Advocacy & Safety - I want to challenge a couple of long held beliefs...

One is that rear end collisions occur least often for cyclists. Could this possibly be because cyclists tend to ride along the right hand side of the road and not in the lane with other traffic?

Motor vehicle accidents tend to be of the rear end collision type.

According to the National Hiway Safety Administration, Vehicle Crashes are the leading cause of Death in the US. http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/809843.PDF

According to this summery report, inattention was the leading cause of crashes, followed by excessive speed. http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/inju...t/summary.html




* DRIVER INATTENTION 22.7%
* VEHICLE SPEED 18.7%
* ALCOHOL IMPAIRMENT 18.2%
* PERCEPTUAL ERRORS (e.g. looked, but didn’t see) 15.1%
* DECISION ERRORS (e.g. turned with obstructed view) 10.1%
* INCAPACITATION (e.g. fell asleep) 6.4%


The types of accidents break down as follows:
Quote:
* SAME DIRECTION, REAR END

(Driver Inattention Factors) 12.9%

* TURN, MERGE, PATH ENCROACHMENT

(Looked, Did Not See, etc.) 12.0%

* SINGLE DRIVER, ROADSIDE DEPARTURE

(Speed, Alcohol) 10.3%

* INTERSECTING PATHS, STRAIGHT PATHS

(Looked, Did Not See, etc.) 4.1%

* SAME TRAFFIC-WAY, OPPOSITE DIRECTION

(Inattention, Speed) 2.6%

* BACKING, OTHER, MISCELLANEOUS, ETC.

(Following Too Closely, Speed) 1.3%


Notice that rear ending accidents occur more frequently... this somewhat denies data that some bicycle advocates believe regarding cycling accidents... and perhaps also the safety of cycling "in the middle of the lane."

The other belief is that bike lanes are deadly... this belief, I believe comes from the fact that bike lanes are where cyclists tend to ride, thus making "deadly BL" a self-fullfilling prophecy. Whereever cyclists ride on the road is where they will tend to have the most accidents. If cyclists were riding on the center of a road, then statistically most accidents would occur there... just as most accidents occur within a few miles of your home... because that is where you tend to be.

So if cyclists stopped riding along the right of the road, would they then be subject to more rear end collisions as illustrated by the automotive statistics... and would the statistics involving accidents on the right side of the road change?

The other belief is that bike lanes are deadly... this belief, I believe comes from the fact that bike lanes are where cyclists tend to ride, thus making "deadly BL" a self-fullfilling prophecy.
I just came across this tonight: http://www.sharetheroadmn.org/rules.html#rule2 It corrects for usage of each facility, and finds bike lanes and bike routes to be safest. Hopefully this isn't too old of news; it's the first I've seen of it.

Looks like full text is here: http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/Moritz2.htm

According to the National Hiway Safety Administration, Vehicle Crashes are the leading cause of Death in the US. http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/809843.PDF

Not exactly correct. According to the referenced report, motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death among people from 3 to 33 years old. But for the overall population, crashes account for 1 on every 55 deaths. This indicates that, while 3 to 33 year olds are more likely to die in auto crashes, it is in great part due the the fact that people in these age groups are very unlikely to succumb to heart disease, cancer, or other medical problems.

And using automobile crash statistics to draw conclusions about automobile-bike crashes is pretty shaky ground.

And using automobile crash statistics to draw conclusions about automobile-bike crashes is pretty shaky ground.

I disagree. I think most of us on the board use roads and lanes in much the same fashion as other vehicles.

Comparing us to bicycle accident stats that include factors like kids learning to ride in parks or on the sidewalk strikes me as a far weaker comparison.

Here's the stats from that share the road mn site.

Bicycle Crashes per Million Kilometers Traveled

Street with bike lanes 26
Street with signed bike route (but no marked lanes) 32
Major street with no bike facilities 41
Minor street with no bike facilities 59
Multi-use trail 88
Off road/unpaved trail 282
Sidewalk 1026

Do you think this table also suffers from the "that's where they ride so that's where they crash" problem? I am not sure because in my area people mostly ride on streets with bike lanes but in other places people might mostly ride on sidewalks.

Not exactly correct. According to the referenced report, motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death among people from 3 to 33 years old. But for the overall population, crashes account for 1 on every 55 deaths. This indicates that, while 3 to 33 year olds are more likely to die in auto crashes, it is in great part due the the fact that people in these age groups are very unlikely to succumb to heart disease, cancer, or other medical problems.

And using automobile crash statistics to draw conclusions about automobile-bike crashes is pretty shaky ground.

I understand what you are saying, but the auto bike crashes are based on a biking population that strictly "keeps to the right" on shoulders, hugging curbs and in bike lanes. Hence the low occurance of rear collisions; cyclists are "out of the way." However, if as some VC advocates seem to endorse, we should be riding out of the BL, especially at intersections, then that puts us more in line for the typical auto type crashes, which are rear enders.

Also the proponderance of the idea that BL are deadly is frankly based on where cyclists ride. Put cyclists in the middle of the lane, and that too would be as deadly, based on the typical auto crashes.

All I am trying to do is inject some common sense in the statistical tirade that is usually waved about regarding rear end collisions and "deadly Bike Lanes."

I understand what you are saying, but the auto bike crashes are based on a biking population that strictly "keeps to the right" on shoulders, hugging curbs and in bike lanes. Hence the low occurance of rear collisions; cyclists are "out of the way." However, if as some VC advocates seem to endorse, we should be riding out of the BL, especially at intersections, then that puts us more in line for the typical auto type crashes, which are rear enders.

