you do to become visable. Some drivers are just jerks or don't care.

I suppose with a mirror a cyclist could keep from getting clipped, but at what expense? hitting a road sign? hitting a mailbox? riding into a ditch? It is still an accident although you had taken the precaution of using a mirror.

I voted for 90%- this seems like the most realistic option- cyclist behaviour is the most important factor of course in determining safety- you could for example just use your bike to go round your garden in which case your chance of an accident in traffic would be very low.

In real life however most of us choose to get out there and take some risks to get stuff done.

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.

I'ld like to think I have 75% whilst cycling. Observation and antisipation can go along way to preventing an accident on a bike, as it can with a car.
However I do think their should be some kind of 'test' on a bicycle before being allowed on the road and I think the car driving test could be alot better. Can't comment on the US but my driving test here in the UK only lasted around 20 minutes and I can't see how anyones driving skills can be judged in that short a time. Despite touching the pavement on the 'turn in the road' I still managed to pass first time :eek:
I've since passed my Advanced Driving Test and Police Class 2 (no I'm not a copper) but still don't class myself as an excellent driver, a safer one maybe but I've still got room for improvement.

15 views, and only 1 vote???
Why is no one voting?
Simple. There wasn't a poll when I posted

Its 50-50 but not for the reasons you stated:


50% - It's 50/50. Even the perfect cyclist who makes no mistakes reduces his chances of crashing by only half over a careless cyclist.

The perfect cyclists has a far greater chance of daily survival over a careless cyclist... but in an auto accident situation, the blame or causation is not shared between a perfect cyclist and a careless cyclist, the blame is shared between a motorist and a cyclist.

Become a better cyclist and you reduce your chances of being hit, get better motorists on the road and all users of the roads benefit.

Traffic is predictable; however, individual motorists are not.

This one's easy. Figure the number of crashes you've avoided with your mad skillz versus the number you've been in that you couldn't avoid. I put in "90%" even though I think maybe it's closer to 95% or better. Yes, for every 10-20 incidents I avoid I'd say at most one happens.

I voted 75%. Basically, I think being alert, riding sensibly, and doing your best to be visible and make your intentions known goes a LONG way toward saving your hide, but there are always going to be lousy drivers out there. Kids who just got their licenses who don't know what they're doing, distracted drivers eating their lunch, conducting phone business, handling their children, etc, elderly drivers who can't see well and have slower reaction times, drunk drivers, and other nuts who can't be categorized. For all of the drivers who are alert, who drive defensively, who take care, there's always going to be the guy who hasn't had his coffee and runs a red light 'cause he's still half asleep, or the out-of-towner who is trying to read a map and drive at the same time.

We cyclists can and should watch out for ourselves, and keep an eye out for erratic drivers, people coming off side streets, and pretty much everyone and everything else, but you know, some day, something could be out of your control. I do my best to ensure that I won't end up a street pizza, but I know that is a possibility that is always out there.

84.7%

I thought everybody knew that.

Almost went with 0%, but figured there are some things a bicyclist can do, as a last-minute avoidance measure, so I decided to vote 10%.
We're really all sitting ducks out there. I just try my hardest to ignore that fact while I'm riding.

This is a hard question to answer.

The factor in safety is not being involved in an accident. But accidents by their very definition include such terms as unavoidable, unintentional, unexpected, and chance. You cannot control that which is unavoidable, unintentional, unexpected or by chance. You can try to expect the unexpected, but there are unknowns and then there are unknown unknowns, to loosely quote Rumsfeld.

So, the control you seek is control over that which hasn't happened yet.

I have never been in an accident involving a motor vehicle while riding my bicycle (I did have a reflector jam in my spokes once which caused me to crash). Does this mean I've got the ability to exert near perfect control? Does that even make me above average in skill? I really don't think so. And if my DMV record over my lifetime, and the scores I got on my drivers exam when I was 16 are any indication, I'm not particularly skilled in the operation of vehicles on streets where there are other vehicles. Add my new clipless pedals to the mix and I'm an accident waiting to happen.

