Advocacy & Safety - Face it, it's our fault

When accidents occur involving cyclists and motor vehicles, you can analyze each case and assign blame. Sometimes it's the cyclist's fault, sometimes the driver's.

But after reading threads like (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=518575) these (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=517555), I've come to the realization that cyclists are the problem. Each of us makes the traffic decisions that seem best to us based upon our past experience, our current situation, the traffic around us, etc. The problem is that each of us has very valid (at least to us) reasons for taking the lane, for staying to the side, for rolling through intersections when doing so in a car would draw a ticket, for going when a driver waves us through a 4-way Stop out of turn, for planting a foot and waiting. Each situation is different. But more signficantly, each cyclist's reaction is different. In each of our minds, we are doing the safest, most logical things. To drivers, though, we look like an example of random motion. They don't know what to expect, because we don't all follow the same rules.

One of the rules of safe cycling is to ride consistently. But consistent with what? I ride pretty consistently from one day to the next, but if the next cyclist (who may also ride consistently from one day to the next), rides different from me, how does my consistent riding help anyone? A driver still has no idea what to expect.

JoeyBike feels that his non-stop riding style is least disruptive to both himself and to traffic- finding unoccupied nooks and crannies in traffic, taking the little pieces of space the cars leave over. It's a very noble, romantic justifcation, and for him it works. I would never do that. First of all, to my eyes it goes beyond merely bending traffic laws; secondly, and I think this is why he posts his videos, it just looks crazy. He's developed a skill and exploits it to the fullest.

But even fairly like-minded individuals can differ on a straightforward, common situations, like what to do at 4-way Stops, what's the best way to make a left-hand turn, really basic stuff.

Drivers have much clearer definition of how to drive. Bikes.... not so much.

I think it starts when kids are just starting to ride. As long as they are out of the street, we don't really worry so much about how they are navigating, how they are interacting with other cyclists. They work it out just fine. They develop their own, organic traffic laws among themselves. But the kids on Elm Street develop different rules than those on Oak Street. So right off the bat you have this individuality. There is never formal training to get all the kids in a neighborhood, town or state to follow the same set of rules.

The default when they become adults is to follow the same laws as cars. With some legal exceptions (that most drivers aren't aware of), and lots of informal exceptions that are as individual as the cyclists.

So what's the solution? Frankly, I got nothin'. You can legislate cycling behavior, but there is still going to be conflict between cars and bikes. You can build a whole other infrastructure, but there is neither the public will to pay for it, nor the inclination for cyclists to limit themselves to only using specific routes. You can do less invasive infrastructure like Sharrows, but even then there will be conflicts, and again, cyclists won't always follow the same sets of rules, so the problem of unpredictable cyclists remains.

Wait, you say. *I* am predictable. I always take the lane, I always follow traffic laws, I always do the same thing every time. But you're just one of many, and many others behave in a similarly logical (to them), but different, ways.

So can you blame motorists when you have awkward encounters, or worse, with them? On some level, yes you can. But you also have to understand that each of us carves out our piece of road in our own way. The method for cars is far more standardized and predictable than it is for bicycles. As a result, it's very difficult for drivers to predict what a cyclist will do.

Like I said, I got no solution. I just wanted to put some thoughts out there. Maybe someone smarter than me can fix this.

But you also have to understand that each of us carves out our piece of road in our own way. The method for cars is far more standardized and predictable than it is for bicycles.

I do not concur with this key part of the argument.

Maybe you live in an area with different driving culture than me.

I'm with ghettocruiser. Motorist behavior is all over the map. And if you look behind most auto-bicycle crashes, you will find an inattentive, distracted, drunk, sleeping, cellphone yakking, or otherwise negligent driver.

Being on the road, whether in auto or on bicycle, is a series of short, simple conversations with other road users, using signals, signs, and movement (and, yes, occasional audio) to indicate your intent. People will, by nature, be inconsistent with one another in their behavior and communications, despite the best intentions of transportation engineers. The real problem stems from the fact that, all too often, one of the conversants isn't really paying attention.

Right, but the conversations are in a common language among drivers. In fact, drivers get along pretty well with each other because they all speak a dialect of the same language. To them, bicycle is a foreign language with far more dialects- so many dialects that even cyclist-to-cyclist communications are often not clear.

...... But you also have to understand that each of us carves out our piece of road in our own way. The method for cars is far more standardized and predictable than it is for bicycles. As a result, it's very difficult for drivers to predict what a cyclist will do.

Like I said, I got no solution. I just wanted to put some thoughts out there. Maybe someone smarter than me can fix this.


I agree not so much that the method for cars is more 'standardized and predictable...' as with a couple of parallel arguments....

(1) Cars have a series of signals and indicators (some voluntary, some not) which provide extremely valubale information about the drivers intent. By this i mean, among other things, turn signals, brake lights, stall lights, and the newer ideas such as pressure brake lights and lights that indicate you have eased off the accelerator (useful on interstates). Bicycles have none of this...and all the blabber about hand signals is worthless not only because most cyclings don't use them, but because hand signals are impractical and downright dangerous in heavy traffic.

