Advocacy & Safety - Reason Driver hits Bike

After reading alot of posts and newspaper articles about these accidents, it seems bicycle v car accidents where the driver hits the bike can be grouped into 4 groups:

Driver didn't look
Driver looked but didn't see cyclist
Driver looked and saw cyclist but didn't anticipate cyclist's actions
Driver commited an infraction (speeding, went thru red light, etc.)

These are the reasons I read again and again, can you think of others?

driver meant it, sometimes comes up but is thankfully rare.

Locally, I find a lot of the bicycle/motor-vehicle crashes seem to involve cyclists doing stupid things such as:

Riding the wrong way on the street
Riding on sidewalks
Riding at night with no lights

Locally, I find a lot of the bicycle/motor-vehicle crashes seem to involve cyclists doing stupid things such as:

Riding the wrong way on the street
Riding on sidewalks
Riding at night with no lights

Tsk. You haven't learned the A&S Golden Rule. It's *never* the cyclist's fault. It's *always* the "stupid cager".

:roflmao2:

After reading alot of posts and newspaper articles about these accidents, it seems bicycle v car accidents where the driver hits the bike can be grouped into 4 groups:

Driver didn't look
Driver looked but didn't see cyclist
Driver looked and saw cyclist but didn't anticipate cyclist's actions
Driver commited an infraction (speeding, went thru red light, etc.)

These are the reasons I read again and again, can you think of others?

Sounds about right...I contend most people drive the car using the shotgun approach; They aim the car down range and pull the trigger. I have had my very large, very red, crewcab dually truck, with a huge pintle hitch and a 16" Chrome Cowboy bumper, rear ended twice while stopped at red lights that had been red for a period of time. Both times the excuse was "I didn't see it" Pulleeze:innocent: one girl actually admitted that she had been texting. Sad part is a cyclist is not nearly as visible as a large red truck and a helluva lot more vulnerable.

Aaron:)

You are forgetting one:
Cyclist commited an infraction (running red light/stop sign, changed lanes without looking, etc)

After reading alot of posts and newspaper articles about these accidents, it seems bicycle v car accidents where the driver hits the bike can be grouped into 4 groups:

Driver didn't look
Driver looked but didn't see cyclist
Driver looked and saw cyclist but didn't anticipate cyclist's actions
Driver commited an infraction (speeding, went thru red light, etc.)

These are the reasons I read again and again, can you think of others?

I disagree with all of these. The #1 reason in my opinion is cyclists don't take the lane.

Tsk. You haven't learned the A&S Golden Rule. It's *never* the cyclist's fault. It's *always* the "stupid cager".

:roflmao2:

Poor lil noob girl...you're thinkin of the Commuting forum. In A&S the cyclist is always wrong. :D

I disagree with all of these. The #1 reason in my opinion is cyclists don't take the lane.

Don't forget, taking the lane also cures cancer, obesity and STDs.

I disagree with all of these. The #1 reason in my opinion is cyclists don't take the lane.

So the two cyclists killed in Santa Clara by a sleeping police officer... how does that factor into your "not taking the lane" profile?

And the group that was plowed into by a taxi driver in Florida?

And the cyclist intentionally hit by the Dallas lawyer?

All examples of cyclists "taking the lane" and being hit.

How about: Driver underestimates width of his or her vehicle.

Especially with those ridiculously elongated mirrors.

How about: Driver underestimates width of his or her vehicle.

Especially with those ridiculously elongated mirrors.

I haven't had issues with mirrors, but more with some pickup drivers underestimating the width of their flat bed trailer that they are towing. There have been several times that I had a flat bed trailer miss me by mere inches while in the right tire track passing parked cars. Every time, the motorist could have held back a few seconds until I reached a break in the line of parked cars to pull to the right for a safe pass (dd uses best Mr. Bill voice), but nooooooooooooooo..............

So the two cyclists killed in Santa Clara by a sleeping police officer... how does that factor into your "not taking the lane" profile?

And the group that was plowed into by a taxi driver in Florida?