Then there is the question of what exactly are you in control of. As an individual I'm pretty much in control only of myself. I can't control all those other people out there. As a citizen, however, I do have some control through laws and such over the behavior of others. But it seems there's been a breakdown over the past few decades in the behavior of other citizens and in the community's willingness or ability or financial capability to enforce laws.

So, focusing only on the control I have over myself, the only thing I can do is make choices. Do I make good ones? Not always.

I do not choose the carless routes every time I can. So right there I've decreased the control I have over becoming a car accident statistic. Were I to choose the MUP over the street I might increase becoming a bike/ped or bike/bike accident statistic instead, which probably wouldn't hurt as much. Either way, I put myself at risk of what others might do to me that I am unable to avoid, unable to expect, that is unintended or happens by chance.

I also don't choose the safest routes I can. I guess I like the expediency of my routes even though I'm at risk of being run over by a confused tourist. I do my best to anticipate what they will do, but they frequently surprise me.

I find myself to be inattentive sometimes. My choice to cycle is partially a reaction to that. Better to turn off my brain with some vigorous exercise than drive home like that trying to solve problems I can't seem to leave behind at work.

I do choose my reactions to car drivers who are demonstrably aggressive or blatantly inattentive toward me as a cyclist. I think I'm ok in that department. I try not to provoke the situation even if that means yielding, pulling over or stopping. Any attempts at assertiveness, I have learned, only worsen the situation. It's not worth it to be dead right, me in my geeky, ***** bike vs. some testosterone mullet-head in a bloated tank.

So how do I vote in your poll? I really don't know. I can't put a number on the amount of control I have over something I personally can't control: the unintended, unexpected, unavoidable, by chance mishap that might happen in the future.

I'd probably choose the 90% option, but not for the 90% figure. I think the statement you list next to it is accurate, but I can't put a number on how much control that statement represents. I could be 99.999999% in control but it would only take one mishap to end my life.

I think cyclists can avoid a lot of accidents just by choosing quieter routes, and best times of day.

I know that this isn't practical for many urban and commuter types, but whenever I read of a local biker getting clipped, it's always either at night, during rush hour, or on a 4 lane race track.

I don't understand the point of this poll.

Ok, of course I could always choose a car-free area to ride around in, but that isn't practical.

The question isn't worded that way, but the intent surely was to decide what level of control the rider has, while doing what he/she is normally doing!?
And in that case, it's close to zero.

I don't understand the point of this poll.
Sure you do; the same as all the other polls from this pollster; more grist for the SergeHead-Brand of Advocacy Mill. Anyone who doesn't provide a brilliant (i.e. the expected and pre-approved) response is subject to an internet interrogation until "understanding" the error of his/her previous response.

When you write your book, are you going to reimburse us for providing your research data?

When you write your book, are you going to reimburse us for providing your research data?
Java, You better provide only EC™ approved data if you expect it to be used in any EC™ tome. Otherwise it will be tossed in the rubbish bin as a superstition.

I chose 90 %.

I believe half the unavoidable risk is from Non-traffic sources (e.g., road surface, debris, wet or icy conditions, etc.), so maybe I should have put 95 %.

I voted 25%. Unlike others, I don't believe drivers have the good intentions that others here seem to believe. If we anal-yze every accident and show that the cyclist could have always done something to avoid it, then why should the drivers ever be listed as "at fault"?

I think cyclists can avoid a lot of accidents just by choosing quieter routes, and best times of dayp.
No offense, but I don't think you and a few others understand this poll. The question is:

How much control do you believe a cyclist has in determining his own safety when cycling in traffic?

I put 25% when in traffic. However, I try my best to avoid traffic, take side streets, etc. But I think the OP's question was very specific to traffic, esp since he's a VC.

You're right Mac... my bad.

Ummm.... in traffic, I slow down, expect anything, and take the lane at intersections, and when I'm travelling at the same speed as the bubble-people.