(2) Cars have a series of injury prevention devices (now mostly automatic) that are designed to prevent minor accidents causing major injuries, and major accidents causing fatal injuries (not always effective). Among them are airbags, seatbelts, and other devices...and smart cars, which monitor distances between vehicles, etc, are on their way. In contrast, with a bicycle (much like a motorcycle, for the same reason), even the most minor infraction can cause a major injury (even a fatal one); and a major infraction is almost always fatal. Again we can whine and complain all we want, but it is an inherent weakness of a two wheeled vehicle over a four wheeled one.

Thus I always have seen myself as a secondary user on the roadways, and have felt that dollar for dollar, the best investment in bicycle safety is to improve, widen, or install road shoulders. This may be difficult in densely populated areas, but there is the other 99% of the nation's surface where it would really help.


roughstuff

drivers get along pretty well with each other because they all speak a dialect of the same language.

They absolutely do not get along pretty well with each other. In fact, they crash into one another with astounding frequency and exceeding violence. They may be speaking the same dialect, but damn few are listening.

I observe motor vehicle drivers as a whole to be far more consistent and predictable in behavior than cyclists. That does not mean that motorists all follow the traffic law, drive safely or intentionally communicate.

Right, but the conversations are in a common language among drivers. In fact, drivers get along pretty well with each other because they all speak a dialect of the same language. this is incorrect. If the motorists were driving electric open model T style cars where they could scream at each other and be heard, there would be a lot of screaming going on. I hear lots of honking. I see motorists going nuts on each other. They cut each other off and slow down in front of other motorists to "punish" them. I think I might see more anti-motorist behavior than anti-cyclist behavior just because I'm generally riding in a predictable manner. It doesn't really forgive the bad behavior addressed at me, but it's there. People abuse us because we are powerless. If we were in a car, people wouldn't abuse us the same way because you never know when you triggered a road rage incident.

Motorists don't generally use their signals. If they do, someone makes them pay for it by intentionally blocking their way. They speed, they inexplicably go slow. They dash out in front of other motorists at the last second. They roll through stop signs, sometimes at speed, often without looking. Right turn on red after stop isn't. They violate each other's right of way. They illegally pass on the shoulder. It's all over the map.

I have seen several car bike accidents. In all of these, the cyclist was on the right side of the road. They were on the right part of the line. They were riding a constant speed. And they all still got clobbered by a motorist. In my experience, predictability does not always save cyclists.

Drivers in Los Angeles are FAR from predictable. Not even the same ballpark, not even the same sport. Here, they don't get along well with each other either.

I drive my bicycle like I would a motorcar. How "unpredictable" is that?

Thanks for bringing this up, Doohickie. Looks like you're getting clobbered by the cycling elite, though. :p

What many of you are saying is that motorists drive unpredictably and therefore cause accidents. This is true. My feeling is that distraction from driving is the only cause of accidents. We need to fix this, but that's not the point Doohickie is bringing up.

Last night, from my *very predictable commute to and from school, I encountered sidewalk riders, wrong way riders, sidewalk wrong way riders, stop signs and lights blown through, no light wrong way sidewalk stop sign blowing riders, you get the idea. Cyclists, as a group tend to act as though there are no laws to govern us. I'm not saying that as a negative. I think there are many laws that shouldn't apply to us, and there are things that we should do that probably warrant laws that aren't on the books. What I'm saying is that we are all over the place in terms of how we ride.

Imagine that motorists drove the way that cyclists ride, that there is absolutely no pattern to their driving. We may feel that way now, but take it one step further, no lanes, no lights, doesn't matter if you use headlights or not. Just drivers doing whatever they want. Do you think the accidents would increase? This is why traffic laws came into being. To prevent this chaotic movement.

Sure, not all motorists are predictable, but because the majority are, it makes the less predictable ones stand out. I can generally tell when a motorist will blow a stop sign, or run into the bike lane, or is driving in my lane and I can take avoidance measures. Without the predictability for cyclists, it is impossible to tell the distinction between a cyclist who will blast through a red light, and one who takes the lane and pulls in behind the car in front of him. How can I react when it is impossible to predict the cyclists actions?

this is incorrect. If the motorists were driving electric open model T style cars where they could scream at each other and be heard, there would be a lot of screaming going on. I hear lots of honking. I see motorists going nuts on each other. They cut each other off and slow down in front of other motorists to "punish" them. I think I might see more anti-motorist behavior than anti-cyclist behavior just because I'm generally riding in a predictable manner. It doesn't really forgive the bad behavior addressed at me, but it's there. People abuse us because we are powerless. If we were in a car, people wouldn't abuse us the same way because you never know when you triggered a road rage incident.

Motorists don't generally use their signals. If they do, someone makes them pay for it by intentionally blocking their way. They speed, they inexplicably go slow. They dash out in front of other motorists at the last second. They roll through stop signs, sometimes at speed, often without looking. Right turn on red after stop isn't. They violate each other's right of way. They illegally pass on the shoulder. It's all over the map.

When I talk about communication, I'm not saying everyone is nice to everyone else. But when you drive a car in traffic, with a little experience you can pretty much tell what the other cars are doing, even if they are cutting you off or going all road rage on you. Their intent is pretty clear. With bikes, even when I try to be clear about my intent and attempt to act predictably, a lot of cars just have any clue what to expect from me.


