8/10 fatal accidents in CA involve car hitting cyclist from behind?
Google sponsored links
DevLaVaca
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18711878/
SACRAMENTO, Calif. - A big increase in crashes involving bicycles and cars in Sacramento has some bike advocates asking just how safe the city is for those who pedal to their destinations.
...
KCRA 3 found no single factor behind the rise in bike crashes involving cars. But statewide figures show that eight out of every 10 fatal bike-versus-car wrecks involve a vehicle hitting a bike from behind.
Most of those crashes are occurring not in intersections, but on straight stretches of road. One out of every four involves a drunken car driver.
...
Even though there has been a 47 percent increase in bike-and-car crashes in past year, such wrecks have actually gone down 21 percent over the past five years.
Most of the BF crew rides safely, but most of our concerns have been with urban areas and intersections. What are some things we can do to protect ourselves when riding on straight stretches of road?
Here are some ideas:
1. Avoid high-speed roads whenever possible.
2. Don't ride at night, and if you do, make sure to use powerful lights.
3. Always wear high-visibility and reflective material.
4. If the lane is too narrow for safe passing, take the lane. But be courteous and allow cars to pass whenever possible.
5. Don't take the lane unnecessarily. You never know if two feet could be the difference between life and death.
6. Use a rear-view mirror.
What else? What have you done to protect yourself on wide-open highways?
The BikeForums Team
-adv-
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content here.
Give yourself a little room so if you need to swerve you'll have the room to do so. Most people say they follow in the track of the right tire, which is about right.
DevLaVaca
I just have to point out (forgot to do it in OP) the photo accompanying the article.
Do NOT let your children ride in traffic until they are mature enough to do so! What is that guy thinking?
genec
Begs the questions I asked some time ago...
All the stats that are typically quoted regarding cyclist safety come from studies back in the 70s... when cyclists typically were curb huggers.
Since then, cyclists have been told to ride more centerish in the lane or left bias in the BL or ride in the right tire track. So cyclists are slowly as a group moving more into the same position as other traffic.
The greatest percentage of auto accidents are rear end collisions... are cyclists now being exposed to that situation, from moving left?
lima_bean
The don't ride at night one is a bummer..
No more evening movies, weekday sports teams, going out to dinner, working late, etc =(
Well reinforces the need to make sure those lights are working and nice and bright!
indygreg
IMHO, a nice tail light is so essential. personally, I think this one is without peer http://www.dinottelighting.com/DiNotte_Lighting_Ultra_Tail_Light.htm
I have one and have done testing . . . at day and night it is not even close. Take a $30-40 typical LED taillight that runs on AAA batteries and what seems bright when you stand behind it or ride right behind it and it is essentially nothing on the open road. You have to look for it, it does not look for you so to speak. This thing - you will notice it. It is like a new high end car taillight - you cannot miss it. Put it on high or flash mode and you will be seen in all lighting conditions. Poeple I ride with on group rides do not want to ride behind me, so I have to often be our back and to provide the most protection.
I would not ride without this. Now, I am not dumb, it could happen to me with this light - I am not saying it is failsafe safety, but is it so much more visable than what 90% of cyclists have.
As far as the comments as to give yourself room so you can move out of the way . . . great advice, but not sure how often it would have helped those who get hit. If you are on a road with fast moving cars you would be watching in the rear more than looking forward and hoping to have great reflexes.
Niles H.
What else? What have you done to protect yourself on wide-open highways?
Choosing low-traffic routes and times.
Having a good mirror; watching as they approach; always being ready to pull off road.
Realizing that many drivers are impaired in one way or another.
Choosing very quiet backroads rather than highways.
Choosing quiet paths and times.
John E
Choosing slower streets is extremely helpful, when feasible. Unfortunately in my case the only route between point A and point B is often a 45 or 55mph prime arterial.
littlewaywelt
The greatest percentage of auto accidents are rear end collisions... are cyclists now being exposed to that situation, from moving left?
Annecdotally, I'd say no.