Hugging curbs doesn't necessarily keep one from getting read ended, at least not in a narrow lane.

Here's the stats from that share the road mn site.

Bicycle Crashes per Million Kilometers Traveled

Street with bike lanes 26
Street with signed bike route (but no marked lanes) 32
Major street with no bike facilities 41
Minor street with no bike facilities 59
Multi-use trail 88
Off road/unpaved trail 282
Sidewalk 1026

Do you think this table also suffers from the "that's where they ride so that's where they crash" problem? I am not sure because in my area people mostly ride on streets with bike lanes but in other places people might mostly ride on sidewalks.

That data differentiates between a major and minor road without bike facilities (slightly interesting is that the minor roads had more accidents) but do not do the same for roads with bike lanes/bike route signs. It would be interesting to see that break down.

Here's the stats from that share the road mn site.

Bicycle Crashes per Million Kilometers Traveled

Street with bike lanes 26
Street with signed bike route (but no marked lanes) 32
Major street with no bike facilities 41
Minor street with no bike facilities 59
Multi-use trail 88
Off road/unpaved trail 282
Sidewalk 1026

Do you think this table also suffers from the "that's where they ride so that's where they crash" problem? I am not sure because in my area people mostly ride on streets with bike lanes but in other places people might mostly ride on sidewalks.

These statistics dont suffer from "that's where they ride so that's where they crash" problem because the figures are expressed in M of km travelled. I believe that intersections are a major location for accidents, which could account for the higher rate on minor streets since they often have more intersections than major streets. Multi use trails have a high frequency of accidents, but they usually involve lower speeds, which reduces the severity.

Bikes and riders are small, kinda slow moving, and much harder to see than cars. The lights they generally have( generally none, and rarely a brake light, and they almost never have lights as visible as a car's) just aren't very good.They are obviously more dangerous to ride per mile than a car. Bike lanes are a great partial solution; car drivers know they are to stay out of the bike lane(except at intersections), and if they are aware of the bike lanes(how couldn't they be) they know to expect bike riders to come squirting out on the right at intersections.

Any VC advocate who would prefer "educating drivers" that bike riders deserve a full lane(to ride 15 mph on a 35mph street) is a fool. Cars, trucks, buses etc are much, much more important than bikes. If it is a choice between bikes and cars, it will be an easy choice for voters(who ultimately decide these issues). We-bike riders-will be shunted to just a few streets-streets we will still have to share with cars.

We should all push for bike lanes on the major arteries, and lanes on as many minor streets as possible.

The numbers posted above clearly show that bike lanes are safer than no lanes. Only wrong headed fools would not want a lane where car access is restricted-cars are too big and too fast to safely share streets in the USA.Voters will never agree to let a tiny minority of 15 mph vehicles dictate the speed of travel on 35-45 mph streets. Why should they? Hey, why have sidewalks; why not just let pedestrians walk in the middle of the street??? The cars can just wait!!
Thanks,
Charlie
Charlie

That data differentiates between a major and minor road without bike facilities (slightly interesting is that the minor roads had more accidents) but do not do the same for roads with bike lanes/bike route signs. It would be interesting to see that break down.

You can find the study here: http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/Moritz2.htm

You might also want to check out this site concerning bike lanes as well:
http://www.ci.cambridge.ma.us/%7ECDD/et/bike/bike_lanes.html

Cars, trucks, buses etc are much, much more important than bikes.

This explains everything.

One is that rear end collisions occur least often for cyclists. Could this possibly be because cyclists tend to ride along the right hand side of the road and not in the lane with other traffic?

Motor vehicle accidents tend to be of the rear end collision type.

...So if cyclists stopped riding along the right of the road, would they then be subject to more rear end collisions as illustrated by the automotive statistics... and would the statistics involving accidents on the right side of the road change?
Gene, moving leftward a bit in the lane to communicates to motorists there isn't enough room to share the lane. That concern is of greater importance to me than being hit from behind, because as you said, that type of collision among cyclists is rare.

I'm not ready to disregard bicycle crash statistics in favor of applying automobile crash statistics to bicycles.

Cars, trucks, buses etc are much, much more important than bikes.

This explains everything.
Yes, and it exemplifies the Cyclist Inferiority Phobia (http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Social/cycinf.htm).

HH's link includes:


The fear is unreasonable because motor traffic from behind causes only a very small proportion of casualties to cyclists, about 0.3%.

Back to the original topic, the risk factor figure cited by John here is more than two orders of magnitude smaller than a study done in my area, depending on the definition of "casualty".

The study, which I have cited numerous times before...

http://www.toronto.ca/transportation/publications/bicycle_motor-vehicle/index.htm

...reports that motorist overtaking (not incl. right or left hooks) is

11.9% of all reported crashes

4 of 10 cyclist fatalities.

I agree the fear may be unreasonable, but I remain unable to reconcile these statistics.

Back to the original topic, the risk factor figure cited by John here is more than two orders of magnitude smaller than a study done in my area, depending on the definition of "casualty".

The study, which I have cited numerous times before...

http://www.toronto.ca/transportation/publications/bicycle_motor-vehicle/index.htm

...reports that motorist overtaking (not incl. right or left hooks) is

11.9% of all reported crashes

4 of 10 cyclist fatalities.

I agree the fear may be unreasonable, but I remain unable to reconcile these statistics.

I've seen other studies, some posted here in A&S before, that indicate that collisions caused by overtaking traffic are similar to what you cited above, and far above Forester's outdated and suspect claim.

Gene, moving leftward a bit in the lane to communicates to motorists there isn't enough room to share the lane. That concern is of greater importance to me than being hit from behind, because as you said, that type of collision among cyclists is rare.