And the cyclist intentionally hit by the Dallas lawyer?

All examples of cyclists "taking the lane" and being hit.

For each of these there are ten times more accidents with those not taking the lane. There is risk with everything in life. The risks with taking the lane are the lowest among all styles/forms of cycling.

For each of these there are ten times more accidents with those not taking the lane. There is risk with everything in life. The risks with taking the lane are the lowest among all styles/forms of cycling.

My preference for the road and taking the lane is well known, but dude, you've been drinking a little too much of the kool-aid.

My preference for the road and taking the lane is well known, but dude, you've been drinking a little too much of the kool-aid.

Chip,

Who's the guy in your new avatar? I still like your playboy avatar the best.

Dana

Chip,

Who's the guy in your new avatar? I still like your playboy avatar the best.

Dana

Milton "somebody stole my stapler" Waddams from Office Space - aka Stephen Root

For each of these there are ten times more accidents with those not taking the lane. There is risk with everything in life. The risks with taking the lane are the lowest among all styles/forms of cycling.

Any legitimate reference for this "fact" about comparative risks?

I have two others. One was a situation where a young woman (who was riding reasonably far to the right in a pace line) was struck by a driver in a truck pulling a boat. The driver said that he had to because otherwise he would have had to hit his brakes.

I was struck by a motorist. I suffered no damage and I did not go down. The guy was pursuing a motorcyclist who had committed the outrage of "driving the speed limit". It was a case of road rage.

Stupidity is very creative.

I disagree with all of these. The #1 reason in my opinion is cyclists don't take the lane.

Why not drop the other shoe and claim that the other #1 reason is that cyclists aren't "properly trained"?

These are the reasons I read again and again, can you think of others?

How about..."well, the last guy who killed a cyclist got 3 months probation, so I didn't even bother to look?"


roughstuff

The sun was in my eyes.


That's one of my favourites... OK, so you couldn't see what was in front of you and instead of pulling over and finding your sunglasses, you thought it was a better idea to continue blindly piloting your 2 ton vehicle down the road?

The sun was in my eyes.


That's one of my favourites... OK, so you couldn't see what was in front of you and instead of pulling over and finding your sunglasses, you thought it was a better idea to continue blindly piloting your 2 ton vehicle down the road?

Whatsa in front a me, she's not important!

Tsk. You haven't learned the A&S Golden Rule. It's *never* the cyclist's fault.

Unless your wreck is caused by another cyclist running into you. :roflmao2: :lol:

-Kurt

Poor lil noob girl...you're thinkin of the Commuting forum. In A&S the cyclist is always wrong. :D


Why not drop the other shoe and claim that the other #1 reason is that cyclists aren't "properly trained"?

on a&s the cyclist is always at fault because they didn't ride like i would.

seriously, tho', is there an advocacy forum somewhere on the internet that isn't populated by motor apologists who regard bicycles as nothing more than emasculated cars?

I disagree with all of these. The #1 reason in my opinion is cyclists don't take the lane.

LOL. This made peeking into this thread worth it.

Whatsa in front a me, she's not important!

And you don't need mirrors, because you've already seen what's behind you. :lol:

Did that driver pulling the boat actually say he had to hit that cyclist because otherwise he would have had to hit the brakes?

Seriously?


I mean, seriously??

:eek: :twitchy:

:notamused:

Did that driver pulling the boat actually say he had to hit that cyclist because otherwise he would have had to hit the brakes?

Seriously?


I mean, seriously??

:eek: :twitchy:

:notamused:

given some of the comments i've seen under news articles, I wouldn't be suprised.

Did that driver pulling the boat actually say he had to hit that cyclist because otherwise he would have had to hit the brakes?

Seriously?

It's a common theme. Because we are in their way, the good lord reaches down and FORCES a driver to do something TOTALLY STOOPID....or worse, something safe, courteous or legal.