Five years ago I stayed pretty far to the right. I now ride proably a foot or two to the left of the car's right tire. By doing so I force the large majority to pass by moving to the next left lane. In the end they obviously don't want to hit someone. A few still cut it close, but they would have regardless. In the end, I'd guess I have 5%-10% of the cars come close to me. Before they all would have, and likely at a higher rate of speed. It irritates a few more, but again, I'd irritate them no matter where on the road I am.
joejack951
Where did this 8/10 data come from? How many total accidents were looked at or was it just the last 8 out of 10? What were the circumstances surrounding those collisions? Were motorists colliding with cyclists in the middle of a narrow lane, were they drifting into the shoulder/bike lane, or were they passing too closely and clipping cyclists?
LCI_Brian
All the stats that are typically quoted regarding cyclist safety come from studies back in the 70s... when cyclists typically were curb huggers.
Any basis behind this other than anecdotal? I doubt the stats have enough resolution to distinguish between different lane positions (unless it was something real obvious like travel lane versus shoulder).
Since then, cyclists have been told to ride more centerish in the lane or left bias in the BL or ride in the right tire track. So cyclists are slowly as a group moving more into the same position as other traffic.
From the riding I see, I doubt this message has gotten very far to the general cycling population outside of the A&S forum.
sggoodri
How many were at night?
We haven't had any cycling fatalities in my city over the last decade at least. In nearby cities over the last decade, three fatalities were cyclists riding at night without a rear reflector or lights, a fourth resulted from a driver bending below the dashboard driving across the fog line onto a wide paved shoulder, a fifth was the driver of a large truck clipping a cyclist hugging the edge of a narrow lane on a narrow two-lane road, and a sixth was a cyclist running a red light at the bottom of a hill. That's five overtaking, one intersection-related. All of the overtaken cyclists were apparently riding as far right as possible, but in the narrow lane case maybe he shouldn't have been.
Keith99
Long article for so few details.
Just what does from behind mean? It is an important question. If that 8 or 10 is where the cars front bumper hit the cyclists rear tire is far different from hit by a car overtaking, which would include all sideswipes and perhaps even right hooks.
As with so many other things the Devil is in hte details.
But there still does seem to be enough there to support Gene's contention that earlier studies may have been biased (in the technical, not the pejorative sense) because of accepted cycling styles of the time.
Little Darwin
This isn't to dismiss the responsibility of the drivers, but...
Since the legal way to ride a bike is on the right side of the road, I am mildly surprised that only 8 out of 10 fatalities are from the car striking from behind.
Most interactions between a car and a bike involve a car overtaking a bicycle on the same side of the road. To me this intuitively means that most accidents, fatal and otherwise would be related to the most common scenario... fast car... slower bike... car from behind... Am I missing something?
It reminds me of the Dilbert comic strip where the boss got mad because 40% of sick days were on Monday or Friday...
sggoodri
Most interactions between a car and a bike involve a car overtaking a bicycle on the same side of the road. To me this intuitively means that most accidents, fatal and otherwise would be related to the most common scenario... fast car... slower bike... car from behind... Am I missing something?
Only about 5% or less car-bike collisions involve overtaking.
My city measured out to 5%, all clipping/sideswipes, typically where the cyclist hugged the edge of a narrow lane, and one where the cyclist swerved left while being overtaken. Lower percentages of overtaking collisions are found in more urban areas, higher in more rural areas with very few intersections.
joejack951
This isn't to dismiss the responsibility of the drivers, but...
Since the legal way to ride a bike is on the right side of the road, I am mildly surprised that only 8 out of 10 fatalities are from the car striking from behind.
Most interactions between a car and a bike involve a car overtaking a bicycle on the same side of the road. To me this intuitively means that most accidents, fatal and otherwise would be related to the most common scenario... fast car... slower bike... car from behind... Am I missing something?
It reminds me of the Dilbert comic strip where the boss got mad because 40% of sick days were on Monday or Friday...
The reason that most car/bike collisions do not happen from behind is because a cyclist in front of a motorist is very easy to see and because most people are decent and not looking to get sued, people will do anything they can do to avoid hitting the cyclist. Most of the time, it just means slowing a bit and driving around them. When cyclists do get hit is when they ride in such a way that they are not easily visible to motorists, such as riding into the street from the sidewalk (motorists aren't expecting fast moving traffic from the sidewalk) or passing slow moving traffic on the right through an intersection (the right turning motorist is not expecting to be passed on the right).
RobertHurst
The reason that most car/bike collisions do not happen from behind is because a cyclist in front of a motorist is very easy to see and because most people are decent and not looking to get sued, people will do anything they can do to avoid hitting the cyclist. Most of the time, it just means slowing a bit and driving around them. When cyclists do get hit is when they ride in such a way that they are not easily visible to motorists, ...
The type of collision you describe, that which could clearly be prevented with predictable vehicular-style cycling, makes up less than half of car-bike collisions suffered by adult riders.
It's important to remember that cyclists who should be easily visible to motorists, who are riding 'predictably' and in a very 'visible' position on the roadway, get overlooked by motorists and hit by cars all the time. There's nothing rare about it. The vast majority of these collisions, however, involve motorists turning or crossing the cyclist's path; hits from behind are relatively unlikely to occur, although they certainly do on occasion and when they do are much more likely to be high-speed fatal/serious.
Robert
john bono
I gotta believe that the majority of these accidents are at night. I nearly ran down a ninja cyclist in my car about 6 months ago. The only giveaway that he was there were the wisps of the pedal reflectors going up and down. I also saw a roadie last December that was begging for a Darwin Award. Big bright 30 watt halogen headlight, and nothing, nada, zip for a taillight. When my bike is set up for night riding, have two chainstay blinkies, a rear reflector/blinkie, a second rear blinkie, and two drop-bar blinkies. Usually, I only have a couple set to blink. In the front, I have a Blackburn Quadrant as my "Oh ****e I forgot the time" light(always mounted on the bike), and a 6v pair of halogens with a 4A sealed lead acid battery as my "I'm riding after dark" light. Without at least one blinkie and a reflector, I wouldn't even contemplate riding at dusk, let alone darkness.
closetbiker
http://www.bikesense.bc.ca/appendices.htm#common
Most common collisions
Be aware of the most common circumstances surrounding collisions and stay especially alert when cycling in these conditions. The following statistics are from a 1996 study*, which analyzed the reported 6,000 collisions between bicycles and motor vehicles that occurred in BC during a three-year period.
Collision location
Most collisions happened at intersections, where there were no traffic controls, and in residential areas.
* 63% of the collisions occurred at the intersection of a street with another street, alley or driveway, while 31% happened between intersections.
* 57% of the collision sites had no traffic controls at all; 19% had stop signs and 15% traffic lights.
* 40% occurred in residential areas, and 35% in business/shopping areas.
How is it there is such a difference? Maybe one of the reports isn't as thorough as the other? Doesn't it make sense that collisions most often occurr whe traffic intersects?
Dchiefransom
Where did this 8/10 data come from? How many total accidents were looked at or was it just the last 8 out of 10? What were the circumstances surrounding those collisions? Were motorists colliding with cyclists in the middle of a narrow lane, were they drifting into the shoulder/bike lane, or were they passing too closely and clipping cyclists?
Most likely all of the above, and more. Don't forget that this is only the fatal accidents, not all accidents. During the time these fatal accidents occured, there could be hundreds of non-fatal accidents of all other types.
RobertHurst
http://www.bikesense.bc.ca/appendices.htm#common
Most common collisions
Be aware of the most common circumstances surrounding collisions and stay especially alert when cycling in these conditions. The following statistics are from a 1996 study*, which analyzed the reported 6,000 collisions between bicycles and motor vehicles that occurred in BC during a three-year period.
Collision location
Most collisions happened at intersections, where there were no traffic controls, and in residential areas.
* 63% of the collisions occurred at the intersection of a street with another street, alley or driveway, while 31% happened between intersections.
* 57% of the collision sites had no traffic controls at all; 19% had stop signs and 15% traffic lights.
* 40% occurred in residential areas, and 35% in business/shopping areas.
How is it there is such a difference? Maybe one of the reports isn't as thorough as the other? Doesn't it make sense that collisions most often occurr whe traffic intersects?
The two reports are not at odds with each other. The vast majority of car-bike collisions involve turning or crossing and most occur at an intersection of some sort. Of fatal car-bike crashes, which are a small percentage of all car-bike crashes, most are of the hit-from-behind variety; and most occur on the open road and do not involve intersections.
Robert
closetbiker
here's a different report source on deaths of cyclists in BC
http://www.helmets.org/bcstudy.htm
at the bottom (sec. VI. Appendix A Cyclist/Motorist Collisions Resulting in Death A Study of Coroner's Files for 1986-93) there is information outlined that has been taken from coroners Judgements of Inquiries or from findings at inques - descriptions of the events leading to the deaths.
18 out of all 64 deaths from the period of time were collisions from the rear.
invisiblehand
Most interactions between a car and a bike involve a car overtaking a bicycle on the same side of the road. To me this intuitively means that most accidents, fatal and otherwise would be related to the most common scenario... fast car... slower bike... car from behind... Am I missing something?
It also depends on the probability of collision. How to navigate around same direction traffic is less complicated that intersections.
Since others made quick references to literature that only looks at collisions ...
I have been trying to think about how to weight different injuries from bicycle/auto collisions to get something more meaningful. There is a literature out there related to hedonic pricing--i.e., how to value things without a price tag--that is appropriate. Cycling data, however, seems a little difficult to find and acquire (I have no money so it has to be close to $0.00).
genec
Any basis behind this other than anecdotal? I doubt the stats have enough resolution to distinguish between different lane positions (unless it was something real obvious like travel lane versus shoulder).
The stats don't have any info regarding lane position... but back in the '70s when Forester first made his studies, bike lanes were nearly non-existant, and most cyclists rode well to the right. Even now most cyclists ride well to the right... which supports your assertion, and my anecdotal observation, below...
From the riding I see, I doubt this message has gotten very far to the general cycling population outside of the A&S forum.
That's right, so what happens when more and more cyclists do move left, into the zone where autos typically roam, and apparently hit things from behind?
genec
This isn't to dismiss the responsibility of the drivers, but...
Since the legal way to ride a bike is on the right side of the road, I am mildly surprised that only 8 out of 10 fatalities are from the car striking from behind.
Most interactions between a car and a bike involve a car overtaking a bicycle on the same side of the road. To me this intuitively means that most accidents, fatal and otherwise would be related to the most common scenario... fast car... slower bike... car from behind... Am I missing something?
It reminds me of the Dilbert comic strip where the boss got mad because 40% of sick days were on Monday or Friday...
Yeah but typically the cyclist is well to the right of the motorist on the road... hardly ever are cyclists and motorists shareing the same position on the road... but there is a trend to suggest that the right tire track is a better place for visibility on the road... and that puts cyclists right in front of a car bumper.
Which then begs the question... since most auto accidents are rear end collisions... is this something that cyclists might also expect... an increase in rear end collisions.
genec
The reason that most car/bike collisions do not happen from behind is because a cyclist in front of a motorist is very easy to see and because most people are decent and not looking to get sued, people will do anything they can do to avoid hitting the cyclist. Most of the time, it just means slowing a bit and driving around them. When cyclists do get hit is when they ride in such a way that they are not easily visible to motorists, such as riding into the street from the sidewalk (motorists aren't expecting fast moving traffic from the sidewalk) or passing slow moving traffic on the right through an intersection (the right turning motorist is not expecting to be passed on the right).
Easy to see??? I would think another auto would be even easier to see... yet running into the rear of one is what encompasses the greatest number of auto accidents. I don't see how "easier to see" is any sort of answer.
closetbiker
Mabe CA is radically different from BC.
At least every time I go through those cases of deaths of cyclists in BC, I'm reassured of the remoteness of being hit and dying.
Even a couple of those hit from behind deaths were preventable
87-222 -2912 An 18 year old female was riding a men's one speed bicycle down Nordell Way in Delta with her left hand on the handlebar and her right hand holding a guitar case. The vehicle following her was unable to stop when she fell from her bike and was run over. The vehicle did not strike her bike. It was determined that the guitar had been stolen and that the cyclist was impaired.
- maybe if the cyclist wasn't drinking?
87-536-0016 An accident on Highway #97 occurred when a cyclist pulled from the shoulder lane (to pass another cyclist) to the driving lane at about the same time a vehicle travelling in the same direction was about to pass both cyclists. The bicycle was about one foot into the driving lane when it was struck directly from behind. The cyclist was wearing earphones and listening to a radio. The driver of the oncoming vehicle had been driving for about 12 hours and was drowsy. The cyclist was wearing a helmet. It was recommended that cyclists not be allowed to use radios etc. with ear pieces as listening devices.
- maybe if the cyclist wasn't wearing headphones, he could have heard the truck and wouldn't have made the pass?
88-007-2524 A youth was operating his bike on sidewalk adjacent to a busy roadway with his brother on the handlebars and was among a group of pedestrians. Apparently his bike slid on some gravel on a driveway and he fell onto the roadway into the path of an oncoming truck. The driver did not see the incident as it would have occurred after his position in the truck had passed the cyclist. Recommendations were made to the police about enforcing cycling bylaws against riding double and riding on the sidewalk.
- maybe if the youth wasn't carrying his brother on the handlebars, he wouldn't have slipped on the gravel?
92-166-0122 An experienced male cyclist in his sixties was riding his bike on a busy road in Victoria when, apparently without signalling or shoulder checking, he proceeded to change across three lanes. A vehicle travelling in the left centre lane struck him as he swerved in front of her. He was thrown from his bicycle and his helmet came off on impact with the roadway. Road and weather conditions were excellent. Death was as a result of head injuries resulting from a fractured skull.
- maybe shoulder checks are good thing to do before changing lanes?
92-125-0028 A cyclist in his early twenties was riding his bike on Highway 19 in Courtenay in a northerly direction when struck by a vehicle travelling in the same direction. Road conditions were good but it was dark and the bicycle was neither equipped with head light, tail light or any type of reflector. The speed limit was 60 km/h. The vehicle was travelling at about l00 km/h. Both the cyclist and the vehicle operator were intoxicated by alcohol at the time. Death resulted from breakage of the spinal cord.
- again, maybe drinking and cycling (and drinking and driving) don't mix?
93-635-0009 A cyclist in his early sixties was travelling on the shoulder of a four lane highway facing oncoming traffic when he turned into the path of an approaching car. The driver of this vehicle tried to avoid him but was unable to do so. The autopsy report attributed death to multiple injuries consistent with blunt impact. The deceased was a diabetic who, on occasion, was known to be non compliant in taking his insulin. Testing done following his death indicated that the loss of control of his bicycle could have been related to this disease
- maybe if your diabetic and require insulin, you should take it?
94-245-1122 At about 11:30 p.m. on a July evening a middle aged cyclist was travelling north on a major thoroughfare in Vancouver when he was struck by an automobile travelling in the same direction. He died within a few days of massive injuries to his abdomen and head. The cyclist had been drinking heavily as his subsequent blood alcohol reading of .4 was to attest. He was wearing dark clothing and had no illumination on his bicycle. The accident occurred when he suddenly swerved into the lane of the oncoming vehicle.
- drinking again (0.4?)
andrelam
I don't ride without my front and rear LED lights on flashing. I didn't realize how effective they are until I was driving down a road recently approaching dusk, and it was slightly misty out. I could see the cyclist from over half a mile way, and this was on a busy road with lots of distractions. Just like a bike helmet can't guarantee that your head won't get crushed in a crash, the flashing lights don't give you fool proof protection, but the better I am seen the less chance I have of being hit. As far as riding with kids... train them from a young age to respect traffic and learn how to properly change lanes. I remember being about 7 years old and having to make left turns on some high traffic streets in Haarlem (Netherlands) with my parents. My dad would keep close to him and we moved together. You learn how to check for traffic, and take the lane so you can move over to the left turning lane. It was scarry and intimidating, but you learn how to do it as safely as possible. Kids need to learn early that the street is no play ground. Even a seemingly slow residential street can be an easy killer if some "punk" descides to speed down the road, if you get in the way... you loose.
Happy Riding,
André
AlmostTrick
Easy to see??? I would think another auto would be even easier to see... yet running into the rear of one is what encompasses the greatest number of auto accidents. I don't see how "easier to see" is any sort of answer.
Motorists see other motor vehicles all the time and can become somewhat lackadaisical or oblivious to what is right in front of them because of this. But a cyclist in hi-vis clothing with blinking lights right in their path is so unexpected (in most areas) that it forces motorists to snap out of their trance and take notice. Don't you think a motorist would notice a baby crawling across the street, even though it is a lot smaller than a car?
genec
Motorists see other motor vehicles all the time and can become somewhat lackadaisical or oblivious to what is right in front of them because of this. But a cyclist in hivis clothing with blinking lights right in their path is so unexpected (in most areas) that it forces motorists to snap out of their trance and take notice. Don't you think a motorist would notice a baby crawling across the street, even though it is a lot smaller than a car?
I wonder. Around here makeup, cell phones, food and text messaging seem to take a higher priority than watching the road... I wouldn't want to be that baby...
joejack951
I wonder. Around here makeup, cell phones, food and text messaging seem to take a higher priority than watching the road... I wouldn't want to be that baby...
How often are those distractions the cause of rear-ending accidents any more than falling asleep or day dreaming are?
closetbiker
How often are those distractions the cause of rear-ending accidents any more than falling asleep or day dreaming are?
and don't forget drunk driving
ollo_ollo
We will always have to contend with drivers who are just not paying attention for whatever reason.
A close friend was rear ended last fall, not on his bicycle but driving a vintage Mini Cooper he had just imported from New Zealand. The Mini was bright orange, Jim had slowed for a car ahead of him in his lane that was turning left. Left turn car completed his turn & Jim was in 2nd gear accelerating back to highway speed at about 30 mph when a young fellow driving a Ford Expedition drove into the rear of the mini. There were no skid marks & police estimated he was traveling at 65 mph. Driver stated "I just didn't see anything ahead of me". Stuff like this is making me paranoid! Don
genec
How often are those distractions the cause of rear-ending accidents any more than falling asleep or day dreaming are?
Donno, but why should those more "voluntary" pursuits be added to the list of distractions... at what point is it too many?
joejack951
Mabe CA is radically different from BC.
At least every time I go through those cases of deaths of cyclists in BC, I'm reassured of the remoteness of being hit and dying.
Even a couple of those hit from behind deaths were preventable
You mean I need to start yielding to other traffic AND stop drinking? Man, this cycling thing is for the birds! ;)
joejack951
Donno, but why should those more "voluntary" pursuits be added to the list of distractions... at what point is it too many?
Most people know their limits with distractions otherwise the roads would be a real disaster (given the number of miles travelled daily, it's tough to say that the road system is a failure). For the rest, you just need to be prepared the same way you need to be prepared for the undistracted driver who simply makes a mistake.
closetbiker
We will always have to contend with drivers who are just not paying attention for whatever reason... Don
so I guess the question for me is, just how many of these things happen that may be out of your control, and is it any worse for cycling than anything else?
A couple of years ago 4 people sitting at a bus stop were killed by an out of control car skidding around a corner. Last year a woman was killed sitting at a different bus stop when an ambulace (of all things) was hit on the street and slid into the bus stop killing the woman. This year there was another crash at a bus stop that seriously injured 4 people.
Is it any worse on a bike?
Keith99
This isn't to dismiss the responsibility of the drivers, but...
Since the legal way to ride a bike is on the right side of the road, I am mildly surprised that only 8 out of 10 fatalities are from the car striking from behind.
Most interactions between a car and a bike involve a car overtaking a bicycle on the same side of the road. To me this intuitively means that most accidents, fatal and otherwise would be related to the most common scenario... fast car... slower bike... car from behind... Am I missing something?
It reminds me of the Dilbert comic strip where the boss got mad because 40% of sick days were on Monday or Friday...
I already said this, but it is worth repeating. On that a lot depends on what they define as car from behind. Car overtaking is far different from bumper hits rear wheel.
Most overtaking interactions are non-interactions. I would be shocked if 8 out of 10 accidents were from behind as a large percentage of acidents are who goes at a semi-controled intersection. But fortumatly most of these are slow enough to have a very small chance of being fatal, after all they involve people getting going.
closetbiker
You mean I need to start yielding to other traffic AND stop drinking? Man, this cycling thing is for the birds! ;)
Yeah, AND don't be 4 or 5 years old playing in traffic. Man that's sad.
LittleBigMan
SACRAMENTO, Calif. - A big increase in crashes involving bicycles and cars in Sacramento has some bike advocates asking just how safe the city is for those who pedal to their destinations. KCRA 3 investigated and found several cyclists who suffered serious injuries and experienced close calls on the streets of the capital.
City Councilman Steve Cohn said the city definitely has room for improvement, especially after such wrecks increased 47 percent in the past year.
Walt Seifert, a Sacramento cycling expert, said safety concerns are the biggest reason people give for not riding in the city.
Not exactly TMI (too much information.)
Makes good press, though.
closetbiker
good press, but is the story in proper context, or does it have good information? As I showed in descriptions of all the deaths of cyclists over 8 years here in BC, 80% of deaths from the rear doesn't seem to make sense, The story could be looking for a particular angle to make it sound sensational.
LittleBigMan
...The story could be looking for a particular angle to make it sound sensational.
I am the cynical type that believes anyone who spends money on air time or newsprint has an angle.
closetbiker
I wouldn't call that cynical, I'd call it being realistic. If I were a betting man, that's where I'd lay my money.
chipcom
This isn't to dismiss the responsibility of the drivers, but...
Since the legal way to ride a bike is on the right side of the road, I am mildly surprised that only 8 out of 10 fatalities are from the car striking from behind.
Most interactions between a car and a bike involve a car overtaking a bicycle on the same side of the road. To me this intuitively means that most accidents, fatal and otherwise would be related to the most common scenario... fast car... slower bike... car from behind... Am I missing something?
It reminds me of the Dilbert comic strip where the boss got mad because 40% of sick days were on Monday or Friday...
Shh, suggesting that from-behind accidents are not a myth is goring a scared cow of many 'advocates'.
AndrewP
Considering the number of cyclists I see riding at night with no lights or reflectors and with dark clothes, I am amazed at the small number of cyclists being killed. The motorists must be exceptionally observant and careful.
KeatonR
[QUOTE=DevLaVaca]What are some things we can do to protect ourselves when riding on straight stretches of road?
Here are some ideas:
2. Don't ride at night, and if you do, make sure to use powerful lights.
Don't ride at night? Sometimes I wonder if riding at night might be safer, actually. With reflective gear plus a really good taillight, I think you might be more visible to cars than during the day. No?
Course, the rates of drunken driving are much higher at night, so maybe that cancels that out.
closetbiker
Just follow common sense (like using lights, mirrors, don't use head phones, look to see if it's clear before you cross lanes - and maybe even getting involved with anti-drunk driving, anti-sleep deprivation, anti-dangerous driving campaigns) and don't over worry about things that are beyond your control and relatively rare.