I'm not ready to disregard bicycle crash statistics in favor of applying automobile crash statistics to bicycles.

Sure, "that type of collision is rare," based on cyclists being primarily along the right side of the road... but how does that "type of collision" rate when cyclists bias more to the left as you state? Why wouldn't auto crash statistics be a far comparison when the cyclist is "driving" in the same region on the road as a motorist?

I suspect cyclists who bias more to the left also have other/different habits. (relative to those who bias right and relative to motor vehicle drivers)

For example, being more aware of approaching same direction vehicles. Perhaps also responding to the behavior of the drivers of such vehicles.

Al

Here's a pretty good PDF from the Federal Highway Administration:

http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pedbike/ctanbike/ctanbike.htm

Covers most of the bases.

Sure, "that type of collision is rare," based on cyclists being primarily along the right side of the road... but how does that "type of collision" rate when cyclists bias more to the left as you state? Why wouldn't auto crash statistics be a far comparison when the cyclist is "driving" in the same region on the road as a motorist?
At this point, your question is enough to stimulate discussion, but there is no data at present to support a conclusion.

Despite the car crash statistics that show various reasons for being hit from behind by another motorist, my belief is that rear-end collisions are pretty much avoidable by following at a safe distance. "Driver inattention" and "vehicle speed" are just other ways of saying "folowing too closely for conditions."

Motorists are hit from behind because either they are too close and so they stop too quickly, or the person behind them is too close, or both. Cyclists are hit from behind, most of the time, because of impaired visibility of some kind (see http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pedbike/ctanbike/39.pdf ) Tailgating a cyclist not only is a rarity (nobody's that patient,) but it's much less likely to cause serious injury at 15 mph. than the classic high-speed hit-from-behind "I couldn't see him" scenario.

I think the best way to avoid rear-end collisions is to be visible.

Believe it or not, I believe that cars tend to give bicyclists more space while taking the lane than they give other vehicles. I see tailgaters all the time.

Tailgaiting (me) is not that rare when I ride centerish in a NOL. There is always some JAM I encounter a few times a week that wants to try and intimidate me with closeness to somehow get me to move 'away'. In these cases I am traveling 20-25mph or so. It doesn't happen when there is a vehicle ahead of me, so I the chance for accident is mainly if I loose control, not if I stop suddenly (for say a stopping vehicle ahead) and get rear ended. If traffic was slowing ahead I'd be going overboard communicating that I will be slowing/stopping soon.

Al

So John Forester says .3 (3 tenths) of a percent and the Toronto Dept of Transportation says 11.9%. That's quite a big difference.

Either JF made his figure up, or things are much worse in Canada than the US, or else something has changed over the past 30 years.

Here's a pretty good PDF from the Federal Highway Administration:

http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pedbike/ctanbike/ctanbike.htm

Covers most of the bases.

And again it is based on what most cyclists do... which is ride along the right edge of the road, or ride in the sidewalk.

So John Forester says .3 (3 tenths) of a percent and the Toronto Dept of Transportation says 11.9%. That's quite a big difference.

Either JF made his figure up, or things are much worse in Canada than the US, or else something has changed over the past 30 years.

Exactly... and what happens as more cyclists "left bias" as is constantly touted here. Do we see the stats changing to reflect what happens to autos on the road?

I glance over my shoulder to let him know I see him and am not riding any closer to the curb. If that does not work, I glance again, and slow down.


Tailgaiting (me) is not that rare when I ride centerish in a NOL. There is always some JAM I encounter a few times a week that wants to try and intimidate me with closeness to somehow get me to move 'away'. In these cases I am traveling 20-25mph or so. It doesn't happen when there is a vehicle ahead of me, so I the chance for accident is mainly if I loose control, not if I stop suddenly (for say a stopping vehicle ahead) and get rear ended. If traffic was slowing ahead I'd be going overboard communicating that I will be slowing/stopping soon.

Al

And again it is based on what most cyclists do... which is ride along the right edge of the road, or ride in the sidewalk.
Look at those diagrams again, Gene. They indicate whether the cyclist was on the sidewalk or in the lane, but they say nothing about lateral lane postion. If anything, this diagram shows the cyclist riding centrally in the lane, rather than on the right edge, as you are postulating.

http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pedbike/ctanbike/13b.pdf

Of course, it's only a diagram, and since no mention of lateral position is made (other than location on street or sidewalk,) it can't be used to indicate central lane position in the stats. My point is that no statistics yet exist to support your supposition.

There is only one way to do that, and that is to gather data on lateral lane position of cyclists hit. Your supposition is based on the idea that cyclists probably ride to the right, but that is only your best guess. I could just as easily offer an alternative supposition that most cycling on roads where these crashes occur is done by experienced cyclists, and as such, they are more likely to adopt a more assertive lane postion.

But neither you nor I have any clear data to support these opposing claims.

However, you have offered your supposition, and it would be up to you to support it with clear data.

Yes, and it exemplifies the Cyclist Inferiority Phobia (http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Social/cycinf.htm).
"Cyclist Inferiority Phobia" you're kidding,right??
I didn't make any comment about being hit from behind. I said bikes are more dangerous(to the rider0 per mile traveled than a car. I also said they were much harder to see.
My comments on the relative speeds-15mph vs 35mph were mainly to point out the obvious; car drivers don't want to be held up for blocks and blocks by a bike rider.
I sure as heck don't/won't vote for any pol. that wants to encourage bike riders to take the full lane. I will vote for a pol who wants to install bike lanes.
I ride maybe 1200 miles a year-all street. I drive~20,000 miles a year. My car driving is much, much more important than my bike riding.For most folks, it isn't even close because they don't ride bikes at all.
We need bike lanes. We don't need folks encouraging bike riders to claim a full lane. It would cause a backlash in most of the USA, and get us voted off most streets.We are already excluded from some roads-Interstates- so don't say it can't happen. What happens in a west coast city is no indication of what would happen in the rest of the country.
I'm not particularly concerned with getting hit from behind, except perhaps being hit by one of those wide mounted mirrors that all the work trucks around here have.
I ride with my wheels 3 feet from the edge of the road, when I hear a vehicle, I move right so my wheelsare about 15-18' from the edge. I also make sure I hold my line, and I keep an eye out for obstructions in the road, or above the road-branches and crap sticking out from peoples trash cans, trash piles.
We need our own lanes-6-8 feet that is ours.It will keep everyone happy,and safer.If we "take" an entire lane from the cars, we will be pushed off more roads(just like the interstates).

Charlie

Look at those diagrams again, Gene. They indicate whether the cyclist was on the sidewalk or in the lane, but they say nothing about lateral lane postion. If anything, this diagram shows the cyclist riding centrally in the lane, rather than on the right edge, as you are postulating.

http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pedbike/ctanbike/13b.pdf

Of course, it's only a diagram, and since no mention of lateral position is made (other than location on street or sidewalk,) it can't be used to indicate central lane position in the stats. My point is that no statistics yet exist to support your supposition.

There is only one way to do that, and that is to gather data on lateral lane position of cyclists hit. Your supposition is based on the idea that cyclists probably ride to the right, but that is only your best guess. I could just as easily offer an alternative supposition that most cycling on roads where these crashes occur are done by experienced cyclists, and as such, they are more likely to adopt a more assertive lane postion.

But neither you nor I have any clear data to support these opposing claims.

However, you have offered your supposition, and it would be up to you to support it with clear data.

My supposition is based on the data gathered back in 1976 regarding crash data that John Forester et al used to compile their statistics of cyclist accidents... this I compare to auto crash data. Based on my observations and the lack of a large general population of center biased vehicular cyclists, I tend to feel that the low percentage of rear ending collisions for cyclists is based on typical right biased cyclists. Yet this same data is being used to suggest that cyclists can ride center biased. Auto accident data suggests that being center biased would involved quite a few more rear end collisions. This also supports the suggestion that since (based on the limited data available) there are not more rear end collisions, cyclists are probably right biased.

Now I realize that is somewhat circular thinking, but at this point there is no study comparing center biased cyclists and their "safety record" to right biased cyclists. Visibility is often touted as a reason to center bias... and I can fully understand that, but at the same time, is there an increased risk of rear end collision? That really is the question. Is increased visibility possibly also "exposing" cyclists to events that they might not otherwise be exposed to? (rear end collisions)

By the same token... "bike lanes are deadly," but again that premise is based on cyclists being injured in BL... which is where they tend to ride... again circular thinking, but that same thinking is being used to promot cycling out of BL... which simply puts cyclists in the same position as autos... and those rear end collisions.

I doubt a valid study could be made at this point, simply due to the lack of center biased cyclists in the population.

I doubt a valid study could be made at this point, simply due to the lack of center biased cyclists in the population.
Whether or not lane position was center-biased or right-biased does not seem to be indicated in the bicycle crash data I offered from the Federal Highway Adminstration's website. Instead, the analysis of the data seems to focus more on other factors, especially visibility. This study is valid, and it's conjecture to surmise that a different study would turn up another result.

However, the whole point of asking questions like you asked is to provoke thinking and further study. I wouldn't say a valid study can't be conducted to assess the effect of cyclist central lane positioning on rear-end collisions from overtaking motorists--it's just that it hasn't been done, yet.

Until then, it's a valid question that remains to be answered definitively. But as I said before, visibility has already been demonstrated to be the major factor in all previously studied crashes of that sort, regardless of lane position.

As for the effect of lane position on visibility, that's a different story. I'm not prepared to debate that one way or the other, as it's not part of my contention in this thread. My comments about lane positioning are related to how it seems to affect the clearance of overtaking vehicles.

I tend to feel that the low percentage of rear ending collisions for cyclists is based on typical right biased cyclists. Yet this same data is being used to suggest that cyclists can ride center biased. Auto accident data suggests that being center biased would involved quite a few more rear end collisions. This also supports the suggestion that since (based on the limited data available) there are not more rear end collisions, cyclists are probably right biased.

Now I realize that is somewhat circular thinking...
It may be somewhat circular but I think it makes a lot of sense.

Cyclists get hit in bike lanes not because they are more dangerous but because that's where the cyclists are.

Cyclists don't get rear-ended so much because they aren't in a place where being rear-ended by a car is possible. Makes sense to me.

Cyclists don't get hit as much when they ride in the middle of the road. Is that because hardly anybody does it?

Motorists get hit on the roadways. Does that mean it's safer to drive cars on the sidewalk?

"Cyclist Inferiority Phobia" you're kidding,right??
I didn't make any comment about being hit from behind. I said bikes are more dangerous(to the rider0 per mile traveled than a car. I also said they were much harder to see.
My comments on the relative speeds-15mph vs 35mph were mainly to point out the obvious; car drivers don't want to be held up for blocks and blocks by a bike rider.
I sure as heck don't/won't vote for any pol. that wants to encourage bike riders to take the full lane. I will vote for a pol who wants to install bike lanes.
I ride maybe 1200 miles a year-all street. I drive~20,000 miles a year. My car driving is much, much more important than my bike riding.For most folks, it isn't even close because they don't ride bikes at all.
We need bike lanes. We don't need folks encouraging bike riders to claim a full lane. It would cause a backlash in most of the USA, and get us voted off most streets.We are already excluded from some roads-Interstates- so don't say it can't happen. What happens in a west coast city is no indication of what would happen in the rest of the country.
I'm not particularly concerned with getting hit from behind, except perhaps being hit by one of those wide mounted mirrors that all the work trucks around here have.
I ride with my wheels 3 feet from the edge of the road, when I hear a vehicle, I move right so my wheelsare about 15-18' from the edge. I also make sure I hold my line, and I keep an eye out for obstructions in the road, or above the road-branches and crap sticking out from peoples trash cans, trash piles.
We need our own lanes-6-8 feet that is ours.It will keep everyone happy,and safer.If we "take" an entire lane from the cars, we will be pushed off more roads(just like the interstates).

Charlie

I ride narrow, rural, shoulderless roads for the most part, one lane each direction, 45mph speed limit, cars doing 55-60, fairly heavy traffic volume during rush hour because everyone is commuting into the city to work. I ride the right tire track and only move right, allowing folks to pass, when it is safe to do so for all of us. Unlike my old urban/suburban commutes, I get no grief from the drivers...there isn't any sidewalk, there isn't any path or bike lane. There is no effort here to push cyclists off the road.

Indeed, part of my current commute runs alongside a MUP, as did one of my previous commutes in the city...yet again, I rarely have anyone try to order me to the MUP and there is no effort to get bikes off those roads.

I don't buy the phobia BS any more than you do, but I also don't buy any BS that makes cycling on the roads out to be more dangerous that it really is or envisions some backlash by the population to get cyclists off the road because we dare ride there. If you want to confine yourself to bike lanes and paths, that is your choice and if you've hung around in here for any length of time you know that I go out of my way to defend your right to build and use those facilities...all I ask is that at the same time you don't try to deny me my choice and right of riding on the roadways.

Whether or not lane position was center-biased or right-biased does not seem to be indicated in the bicycle crash data I offered from the Federal Highway Adminstration's website. Instead, the analysis of the data seems to focus more on other factors, especially visibility. This study is valid, and it's conjecture to surmise that a different study would turn up another result.

However, the whole point of asking questions like you asked is to provoke thinking and further study. I wouldn't say a valid study can't be conducted to assess the effect of cyclist central lane positioning on rear-end collisions from overtaking motorists--it's just that it hasn't been done, yet.

Until then, it's a valid question that remains to be answered definitively. But as I said before, visibility has already been demonstrated to be the major factor in all previously studied crashes of that sort, regardless of lane position.

As for the effect of lane position on visibility, that's a different story. I'm not prepared to debate that one way or the other, as it's not part of my contention in this thread. My comments about lane positioning are related to how it seems to affect the clearance of overtaking vehicles.


Uh sorry, the visibility issues I am refering to are when a cyclist approaches an intersection... by being center or left biased, you will be seen sooner and you can see any vehicles at that intersection sooner, simply due to the sight lines of the wider angles of the approaching intersection... that is what I mean by visibility issues...

Uh sorry, the visibility issues I am refering to are when a cyclist approaches an intersection... by being center or left biased, you will be seen sooner and you can see any vehicles at that intersection sooner, simply due to the sight lines of the wider angles of the approaching intersection... that is what I mean by visibility issues...
I thought you meant being more visible to overtaking motorists, since that is what we were discussing. This has also been a topic of discussion related to central lane postioning as expounded by HH.

Chipcom,
I must have been unclear; where do we disagree. There aren't any bike lanes in New Orleans-where I ride every day. I only use bikelanes when we drive the Flagstaff AZ and stay at the La Quinta for 5 days(when we have the $$ for a vacation). I was so impressed with the bikelanes,I've become a convert.
NO isn't a bike friendly city, and drivers will cut it close( less than 12" from mirror is cutting it close by my standards).A fair number of them are impaired or pissed off or both. I would guess that an adult bike rider is killed about once a month in the metro area.
Your method seems just fine to me. You move right when it is safe-no argument from me. I disagree with folks who insist on taking the middle of a city street when they only need about a 5 foot patch. I usually ride with my wheel about 3-4 feet from the shoulder.When I hear a car, I look ahead for potholes/branches/crap, and if it is safe,I move my wheel to within 18" of the edge and make a big effort to hold my line.I occasionally will quit pedaling as a "signal" for the driver to get by(the shorter the exposure the better). Drivers seem to pick up on the move to the right/stop pedaling as a signal to pull by briskly. It is easier for me to hold a "clean" line-no wiggling-when I stop pedaling.
Occasionally, I will dive to the grass/sidewalk to let a long line by(I can hear them) if I see that a car is coming from the other direction, and it is going to force the drivers to wait, or worse, to pass too close.
Yes, to a VC it would appear I ride with the idea that I have less "right" to the road than a motor vehicle. It isn't an inferiority complex, it is strictly survival. If cut to the grass/sidewalk(I'm usually riding about 11pm-no pedestrians) I'm not going to be hit from behind,so my risk there is zero. I also ride the same route,so I know all the driveways/cross streets etc-I won't be caught darting out from some bushes in front of a car at a cross street/driveway(probably most of the serious sidewalk wrecks happen this way).
One of the advantages of night riding, is that brake lights/headlights are easier to see and harder to ignore than just an unlit car seen through bushes/obstructions etc.Less traffic and cooler is the biggesat advantage, of course.This isn't practical-night riding-for most folks wheo are commuting or going to the store etc.
We don't disagree.
I ride city streets, and have for 40 years-no bike lanes here.
I also actually doubt any backlash against bikers because there just aren't enough fools to piss off car drivers in the rest of the country; strictly a west coast/few big cities thing where the political climate allows small groups to impose their will.
Thanks,
Charlie

My car driving is much, much more important than my bike riding.

Not everyone here feels this way. The fact that you do doesn't make some guy driving a car "much much" more important that anybody. From your earlier post, I will give you the elevated importance of the bus, howeever... unlike most drivers around here.

But as I said before, visibility has already been demonstrated to be the major factor in all previously studied crashes of that sort, regardless of lane position.

Not the one that I cited.


Environmental Conditions: Light and weather conditions do not appear to have been significant factors in this type of crash.


The Toronto Study did identify visibility as an issue in many of the other crash types, but not "motorist overtaking". I admit I find it a bit baffling, but that was the statistically signifiant conclusion.

I thought you meant being more visible to overtaking motorists, since that is what we were discussing. This has also been a topic of discussion related to central lane postioning as expounded by HH.

No, I understand why it might seem pertinent to the discussion... but the context of using centerish positioning in that case is when there are long gaps in traffic.

I am more concerned with taking the lane, where there is steady traffic behind you, or moving leftish when approaching an intersection, again where there is traffic behind you. Since motorists DO have a high rate of rear end collisions, then it only follows that if you are where cars are, and in a stream of traffic, as is often touted ("get out of the BL when approaching intersections") then you are in the same position as other traffic that has been rear ended.

With this in mind, my earlier comment about "not enough population is doing this" I feel is valid. What I observe of most cyclists in my area is they either stick to BL strictly (all the way through intersections) or hug the curbs and ride sidewalks. Since there are few cyclists that bias left when approaching intersections, or stop centerish in the lane at lights (most cyclists filter forward, thus are on the right), then there is not enough population to check my theory that if we tend to be out in the same space as autos, we will tend to have the same accident statistics as autos. Although perhaps accidents that result in motorists stating "he suddenly swerved" might be an indicator... but that is pure conjecture.

That curb hugging or strictly BL riding I believe is the basis for "few overtaking collisions" as cited by Forester et. al.. But if strict VC cyclists are using that same data to say, it is OK to move left... there are few rear end accidents... well conflict is the problem I see.

Exactly... and what happens as more cyclists "left bias" as is constantly touted here. Do we see the stats changing to reflect what happens to autos on the road?

The above is in reference to Forester's finding of .3% of bike accidents being overtaking and recent data from Toronto finding 11.9%.

Forester was looking at accidents from all causes. He found that something like 50% were caused by road conditions like hitting pot holes. As I recall, vehicle/cyclists accidents made up only about 1/6 of the total accidents. I would wager that the Toronto study was looking at bicycle/vehicle collisions only. When you use different methodology, you can expect radically different results.

Also Forester's study looked only at accidents and not at fatalities. The nice thing about a fatality is that there is not much room for interpretation. An "accident" or "injury" is subject to interpretation and definition which will affect the results.

Forester did down play the importance of vehicle/cyclist accidents. He was making the point that cycling on the road in an appropriate fashion is not excessively dangerous and I think he proved his point. If you look at the fatality data, you find that something like 80% of cyclist fatalities involve motorized vehicles. Apparantly. cyclists can kill themselves solo but they have to work at it.

I disagree with folks who insist on taking the middle of a city street when they only need about a 5 foot patch. I usually ride with my wheel about 3-4 feet from the shoulder.When I hear a car, I look ahead for potholes/branches/crap, and if it is safe,I move my wheel to within 18" of the edge and make a big effort to hold my line.I occasionally will quit pedaling as a "signal" for the driver to get by(the shorter the exposure the better). Drivers seem to pick up on the move to the right/stop pedaling as a signal to pull by briskly. It is easier for me to hold a "clean" line-no wiggling-when I stop pedaling.


This isn't how I tend to ride. I tend to ride just outside of the BL stripe... and if there is a lot of traffic approaching, I move to within about 3 feet (my front tire) of the curb. That puts my handlebars just inside the stripe. I tend to move to the left when approaching intersections, leaving the BL (so I can see the intersection better, and so motorists can see me approaching). I tend to ride very centerish in situations where I am going through an intersection but have stopped first (I am right in line with the other traffic... thus allowing right turning traffic to move past me). I also am very centered in left turn lanes, and in ROTL. (by "centered" I mean just to the right or left of the grease stripe. When I take a lane, as I often do around my neighborhood... where there is not a WOL, nor a BL, but parked cars along the curb... I am in the right tire track and holding steady.

All that means I am "out in traffic" much much more than most cyclists I observe... (who in my area tend to ride sidewalks to avoid riding "in front of cars"). So that poses the question... am I more subject to "auto like" accidents? I.E. rear end collisions???

[QUOTE=genec]One is that rear end collisions occur least often for cyclists. Could this possibly be because cyclists tend to ride along the right hand side of the road and not in the lane with other traffic?

Motor vehicle accidents tend to be of the rear end collision type.

According to the National Hiway Safety Administration, Vehicle Crashes are the leading cause of Death in the US. http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/809843.PDF

According to this summery report, inattention was the leading cause of crashes, followed by excessive speed. http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/inju...t/summary.html



Notice that rear ending accidents occur more frequently... this somewhat denies data that some bicycle advocates believe regarding cycling accidents... and perhaps also the safety of cycling "in the middle of the lane."