I have two others. One was a situation where a young woman (who was riding reasonably far to the right in a pace line) was struck by a driver in a truck pulling a boat. The driver said that he had to because otherwise he would have had to hit his brakes.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot??? He "had" to otherwise he would have to hit his brakes??? He wasn't serious was he?


I was struck by a motorist. I suffered no damage and I did not go down. The guy was pursuing a motorcyclist who had committed the outrage of "driving the speed limit". It was a case of road rage.

Stupidity is very creative.

Accidents are almost always caused by failing to follow Android's Rules to Not Die By:

1) Assume the car driver does not see you. Unless the driver gets out of the car, shakes your hand and offers his hot, 22 year old daughter's hand in marriage. He didn't see you.

2) Assume the driver will do the stupidest thing possible at the last possible moment. Even if they pretended to see you.

3) Realize that car drivers don't give a rat's ass about you or you safety. They only want to go somewhere as quickly as possible. Filling out paperwork because they hit you is a minor inconvenience that will prevent him from arriving at his destination promptly, but that is all.

4) Taking the lane, wearing a helmet, acting like are vehicle are all secondary to the above rules. They are all good things, but the first three rules must always take priority.

And here is the #1 reason drivers hit cyclists:

Car insurance lobbyists have made it so easy to pass the driving test for obtaining the drivers licence at a very mature age of 16 (in the USA)....

Can you guess why?

OK, so i'll give the benifit of the doubt to motorists that they are not really out to get us...

Go to Forester's studies and you will see that two accident types make up the mojority of car-bike collisions:

1) car passes bike. Once passed the bike ceases to register in his mind, then makes a right turn, cutting off cyclist, cyclist hits car.

2) car making left turn. motorist is looking for cars and see none, cyclist not registering on his "auto pilot", so makes a turn across the path of the cyclist.

Number 3) is similar - car pulls out from a side road into the path of a cyclist

Taking the lane at intersections will greatly reduce # 1 because it prevents cars from commiting an unsafe pass just before the intersection (driveways are another issue, so being watchful is key!)

Number 2 can only be prevented by watching closely. You just have to remember, drivers are trying to keep track of a lot of things at the same time. As such their "pattern detectors" (that's what the human brain is) are scanning and looking for standard patterns. Bikes aren'g standard, so may not register. I don't see this as an excuse, but as reality - it's simply how human brains work, so just assume you are not seen, and cover the brakes.

Number 3 - what I do is watch the front wheel. any movement will show as roatation. Because of issues of perspective between the car and what is behind it, you can't assume you can detect movement by just looking at the car - watch the wheel. Also DONT assume eye contact means you have been seen - the motorist could very easily be looking PAST you (see # 2 above).

I wouldn't say I am an expert, but I have been cycle-commuting for 25 years...

Accidents are almost always caused by failing to follow Android's Rules to Not Die By:

1) Assume the car driver does not see you. Unless the driver gets out of the car, shakes your hand and offers his hot, 22 year old daughter's hand in marriage. He didn't see you.

2) Assume the driver will do the stupidest thing possible at the last possible moment. Even if they pretended to see you.

3) Realize that car drivers don't give a rat's ass about you or you safety. They only want to go somewhere as quickly as possible. Filling out paperwork because they hit you is a minor inconvenience that will prevent him from arriving at his destination promptly, but that is all.

4) Taking the lane, wearing a helmet, acting like are vehicle are all secondary to the above rules. They are all good things, but the first three rules must always take priority.

Somebody wanna 'splain to me how you can do number one and the first part of number four at the same time?

Somebody wanna 'splain to me how you can do number one and the first part of number four at the same time?

part of why bikes are not seen is that they are out of the traffic zone, so they don't register in motorist's minds. By taking the lane, we become visible. That is also the #1 reason to NOT ride a bike on the sidewalk.

I reckon there's as many reasons as there are collisions. Where's the benefit in trying to fit them into neat little categories?

Go to Forester's studies and you will see that two accident types make up the mojority of car-bike collisions: ...



Go to Forester's site if you want to read Forester's opinions supported by the silliest excuse for cherry picked data analysis and goofball risk analysis about bicycling found anywhere on the Internet.