I also do what my dear ol' Dad taught me about driving - scan the front, glance in the mirror - repeat, repeat, repeat

Maybe it's the wording (or my understanding of the wording) in the poll explanations, but I find it amazing that a majority of respondents thinks it's all too likely or there is a decent chance that a crash he cannot avoid might happen.

I'll agree crashes can happen and there are some things that are beyond my control but I find it's a very rare occurrance for a crash to happen where there was not much that the cyclist couldn't have avoided it with some observance and considerations.

I also think a pedestrian or a motorist face the same risk.

Maybe I'm reading this wrong but, it looks like if what most here believe is true, there would be far, far more cycle accidents than there are.

There are studies done to detemine the amount of cycle commuters there are and there are reports when cars and bicycles collide, but the far larger and less understood questions is, how many bicycles are on the road at any given time? The number of recreational, or occasional cyclists is a great unknown. Just recently the was a news articles that showed, in the United States, that bicycles sold 19 million units in 2004 while cars only sold 16 million units. I think this means there are lots of bicycles out on the street. More that should be considered when people talk about a 1% or 2% rate (that usually is representative of cycle commuters only).

In my province, many pedestrians have collisions with cars. It's not out of line to consider that everyone, at some point, is a pedestrian. Each year, out of 4 million people in the province, approximately 1700 pedestrians are struck by cars. Each year approximately 900 cyclists are hit by cars. About 70% of those collisions are the result of behavior that no self respecting (or self preserving) commuter cyclist would take part in. It begs the question of just how many bicycles are out on the street at once.

We can't really access the risks if we don't know what the odds would be because we don't know the participation levels are.

On the upside, Stats Canada says BC has a commuter cycle population of 2% of all traffic and the Insurance Corporation of BC (along with the RCMP) reports that all bicycles are involved in only 1% of traffic accidents, so I just don't get why anyone here in BC should think that it's all too likely, or there is a decent chance, that a crash he cannot avoid might happen.

It's pretty rare to get hit by a car while riding a bike. But I have had my body hit by a car going 25mph (I was not riding a bike) and I can tell you it hurts a lot. It doesn't hurt quite so much when you get a fender-bender in a car. So I worry about it more when biking and less when driving.

I was hit in February and I still have a bruise/dent all the way now into August. A woman I know was hit by a car as a pedestrian and spent 2 weeks in a coma and 6 months in the ICU and her pelvis will never quite heal up. Plus she seems a little strange, but I just thought that was because she was foreign. When she told me her story suddenly a lot of wierdness could be explained by head injury. Another friend of mine was hit by a car while he was cycling and although he was a little off kilter before it's even worse now since his head injury. He spent about half a year in physical therapy.

It hurts a lot to be hit by a car so I worry more.

Closetbiker - I agree with your analysis.

Operator - the purpose of this poll is to get an idea for what forum members believe about cyclist risk in traffic. The genesis is in the ghost bicycles discussion if you want to know more.

Wow, interesting poll and a perfect example of how different meanings of words can influence the response to a polling question.

Sbhikes has a good response when she notes that it is impossible to give a prediction to what has not happened yet. CdCf has a point when he notes that we are all sitting ducks who are at the mercy of the skills (or intents) of the drivers coming from behind. Even Closetbiker and Helmet Head have a point when accident statistics are stated to illustrate how few cycling accidents there are on a whole.

The problem with this poll is that the probablility of getting hit by a car varies according to each car one interacts with. Getting passed by a car with no mean intentions and adequate skill makes accident avoidance easy for the cyclist. No evasive manuvers. Lane positioning to convey intent and enhance visibility is the only requirement on the cyclist's part. The cyclist has almost full control of the situation. To the extent that this is most often the case, then the overall control the cyclist has over his/her future is near 100%.

To take the extreme opposite: a cyclist trying not to get hit by a driver intent on hitting him/her, the control of the situation rests very little in the hands of the cyclist and very much in the hands of the driver. Diving off the road is really the only response. To the extent this happens very few times, maybe the overall control is unchanged.