I drive my bicycle like I would a motorcar. How "unpredictable" is that?

Very. Because, sir, you are in the minority. Most cyclists simply don't ride that way, so against the background of other cyclists, your behavior is very unexpected to a driver. That's the point of my remark about dialects. All cars follow pretty much the same basic dialect, with few exceptions. Bikes are all over the map. And because of that, drivers have no clue what kind of behavior to expect out of cyclists.

And bhop, I've lived, and bicycle commuted, in Los Angeles, in the vicinity of LAX (I've even ridden through the tunnel although I preferred not to). Drivers may not get along, but it's not hard, as a driver, to peacefully coexist there. I've driven in L.A. a lot and I never understood why people said it was such a terrible place to drive.

......
Motorists don't generally use their signals. If they do, someone makes them pay for it by intentionally blocking their way. They speed, they inexplicably go slow. They dash out in front of other motorists at the last second. They roll through stop signs, sometimes at speed, often without looking. Right turn on red after stop isn't. They violate each other's right of way. They illegally pass on the shoulder. It's all over the map.

I think there has been a decline in the overall level of civility on the roadways, part of the overll decline in civility in the US and elsewhere that has been going on for several decades.

But I hardly think it is the jungle out there that anti-car cyclists seem to suggest. Futhermore, the rougher the roadways (drivers, as well as surfaces) the more protection is needed for minor collisions, which is an argument in favor of CARS, not bicycles. In the rural areas where I live, i find accomodating speed demons to be very simple....let them pass.

Never been rear ended by a car in front of me.

roughstuff

Per hour and maybe per mile, I have far more incidents (from the aggression and negligence of other road users) when driving or walking compared to cycling.

That said, if I really appear so unpredictable to motorists on my bicycle, why do they pass me so close?

That said, if I really appear so unpredictable to motorists on my bicycle, why do they pass me so close?

Honestly? because they don't see you until they are right up on you. They are watching the car in front of them, not looking off to the side, perhaps. Have you seen the Moonwalking Bear video? It's that effect. Even when they should be responsible, even when they should be vigilant, even when they should see you, a lot of drivers just don't see you. If they're not going to look out for you, you have to look out for yourself.

We have to learn how to cope with the environment as it is. Other people should be more responsible, but they're not. If they make a mistake, though, it's a dented fender for them, it's six months in a wheel chair for us. Because we have so much more at risk we need to be the ones to watch out, even if it means giving up our rightful place on the road. Yeah, I know I can legally take the lane, but it just seems like it's asking for trouble.

I'm with ghettocruiser. Motorist behavior is all over the map. And if you look behind most auto-bicycle crashes, you will find an inattentive, distracted, drunk, sleeping, cellphone yakking, or otherwise negligent driver.

If driving wasn't standardized (to a large degree), cars would be running into each other at rates much, much higher rates than what is actually observed. That is, the fact that car crashes are relatively rare indicates that the majority of driving/drivers are acting in a "standardized" and "predictable" manner.

====================

Anyway, here's what I think the general problem in the US is.

Bicyclists on the road way are relatively rare in the US. Because drivers really don't see that many bicyclists on the roads, they have no idea how to act and whether it's reasonable to expect that the bicyclist is competent.

The fact that bicyclists are rare and is that bicycling is often considered something that children do, many drivers don't think that bicyclists belong on the road.

Also, many bicyclists really have no good idea of how to ride in traffic and these people appear "erratic" to drivers. Bicycling is concidered an activity that people can "just do" without lessons/training/instruction (that makes it very different than driving, which, at the least requires people to pass a test).

And, the "correct" way of riding often appears to drivers that the bicyclist is "hogging" the road and impeding traffic.


I think one thing is to teach more cyclists to ride better and teach drivers that bicycling is legitimate and legal use of the roadways. Keep in mind that the cyclists here are a select population. Presumably (hopefully), people who post here know how to ride "properly" and predictably. But people here are a small fraction of the overall population of bicyclists that drivers encounter.



That said, if I really appear so unpredictable to motorists on my bicycle, why do they pass me so close?
It's often a choice between you and the 2 ton mass of metal coming at them fast on the left side. (Doohicky has the right idea.)

I think one thing is to teach more cyclists to ride better and teach drivers that bicycling is legitimate and legal use of the roadways.

I think the first suggestion is possible; the second is unlikely.

I think the best approach is to light yourself up and make yourself as visible as possible, then ride like no one can see you.

I think the first suggestion is possible; the second is unlikely.
It might be unlikely but I think it's required if things are to improve.


I think the best approach is to light yourself up and make yourself as visible as possible, then ride like no one can see you.
Always a good idea.

But after reading threads like (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=518575) these (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=517555), I've come to the realization that cyclists are the problem. Each of us makes the traffic decisions that seem best to us based upon our past experience, our current situation, the traffic around us, etc. The problem is that each of us has very valid (at least to us) reasons for taking the lane, for staying to the side, for rolling through intersections when doing so in a car would draw a ticket, for going when a driver waves us through a 4-way Stop out of turn, for planting a foot and waiting. Each situation is different. But more signficantly, each cyclist's reaction is different. In each of our minds, we are doing the safest, most logical things. To drivers, though, we look like an example of random motion. They don't know what to expect, because we don't all follow the same rules.