Another one: Biker is riding on wrong side of street and gets run over by left turning car. I almost did that myself making a hurried left turn in my truck before on-rushing traffic. You don't look left and behind when turning left. There are a lot of idiot bikers out there. Putting the blame solely on the car driver is a feel-good exercise but adds little to safety awareness.

Here's another one: bikers running double pace-line on a heavily traveled two-lane thereby blocking traffic as they were (obviously) extending far left of the bike lane. Probably legal but unwise and builds ill-will toward cyclists. I had to pass that double line and can appreciate why so many drivers don't like road cyclists, including my son for these reasons.

Al

part of why bikes are not seen is that they are out of the traffic zone, so they don't register in motorist's minds. By taking the lane, we become visible. That is also the #1 reason to NOT ride a bike on the sidewalk.

No, you do NOT magically become visible. You still have to assume rule #1. Assuming just because you are in the lane that you are visible will eventually allow you to post a "I was hit by a car" thread. (Best case)

You *do* increase the odds that a driver traveling in the same direction as you *might* notice you and not plow into you from behind.

You still have to absolutely assume that cross traffic and oncoming traffic will still be oblivious to your existence and continue to assume they will behave as in rule #2 and that passing vehicles will right hook you as soon as the opportunity allows.

And here is the #1 reason drivers hit cyclists:

Car insurance lobbyists have made it so easy to pass the driving test for obtaining the drivers license at a very mature age of 16 (in the USA)....

Can you guess why?

Yep, because most people equate driving with a right/rite of passage and NOT the privilege that it is/suppose to be. As most 14/15 year olds what they're looking forward to when they turn 15/16 and I'm sure that most will say getting their learner's permit/driver's license.

Go to Forester's site if you want to read Forester's opinions supported by the silliest excuse for cherry picked data analysis and goofball risk analysis about bicycling found anywhere on the Internet.

Can ya provide the link?

And here is the #1 reason drivers hit cyclists:

Car insurance lobbyists have made it so easy to pass the driving test for obtaining the drivers licence at a very mature age of 16 (in the USA)....

Can you guess why?

So that they must be added to their parents' policy which creates a windfall for the insurance co. for the next couple years until they leave the house when the ins. co. can gouge them individually until they're 21 or 25 depending on gender.

I'm sorry, but as a recent immigrant to SLC, I'd have to add another reason:

Bicyclist violates Principle of Least Astonishment (rides against light on left side of road, in the dark, with no lights)

:mad: As sad as it seems, in many cases cyclists seem to commit Suicide By Motor Vehicle, sometimes unsuccessfully.


After reading alot of posts and newspaper articles about these accidents, it seems bicycle v car accidents where the driver hits the bike can be grouped into 4 groups:

Driver didn't look
Driver looked but didn't see cyclist
Driver looked and saw cyclist but didn't anticipate cyclist's actions
Driver commited an infraction (speeding, went thru red light, etc.)

These are the reasons I read again and again, can you think of others?

Chip,

Who's the guy in your new avatar? I still like your playboy avatar the best.

Dana


Milton "somebody stole my stapler" Waddams from Office Space - aka Stephen Root

Hey dana,

If that was a legitimate question, the answer is George Burns (with >95% confidence). I agree that the Plaboy avatar was the best.

Did that driver pulling the boat actually say he had to hit that cyclist because otherwise he would have had to hit the brakes?

Seriously?


I mean, seriously??

:eek: :twitchy:

:notamused:

I confronted a driver after he nearly ran me down. He said he couldn't move to the left because there was a car beside him. I reminded him that his vehicle was equipped with a big rectangular foot rest to the left of the accelerator and that perhaps he ought to become familar with its use.

When I got hit by a left turning SUV over my lane, they had the nerve to tell me that I should be riding against traffic and on the sidewalk! People just don't get it, whoever mentioned it earlier is right, we're just seen as an inconvenience to a speeding population of tank drivers.