Of course, there are drivers who are drunk or unskilled, like the situation in Russia with the Australian woman's cycling team almost completely wiped out by an out-of-control teen driver, the degree of control can vary all the way from 0 to 100%. This, again, is rare, so does not change the apparent overall control the cyclist has.

This is all well and good, but it only takes one accident to "put you off your lunch," as the Douglas Adams might say. Weighing the results of the above analysis by taking into account the consequences of a car accident can very well skew the results toward 0% control. After all, we are being passed hundreds of times by drivers and we cannot easily see, even with a mirror, which of the above types the driver may be. Take any control percentage multiplied by a single zero percent incident, and the result ends up being zero.

But to end on a lighter note; zero percent incidents are extremely, extremely rare in my opinion and experience, and to put too much weight on them results in nobody riding, ever. Furthermore, the more cyclists out on the street, the more rare the zero percent incident is likely to occur. So ride!

Brian, apply your reasoning to other activities, like scuba diving, flying a commercial airliner, sky diving, taking a ride in a taxi, or playing Russian Roulette.

Despite the unknown factors in all of these activities, including cycling in traffic, you can still say a lot about the safety and risk involved, and the control the participants have in each.

There are degrees of risk and safety in all activities (and in doing nothing, for that matter). Scuba diving is perhaps a good analogy. The risk is greatly alleviated by those who take training to get certified, and follow the principles and practices taught in the training. I believe the same applies to cycling in traffic. The main difference is that the degree of safety determined by the participant's behavior is well understood for scuba diving, and how much that degree varies based on training, experience and using well known skill and practices, while in traffic cycling it seems to be assumed that the participant's behavior is much less of a factor, and that most adults cyclists can't make much of a difference in improving their safety through training and experience, and following well known skills and practices.

The problem with this poll is that the probablility of getting hit by a car varies according to each car one interacts with.
That's not a problem. That would be like saying the problem with a poll or study of risks involved with flying commercial airliners is that the probability of crashing on a given flight varies according to each flight one boards. So what?

We can still say the probability of getting heads on a fair flipped coin is 1/2.
We can still say the probability of dying on a given flight is 1/X.
We can still say the probabiilty of dying (or crashing) on a bike is 1/Y.

And we can also talk about the factors that increase or decrease X and Y, and which ones are more or less significant in changing risk relative to the other factors.

This poll addresses the question of the significance of cyclist behavior to other factors in determining cyclist risk. In particular, given that the risk is 1/X for the average cyclist, what can we to do make it 1/(X*n), where n > 10, or even 100, or dare we hope for n=1,000, only through changes in cyclist behavior?

I'm not voting. Sometimes it really is 0% (for example, when a driver just intentionally and arbitrarily decides to commit vehicular homicide on a whim), and other times it's not (most of the time I guess it's about 50/50).

It depends on whether or not one can choose _where_ they ride. Some places more dangerous than others.

If you are a club cyclist who drives to the idyllic starting points for group rides, I would say your safety is effectively entirely in your hands. Why? because you can choose where you ride and you will choose places that are good for riding.

If you are a big city commuter or a messenger, you have limited choices about where and when to ride. You will find yourself in awkward situations with motorists who are not expecting to interact with cyclists.

As an example, there are some strip mall areas that I absolutely will not ride through under any circumstances. There is too much visual pollution that distracts me and the motorists. Car-car fender benders are frequent in these areas. For the same reason, car-bike accidents are obviously more likely as well. Unfortunately, the car-bike equivalent of a fender bender often ends with the cyclist in the ER. Not surprisingly, you don't see cyclists in these areas very often because the cyclist assumes a greater risk.

It is, of course, silly to attempt to attach a meaningless and deeply subjective "percentage of control/responsibility" to stuff like this. We are talking about the avoidance of very unlikely incidents. But if you have to put a number on it, I would say that the cyclist is >99% in control of their own safety. The last percentage point depends on where they choose to ride.

I voted "95-99% - Almost all crashes are the cyclist's fault, or could have been avoided by the cyclist. "
My reasons are in the Ghost Bike thread. Even though I think the cyclist can and does have the ability to reduce/avoid accidents, I also think the activity of driving a car and the dangers that come with it is too often treated with lack of respect. I think something needs to be dont to make roadways safer for all modes of use. I also think that if driving behavior was better then safe use of roadways by cylists would not be limited to an elite who have the physical capability and the experience to deal with bad motorist behavior.

Al

I think this poll mixes up operator contol and skill with probability.

Even the most skilled cycle operators are sometimes hurt or killed in accidents with cars.

All cyclists are subject to the same laws of physics that govern such things as mass, speed, force and how these forces affect flesh vs. metal.

You can reduce a lot of risk with simple operator skills, such as riding on the right side of the road, but after that there is a diminishing return for your efforts as the laws of physics and the skills of those around you take on greater importance.

You could almost say that the most skilled and trained among us have the least control since they have done all they can to be safe and can do no more. Any improvements in their situation are now entirely up to the drivers and other factors around them.

I find the interesting thing about this poll is the different perceptions people have.

My perception is I have lots of control, the majority find there is little control.

I come to my perception from my experience of riding in heavy traffic daily for over 20 years and all the information I've come accross about bicycles riding in traffic.

Others may not have had such good experiences as me (but make no mistake, I have had problems on occasion) or may be over emphasizing reports on rare incidents. I think this is somewhat like the child abduction fears. Scary, to be sure (what parent can't be frightened that their child might be abducted), but not really a realistic take on the situation.

I think this poll mixes up operator contol and skill with probability.

Even the most skilled cycle operators are sometimes hurt or killed in accidents with cars.

All cyclists are subject to the same laws of physics that govern such things as mass, speed, force and how these forces affect flesh vs. metal.

You can reduce a lot of risk with simple operator skills, such as riding on the right side of the road, but after that there is a diminishing return for your efforts as the laws of physics and the skills of those around you take on greater importance.

You could almost say that the most skilled and trained among us have the least control since they have done all they can to be safe and can do no more. Any improvements in their situation are now entirely up to the drivers and other factors around them.

Very good point! Cycling in traffic is inherently a cooperative exercise between the cyclist and the driver. If the driver chooses not to cooperate, there is little a cyclist of any skill can do to control the situation. Fortunately for us, most drivers choose to cooperate, albeit begrudgingly at times, rather than provoke the consequences (or maybe just the inconvenience) of a collision.

In this discussion, it should be remembered that the above logic is also true of driving a car in traffic, though the consequences of a collision are higher. So in comparing cycling to driving, I am not sure there is much difference between them as far as risk goes, as long as the cyclist is doing his part by riding vehicularly.

Very good point! Cycling in traffic is inherently a cooperative exercise between the cyclist and the driver. If the driver chooses not to cooperate, there is little a cyclist of any skill can do to control the situation. Fortunately for us, most drivers choose to cooperate, albeit begrudgingly at times, rather than provoke the consequences (or maybe just the inconvenience) of a collision.

This is a good point as well. Road use is a co-operative venture that most all users take part in.

I think there are some that are less willing to co-operate than others, but I do think it is a rare individual that chooses to not co-operate and willingly put someone elses life in danger just to be less inconvienienced.

There's a difference between threatening someone and following through on that threat.

If there are such unco-operative drivers that will follow through on their threats around, I don't think it matters if you're on foot, bicycle or automobile, they'll just bash on through.

There's a difference between threatening someone and following through on that threat.

If there are such unco-operative drivers that will follow through on their threats around, I don't think it matters if you're on foot, bicycle or automobile, they'll just bash on through.
I am not concerned about the drivers who threaten with intention and the potential for follow thru. I am more concerned about those who threaten by behavior - i.e. speeding, not paying attention, agressive lane changing, driving like they are in a video game, etc. Some who fit these behaviors are uncooperative as they are not responsibly sharing the road with all users. That uncooperativeness can lead to accidents, intentional or not.

Al

Very good point! Cycling in traffic is inherently a cooperative exercise between the cyclist and the driver. If the driver chooses not to cooperate, there is little a cyclist of any skill can do to control the situation. Fortunately for us, most drivers choose to cooperate, albeit begrudgingly at times, rather than provoke the consequences (or maybe just the inconvenience) of a collision.

In this discussion, it should be remembered that the above logic is also true of driving a car in traffic, though the consequences of a collision are higher. So in comparing cycling to driving, I am not sure there is much difference between them as far as risk goes, as long as the cyclist is doing his part by riding vehicularly.

Exactly... it takes "two to tango." This is why I chose 50-50, even though the wording that went with it did not make sense as to the actual outcome.

Regarding the wording... that was just an artificially assigned set of words to prove the OP's original point.

Bottom line is that all road users are participating in a cooperative effort on the road... which is why it irratates us so when someone throws courtesy out the window and steals a place in a merge, or cuts you off, or swoops in.

... it takes "two to tango." This is why I chose 50-50, even though the wording that went with it did not make sense as to the actual outcome.

This is why it's so important to be observant. A collision occurs when, not only someone doesn't co-operate or is inconsiderate, but when that behavior goes unnoticed. If the behavior is noticed, adjustments can be made to avoid a collision. A bike is an excellent vehicle in being aware of the surrounding it's in, and it's also an excellent vehicle to maneuver quickly.

This is why it's so important to be observant. A collision occurs when, not only someone doesn't co-operate or is inconsiderate, but when that behavior goes unnoticed. If the behavior is noticed, adjustments can be made to avoid a collision. A bike is an excellent vehicle in being aware of the surrounding it's in, and it's also an excellent vehicle to maneuver quickly.


I love that "if" statement. Yup a cyclist can do a lot on the road... but there are others out there too. You only have so much control.

Traffic is predictable, individual motorists are not.

From my point of view, the mobility and exposure the bike provides makes a cyclist less likely to be hit.

Bottom line is that all road users are participating in a cooperative effort on the road... which is why it irratates us so when someone throws courtesy out the window and steals a place in a merge, or cuts you off, or swoops in.

Sometimes unfortunately courtesy isn't the only thing that gets thrown out of windows at cyclists, either.

Just an example of a situation which a cyclist has absolutely no control over. While rare considering how many drivers pass us & don't throw anything, it has happened to just about every cyclist I know at least once.

So far this year in BC, there have been more deaths and injuries to pedestrians standing on the sidewalk by cars (driving on those sidewalks) than deaths to cyclists riding on the road.

There are risks everywhere.

From my point of view, the mobility and exposure the bike provides makes a cyclist less likely to be hit.

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...

So far this year in BC, there have been more deaths and injuries to pedestrians standing on the sidewalk by cars (driving on those sidewalks) than deaths to cyclists riding on the road.

There are risks everywhere.

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.

Sometimes unfortunately courtesy isn't the only thing that gets thrown out of windows at cyclists, either.

Just an example of a situation which a cyclist has absolutely no control over. While rare considering how many drivers pass us & don't throw anything, it has happened to just about every cyclist I know at least once.

This has become an interesting issue in San Diego recently... Locally some drivers have been injured (http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050809/news_1m9rocks.html) by some unknown parties throwing rocks. Currently the suspects seem to be young men in a new silver Mercedes. News at 11.

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.

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


This has become an interesting issue in San Diego recently... Locally some drivers have been injured by some unknown parties throwing rocks. Currently the suspects seem to be young men in a new silver Mercedes. News at 11.
A couple weeks ago somebody was hit in the face with a blast from a fire extinguisher in Santa Barbara. It was an out-of-state SUV with a 12 year old boy doing the deed. (On a road with no bike lane, either.)