Just to be clear, we are just discussing the magnitude of the effect. I do not know what the penetration of cell phone use was during the 90s. But I would guess is that it increased during the decade through the early 2000s. Consequently, I would expect some change as penetration changed if the effect was large. It could be the case that one distraction -- cell phones -- simply replaced another distraction -- listening to the radio/music.
I don't think that is the case as the music distraction is often still there too.


Perhaps I should put my opinion in perspective. I believe that things have changed; but that the large component of accident causes are relatively constant conditioned on demographics (essentially the proportion of youth driving). Just making up figures to give a concrete example, this would mean that 90% of fatalities are due to human factors that are unchanged while 10% due to environmental changes. I still think that 10% of ~40-50K deaths is significant and worthwhile of public outcry.

Mind you, how this interacts with cycling and safe strategies is unclear since the risks are different with respect to passenger cars. That is, collisions are more likely to be catastrophic for a cyclist given a collision's qualities. So changes in minor passenger car collisions could have very different ramifications for cyclists since certain relationships can be nonlinear. However, my guess is that older studies are still relevant; i.e., I can't prove that assertion by a reasonable standard ... "proponderance of the evidence" or "beyond a reasonable doubt".

To convince me that there was a significant effect, I would like to see a change in accidents, fatalities that somehow controlled for engineering and exposure in general, or something of the sort. The problem with the laboratory studies is that they often fail to mimic real-world situations to completely convincing on their own. For example, few people will be worried about making some appointment, be sleep deprived, or tending to the baby, while conducting an experiment regarding cell phones. Consequently, we don't know what the real marginal effect of increased cell phone use is since the substitution between behavior is inadequately captured.

Got to run.

Fair enough... you do recognize that accident survivability has gone up for occupants of the typical vehicle built after the introduction of air bags... so the death rate can (and appears to have) remained somewhat flat in spite of the greater number of vehicles on the road (undeniable).

You mentioned that "collisions are more likely to be catastrophic for a cyclist given a collision's qualities," which I interpret to mean that a fender bender that may or may not set off an air bag can be quite harmful to a cyclist. The only way to determine if there are more collisions on this order, over time, would be to get strictly collision data, which I have not been able to find... most official data out there seems to be keyed on deaths.

My comment regarding real world cell phone issues is not fully dependent on laboratory studies; one can easily personally observe the driving behavior of motorists and note that unusual driving habits are often associated with cell phone use... failing to keep safe distances, failing to make safe lane changes, weaving... these can be observed well outside of the lab environment. Further, there is evidence (again out of the lab) that cell phone use causes observable delays in traffic. All these are a function of concentration and reaction time devoted to a device that is voluntarily used in the vehicle on top of the usual distractions (mental stress, tired driving, etc).

BTW I did not know that Santa Cruz, Palo Alto, Boulder, San Francisco had a ridership higher then the national average of about 2%.

These are all known as bicycling heavy cities with big investments in bicycling infrastructure as well as promotion and education and active cycling advocacy at the grass roots. The national average in 2005 was 0.4%. Portland was at 3.5% in 2005 according to the US Census. 4.7% of commuters nationwide use public transportation.

The 2000 census showed Palo Alto's mode share is 5.6%, though recent traffic counts show that this has increased significantly over the past two years. 45% of Stanford University employees ride their bikes to work. Boulder 2000 census data showed 7% mode share; more recent surveys show that has rocketed to 21% for Boulder residents. 2000 census shows 5.4% bicycle mode share for the city of Santa Cruz, though it's an estimated 12% today (excluding the university population). San Francisco was right at about 2%, though the SFBC points out that this does not include multimodal commuters -- i.e. the thousands of cyclists who ride BART and Caltrain every day into The City aren't counted as cyclists.

What's especially exciting is seeing burgeoning cycling advocacy in areas like Kansas City (listed as the worst city for bike commuting last year), Dallas, and Houston.

I don't think that is the case as the music distraction is often still there too.

Sure ... but what I am writing is that talking is probably replacing music for these people as opposed to talking replacing total concentration on driving.

Fair enough... you do recognize that accident survivability has gone up for occupants of the typical vehicle built after the introduction of air bags... so the death rate can (and appears to have) remained somewhat flat in spite of the greater number of vehicles on the road (undeniable).

You mentioned that "collisions are more likely to be catastrophic for a cyclist given a collision's qualities," which I interpret to mean that a fender bender that may or may not set off an air bag can be quite harmful to a cyclist. The only way to determine if there are more collisions on this order, over time, would be to get strictly collision data, which I have not been able to find... most official data out there seems to be keyed on deaths.

My comment regarding real world cell phone issues is not fully dependent on laboratory studies; one can easily personally observe the driving behavior of motorists and note that unusual driving habits are often associated with cell phone use... failing to keep safe distances, failing to make safe lane changes, weaving... these can be observed well outside of the lab environment. Further, there is evidence (again out of the lab) that cell phone use causes observable delays in traffic. All these are a function of concentration and reaction time devoted to a device that is voluntarily used in the vehicle on top of the usual distractions (mental stress, tired driving, etc).

Yep ... fatalities would be difficult to study for the reasons you describe. Which is why we looked at collisions.

Personally, I find cell phone use during driving incredibly annoying. And I agree that in theory and by personal observation it should make one a worse driver. But if it doesn't manifest in more collisions or whatever, then one has to re-evaluate the theory or look more carefully at the statistics.

DOT has collision statistics; but ...

... the collision statistics -- as was brought up by Randya -- seem to have a selection bias with regards to severity of the accident. That is, an accident needs to be severe enough for the police to record it and be included in the statistics. After the exchange with Randya a while back, I asked the local officer and they reported something similar in a local Maryland city (Hyattsville). It could be the case that cell phone use increases the number of fender benders but that people are more careful when driving at higher velocities avoiding serious collisions. Anyway we need to think carefully about our conclusions based on the collision data beginning in the 90s.

These are all known as bicycling heavy cities with big investments in bicycling infrastructure as well as promotion and education and active cycling advocacy at the grass roots. The national average in 2005 was 0.4%. Portland was at 3.5% in 2005 according to the US Census. 4.7% of commuters nationwide use public transportation.

The 2000 census showed Palo Alto's mode share is 5.6%, though recent traffic counts show that this has increased significantly over the past two years. 45% of Stanford University employees ride their bikes to work. Boulder 2000 census data showed 7% mode share; more recent surveys show that has rocketed to 21% for Boulder residents. 2000 census shows 5.4% bicycle mode share for the city of Santa Cruz, though it's an estimated 12% today (excluding the university population). San Francisco was right at about 2%, though the SFBC points out that this does not include multimodal commuters -- i.e. the thousands of cyclists who ride BART and Caltrain every day into The City aren't counted as cyclists.

What's especially exciting is seeing burgeoning cycling advocacy in areas like Kansas City (listed as the worst city for bike commuting last year), Dallas, and Houston.

Interesting... but again it comes down to infrastructure and promotion as well as education... not simply the price of driving, nor is there any place where education alone has lead to a higher mode share.

Sure ... but what I am writing is that talking is probably replacing music for these people as opposed to talking replacing total concentration on driving.



Yep ... fatalities would be difficult to study for the reasons you describe. Which is why we looked at collisions.

Personally, I find cell phone use during driving incredibly annoying. And I agree that in theory and by personal observation it should make one a worse driver. But if it doesn't manifest in more collisions or whatever, then one has to re-evaluate the theory or look more carefully at the statistics.

DOT has collision statistics; but ...

... the collision statistics -- as was brought up by Randya -- seem to have a selection bias with regards to severity of the accident. That is, an accident needs to be severe enough for the police to record it and be included in the statistics. After the exchange with Randya a while back, I asked the local officer and they reported something similar in a local Maryland city (Hyattsville). It could be the case that cell phone use increases the number of fender benders but that people are more careful when driving at higher velocities avoiding serious collisions. Anyway we need to think carefully about our conclusions based on the collision data beginning in the 90s.

Sure and regarding music, passengers, food, etc. as HH had often said, those distractions have always existed. (although one really has to wonder about the addition of many cup holders in the '90s as a "selling" feature... ;) )

The vast difference between those distractions and something like a cellphone... is that the cell phone (or computer or game or using a GPS) are further distractions and often require far more attention then say a "bag of fries."

Ultimately I agree that data need to be closely examined before conclusions are drawn.

BTW I was not aware of any national data base for collisions alone... everything I found was based on death stats... I would think insurance companies would have collision data, but hold it close at hand as their actuarial forecasts are based on that information. (IE, it's proprietary)

not simply the price of driving, nor is there any place where education alone has lead to a higher mode share.

Right, but I never claimed that was the case, Gene. You made the claim that engineering is the only thing that works to increase bicycle mode share, and that's simply not true.

I'll give Longmont, Colorado as an example (since I know the people involved). The facilities were already in place, but active promotion over the past 36 months is what resulted a change from 190 cars dropping children off at one school to fewer than 30 cars, and up to 96% of children walking and biking to school at least once a week at that school.

In the Silicon Valley area (where I do most of my biking), there have been some modest improvements in bike facilities over the last year, but I'd wager that most of the substantial gain in bike commuters over the last year has to do with gas prices, not new bike paths.

Are you under the impression that I am anti-facility? I've authored grant requests to state agencies for funding for paths and lanes, and as a member of a city bike advisory committee I've recommended, voted for, and testified in support of cycling facilities.

Richard Masoner

I believe that private drives (home, business: strip mall, gas station, etc.) are not considered intersections. Add to this a number of mid block collisions are due to crossing where there is no intersection and also include wrong way cyclists.

For example in 2005 Mesa, AZ (http://www.cityofmesa.org/transportation/pdf/bike_analysis.pdf) the data on the surface would indicate 56% intersection related and 44% mid-block collisions.

Now take that 44% mid-block collision and break them down by not counting collisions where the cyclist was crossing the street mid-block (12.3%) and not counting collisions at private drives (25%), then of the total mid block collisions where the cyclist was not crossing the street and the cyclist was not crossing a private drive, then there are remaining 6.5% (1.4% wrong way) mid-block collisions and 81% private drive or intersection related.


Thanks for that link Al. I stuck it on my Research Page (http://www.industrializedcyclist.com/lies.html). The Mesa study is not all that different from the Cross study, just a bit further south and a lot fresher.

The biggest problem with both, in my opinion, is the inclusion of wrecks involving child cyclists (who are of course over-represented in the data). Not that it's a bad thing to find out how kids collide with cars, but it's a bad thing to try to draw conclusions about the wrecks of either adult riders or child cyclists when the data from both is all lumped together as a single unit. Kids and adults are different animals, they ride differently and for different reasons, and they have different types of wrecks. For crash statistics to be useful one of the first requirements is that the numbers for kids and those for adults need to be explicit and separate.

This is also a danger when attempting to use very old data, as the percentage of kids among all bicyclists was much greater in the 1970s than it is today, having profound effect on accident typology. That is, if typology is a real word.

Robert

... nor is there any place where education alone has lead to a higher mode share.

There is no evidence that cycling education/training has led to any significant measurable results on safety, transportation choice, or on any other metric, in any scenario or in any population.

Right, but I never claimed that was the case, Gene. You made the claim that engineering is the only thing that works to increase bicycle mode share, and that's simply not true.

I'll give Longmont, Colorado as an example (since I know the people involved). The facilities were already in place, but active promotion over the past 36 months is what resulted a change from 190 cars dropping children off at one school to fewer than 30 cars, and up to 96% of children walking and biking to school at least once a week at that school.

In the Silicon Valley area (where I do most of my biking), there have been some modest improvements in bike facilities over the last year, but I'd wager that most of the substantial gain in bike commuters over the last year has to do with gas prices, not new bike paths.

Are you under the impression that I am anti-facility? I've authored grant requests to state agencies for funding for paths and lanes, and as a member of a city bike advisory committee I've recommended, voted for, and testified in support of cycling facilities.

Richard Masoner

Sorry if I gave the impression that facilities alone are the solution... you are right in that it takes promotion and cooperation of the local government.

My negative responses are not to you, but to those that believe that education alone is the solution... there is no evidence of that. (as ILTB likes to point out)

What really encourages cycling as transportation is a positive cycling environment... and that means more then Vehicular Cycling training (as some may believe)... and more then roads that are "just fine...." as some cycling advocates like to state. ("all lanes are bike lanes... ")

Non bike friendly roads do not encourage cycling... no matter how much they are declared to be "just fine" by some cycling advocates.

Thanks for that link Al. I stuck it on my Research Page (http://www.industrializedcyclist.com/lies.html). The Mesa study is not all that different from the Cross study, just a bit further south and a lot fresher.

There are a couple other fatality studies that may be of interest on the study page:
http://www.cityofmesa.org/transportation/Traffic_Studies.aspx

The fatality analysis studies don't get into much detail about bicycles though.

I recommend if anyone finds a study they find useful, to save it to you computer. They often disappear after a few weeks to years.

Al

What really encourages cycling as transportation is a positive cycling environment... and that means more then Vehicular Cycling training (as some may believe)... and more then roads that are "just fine...." as some cycling advocates like to state. ("all lanes are bike lanes... ")

Non bike friendly roads do not encourage cycling... no matter how much they are declared to be "just fine" by some cycling advocates.

Some VC-only advocates make the distinction that they are not cycling advocates, but advocates of existing cyclists. As a cyclist, I want to reinforce my right to use any road for cycling, and part of that is encouraging cyclists to use those existing roads where appropriate.

Where I'm at in California has had 40 years of cyclist advocacy and the motorists here are mostly fairly mellow about cyclists who take the lane here, though a few do rant in online forums and in letters to the editor. I also realize these advocacy efforts are just starting in much of the rest of the United States.

What really encourages cycling as transportation is a positive cycling environment... and that means more then Vehicular Cycling training (as some may believe)... and more then roads that are "just fine...." as some cycling advocates like to state. ("all lanes are bike lanes... ")

Non bike friendly roads do not encourage cycling... no matter how much they are declared to be "just fine" by some cycling advocates.

Some VC-only advocates make the distinction that they are not cycling advocates, but advocates of existing cyclists. As a cyclist, I want to reinforce my right to use any road for cycling, and part of that is encouraging cyclists to use those existing roads where appropriate.

Where I'm at in California has had 40 years of cyclist advocacy and the motorists here are mostly fairly mellow about cyclists who take the lane here, though a few do rant in online forums and in letters to the editor. I also realize these advocacy efforts are just starting in much of the rest of the United States.

Some VC-only advocates make the distinction that they are not cycling advocates, but advocates of existing cyclists. As a cyclist, I want to reinforce my right to use any road for cycling, and part of that is encouraging cyclists to use those existing roads where appropriate.

Where I'm at in California has had 40 years of cyclist advocacy and the motorists here are mostly fairly mellow about cyclists who take the lane here, though a few do rant in online forums and in letters to the editor. I also realize these advocacy efforts are just starting in much of the rest of the United States.

I noticed you used the modifier "where appropriate." Are there times and places where using existing roads is not appropriate?

Me, I might call myself more of an advocate of cycling, where I want to see more people on the roads calling themselves cyclists... whether they wear jerseys and "train," or 3 piece suits and commute. And I would like to see an environment that accommodates any and all persons wishing to ride a bicycle.