In some respects I have to agree.

I just crossed a freeway bridge and there happened to be two other cyclists also crossing (we were not together and did not know each other) All three took different routes.

A) I stayed in the right most through lane.

B) Another cyclist hugged the curb and rode through the merge lane and at the last second caused a bus to brake as he crossed out of the merge lane back into the right most thru lane (my lane).

C) The third cyclist went against traffic, on the sidewalk.

Now motorists no doubt probably thought the third cyclist was perfect... he was "out of the way."

The second cyclist actually caused a traffic problem... so less than perfect.

Me riding in the right most thru lane... well I am sure some motorists thought I was crazy for "being out there." And no doubt motorists had to move a bit to avoid me in that lane. But I was exactly where I would have been if I were driving, albeit, way to the right of the lane. Motorists could go around me on both my left and right.

But of course the real questions are: who was safest? Who was most predictable?

See the illustration below.

I agree not so much that the method for cars is more 'standardized and predictable...' as with a couple of parallel arguments....

(1) Cars have a series of signals and indicators (some voluntary, some not) which provide extremely valubale information about the drivers intent. By this i mean, among other things, turn signals, brake lights, stall lights, and the newer ideas such as pressure brake lights and lights that indicate you have eased off the accelerator (useful on interstates). Bicycles have none of this...and all the blabber about hand signals is worthless not only because most cyclings don't use them, but because hand signals are impractical and downright dangerous in heavy traffic.

(2) Cars have a series of injury prevention devices (now mostly automatic) that are designed to prevent minor accidents causing major injuries, and major accidents causing fatal injuries (not always effective). Among them are airbags, seatbelts, and other devices...and smart cars, which monitor distances between vehicles, etc, are on their way. In contrast, with a bicycle (much like a motorcycle, for the same reason), even the most minor infraction can cause a major injury (even a fatal one); and a major infraction is almost always fatal. Again we can whine and complain all we want, but it is an inherent weakness of a two wheeled vehicle over a four wheeled one.

Thus I always have seen myself as a secondary user on the roadways, and have felt that dollar for dollar, the best investment in bicycle safety is to improve, widen, or install road shoulders. This may be difficult in densely populated areas, but there is the other 99% of the nation's surface where it would really help.


roughstuff

All those lights and indicators you mentioned in paragraph 1 are only as good as the user who chooses to use them. Granted, brake lights are pretty automatic... (stall lights???) but turn signals are subject to the whims of the driver.

At the same time, there are standard hand signals that a cyclist can use, as well as body language, and other gestures (not the one finger salute) that can convey meaning to others just as effectively as any blinking light on an automobile.

As for paragraph 2... we have little disagreement... my only comment is that such devices tend to lull the motorist into a false sense of safety, such that the result is that motorists ignore safe following rules, and tend to drive over the speed limits.

but turn signals are subject to the whims of the driver.

Typical Miami driver:

Step #1: Start car
Step #2: Turn left turn signal on.
Step #3: Drive.

-Kurt

In some respects I have to agree.
I just crossed a freeway bridge and there happened to be two other cyclists also crossing (we were not together and did not know each other) All three took different routes.
A) I stayed in the right most through lane.

[Stuff deleted]

But of course the real questions are: who was safest? Who was most predictable?
See the illustration below.

What you did was very reasonable. It's necessary that drivers understand that what you did was reasonable (most of them don't).

I think many people who post here think that all (most) cyclists ride just like they do (safely/correctly). Bicyclists like people here are a small proportion of the total bicycling population. Drivers typically run across (pun intended) bicyclists with less experience and safety focus.

===================


but turn signals are subject to the whims of the driver.

Too strange! We have this statement followed by the following.


At the same time, there are standard hand signals that a cyclist can use, as well as body language, and other gestures (not the one finger salute) that can convey meaning to others just as effectively as any blinking light on an automobile.

If turn signals use in cars is subject to a whim, then, comparatively, hand signals are (close to) never used by bicyclists! Plus, many drivers might be confused by such unfamiliar gestures!


As for paragraph 2... we have little disagreement... my only comment is that such devices tend to lull the motorist into a false sense of safety, such that the result is that motorists ignore safe following rules, and tend to drive over the speed limits.
People in the Netherlands drive the same sorts of cars (and they may even signal with more regularity). There's something else going on. (Maybe, relative rates of speeding explains some of the difference.)

===========

Even if drivers don't do things they should (like using turn signals), drivers get a lot of experience understanding how other cars around them behave. This experience takes time to develop (the lack of this experience is one reason teenagers have more accidents). Comparatively, drivers (in the US) have much, much less experience with how cyclists behave (which is different than how cars behave).

If driving wasn't standardized (to a large degree), cars would be running into each other at rates much, much higher rates than what is actually observed. That is, the fact that car crashes are relatively rare indicates that the majority of driving/drivers are acting in a "standardized" and "predictable" manner.