Yep, because most people equate driving with a right/rite of passage and NOT the privilege that it is/suppose to be. As most 14/15 year olds what they're looking forward to when they turn 15/16 and I'm sure that most will say getting their learner's permit/driver's license.

Close, but read the following post.


So that they must be added to their parents' policy which creates a windfall for the insurance co. for the next couple years until they leave the house when the ins. co. can gouge them individually until they're 21 or 25 depending on gender.

Now that's more like it.

To them it's all about money. In history of automobile industry, insurance companies, and automobile infrastructure, it's been nothing but pushing towards profit. Safety and the future outlook for the betterment of humanity have always been the second on the list and media marketing helps to prove their point beyond reasonable doubt as people will believe enything that's on the TV. Have they made you believe that this is personal freedom or is it more like "you are free to do as you're told"? In the automobile marketing, it's more about horse power and everything in that line, then the real responsibilities of owning their product. Am I the only one who sees this?

Sure we can discuss the points on how to make us safer and avoid being hit and that's a great thing, but in this case we are only yielding to the law system that is flawed at its core. Will doing this work in the long run or does the law need to be changed at the basic level? I mean, can we continue to make our selves into bicycle soldiers, while drivers become more and more spoiled??? There has to be a more equlized effort on both sides because it takes a long time for an avarage cyclist to understand and addopt to the rules of the jungle.

The law book says that driver and cyclist have to share the road somehow and follow all the same rules of the road, but it doesn't tell you that some of the drivers are morons and the most have no real training on how to operate their sweet symbols of personal freedom and are left on their own to figure things out on their own terms with little to no regard of other users of the road. The real consequence of this in the USA is that most people who wanna ride their bikes on the road are freakin' terrified to be on the road. I know I was at first and probably most of you were as most to some degree still are and I know I am.

The system has made it, as a consequence of their policies, so that in most places in USA the cycling is a rare event and this is not a good thing as we all know that safety is in numbers. Another consequence is the obesity, but that's a whole different story. Fortunately most drivers are reasonable and instinctively know that there is a view besides one square foot of their windshield, but because of this minority who like to text their pepperony pizza with a beer bottle while behind the wheel, we are tempted to figure out so much stuff that we could get a freakin' college degree, while some drivers are still in kindergarten and damn content with it.

My point is that there has to be a higher degree in sharing of responsibilities to the art of being on the road.
We can do so many things to make us safer.
We can have the lights that are as bright as the sun itself.
We can have reflective gear that will be seen from the moon and all the seas.
We can have mirrors so versatile, that we can see our own asses in 3D.
We can even ride like our red light running teacher Joey.

But as long as drivers are thought that driving is so easy.

Well, that's all I have..

After reading alot of posts and newspaper articles about these accidents, it seems bicycle v car accidents where the driver hits the bike can be grouped into 4 groups:

Driver didn't look
Driver looked but didn't see cyclist
Driver looked and saw cyclist but didn't anticipate cyclist's actions
Driver commited an infraction (speeding, went thru red light, etc.)

These are the reasons I read again and again, can you think of others?

I think that if we generalize and take bicycles out of this, the statement is just as true...


After reading a lot of posts and newspaper articles about accidents, it seems most incidents of drivers hitting things can be grouped 4 ways:

Driver didn't look
Driver looked but didn't see something
Driver looked and saw something but didn't anticipate actions or misjudged
Driver committed an infraction (speeding, went thru red light etc.)


I think these four cover almost all situations... The only other possibility I can think of is the driver looked, saw something, judged properly, anticipated all actions and followed all the rules, and hit the other object. I would sure hope that would be a very small minority of accidents. ;)

I think these four cover almost all situations... The only other possibility I can think of is the driver looked, saw something, judged properly, anticipated all actions and followed all the rules, and hit the other object. I would sure hope that would be a very small minority of accidents. ;)

Don't forget driver's that come after us with malicious intent because we look better in lycra pants than they do

Don't forget driver's that come after us with malicious intent because we look better in lycra pants than they do

Speak for yourself :lol: