On Deaths, Dying and Bicycling

[DnvrFox]

Perhaps it is me, but it seems there have been a rash of bicycle deaths just these past few months. Maybe they just got a lot of publicity. Cars running into groups of riders, many, many drunk drivers killing cyclists. Whew.

The latest, Ken Kifer's, has really got me thinking. I have referred to his web site (and referred others) and feel as if he was a comrade.

I have read all the statistics, and have done a fair amount of research.

The conclusions I have reached:

1. More accidents occure on bike paths per capita then on roadways.

2. But more FATAL accidents per capita occur to bicyclists when they are mixing with cars. Typically, bike path accidents are relatively minor, and though they make the statistics higher, they don't affect lives as much.

3. It seems that when a car (truck, SUV, whatever) and a bike
collide, the biker is always the loser. A bike just does not afford the protection needed in a crash.

4. I keep reading suggestions and even rants and raves against drivers of all kinds - if older dirvers or drunk drivers or little old ladies or teenagers or whatever would only drive safer or be tested more or be banned from the road, bicyclists would be safer.

And, all of that is mostly true. BUT, IT JUST IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN - not in my lifetime, anyway. No matter how much is written on bicycling forums and USENET, not one word written here will change any laws, perceptions of non-bikers nor practices of non-bikers/drivers.

All that writing is all just a waste of bandwidth, energy and time.

And it does not matter in the least that roads were originally created for bicycles, or that bicycles have a legal right to the road. Tell that to Ken Kifer and the others.

So, I have reached a conclusion that reinforces what I have already been practicing.

I will continue, and even with more emphasis, to remove myself from the potential dangers of car - bicycle contact. I LIKE bike paths, and in this area they are generally well maintained, and take me where I want to go - and we have about 400 miles of them. I will only go on the road when necessary, and will always refuse to ride where, in my judgment, there is a high amount of danger.

Well, another controversial post by DnvrFox. I guess, at the very least, I stimulate some thought, although many folks find me irritating. So be it.

!! :)

[L J Horton]

What's your point, Denver? . . .Life's a ***** and then you die?

Bike paths may be less terminal, but I suspect that 90% of the contributing members do not have access to a system as good as yours. Maybe you would feel less fearful for the rest of us if we moved to Colorado and jammed up your paths with hordes of riders? Then instead of complaining about drivers running us off the roads we could rant about the hot-dogs who insist on riding 30 miles an hour even though the paths are crowded with the 10 mile an hour crowd.

I'm not trying to belittle your concerns. I have a great deal of respect for you and the thoughtfulness of most of your posts, but this time I think you are tilting at a windmill. It would seem that biker deaths, like motorcycle, pedestrian or automobile deaths is as inevitable as taxes, politics and stupidity: at least until there becomes a mass awareness of the benefits of the bicycle as a logical means of transportation and recreation. Children are aware of this, but somehow forget it once they have a driver's license. A shame really.

In the meantime, Denver, stay healthy. I'd hate for you to become a statistic.

[uciflylow]

Lock yourself in the house, sit on the couch, and wait for death. It will come to us all! We don't have to go looking for it, it will find us!:eek:

BURN OUT! Don't just fade away!

Tell you what, get one of those trainers that sit in the living room floor! You should be safe and sound there!

My gosh! When are people going to stop looking at driving as a right and not a privilage? Get the ones who have no busness behind the wheel off the road!!!!!!!!:mad:

[Rich Clark]

Originally posted by DnvrFox

I will continue, and even with more emphasis, to remove myself from the potential dangers of car - bicycle contact. I LIKE bike paths, and in this area they are generally well maintained, and take me where I want to go - and we have about 400 miles of them. I will only go on the road when necessary, and will always refuse to ride where, in my judgment, there is a high amount of danger.


How nice for you that the bike paths happen to go where you want to go. It's easy to make Declarations when you don't have to change anything to make them happen.

For most of us, the choice is to ride on the road or not to ride. If that was your choice, would you just give it up?

If you didn't have those lovely paths, would you even have started?

RichC

[Allister]

Originally posted by DnvrFox
But more FATAL accidents per capita occur to bicyclists when they are mixing with cars. Typically, bike path accidents are relatively minor, and though they make the statistics higher, they don't affect lives as much.

If you'd studied the statistics you'd also know that if you survive the first year or two of riding on the road, your chances of being killed plummet, even from the fairly low fatality rate that the raw data indicates. Experience is a not insignificant safety factor.

Originally posted by DnvrFox
3. It seems that when a car (truck, SUV, whatever) and a bike
collide, the biker is always the loser. A bike just does not afford the protection needed in a crash.

Don't forget that a car/bike collision isn't necessarily fatal for the cyclist either. It seems to be a common misconception, which I'm not sure your making here, that if you get hit by a car, you're dead.

Originally posted by DnvrFox
And, all of that is mostly true. BUT, IT JUST IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN - not in my lifetime, anyway. No matter how much is written on bicycling forums and USENET, not one word written here will change any laws, perceptions of non-bikers nor practices of non-bikers/drivers.

Perhaps, but let's be honest here, that's not exactly a vast expanse of time, old-timer ;)

Originally posted by DnvrFox
All that writing is all just a waste of bandwidth, energy and time.

If you think so, why are you still here?

Originally posted by DnvrFox
I will continue, and even with more emphasis, to remove myself from the potential dangers of car - bicycle contact. I LIKE bike paths, and in this area they are generally well maintained, and take me where I want to go - and we have about 400 miles of them. I will only go on the road when necessary, and will always refuse to ride where, in my judgment, there is a high amount of danger.

You are fortunate to have such an idyllic bike path system. Ride them with my blessing. But, if this was the sole point of this post, it's not exactly something you haven't mentioned several times before. What was that about 'wasting bandwidth'*?


*what exactly is the problem people have with the few kilobytes in the average text posting? In these days of broadband speeds and multigigabyte download limits surely this argument can be put to rest.

[DnvrFox]

Well, I seem to have stirred things up a bit, as usual.

To briefly respond to a few folks.

Allister and others - no one knows when their time will come. My mom is 90 and my step-dad is 93. Until 2 years ago they lived independently, and still do, but in a "retirement community." They are both as sharp as can be. But, my dad died at age 61 from a brain tumor. I have outlived him 3 years now. We just don't know.

Yes, Allister, bandwidth is a specious argument, and I will admit it. But the waste of effort and time in berating the current situation, while folks seem to enjoy and have a need for it, is useless. But, then again, so is much that we do so I guess that doesn't matter either!!

And yes, experience is an important factor - but no experience will protect you from the drunken driver or the out of control driver. You are literally a sitting duck.

I guess my point is that I see so many posts berating bike paths and calling for bicycle rights on the roadway - and I think they are off the mark.

Rich C. If I didn't have bike paths I would still ride, but I would be extremely careful on which roads and at what times I rode.

And, yes RichC. ALL deaths are inevitable. I simply desire to put off mine as long as possible.

I would advocate for a much better system of bike paths in all of your areas, if I was going to advocate for anything. In fact, I have joined and am supporting financially "Bicycle Colorado" which does advocate for safer biking AND bike paths around here.

And to the person who said "Lock yourself in the house," it is pretty obvious that if I bicycle over 15,000 miles in the past 5 years, I haven't secured that front door very well. That is a silly statement. Yes, life is full of dangers, and one mark of a prudent intelligent person is to recognize how to reduce and handle dangers that exist in our life. Your comments are way out of line, and in no way coincide with my reality or the point I was making.

My gosh! When are people going to stop looking at driving as a right and not a privilage? Get the ones who have no busness behind the wheel off the road!!!!!!!!

Again, useless berating. You are preaching to the choir. I hate to inform you, but no one who has the power to do anything is reading your thoughts. They are wasted. Spend your time biking, instead!!

So enjoy the reading and the opportunity to respond to my thoughts.

[chewa]

In Britain, statistically more accidents resulting in injury are solo vehicle incidents (i.e only involve bikes) and are mainly inexperienced or younger riders falling off.

Of course if more people ride on the roads, the car/bike rate will go up, but as motorists familiarity with cyclists rises, I think it would then drop.

[detrieux]

DnvrFox,

As one of the older members of the BF, I have only ridden one time since I found out about Ken's death. I really think part of the issue with his death is that it reminds us of our own mortality.

I do not have the privilege of having a bike trail within 1 hours drive from my home. Riding on the roads or through the woods is about all that I have available. We got a soaking from Isabel and the woods are to wet to ride in at this time so I would have to ride on the road.

I will try to put Ken's death into perspective and most likely this will happen while I ride the bike. I am coming more and more to the conclusion that bike riding is what Ken would have done.

The one big mistake that most people assume is that driving can be restricted. My DW works in the court system that deals with driving violations. The bottom line is that there are not enough jails to house all the people who violate the laws let alone for driving offenses.

Didn't say much with this post other than that I will miss Ken, his inspiration and will continue my quest to put it into perpective.

[bac]

Damn DnvrFox - you're bringing me down man! The post title alone, "On Deaths, Dying and Bicycling" is a bummer!

Anywho, the older I get, the less I worry about my own mortality. I've seen very close friends die in their 20s and 30s, and it is such a tragedy. However, I'm not going to spend any of my precious time calculating the probability that I'll die today. Make your time here count, and stop worrying about when it will end! :D

[jester69]

Originally posted by detrieux
The bottom line is that there are not enough jails to house all the people who violate the laws let alone for driving offenses.


This is what makes me so mad about the US lately. We are sooo busy trying to lock up the potheads and throw away the key that there is no jail space for drunk drivers.

IMHO, we should do what canada did & lay off the potheads, and use the jail space freed up for locking up drunk drivers and throwing away the key.

Recently, Ashcroft and the Justice Dept. locked up celebrity Tommy Chong for selling artistic handglown glass pipes. Wal mart still sells corncob pipes with abandon. Both are popular for smoking illegal substances, but only the pothead rots in jail.

Anyway, that is enough of a derail, the problem isn't that we don't have enough jail space (we have MORE people locked up percentage wise now than they ever did behind the soviet iron curtain!) The problem is we lock the wrong damn people up.

Oh, on the death, dying and bicycling. I believe that a human life takes but a blink to begin and end. When you ask people dying of old age how long life took, they always say "the whole thing seemed like it took 5 minuites"

So, it seems to me, that the only time we ever get is right now, the past is a cancelled check and tomorrow never comes. Maximize right now, as that is all we ever get. Worrying is the art of suffering repeatedly for something that might never occur.

So, what I am saying is living a healthy life and bicycling brings me great joy, if at some point that might result in my life being shorter but better, that is a risk i'll take. Quality wins over quantity to me.

But also do agree with Dnvr, to a degree, there is no reason to take stupid risks, use your head and avoid the unsafe roads. Listen to your gut and take another route if need be. I personally will be avoiding bike paths here, too short and too full of inattentive pedestrians.

On the other hand, when its your time its your time, and a lightning bolt could come out of the clear blue sky and nail ya on the safest road there is.

take care,

jester

P.S. I live a 100% chemical free life, no drinking, smoking or even caffeine, I am not advocating the legalization of pot becaue I want to "smoke up", but because I truly think we are doing more harm than good with those laws.

[Rich Clark]

Originally posted by DnvrFox

Rich C. If I didn't have bike paths I would still ride, but I would be extremely careful on which roads and at what times I rode.


In other words, if you didn't have bike paths that just happen to go where you want to go, you would do what the rest of us do, and your Declaration would be moot.

This goes in the "easy for you to say" file.

RichC

[SamDaBikinMan]

Lets trade in our bikes for big dump trucks and start running motorists off the road. :D

[Juha]

Originally posted by SamDaBikinMan
Lets trade in our bikes for big dump trucks and start running motorists off the road. :D

:roflmao:

Accidentally, of course. "Officer, I did not see that SUV. It came out of nowhere."

--J

[mrfix]

It's good for you that you have bike paths, I like them also but unfortunately for me there are none that go where I need to go. I ride the roads with the cars and trucks, some of them much more busy than I would like them to be, I live in a world where bright lights front and rear are not just a convenience but a life saving neccessity. Every morning I leave my house brightly lit like a flashing sign thats saying, please don't hit me I'm just trying to get to work, and hoping with every vehicle that I hear approaching that they see me and will miss me as they pass. I ride now and I will ride tomorrow and every other day because that's what I do, I don't jump out of airplanes, ride motorcycles, play paint ball or participate in any other dangerouse activities, i just ride a bike, I should have a safe place to do it, but, I don't always, the general public just doesn't always think it's a good thing and I believe that it is their right to feel the way they feel. All these recent cyclist deaths at the hands of vehicle operators do bother me but it just causes me to ride more carefully. Hopefully the price of gasoline will soon be too high for most to afford, then they will be on two wheels with us.
Ride safely, be well lit and maybe we can all survive to post here again tomorrow.

[John E]

We CAN obtain stricter legal accountability for motorists. We CAN obtain better education for motorists. We CAN impose strict penalties, including fines, community service, vehicle confiscation, etc. for reckless, doped, or drunk motorists. (My model is MADD, which has been very effective in reducing the drunk driver carnage in this country.) However, accomplishing the goal of making streets safer for all road users requires persistence and insight into how the political machinery functions. Ladies and gentlemen, it can be done. DnvrFox, keep the faith, and don't give up the dream because of some of today's ugly realities.

[SamDaBikinMan]

Originally posted by Juha
:roflmao:

Accidentally, of course. "Officer, I did not see that SUV. It came out of nowhere."

--J


The funny thing is that I get more courtesy from dump trucks and log trucks than I do from even compact cars on the road in some areas where I ride.

Cars that barely have to give up any lane at all seem to be ever defiant in making room for a bike.

SUV drivers are usually just bad drivers period and I treat them all as such.

[Pat]

Well Denver Fox, I have been interested in the safety statistics in cycling for quite some time.

One of the best, but dated studies I know was Forester's Effective Cycling. Forester only looked at accidents that involved injury. He found that accident rates were highly affected by the cyclist's experience, which is something Allister noted in his post.
Forester noted that commuting cyclists, who generally commute on major roads at peak traffic times, had very low accident rates. He found that novice riders crashed in their first 100 miles or so as I recall.

Forester examined the cause of accidents and found that only a small fraction of bicycle accidents involved moter vehicles about 10% I recall. As a reference, other cyclists and dogs accounted for a few more injuries then motorized vehicles did. And of these, most of them occurred at low speeds and usually at interections.

Now I examined bicycle fatalities on the internet. The "good" thing about fatalities is there is no definition problem. On an injury, it can be subjective. Death is something everyone can agree on. In the USA, there are about 800 bicycle fatalities per year. Now of these 800 bicycle fatalites, 80% involve motorized vehicles. But you can die on a bicycle without the aid of a motorized vehicle. I had a friend who said he never used his brakes on downhills and he lost it on a corner on a steep hill and went into a maple tree. In the local bicycle club, one of our members apparantly fell while riding on a bike path and subsequently expired in the hospital of a head injury (he wasn't wearing a helmet and no I don't want to get into the great helmet debate).

However, if you look at fatalities per hour, cyclists have half the risk of motorists of suffering a fatal injury! I know it sure FEELS safer in a car. Also cyclists are at a lower risk then pedestrians. This makes sense. I know of 2 major bicycle events, DALMAC and the Mount Dora Bicycle Festival, have each had 1 fatality after years of operation and in both cases the cyclist was off the bike and well off the road, but that did not keep a motorist from driving off the road and killing them.

Now if you look at the cycling fatalities nearly half occur at night. And I will just bet that virtually none of these guys had adequate lighting systems. So if you ride during the day, you have about 25% of the risk per hour of a motorist. They give the time of day and day of week of the fatalities also. I figure that the majority of bicycling miles in the USA are ridden by club cyclists on the weekends in the mornings. But if you look at the fatalities, weekend fatalities in the mornings are the same as the weekly mornings. So apparantly all those club cyclists have a vanishingly small fatality rate because they do not affect the statistics. By the way, the fatality data does track age so you can strip out children and I figure adult cyclists have about 1/8 of the risk of motorists. The fatality data does not attempt to track cyclist's experience or track the number of fatalities caused by egregious motor vehicle error. When I looked at the statistics, I figured that among experienced cyclists, the US fatalities were probably between 100-200 per annum.

So why in the world are bicycle fatality rates so dern low? Aren't cyclists MUCH MORE EXPOSED then motorists? Well yes. But think about it. What are the big killers of motorists? The big killers are driving while drunk, going to sleep at the wheel, not paying attention (fooling with the radio, talking on the cell phone, eating, etc etc) and driving at excessive speed. Do cyclists do these thing? Well cycling while drunk is hard to do because you tend to fall over if for no other reason, most cyclists are well rested when they ride, most pay attention because if they don't that pothole will teach them a fast lesson before a car will find them and most are not capable of riding at excessive speeds. So cycling by its nature makes dangerous behavior much more difficult to indulge in.

Now why do we hear so much of bicycling fatalities? Well, when a sober safe riding cyclist who is well known in the community gets killed by a careless driver it is news. When a guy with 7 DUIs to his credit plows into a tree and kills himself, it gets buried in the back pages.

Knowing all of the above, I still feel safer driving then when I am cycling. But feelings are not always accurate. Of course, in my case, I have never had an accident whilst driving and it has been about 20 years since my last citation. So I am probably far safer driving then the average motorist.

[AndrewP]

Bike paths that have multiple intersections - they are worse than the plague. Fortunately the paths that I take for about half of my commute have very few intersections. On the roads I like the major ones with wide lanes or ones with few intersections.

I use my Third Eye mirror to be continualy aware of what is behind, so I can avoid someone doing a R turn while they are passing

[Pete Clark]

Originally posted by DnvrFox
I will continue, and even with more emphasis, to remove myself from the potential dangers of car - bicycle contact. I LIKE bike paths, and in this area they are generally well maintained, and take me where I want to go - and we have about 400 miles of them.
I have seen pics of your bike paths. They are simply beautiful.

Unfortunately for me, there is not any space left in urban Atlanta
to provide the kind of path you are talking about. Very few paths in this area could ever remove a cyclist from car/bicycle contact. In fact, the bike paths that do exist create more intersections, confusion, and opportunities for car/bicycle contact than do the existing roads.

The "limited access" bike path is not a real option for me. My only option is to ride my bike on the street, with cars.

You mentioned that it seems there have been a lot of fatal bicycle accidents lately. I would like to examine the statistics at the end of the year and see if there are actually any more than last year, or the year before that, etc.

The cold, hard fact is that the number one killer of teenagers in the US is not aids, guns, gangs, drugs or serial killers, all the things we are made to be afraid of by the media. The number one killer is kids crashing their cars.

[SamDaBikinMan]

The cold, hard fact is that the number one killer of teenagers in the US is not aids, guns, gangs, drugs or serial killers, all the things we are made to be afraid of by the media. The number one killer is kids crashing their cars.

Yep, and parents are lining up by the hoardes to buy expensive and fast sports cars and sports sedans for their precious teenagers so they will look better than everyone elses kids.

Might as well buy em a .44 magnum revolver and teach em about this fun and challennging game called "Russian roulette".

[John E]

Question for discussion: Is today's average motorist less skilled and/or less attentive than his/her equivalent of, say, 25 years ago? Yes, the U.S. traffic fatality rate has declined until this year, and this is partly because the drunk driving rate has declined, seat belt usage is up, and we numerous "baby boomers" have outgrown youth's reckless habits and attitudes, but it is also because vehicle safety and medical technology have improved significantly. If antilock brakes, airbags, big SUVs, and crumple zones encourage motorists to feel invincible and to compensate risk by driving sloppily, this does not bode well for the rest of us on the road. It has also been suggested that today's cars, designed for hours of comfortable high-speed turnpike cruising, isolate the driver too much from his/her environment.

[blwyn]

By refusing (or nearly refusing) to ride on the road, you are only making the problem worse. Refusing to ride on the road means that you are using a car for commuting and running errands, when often times it could have been done on a bike. I agree, its not safe out there, but if I throw in the towel and refuse to ride my bike, how can I ever expect to make a difference? With fewer and fewer bikers on the road it will get easier and easier for others to push us off the roads all together.

Get out there and ride!

[mrfix]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by John E
[B]Question for discussion: Is today's average motorist less skilled and/or less attentive than his/her equivalent of, say, 25 years ago?

Well, if they would get off of the cell phone while driving the car we may have a chance. What could all of these drivers that are on the phone possibly have to talk about.]

[DnvrFox]

Knowing all of the above, I still feel safer driving then when I am cycling.

You summed it all up nicely.

By refusing (or nearly refusing) to ride on the road, you are only making the problem worse. Refusing to ride on the road means that you are using a car for commuting and running errands, when often times it could have been done on a bike.

As I said, my bike paths take me where I want to go.

I can (and do) go to

Store (King Soopers or Safeway ot Albertsons)
Barber
Hardware
Office Depot
Home Depot
Restaurants - at least 10
Movie theater
Radio Shack
etc.
etc.

All on bike paths right froom my back door.

When I moved to a new home 2 years ago, one of the criteria was access to a bike trail. And it starts one house to the east of me. And I can go some 400 miles if I want (never done that, but have done 60+).

As far as commuting - I did that for awhile, but once I changed jobs, my commute is a bit too long for commuting - 34 miles.

And when you are 61 and looking for a decent new job, you go where the jobs are. Just not that much choice, and folks don't want to hire you. So, the response of "Get a job near where you live" just isn't feasible.

Sorry, folks. There have been numerous reports ON THIS FORUM of folks right here having serious injuries - separated shoulders and the like. Cyclingzealot in Fallbrook, and many others. And many, many reports on near misses. Yet, I am sure that most of us also drive, but I just haven't seen similar reports in injuries in cars from car accidents from Forum members.

Perception is 90% or more of the basis for anyone's actions. And my perception is that road cycling on streets is dangerous. "Effective Cycling" has as one of its bases that drivers act with some rationality and consistency. I just don't see that happening. To me, drivers are acting more and more irrationally and at times crazy. I don't want one of them to hit me. That's as simple as I can say it.

I don't want one of them to hit me. Especially when I am on a bicycle.

And, while driving, I see evidence of terrible driving all the time. I am tailgated, cut off, passed at high speeds, see cars wandering around while drivers are on their cell phone. I have absolutely NO trust in the average driver to avoid me or to even see me on a bicycle, much less the drunks and criminally reckless.

I am supposed to trust my bicycling life to some person in a Ford Excursion with 4 kids yelling and screaming, talking on the cell phone as she applies her makeup or he is daydreaming about his golf game while driving down the road at 10 miles above the speed limit? No way.

I guess Ken's death just really got to me.

[DanFromDetroit]

Originally posted by John E
Question for discussion: Is today's average motorist less skilled and/or less attentive than his/her equivalent of, say, 25 years ago?


I don't think the average motorist is any less skilled, bearing in mind that the average motorist has gotten older, they may even be more skilled.

I think that over the last 25 years, with the continuation of the exodus from the cities to the suburbs, the roads built up or improved in the suburban areas have certainly gotten less safe to drive on for conveyances other than cars or for pedestrians. Bike paths for the most part have been an abject failure from a utilitarian transportation perspective. They are not bad for recreational riders though.

Cars have gotten generally bigger and faster and that's a bad thing.

As to the point of the original post. I think that working for equal access to the roads is a better goal to work towards than separate, and generally substandard (from a utilitarian point of view) facilities. I ride on the roads but like DenverFox I do modify my timing and routes to maximize my own safety.

Dan

[FXjohn]

Cars have gotten generally bigger and faster and that's a bad thing.

Bigger? Maybe you mean SUVs, there's only a couple full size rear wheel drive cars anymore, and they're small compared to 70's cars.

With all the money this country spends, we could use more bike paths!

FXjohn

[DanFromDetroit]

I was thinking that SUVs and Pickups are much more common than days of old. I also think that horsepower has increased (200+ for a minivan ?). I really wasn't thinking about the early 70's. I had in mind the post-1973 "oil shortage" period, where cars were downsized fairly quickly.

Dan

[Pete Clark]

Originally posted by DnvrFox
As I said, my bike paths take me where I want to go.

I can (and do) go to

Store (King Soopers or Safeway ot Albertsons)
Barber
Hardware
Office Depot
Home Depot
Restaurants - at least 10
Movie theater
Radio Shack
etc.
etc.

All on bike paths right froom my back door.
Again, I have to point out, Denver, that your bike path network is not possible in most places, as fortunate as you are to have them.

The only way to achieve what you are advocating is to build bike paths up on raised platforms and bridges, or underground.

Otherwise, alongside every major artery, a bike path is built. Each path forms a new intersection at every existing one, plus an intersection at every driveway. What a nightmare. You might as well put a sign on your back that says, "Hit me," though I doubt motorist would see it as you ride down the left side of the road against traffic on the path. (I'm not trying to be rude, Denver, but that's about the way it is around here!)


Sorry, folks. There have been numerous reports ON THIS FORUM of folks right here having serious injuries - separated shoulders and the like. Cyclingzealot in Fallbrook, and many others. And many, many reports on near misses. Yet, I am sure that most of us also drive, but I just haven't seen similar reports in injuries in cars from car accidents from Forum members.
That's an interesting point too, Denver. Statistics bear you out on this: cycling produces more injuries (most not serious) than does driving, because you can't fall off a car.

But when talk about fatalities, the chances of dying in a car are almost twice as high as on a bike, and overall, about 50 times as many people die in cars as on bikes.

I had two accidents on my bike. One was my fault, a simple fall, causing only abrasions. The other was caused by a pedestrian!

To me, drivers are acting more and more irrationally and at times crazy...I don't want one of them to hit me. Especially when I am on a bicycle.
I am with you there--I don't want one of them to hit me, either. But what you are suggesting is that we all move to a place like the one you live, but that's not a viable solution for most people. Your solution leaves out the vast majority of cyclists.

Therefore, since your solution cannot apply in most cases, the other option is to let the hammer down on bad driving, once and for all. Nothing less is acceptable.

[DnvrFox]

The only way to achieve what you are advocating is to build bike paths up on raised platforms and bridges, or underground.

Ours follow stream beds - which generally follow the freeways. At each road crossing, the trails go underneath the bridge over the stream. There are also some independent bridges where needed and appropriate.

I can go from the south end of the Platter River Trail to the north end - a distance of 30 miles through the veritable center of downtown Denver, and I have cross streets at only 3 streets, and two of these are low volume street, generally requiring only a look see, without a slow down.

I can leave my home and go 10 miles south without ever hitting a cross street. Again, there are five bridges, but the trail goes underneath each of them.

I can go west 20 miles to Chatfield Reservoir and cross 5 streets. Each of these is a street crossing, and each is controlled by traffic lights. And this includes a very cleverly designed bike path (with a small tunnel) that actually crosses through an intersection of two freeways (C-470 and I-25). It is amazingly built, and someday I will figure it out. Anyway, I end up on the other side of I-25 without a hitch.

I can leave the Platte River Trail and go on the Bear Creek Trail for 10 miles and cross only one minor street.

Same for the following trails which head out from the Platte River Trail

Little Dry Creek Trail - 5 miles
Cherry Creek Trail - 15 miles
Clear Creek Trail - 20 miles
C-470 Trail West
Sand Creek Trail
Ralston Creek Trail off of the Clear Creek Trail (a few crossings in residential areas)
Little Dry Creek Trail off of the Clear Creek Trail (a few crossings in residential areas)
Sulphur Gulch Trail (off of the S. Cherry Creek Trail - 4 minor corssings.

Etc.

And, I really am NOT advocating for anything.

I am simply stating the conclusion I have come to personally. Why I shared it here, I don't really know, except that is what I think is one of the reasons for a forum (wow - awful syntax).

Thanks, everyone for all the feedback. It made me think. But I haven't changed my mind.

So, I have said my bit, and will end my "thought-sharing" at this time.

Good luck.

[John C. Ratliff]

I share DnvrFox's conclusions to a large degree. This is based both on my own personal experience, my observations on the road, and the research that I have done over the last year and a half since my accident. Here's what I have done:

--Reconfigured my bicycle to be able to see better by raising the handlebar to over the seat height.
--Use a helmet mirror, to see behind and in front of me at the same time.
--I use bike paths that go toward my destination when I can. I have about a half of my route on a bicycle path. No, it doesn't have those kinds of dangerous intersections, as it begins behind a store and ends on a back street. I have had to do some of my own maintenance on it though.
--I simply do not ride on Friday's during commute times, at all. It's too dangerous here, and that's the day of both of my accidents. I think this is a combination of my own fatigue, and the normally distracted drivers becoming more road-raged. Again, this may be my own superstition, but I'm comfortable with it, and it helps keep me riding on the other days.
--I wear bright clothing, and use my lighting system.

You guys can pound DnvrFox all you want, but he and I share a bit of experience (I'm almost 58), and insight that perhaps you don't. It won't help bicycling one bloody bit if either of us gets wiped on the pavement again (I can say that for myself at least).

One thing that everyone can do is to start monitoring your own traffic, and I mean semi-scientifically. For a time, I counted the number of cars that had what I term "auto-bicycle interactions" with me. This term means that either I needed to change something because of them, or they came within ten feet of my bicycle while I was in motion (any direction). On one commute from work to home, I had over a hundred of these interactions. I started experimenting with different routes, and got that number down to just five by varying the route, using bicycle paths, using back roads, crosswalks, sidewalks (to get to a side street), etc.

My reasoning is that by reducing all auto-bicycle interactions with me, I will reduce the likelihood that some wacko will be distracted, drunk, drive with dialated eyes (don't laugh, my wife and I saw some guy do that today), talking on a cell phone (saw that today), be fatigued by flying in from Saudi Arabia then driving home to turn in front of me (that actually happened, wiped me and my bicycle out of bicycling for a month), shoving a hamburger into her mouth (saw that today too), and hit me.

Good luck,

John

[randya]

You should be able to ride your bicycle safely on any public road, along the most direct route, to any concievable destination that any other road user expects to be able to conveniently and safely access. End of story.

Getting from point A to point B on a bicycle should not have to involve circuitous routes, separated paths or any other constructs designed to keep motor vehicles and bicycles from mixing.

The only problem here is arrogant, selfish, stupid, ignorant and dangerous motorists, and a crumbling social system that allows them to get away with behaving in a dangerous and threatening manner towards other legitimate road users.

Roads are for people, not for cars.

[DnvrFox]

Originally posted by randya


The only problem here is arrogant, selfish, stupid, ignorant and dangerous motorists, and a crumbling social system that allows them to get away with behaving in a dangerous and threatening manner towards other legitimate road users.



Yes, that is THE problem.

And until it is solved, what are YOU going to do?

And, it likely wil NOT be solved, that is the conundrum.

You guys can pound DnvrFox all you want, but he and I share a bit of experience (I'm almost 58), and insight that perhaps you don't. It won't help bicycling one bloody bit if either of us gets wiped on the pavement again (I can say that for myself at least

The young believe they are invincible and will live forever. Those of us a bit older KNOW that is not correct.

Also, as a parent of two children both paralyzed from accidents, I have just a bit different perspective on accidents and injuries and their totally devastating effect on people and their families.

[Pete Clark]

I do not agree with the philosophy that, "The roads are dangerous, and will always be dangerous. There is nothing we can do about it." I think that it's long overdue that our roads need to be made safe for all users--drivers, cyclists and pedestrians. To waver on this issue invites more sorrow and death.

For the transportational cyclist, there are only two choices:

1) Separate cyclists from motor traffic.

2) Accomodate cyclists with motor traffic.

There are certainly some safe bike paths available to some at the moment. But as development which favors automobile use continues to mushroom, these kinds of "limited access" paths will become less and less common.

The only realistic option for the future of transportational cycling is option 2, accomodate cyclists with motor traffic. If there are safety issues, they must be dealt with now.

Every cyclist wants safety. But I don't believe we can afford to close our eyes and accept dangerous driving, putting our hopes in building paths. Urban paths will always have to cross roads, or parallel them. These kinds of paths are death-traps--I have ridden them and I refuse to do it anymore.

We must make the roads safe for everyone--NOW. This recent tragic death of our friend and mentor, Ken Kifer, emphasizes this more than ever!

[DnvrFox]

Originally posted by Pete Clark


I think that it's long overdue that our roads need to be made safe for all users--drivers, cyclists and pedestrians. To waver on this issue invites more sorrow and death.

2) Accomodate cyclists with motor traffic.


The only realistic option for the future of transportational cycling is option 2, accomodate cyclists with motor traffic. If there are safety issues, they must be dealt with now.

We must make the roads safe for everyone--NOW.



So, what is your plan to accomplish the above?

[Rich Clark]

Originally posted by John C. Ratliff
This term means that either I needed to change something because of them, or they came within ten feet of my bicycle while I was in motion (any direction).

Ten feet!

Yes, it certainly would be hard not to feel endangered on the road if you feel threatened anytime a car comes within ten feet of you. If that's your benchmark, it's a wonder you stray off the paths at all.

I have plenty of experience too, John. I'm 52, and I've been riding transportationally for more than 40 years (with an unfortunate hiatus in the middle when I mostly drove). The only accident I ever had that caused serious injury -- a broken arm -- was a collision with a pedestrian. But personal anecdotes aren't the point, or proof of anything.

Nobody's arguments can change the way someone else feels. Only you can do that. But don't try to pretend that you're being rational; you're just trying to rationalize your fears because nobody likes to feel afraid.

If someone can manage to continue cycling using paths and trails, fine. It's great that you've found a way to avoid the things that frighten you without giving up the benefits of cycling. But be very clear that there's a line between accommodating your own fears and advocating that other people start sharing them.

I'm not suggesting that either you or Denver are trying to do that, and it takes a certain, different kind of courage to discuss your fears in a public forum, and I admire that.

We've been around and around on the "is cycling dangerous" topic, and it's been quite thoroughly demonstrated that anyone can find statitistics to support whatever position they choose to take. So yes, it really does come down to how you feel about it, how threatened you are... and I suspect (without substantiation, other than my own experience) that one's level of fear has a direct relationship with one's competence on the road.

RichC

[Pete Clark]

Originally posted by DnvrFox
So, what is your plan to accomplish [accomodating cyclists with motor traffic?]
A good start would be to enforce the written traffic code.

The beauty of the strategy of accomodating cyclists with motor traffic is that it requires primarily the enforcement of existing law.

This would benefit everyone, not just cyclists. As it is now, motorists and pedestrians die at an alarming rate. They would be helped, too.

On the other hand, by not acting decisively to reign in out-of-control driving, any attempt to make cycling "safe" by separating cyclists from motor traffic would be ineffective. As a wise man said, "He who is unfaithful in small matters will also be unfaithful in large matters." Drivers who can not be trusted with existing law will never respect new, more confusing ones, such as those that will be created by building more urban bike paths.

And since urban bike paths actually do not separate cyclists from motor traffic (this is impossible,) but actually create more intersecting situations, the cyclist will be placed more squarely in harm's way, especially when you factor in the conflux of pedestrians and others that would populate urban paths.

The simpler the laws, the safer traffic flows.

Whether you want urban paths or not, job #1 is still to make the roads safer, not build more paths. Until you do that, everyone is at risk.

[DnvrFox]

Originally posted by Pete Clark

A good start would be to enforce the written traffic code.



That is like saying - "Everyone should be honest."

That is not a plan - it is a hope.

Specifically, how would you accomplish this? High minded statements are great, but exactly HOW would YOU change the behaviors of police, legislatures, the general public so that laws would be enforced and roads would be safer (for all, not just bicyclists).

A plan, please.

It seems to me we spend time in this forum berating and making lofty statements, but no one actually has a real and viable plan.

How about it?

[Richard D]

Originally posted by DnvrFox
...

Specifically, how would you accomplish this? High minded statements are great, but exactly HOW would YOU change the behaviors of police, legislatures, the general public so that laws would be enforced and roads would be safer (for all, not just bicyclists).

A plan, please.

It seems to me we spend time in this forum berating and making lofty statements, but no one actually has a real and viable plan.

How about it?

Personally I think joining an advocacy group is a good idea - no it won't change things overnight, but certainly in the UK the CTC have been fairly good at fighting for cyclists. Politicians will pay more attention to a large group of potential voters than individuals.

[pel-o-ton]

One way to start would be with educating drivers, and where better to start than driver's education classes? My daughter just completed her level 1 training, and nothing is mentioned about cyclists sharing the road. It would take 5 minutes max to introduce this to new students. Signage at Secretary of Stat offices would help immensely as well. We all have to take tests to renew driver's licenses periodically (not often enough, IMO), and it seems about half the questions on the tests are to increase awareness. How about a question on the test? Again, minimal amount of time, and expense. I really don't think MOST motorists are aware of laws, or how to deal with bicycles sharing the road.
Not a complete answer, but a start, I think.....

[Pete Clark]

Originally posted by DnvrFox
That is like saying - "Everyone should be honest."
No, it is like saying, "If you get caught stealing, you will be prosecuted."

My "plan" starts with the idea that convincing a few fellow cyclists (and motorists) that something should be done about lawlessness on the roads will make a difference. Part of the problem is apathy, something I hope to change.

[Pete Clark]

Denver,

It is clear to me that you enjoy your paths, and I expect I would enjoy them, too. I do not advocate removing your paths, nor prohibiting them from being built.

But I might advocate prohibiting the building of paths like some of the kinds we have around here. Just as some believe the road is not safe for bicycling, I do not think our local paths are safe for bicycling. I am fully persuaded of this.

But this has nothing to do with the design of the paths where you live. You have no reason to be offended when I talk negatively about paths, because I am referring to an entirely different animal.

There is a world of difference between the limited-access style of path and the sidewalk style of path. I won't ride on sidewalks, and I won't ride on a path that is a sidewalk by another name.

How often do your paths have stop signs? If you had to stop as often as a cyclist on one of our paths, you would move back to Colorado. It's just impossible to build your kind of paths in my city. The only such path I know of is a recreational path that starts probably over 10 miles outside the city and stretches through rural areas to the Alabama border. But this path cannot possibly help me, since I would have to drive for a solid hour to get to it, and it could never bring me near my workplace, Kroger, haircut, bike shop, etc.

We are talking apples and oranges.

[Stubacca]

Originally posted by Pete Clark

We are talking apples and oranges.

Pete - you're dead right there.

Denver has a great network of multi-use trails - probably the best I've ever seen. Most cities just don't have the geography or the planning to have these networks. In Brisbane, Australia where I grew up, there were some great trail segments, but not much really interconnected so they didn't seem to be used that much. It was one of those situations where public asked for more bike paths, and they certainly got 'more' bike paths - just not 'good' or 'safe' bike paths. I imagine this is a lot like the paths around you, Pete.

In Denver, if you live near a trail you can get to a lot of places on the trails, but this often takes a lot longer than taking the direct route on the roads. These trails are, and in my mind should always be, designed for recreation (i.e. primarily exercise), not to be a fantastic commuting network.

If I want to ride downtown, it's an easy 12 mile ride up the Cherry Creek Trail without a single stop. Riding to work is a different story; 11 miles on the roads, or 22 on the trails. In both cases, when riding on the trails I have to deal with a lot of foot traffic, and I have to ride slower than I would like to so that I can help to keep the trail safe for all users.

I'll stick to the roads for my commute, and ride assertively so that I can try and control my safety. I've had more close calls on the multi-use trails than I have on the roads, that's for sure!

[orange]

Instead of taking all the bikes off the roads, why not put twice, ten times, fifty times as many? So the cars won't be able to go 500 feet without seeing and having to deal with a bike? So people will stop thinking bikes are blocking traffic and see them as traffic?

Segregation is not the answer! Only repeated, face-to-face interaction can kill stereotypes. Make the interactions pleasant if possible, but stand up for yourself if necessary. Like so many things in life, there is only conflict here because people see it that way.

[Allister]

I'm sorry that you seem to have taken a somewhat defeatist attitude to bike advocacy, Denver. It's not hopeless though, and things can change. I'm not familiar with the history, but I'd hazard a guess that the creation of Denver's trails network came about partially as a result of effective advocacy from cyclists.

I'm also sorry that you underestimate the value of these fora. I ride alone most of the time. Without a site such as this and the bikeqld mailing list I'd have vitually no contact with other cyclists. This is the place where ideas are bounced around, where the pros and cons can be weighed up and a course of action can be revealed. The members can then use these ideas in their local advocacy efforts. They are also an important news source to hear about success stories from around the world. So, yes we talk about 'lofty ideals' and maybe ideals are unacheivable, but don't denegrate their importance as part of the process in achieving things such as Denver's intricate trail network.

In the meantime, we all make do with what we've got. I don't have the luxury of a trail network such as you do, so I ride on the road, and have learned the skills necessary to do so in relative safety (even off-road paths aren't perfectly safe btw.)

I wouldn't describe myself as 'young' (I'm 34), and I certainly don't suffer an immortality complex, but neither do I succumb to fear and try to remove myself from all risk. Every moment of our lives is a calculated risk and I have determined after years of practice and experience that the risk of cycling in traffic is small enough that I'll contuniue to do it. The benefits far outweigh the risks.

Maybe when and if I reach my 60's I'll sing a different tune but I'll cross that bridge when I come to it, but as it stands now I'd rather be a Rich Clark than a Denver Fox.

Or maybe it's just that the motorists aren't as psychotic here in Brisbane as they are in Denver. booyah can probably give the definitive opinioin on that one.

[Stubacca]

Originally posted by Allister
....maybe it's just that the motorists aren't as psychotic here in Brisbane as they are in Denver. booyah can probably give the definitive opinioin on that one.

You rang? :D

Motorists in Denver (and the US in general) are much more psychotic than they are in Brisbane. They are impatient, obnoxious, rude and inconsiderate. They drive larger cars at much higher speeds. Stop signs are but a mere suggestion. They don’t know what a turn signal is. They think a red light means 3 more cars can go.

But….

The roads are wider; the shoulders are broader, in better repair and generally cleaner; and there are far more on-street bike lines. The most psychotic ones stick to the freeways and major arterials and give each other grief.

In general I find Denver easier to ride around on the roads than I did Brisbane. The grid layout of the city makes it a piece of cake to ride one street over and get to the same point with less traffic and less imbeciles. I’ve ridden around Salt Lake City, Nashville, Chicago and Sydney and come to much the same conclusions.

6 of one, half a dozen of the other really…. As with the discussion about road rules, most things are usually applicable to both countries.

[closetbiker]

Originally posted by DnvrFox
Perhaps it is me, but it seems there have been a rash of bicycle deaths just these past few months... The latest, Ken Kifer's, has really got me thinking. I have referred to his web site. I have read all the statistics, and have done a fair amount of research.Well, another controversial post by DnvrFox.

More like an ill informed post.

If you read Ken's site you would have seen @

http://kenkifer.com/bikepages/health/risks.htm

Is Cycling Dangerous?

Ken says,

" There is absolutely no way that I can furnish definite proof that bicycling is a safe activity...Nor can I do anything to reconcile my various sources of statistics. However, I think I can easily establish that cycling is much less dangerous that what the fearmongers insist and that it has compensating benefits which are more important than the risks involved...if someone tells you that bicycling is dangerous, point out that heart disease alone -- which can be prevented by riding a bicycle -- kills almost 1,000 times as many people each year."

I also agree with Rich C when he says,

"We've been around and around on the "is cycling dangerous" topic, and it's been quite thoroughly demonstrated that anyone can find statitistics to support whatever position they choose to take. So yes, it really does come down to how you feel about it, how threatened you are..."

I'd also add that to ignore the real threat to everyone (bad road use by dangerous drivers) we'll continue to to get the same results.

[John C. Ratliff]

Closetbiker,

You can cite all the stats you wish, but the fact is that the person your are citing is now dead. That is what has shaken up Dnvrfox. Also, it is not that we don't agree with what Ken cited. But that one fact has an impact upon us; please respect that.

I'll post more after supper, about my ideas of making my commute safer. It will be based upon today's ride too.

John

[Chris L]

Originally posted by DnvrFox
Perhaps it is me, but it seems there have been a rash of bicycle deaths just these past few months. Maybe they just got a lot of publicity. Cars running into groups of riders, many, many drunk drivers killing cyclists. Whew.

The latest, Ken Kifer's, has really got me thinking. I have referred to his web site (and referred others) and feel as if he was a comrade.

I have read all the statistics, and have done a fair amount of research.

The conclusions I have reached:

1. More accidents occure on bike paths per capita then on roadways.

2. But more FATAL accidents per capita occur to bicyclists when they are mixing with cars. Typically, bike path accidents are relatively minor, and though they make the statistics higher, they don't affect lives as much.

3. It seems that when a car (truck, SUV, whatever) and a bike
collide, the biker is always the loser. A bike just does not afford the protection needed in a crash.

4. I keep reading suggestions and even rants and raves against drivers of all kinds - if older dirvers or drunk drivers or little old ladies or teenagers or whatever would only drive safer or be tested more or be banned from the road, bicyclists would be safer.

And, all of that is mostly true. BUT, IT JUST IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN - not in my lifetime, anyway. No matter how much is written on bicycling forums and USENET, not one word written here will change any laws, perceptions of non-bikers nor practices of non-bikers/drivers.

All that writing is all just a waste of bandwidth, energy and time.

From http://www.bicyclinglife.com/PracticalCycling/VCIntro.htm

-- About 85% of all bicycle crashes requiring medical treatment didn't involve a moving car at all; the bicyclist simply slid, fell, or ran into something. That’s why helmets and gloves are important.

-- In the 15% that were car/bike crashes, over 9 out of 10 were avoidable; they happened with crossing and turning traffic at driveways, intersections, and in bikelanes.

-- Over 50% of adult cycling deaths were avoidable; they involved bicycling at night without lights.

This would give lie to the fact that "cycling on the road is dangerous". We should all remember here that Ken Kifer's death would have occurred had he been on a bike, walking or in a car. In fact, from the same reference I quoted above:

Yet because bicycling is so forgiving, the number of persons who die while bicycling in the US is very small: fewer than 900 per year. That's compared to 5,000 pedestrians, almost 40,000 in cars, 60,000 from air pollution, and hundreds of thousands from lack of exercise. Overall, bicycling is safer than motorcycling, horse-riding, water-skiing, or swimming. Even the overall risk involved in a bicycle crash is much less than in a car crash. Cars on highways crash at high speeds, with tremendous damaging forces, and tangle with tractor-trailers 30-40 times larger (a much greater difference than between cars and bikes).


The truth of the matter is that riding on bikepaths does not automatically mean one is impervious to accidents of all kinds -- and riding on roads does not automatically mean one is going to die. I myself have over 100,000km of riding in traffic behind me and have yet to suffer so much as a broken bone (and no, my luck isn't that good). Removing drunk/incompetent drivers from the road mightn't be likely, but once you've seen a few of them driving on footpaths and bikepaths (as I frequently have), you'll realise that precious little else has any chance at all of being effective.

By all means, ride on a path if you feel more comfortable there, but don't put on all this scare-mongering to try to put others off doing what is safer for them. I personally feel safer on the roads than the paths, and as such will continue to ride on the roads.

[closetbiker]

Originally posted by John C. Ratliff
Closetbiker,

You can cite all the stats you wish,

What stats have I cited?

I used Ken's words, endorsed Rich Clark's reasoning and said maybe we should concentrate on dangerous drivers to make things safer.

What are you saying?

[John C. Ratliff]

Today I did some of the counting that I talked about above, using the "auto-bicycle interaction criterion" that I defined in the earlier post. That definition says that I count a "auto-bicycle interaction" whenever a car either makes me do something, or comes within ten feet of my bicycle. When I discussed this earlier on this thread, Rich Clark said:



Ten feet!

Yes, it certainly would be hard not to feel endangered on the road if you feel threatened anytime a car comes within ten feet of you. If that's your benchmark, it's a wonder you stray off the paths at all.


First, let me say that I don't feel endangered by having a car within ten feet. Those who know me know better than that. But, I am a safety professional, and I'm constantly trying new methodologies of studying different problems.

I say that ten feet is my criterion for counting the car as having an interaction with me. It can be a very slight interaction, in which I only notice the noise and air pressure changes. Or it can be a great interaction, where I must evade. I should point out that bicycle lanes typically are not wide enough to keep cars out of the ten-foot interaction area; in other words, although on a bicycle path, the cyclist and the motorist still are interacting. Many ignore this interaction unless it becomes very prominent. Most will watch closely a car that does pass within ten feet (unless they have no mirror system, in which case they may be unaware of this until it is over).

Why ten feet? That, to some, seems like a lot of space. Well, there are at least two reasons I choose ten feet.

First, because at the closing speed of most cars (in excess of 25 mph), at ten feet there is no room for reaction times. If the bicyclist falls over due to something in the road, the car probably will hit the bicyclist if he or she falls into the cars path at ten feet. Or, if the bicyclist swerves out of the way of an opening door, the car cannot react in time to avoid a collision. If the car does something weird within ten feet, the bicyclist cannot react in time to avoid a crash. Or if someone passes by, and decides to do something like was posted when someone leaned out an open door to hit the cyclist, there is no time to react (in this case though, the cyclist averted the problem by having first taken a sidewalk). If someone yells or screams, or makes a loud noise, it is much more likely to elicit a startle reflex within ten feet than outside that distance.

Second, ten feet is easy for me to estimate. I have a pretty good handle on whether a car comes within that space. In other countries, it's about 2 meters. Either way, it's an easily estimated distance, and so it is easy to keep track of cars that get into that space.

So that is my criterion, and I can set it because this is my study only. I don't pretend it to be real scientific, but it is a tool I can use daily to determine my exposure on different roadways.

Today, I used it at noon, on a ten-mile bicycle ride, and going home, on a different route than the noon ride. The noon ride started with about a half-mile of heavily trafficed road (Cornellius Pass Road), and then two country roads (West Union and Jackson Bottom Road). And I must say that it was really, really enjoyable with the weather we've had--bright sunshine all this week. Going home was on the same first portion of the road, then on backroads most of the way home.

On the noon ride, during the first section, I had 21 auto-bicycle interactions (ABIs) in about a half-mile, the second portion on the back roads was another 21 ABIs, and finally 22 on the last portion, again on the heavily trafficed road. That was a total of 54 ABIs. Most were simple interactions, with the cars just passing me. I was able to avoid a few, by keeping by bicycle away more than ten feet from the cars when it was convenient. But one stood out; I was riding up a hill, when from the top of the hill two cars were coming down, with a third pickup trying to pass them IN MY LANE. He saw me, and dived in front of the lead car with less than 30 feet to spare, at something like 60 mph! I was looking to take the ditch. So this particular ABI was significant, one we in the safety profession call a "near miss." It was particularly galling because, as I made a sweeping motion for him to get into his own lane, he gave me the wonderful birdie finger gesture.

Going home was pretty nice too, and I did have 21 ABIs in that first section. I am not too concerned about this area, because it has a good bicycle lane, but I still counted them. On the back roads home, I had very few, and ended the ride with 36 ABIs. I did see one instance of road rage, which was very peculiar as a lady was trying to back out of her driveway, and a car had to stop for her (it was going less than 25 mph), and it honked hard at her. He was having a bad day, apparently. Anyway, that was two bad drivers in the one day.

Okay, what can I do with these numbers. As I said in my earlier entry, my belief is that I would be safer with fewer of these ABIs. By counting them, I can get an estimate of the usage, and the closeness, of car-bicycle interactions. I can, if I keep this up, also determine the best times to be on the road. I can also get an idea of how many impared drivers are using the roads by my observations. For instance, I saw two today, and had 90 ABIs. That is a percentage that is at 0.022, or 2.22%.

Does that seem high? Well, maybe, but maybe not. Take a look around, on a daily basis, and start monitoring driver behavior. In safety terms, this is behavioral safety inventory information. It is looking at the percentage of unsafe behaviors verses the number of interactions. I only described the two that affected me within my study criterion. I cannot affect the unsafe behaviors I note; I can determine my exposure to them at various times, routes, etc., and look for alternatives.

All the talk of getting involved with education, with going to driver's ed classes, is good, but it will not affect the driver behaviors. These are driven by forces beyond the control of these measures. Look at TV ads for cars, and try to determine whether these are encouraging good driver behavior, or showing bad behavior as the norm. I think you'll discover that the latter is occurring. If 40,000+ deaths a year from auto accidents doesn't dent enforcement of traffic violations, what makes you think that a letter will help?

What I'm encouraging is that you look at your own cycling experience, and see what you can do right now, with your own behavior, which will lessen your chances of being injured by a car.

John

PS--Closetcyclist, the stats I was talking about turned out to be heart disease states you cited from Ken's materials; I owe you an apology on that one--my dyslexia again. 'Sorry.