I recall that in Effective Cycling, Forester found that overtaking accidents were quite rare for cyclists. I looked up some more recent data. I found a study done in Boston on 432 vehicle/bicycle accidents. The accidents broke down as follows:

17.6% caused by the motorist making an unexpected turn at an intersection
16.4% caused by a bike turning unexpectedly at midblock (very common in young cyclists)
15.7% caused by motorist pulling out or turning midblock.
9.5% cyclist running light or stop sign
8.8% cyclist making unexpected turn at an intersection
8.3% motorist overtaking the cyclist. This included cyclists who were run off the road. I found another study in which a large portion of this category was motorists passing too close to the cyclist.
26% other

So one can see that for cyclists, overtaking accidents are a relatively small proportion of the total number of accidents. This suggests that the dynamics between vehicular accidents and motorist/cycling accidents are fundamentally different.

Oddly enough, the practice of "taking the lane" as advocated by vehicular cyclists might actually decrease the number of overtaking accidents. If the cyclist takes the lane, it tends to force the motorist to go into the other lane to pass and that ends up giving the cyclist more room. I am not advocating that approach. I am merely making an observation. I use VC techniques when they seem appropriate but there are times when using them just seems down right scary.

So I think Genec is fundamentally mistaken in using vehicular accident data and applying it to cyclists at least according to the data I found.

Notice that rear ending accidents occur more frequently... this somewhat denies data that some bicycle advocates believe regarding cycling accidents... and perhaps also the safety of cycling "in the middle of the lane."

I recall that in Effective Cycling, Forester found that overtaking accidents were quite rare for cyclists. I looked up some more recent data. I found a study done in Boston on 432 vehicle/bicycle accidents. The accidents broke down as follows:

17.6% caused by the motorist making an unexpected turn at an intersection
16.4% caused by a bike turning unexpectedly at midblock (very common in young cyclists)
15.7% caused by motorist pulling out or turning midblock.
9.5% cyclist running light or stop sign
8.8% cyclist making unexpected turn at an intersection
8.3% motorist overtaking the cyclist. This included cyclists who were run off the road. I found another study in which a large portion of this category was motorists passing too close to the cyclist.
26% other

So one can see that for cyclists, overtaking accidents are a relatively small proportion of the total number of accidents. This suggests that the dynamics between vehicular accidents and motorist/cycling accidents are fundamentally different.

Oddly enough, the practice of "taking the lane" as advocated by vehicular cyclists might actually decrease the number of overtaking accidents. If the cyclist takes the lane, it tends to force the motorist to go into the other lane to pass and that ends up giving the cyclist more room. I am not advocating that approach. I am merely making an observation. I use VC techniques when they seem appropriate but there are times when using them just seems down right scary.

So I think Genec is fundamentally mistaken in using vehicular accident data and applying it to cyclists at least according to the data I found.

You need to go back and look at my arguments. Foresters' data is based on cyclists typically riding on the right, which most cyclists do, and not "biasing left." The current message being touted is that one should ride more leftish or centered in the lane. (at least in the right tire track) That is just the opposite of what was occuring when Forester's study took place back in the '70s.

I contend that riding more centerish (as is touted) will lead to auto like accidents which tend to be rear enders. Distraction is the cause of most of the auto accidents, but the type of accident tends to be rear enders.

So if cyclists take to the right tire track, are they not subject to the same types of accidents as motorists?

You folks that continue to cite Forester as saying overtaking accidents occur less frequently need to start thinking critically about how that data was taken... not just spout it. If most cyclists are on the right and "out of the way" of autos, then of course overtaking accidents are rare. But what if cyclists are not "out of the way" and tend to ride "in the right tire track" to avoid door zones, and to be visible at intersections. What then will result?

Just like those folks that say bike lanes are deadly... well if that is where most cyclists are riding, then that is where they will tend to have accidents. Think about it!

You folks that continue to cite Forester as saying overtaking accidents occur less frequently need to start thinking critically about how that data was taken... not just spout it. If most cyclists are on the right and "out of the way" of autos, then of course overtaking accidents are rare. But what if cyclists are not "out of the way" and tend to ride "in the right tire track" to avoid door zones, and to be visible at intersections. What then will result?

Just like those folks that say bike lanes are deadly... well if that is where most cyclists are riding, then that is where they will tend to have accidents. Think about it!

Of course, if every cyclist rides in a bike lane or is assumed to have been in the bike lane, then all of the accidents involving cyclists will be in bike lanes. We don't have that problem in Central Florida. Dedicated bike lanes are rather rare. We have some paved shoulders. The bike lanes have problems. When a new driveway is put in, they frequently put the little ramp for the cars to enter and exit the road right through the bike lane and that creates a large speed bump or obstacle for the cyclists. Also bike lanes tend to have a fair amount of debris. They also tend to be interrupted. Another thing that happens is they are often placed on the right side of a right turn lane so the people in the bike lane have to cut in front of the right turning traffic at some point to proceed in a "straight line". That must be planned by malignant traffic engineers. However, the bike lanes can be ridden in safely but one does have to be wary of these problems. But we have relatively few of them.

What is the reasoning supporting the notion of "deadly" bike lanes?

I would guess your assumption that direct "car rear ends bicycle" collision rates would probably be higher if more cyclists were riding near the center of the lane to be correct. But so what? Most would agree that there are many instances where this practice reduces the risk of being in a car / bike collision.