Are car crashes all that rare? Around here it seems that quite a few cars have some minor dents. And certainly the various fix a dent places have become more prolific.

We tend to make judgements about crashes based on highway deaths... but the cars themselves are now even more protective of the occupants... What of the stats of crashes themselves. Often police reports are not even taken unless a collision involves a certain level of damage or lives are threatened... I don't know that crashes ARE "all that rare."

I live near a light controlled intersection and hear a collision about once a month. Usually just that loud screech of tires with a metal on metal THUMP. I rarely hear sirens after such collisions. (I cannot quite view the intersection, due to tree growth behind my yard)

If turn signals use in cars is subject to a whim, then, comparatively, hand signals are (close to) never used by bicyclists! Plus, many drivers might be confused by such unfamiliar gestures!



Exactly... my point being that both drivers and cyclists have ways to communicate... neither is exclusive of this ability... and both are subject to the whims of the operator. I dare say I can be far more expressive on my bike than I can in a car... but again... I DO have to chose to express myself at all. (I always do BTW, as part of my policy to drive and bike FRIENDLY)

Are car crashes all that rare? Around here it seems that quite a few cars have some minor dents. And certainly the various fix a dent places have become more prolific.
They aren't rare but there are also a huge number of cars and people tend to drive them many more miles and more frequently than people ride their bicycles. People often don't repair dents and an old dent looks just like a new dent!


We tend to make judgements about crashes based on highway deaths... but the cars themselves are now even more protective of the occupants... What of the stats of crashes themselves. Often police reports are not even taken unless a collision involves a certain level of damage or lives are threatened...
This is an important point. This is common in most discussions of safety, not just for car crashes. I think part of the problem is that deaths are reliably reported and many non-fatal accidents go unreported.


I don't know that crashes ARE "all that rare."
They are not rare but it's the rate (per car/per mile) of accidents that is the key statistic. I'd guess the accident (any sort of accident) rate per mile for bicycles is much higher than that for cars!

Honestly? because they don't see you until they are right up on you. They are watching the car in front of them, not looking off to the side, perhaps.

I'm not "off to the side" of anything.

I suspect some of them are doing some lame passive-aggressive-buzz attempt, but I think most of them are quite comfortable passing within a meter or so because they predict that I will hold my lane position.

Just like any other vehicle might be expected to.

They aren't rare but there are also a huge number of cars and people tend to drive them many more miles and more frequently than people ride their bicycles. People often don't repair dents and an old dent looks just like a new dent!


This is an important point. This is common in most discussions of safety, not just for car crashes. I think part of the problem is that deaths are reliably reported and many non-fatal accidents go unreported.


They are not rare but it's the rate (per car/per mile) of accidents that is the key statistic. I'd guess the accident (any sort of accident) rate per mile for bicycles is much higher than that for cars!

Yes, this is the dirty little secret of cycling... and something that is rarely touched upon... by all the gurus out there that rave about how safe cycling is.

Ken Kiefer mentions it at the bottom of his safety page. Look for the title "Calculations Based on Miles Instead of Hours" Statistically by miles traveled... cycling doesn't look all that great. But folks just tend to gloss over that little fact.

Here is the link to that particular page.
http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/health/risks.htm

Sadly Ken is a statistic himself... killed by a drunk driver. His pages however, live on.

Look around at the rest he has to offer... good stuff, really.

Exactly... my point being that both drivers and cyclists have ways to communicate... neither is exclusive of this ability... and both are subject to the whims of the operator.
Yup. The solution requires improvement on both sides. Still, I'd say that, statistically, bicyclists are more "whim-y" than drivers are. That is, bicyclists are generally worse at communicating than drivers are (and that doesn't mean drivers communicate well enough).


I dare say I can be far more expressive on my bike than I can in a car... but again... I DO have to chose to express myself at all. (I always do BTW, as part of my policy to drive and bike FRIENDLY)
The issue here is that the transmission of the information has to be reliably received by the driver. I think many drivers either don't receive the information (they don't understand it) or read it as something else (eg, something hostile). The driver's understanding is often handicapped (before hand) by the understanding that bicycles don't belong on the road.


(I always do BTW, as part of my policy to drive and bike FRIENDLY)
This is really important to do even if one is frustrated. The one-finger salute is an "anti-communication". It's a form of communication that makes things worse than better.

====================



http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/health/risks.htm
[...]
Look around at the rest he has to offer... good stuff, really.
Here are two for you!
http://hembrow.blogspot.com/

http://www.howwedrive.com/
(Where I found out about the "hembrow" site.)

Am inclined to agree with the OP. While, from my reading of this forum, driving standards in the US are poorer than they should be (laughable test requirements), they have, largely, had some training and that training is generally fairly consistent. Cyclists, on the other hand, do not have any training - as someone else said, we learn to ride as kids, and that is usually the extent of our learning.

As a consequence, cyclists exhibit, as Doohickie said, a much wider variety of behaviour in response to road/traffic conditions, because of individual conclusions about what constitutes safe riding. Drivers may divert from what they've been taught (signalling, lane selection, etc.), but most have some idea, which they share with the majority, of what the correct response should be to the various circumstances they find themselves in.

It seems to me that this explains why forumers disagree so strongly on so many subjects, since individual anecdotal experience has "taught" them what's safe. But, in many cases, the "safe" manoeuvre is one which was forced on them by their own original, but mistaken view on what was the right thing to do. This reinforces their conclusion and blinds them to the fact that the original action was in error.

Regardless of how one interprets VC, Streetsmarts, or (UK) Cyclecraft at the margins, my experience and that of those who have, for example, designed the UK national Bikeability training standard programme, indicates that the general principles of those systems represent the best case for cyclist behaviour. Perhaps the best, long-term, solution would be to insist on those kids you ridiculously allow to drive on the highway, is to make taking VC or LAC courses mandatory before taking Driver Ed.

In the meantime, execute all DUI killers, right and left hookers, rear-enders, confiscate their vehicles and prevent their offspring from being in charge of anything other than a bike on the highway for two generations ;o). this would reverse the current driver cyclist ratios and make the US a more civilised and safer country.

Regardless of how one interprets VC, Streetsmarts, or (UK) Cyclecraft at the margins, my experience and that of those who have, for example, designed the UK national Bikeability training standard programme, indicates that the general principles of those systems represent the best case for cyclist behaviour. Perhaps the best, long-term, solution would be to insist on those kids you ridiculously allow to drive on the highway, is to make taking VC or LAC courses mandatory before taking Driver Ed.
From reading stuff, I think there is there is a fairly stable core standard for the correct way to ride a bicycle on the road. I think the class thing is a good idea.

The problem is that few people are going to want to spend the money for it (especially, when bicycles are not really considered as being real transportation in the US).

Another problem, to apply a statement made about canoeing, Americans think they are born knowing how to ride a bicycle and don't think they need to be taught anything about bicycling.

==============


Here is the link to that particular page.
http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/health/risks.htm
Note that, in the "The Most Common Cause of Cycling Fatalities" section of this page, a much larger fraction of bicyclist fatalities is due to mistakes made by the cyclist.

the fact that car crashes are relatively rare indicates that the majority of driving/drivers are acting in a "standardized" and "predictable" manner.


"Relatively rare?" Every 12 seconds in the United States one person dies because of a car accident.

If you call that rare, you really, really need to grab a big honkin' fistfull of reality and hold on for dear life.

"Relatively rare?" Every 12 seconds in the United States one person dies because of a car accident.

If you call that rare, you really, really need to grab a big honkin' fistfull of reality and hold on for dear life.

I call that a unique brand of math. 7,200 people killed every 24 hours x 365 days a year? 2,628,000 fatalities a year from car accidents? Who knew?

I think the OP is on to something. I'm guilty myself. I ride on relatively lightly travelled country roads and sometimes get "sloppy" in adherence to traffic laws. My excuse is that I only roll through a stop sign when there's no impact on traffic. Truth is, every time a driver even sees me do that he's thinking that cyclist have no regard for the law and ride erratically. Shame on me!

I call that a unique brand of math. 7,200 people killed every 24 hours x 365 days a year? 2,628,000 fatalities a year from car accidents? Who knew?

yeah, when I do the math. I get one every 12 minutes not seconds. (divide 2,628,000 by 60 and you'll get roughly the number of auto fatalities per year in the US.

After we get the safe passing bill into law here in Texas, I'm gonna start pushing for a law to allow cyclists to roll through Stop signs (if it is clear) and to proceed through Red lights after stopping (if it is clear). Just to ease my guilty conscience. ;)

I call that a unique brand of math. 7,200 people killed every 24 hours x 365 days a year? 2,628,000 fatalities a year from car accidents? Who knew?

Heck, you can't swing a dead cat out there without hitting a dead motorist. :)

If you ride like they drive you're predictable with 99% of the vehicles on the road. Add in "ride to the right" and the ability to turn off onto a few extra streets they're not allowed on and you have a pretty reasonable and not uncommon riding style.

Every exception you make is an unpredictable action. That's when you take your safety entirely into your own hands.

Many of the accidents happen during one of those extra-legal exceptions: When that happens the accident is the cyclists fault. Otherwise it's often the cars fault. If they can't handle bikes acting legally then they don't belong on the road.

Pedestrians have the same problem with cars. 4,000 of them are killed each year. Are we going to blame people for walking wrong as well? Because some people jaywalk when someone who isn't jaywalking is hit it's his fault because others jaywalk? Hell no. It's the cars fault for failing to properly handle their vehicle. You can't assign the blame anywhere else because:
1. It legally falls in their hands if the pedestrian or cyclist is acting legally and the car is making a mistake.
2. They're the dangerous one.

All those lights and indicators you mentioned in paragraph 1 are only as good as the user who chooses to use them. Granted, brake lights are pretty automatic... (stall lights???) but turn signals are subject to the whims of the driver.

At the same time, there are standard hand signals that a cyclist can use, as well as body language, and other gestures (not the one finger salute) that can convey meaning to others just as effectively as any blinking light on an automobile.

As for paragraph 2... we have little disagreement... my only comment is that such devices tend to lull the motorist into a false sense of safety, such that the result is that motorists ignore safe following rules, and tend to drive over the speed limits.

(1) This is always true. The decline in civility has meant feweer turn signals and all that. Part of it is people think with left turn lanes and right turn lanes they don't need to use signals, when they still should.

Am i correct in saying some lights come on if your engine stalls? I haven't stalled lately. :) But i believe this is the case. Its not the most relevant example in any case; but the lights that come on when you ease off the gas and begin to slow down (installed on some newer vehicles) are very helpful on highways and interstates.

(2) I agree they lure drivers into a sense of safety, because they ARE, after all, safety provisions. My point was that fender bender for cars are minor issues; whereas a fender bender for a bike can be serious. Cyclists have to come to grips with the fact that, like motorcycles, they are riding a vehicle which inherently more dangerous and vulnerable than an auto. This will be true no matter how cars and trucks drive.

roughstuff

yeah, when I do the math. I get one every 12 minutes not seconds. (divide 2,628,000 by 60 and you'll get roughly the number of auto fatalities per year in the US.

2,628,000/60 = 4,471,333

Off by 100, it appears.

Why don't people provide links to the numbers they show?


Here is the link to that particular page.
http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/health/risks.htm
From the "The Fatality Rates Per Million Population" section of this page, some numbers from 1997:

267.6 million (total US pop.)
42,000 killed

115/day
4.7/hour (close to 1 every 12 minutes).


((2) I agree they lure drivers into a sense of safety, because they ARE, after all, safety provisions.

People in cars are, in fact, safer.

http://www.saferoads.org/federal/2004/TrafficFatalities1899-2003.pdf

People in the Netherlands drive cars with the same safety equipment and the number of cyclists is huge, yet cyclist fatalities are very low. There's something else going on.

http://www.howwedrive.com/2009/03/06/the-helmeted-cyclist-as-an-indicator-species/


my only comment is that such devices tend to lull the motorist into a false sense of safety, such that the result is that motorists ignore safe following rules, and tend to drive over the speed limits.

Where is the data that says that this is happening? Has the frequency of these things really increased?

(1) This is always true. The decline in civility has meant feweer turn signals and all that. Part of it is people think with left turn lanes and right turn lanes they don't need to use signals, when they still should.

Agreed... conveying intentions is good for general traffic flow.



Am i correct in saying some lights come on if your engine stalls? I haven't stalled lately. :) But i believe this is the case. Its not the most relevant example in any case; but the lights that come on when you ease off the gas and begin to slow down (installed on some newer vehicles) are very helpful on highways and interstates.

I know of no such operation of brake lights as you describe. To the best of my knowledge (and a just did a google search to check) brake lights are only activated when the brake pedal is depressed by the driver. Now there are brake light systems that flash indicating a rapid slowing, but again I believe these are still activated by the depression of the brake pedal.

Here is some news on that concept.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080402204950.htm




(2) I agree they lure drivers into a sense of safety, because they ARE, after all, safety provisions. My point was that fender bender for cars are minor issues; whereas a fender bender for a bike can be serious. Cyclists have to come to grips with the fact that, like motorcycles, they are riding a vehicle which inherently more dangerous and vulnerable than an auto. This will be true no matter how cars and trucks drive.

roughstuff

It's more than just the safety stuff... it is also the comfort systems within a vehicle that mask the true speed and road conditions. Quieting systems, along with power steering and braking and even climate control tend to mask what is going on outside the car in a way that drivers are unaware of their environment... except through what they see through the windshield, thus driving begins to take on "video game qualities."

Now it is interesting that you allude to the dangers of cycling... when so many here insist that cycling is safer than driving. I am not going to disagree with you, as frankly I do feel that cycling IS more dangerous... but that issue does tend get glossed over when we look at death statistics. Per mile traveled, cycling is nearly twice as dangerous as driving. (let the flame wars begin)

This notion isn't supported by any data. People in the Netherlands drive cars with the same safety equipment and the number of cyclists is huge, yet cyclist fatalities are very low. There's something else going on.

http://www.howwedrive.com/2009/03/06/the-helmeted-cyclist-as-an-indicator-species/

Uh, better cycling facilities and better training for drivers. Both exist in stark contrast to the U.S.

Uh, better cycling facilities and better training for drivers. Both exist in stark contrast to the U.S.

Yes (those could be significant). Drivers in the Netherlands also get a lot of experience dealing with bicyclists (and vice versa). The safety equipment isn't significant (in my opinion).


It's more than just the safety stuff... it is also the comfort systems within a vehicle that mask the true speed and road conditions. Quieting systems, along with power steering and braking and even climate control tend to mask what is going on outside the car in a way that drivers are unaware of their environment... except through what they see through the windshield, thus driving begins to take on "video game qualities."

And yet, this data indicates that isn't the case.

http://www.saferoads.org/federal/2004/TrafficFatalities1899-2003.pdf

Am i correct in saying some lights come on if your engine stalls? I haven't stalled lately. :) But i believe this is the case. Its not the most relevant example in any case; but the lights that come on when you ease off the gas and begin to slow down (installed on some newer vehicles) are very helpful on highways and interstates.

Never have seen or even heard of such stall or slow down lights (without foot on the brake pedal or hazard flasher manually applied) on any motorized vehicle.

Wow, we can apply this to other types of mortality. Flu for instance. If people were more consistent about their hygiene, sneeze into their elbows, wash hands frequently and stay home from work when struck by flu, less people would die. So if you don't do these things consistently, it's your fault you're dead from flu.

Can't wait to drive in my car smugly knowing that I and everyone else drives consistently enough to survive being on the road better than inconsistent cyclists. Sheesh.

Yes (those could be significant). Drivers in the Netherlands also get a lot of experience dealing with bicyclists (and vice versa). The safety equipment isn't significant (in my opinion).



And yet, this data indicates that isn't the case.

http://www.saferoads.org/federal/2004/TrafficFatalities1899-2003.pdf

I do agree with your assertion that drivers in the "Netherlands also get a lot of experience dealing with bicyclists." But I also contend they are trained better... What is the typical training period required for a drivers license in the Netherlands? (perhaps I am wrong on my assumption)


However, how in the world do death statistics indicate that drivers are not lulled into a false sense of security... especially if you dig deeper into NHTSA site and see that roughly 1/3 of all deaths are attributed to excessive speed. If that is not "being lulled into a false sense of security," I don't know what is.

Sure, the fatality rate per million miles has gone down... the auto of today provides a protective cocoon for the occupants via seat belts, crumple zones and air bags that permit survival of even high speed head on collisions.

But what is the vehicle collision rate? Has that gone down over time, or per mile driven?

Wow, we can apply this to other types of mortality. Flu for instance. If people were more consistent about their hygiene, sneeze into their elbows, wash hands frequently and stay home from work when struck by flu, less people would die. So if you don't do these things consistently, it's your fault you're dead from flu.

Can't wait to drive in my car smugly knowing that I and everyone else drives consistently enough to survive being on the road better than inconsistent cyclists. Sheesh.

Well personally I think driving "consistently" (and this is a "macro view" not micro view... individually I think there is a lot of inconsistency) is due to the design of the roads and how much room is given for particular maneuvers, along with control lights and signage.

Cyclists, on the other hand, are operating in an "out of scale automobile environment" and/or are forced, through design, to operate in a pedestrian mode... thus we face a duality that motorist do not face... and respond in kind... in sometimes unpredictable ways. So certainly it is not cyclists' fault alone. Go back and look at my post 20 for an example of this.
http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=8505298&postcount=20

Agreed... conveying intentions is good for general traffic flow. .....

I know of no such operation of brake lights as you describe........


Now it is interesting that you allude to the dangers of cycling... when so many here insist that cycling is safer than driving. I am not going to disagree with you, as frankly I do feel that cycling IS more dangerous... but that issue does tend get glossed over when we look at death statistics. Per mile traveled, cycling is nearly twice as dangerous as driving. (let the flame wars begin)

Let me 'can' the stall light thing. I always thought that was the case. MAybe when a person in front of me stalled, they tapped their brake by reflex and I thought thats what it was.

Hard to say if the flame wars will begin or not. ;) Probably it will break into those who say cycling is inherently more dangerous (me); vs those who say cycling is more dangerous because of cars on the road.

roughstuff

Let me 'can' the stall light thing. I always thought that was the case. MAybe when a person in front of me stalled, they tapped their brake by reflex and I thought thats what it was.
Well the technology certainly exists... here is more of what I found on my previous search.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/may/01/motoring

That report indicates that Mercedes now do use an accelerometer to make the brakes flash in response to hard deceleration.




Hard to say if the flame wars will begin or not. ;) Probably it will break into those who say cycling is inherently more dangerous (me); vs those who say cycling is more dangerous because of cars on the road.

roughstuff

We shall see... re flame wars.

I do agree with your assertion that drivers in the "Netherlands also get a lot of experience dealing with bicyclists." But I also contend they are trained better... What is the typical training period required for a drivers license in the Netherlands? (perhaps I am wrong on my assumption)
I don't disagree that they are trained better (but I don't know for certain). It would be hard to determine which particular thing has the most impact. I think that the experience is very important but it is quite possible that other things (eg, training) are important too.


However, how in the world do death statistics indicate that drivers are not lulled into a false sense of security... especially if you dig deeper into NHTSA site and see that roughly 1/3 of all deaths are attributed to excessive speed. If that is not "being lulled into a false sense of security," I don't know what is.
Drivers might be being "lulled" but there is nothing that indicates that the rate of being "lulled" is increasing! It's not clear that the 1/3 number has ever changed.


Sure, the fatality rate per million miles has gone down... the auto of today provides a protective cocoon for the occupants via seat belts, crumple zones and air bags that permit survival of even high speed head on collisions.
If this stuff encouraged people to drive much faster, one might expect that the increased energy of a higher speed collision to offset the benefit of the safety equipment.


But what is the vehicle collision rate? Has that gone down over time, or per mile driven?
That would be a nice statistic but (as we talked about earlier), the number of deaths is reliably reported and non-fatal events are not.

Here's one link (the site is a bit junky) that indicates that accident rates (as claims) dropped between 1980 and 2000.

http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2002/11/11/150352.html