My experience has been that when I'm in the center of the lane (in ANSI lime with blinkies) it is virtually impossible for a motorists to not notice me. Usually they show me more care and leave me more distance than when I'm driving my car. On the other hand, when I ride off to the side I find I'm more likely to be buzzed, seen as irrelevant, and generally receive less consideration from motorists. I'm willing to take on the small (in my mind) increased chance of a direct rear end collision, in order to reap all the benefits of being seen as more relevant. (and many times being seen sooner)

Even though I keep an eye on him, the car behind me worries me little. Now the one tailgating him is another story.

You need to go back and look at my arguments. Foresters' data is based on cyclists typically riding on the right, which most cyclists do, and not "biasing left." The current message being touted is that one should ride more leftish or centered in the lane. (at least in the right tire track) That is just the opposite of what was occuring when Forester's study took place back in the '70s.
Are you're saying that you can show, in Forester's data, the lane position of the cyclists in question, or is this only your assumption?

Not everyone here feels this way. The fact that you do doesn't make some guy driving a car "much much" more important that anybody. From your earlier post, I will give you the elevated importance of the bus, howeever... unlike most drivers around here.

Gettocruiser. I didn't say that the driver of a car was much, much more important than a rider of a bike. I said that"my car driving is much, much more important than my bike riding." What I meant was that I use the car for things that aren't optional; 1) Driving to work to make a living 2)Driving to school to make a different living 3) Driving to various doctor, hosp appts because my wife has a serious med problem. My car driving is more important-to me-than my bike riding which I do for fun, exercise, and to get groceries, drugstore, save gas and miles on the car.
Most folks here-probably 90%-use their motor vehicle to get to work etc. It is probably the most important bit of driving they do. In the general population probably 99.99% would agree that the miles they drive their car(to work,medical stuff, get food) are more important than the bike miles they do.
Some folks on the forum don't own or use cars; to them the bike miles are extremely important.
My point is the bike riders are a tiny minority of road users. We don't have a heck of a lot of "pull" with our fellow voters. We should make a HUGE effort to get along with the car drivers, since they control the purse strings( UPSIDE-that might get us bike lanes, Downside- get us excluded from certain high traffic streets like Interstates). We should obey the law-ride as far right as is "safe" is a paraphrasing of most of them, and make a positive effort to not impede drivers.Yes, I think on balance the vast majority of the population would agree that car miles are much, much more important than bike miles.
Votes and complaints are what get things done or undone; we-bike riders-need to keep that in mind.Some of us think our bike riding is as important as car driving, but the vast majority of the road users don't think that, and aren't going to change their minds.
.Bike riders can "think/feel" whatever they want, but it doesn't change the number of miles on bikes vs driven miles or riders vs drivers.We just aren't very important to the rest of the country!!
Genec-we don't have any bike lanes here, so everyone here rides in traffic.Our sidewalks aren't much of an option-many streets don't have them, or they are filled with pedestrians. I occasionally bail to the sidewalk , but I ride late at night-11pm.
Thanks,
Charlie

I would guess your assumption that direct "car rear ends bicycle" collision rates would probably be higher if more cyclists were riding near the center of the lane to be correct. But so what? Most would agree that there are many instances where this practice reduces the risk of being in a car / bike collision.

My experience has been that when I'm in the center of the lane (in ANSI lime with blinkies) it is virtually impossible for a motorists to not notice me. Usually they show me more care and leave me more distance than when I'm driving my car. On the other hand, when I ride off to the side I find I'm more likely to be buzzed, seen as irrelevant, and generally receive less consideration from motorists. I'm willing to take on the small (in my mind) increased chance of a direct rear end collision, in order to reap all the benefits of being seen as more relevant. (and many times being seen sooner)

Even though I keep an eye on him, the car behind me worries me little. Now the one tailgating him is another story.

I have had mixed experieces... one one hand some similar to what you say... motorists being very aware. But on the other hand I have had tailgating motorists too. Now I don't know if the tailgater was more aware, or if they were just aggressive.

And yeah, the guy further back I really wonder about... how quickly is he for instance going to want to fill a perceived void???

Are you're saying that you can show, in Forester's data, the lane position of the cyclists in question, or is this only your assumption?

Nope can't show it, but I base my assumptions on what I observe and have seen over some 30 years of cycling. Also based on the fact that riding centerish has not really "hit" in the cycling community yet... so in fact, most cyclists are riding strongly right biased.

In fact I saw a comment the other day from Forester (after decrying BL yet again) that his data doesn't consider BL as they were not in place to the extent they exist today.

This is why I question that data and some of those old assertions.

No, the reality is I have no data except auto accident stats to back up my "flighty assertions." I readily admit that.

Of course, if every cyclist rides in a bike lane or is assumed to have been in the bike lane, then all of the accidents involving cyclists will be in bike lanes. We don't have that problem in Central Florida. Dedicated bike lanes are rather rare. We have some paved shoulders. The bike lanes have problems. When a new driveway is put in, they frequently put the little ramp for the cars to enter and exit the road right through the bike lane and that creates a large speed bump or obstacle for the cyclists. Also bike lanes tend to have a fair amount of debris. They also tend to be interrupted. Another thing that happens is they are often placed on the right side of a right turn lane so the people in the bike lane have to cut in front of the right turning traffic at some point to proceed in a "straight line". That must be planned by malignant traffic engineers. However, the bike lanes can be ridden in safely but one does have to be wary of these problems. But we have relatively few of them.

What is the reasoning supporting the notion of "deadly" bike lanes?

Well there is a thread here on BF that points out "deadly BL." I am not supporting that claim in any way... I just feel that of course more bike accidents occur in Bike Lanes... because that is where the cyclists are... seems pretty obvious to me. But apparently others feel the lanes lead to the accidents.

Now on the other hand I don't feel that Bike Lanes are perfect either...