Advocacy & Safety - Article: Cyclists Cause Less Than 10% of Bike/Car Accidents (Canadian Study)

(from http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/08/cyclists-cause-10-percent-of-accidents.php)

The only surprise I found according to this report is that overtaking crashes were actually common (second most common crash type). Is it a fluke in the study, or is there something that people have been missing? (IIRC hit from behind is supposed to be around 1% of all crashes.)

(BTW, there is a correction to make. The 10% figure is actually taken from a different study. I found out when I went to the Canadian site.)

The data I have seen indicates that most accidents occur at intersections or cars entering or exiting driveways or parking lots. I would think the most common accidents would be right and left hooks.

I bet that there are a HELL of a lot more overtaking crashes now than there were even 5 years ago, because there are a lot more ways to get distracted behind the wheel now than 5 years ago. Even 5 years ago, cell phones were not as ubiquitous as they are now, and texting wasn't as big.

The studies that we've been quoting around here were probably undertaken before this change came about, so I would not be at all surprised if overtaking accidents are a lot higher percentage of all accidents than was the case a few years ago.

I bet that there are a HELL of a lot more overtaking crashes now than there were even 5 years ago, because there are a lot more ways to get distracted behind the wheel now than 5 years ago. Even 5 years ago, cell phones were not as ubiquitous as they are now, and texting wasn't as big.

Maybe. Juding from reported collisions, overtaking-type of collisions are more likely to result in serious injuries/mortality. One would think that a lot more overtaking crashes would lead to a lot more serious injuries and deaths. My caffeine hit has worn off, but my understanding is that injuries/mortality have been rather flat for the past few years.

I think that 60% of the time it works everytime...


Or that 47% of statistics are made up on the spot to support whatever you are trying to prove...

The NHTSA maintains a database of roadway fatalities in the US. Here's the report for cyclists (http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/People/PeoplePedalcyclists.aspx).

The NHTSA maintains a database of roadway fatalities in the US. Here's the report for cyclists (http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/People/PeoplePedalcyclists.aspx).

it is interesting to note that 44% of cyclists' deaths are due to "None Reported."

The NHTSA maintains a database of roadway fatalities in the US. Here's the report for cyclists (http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/People/PeoplePedalcyclists.aspx).

So I just learned to avoid cycling:
- if I am 45-54 yrs of age
- between 6-9pm
- if there are light trucks around

It isn't clear to me in the "factors" section at the bottom if that refers to the cyclist, driver, or either.
I am guessing it is "either".

it is interesting to note that 44% of cyclists' deaths are due to "None Reported."

also interesting that it doesn't say whether the 'factors' are attributable to the motorist or the cyclist involved

That white bike needs to be locked up. Or it will be stolen by a junkie. I recommend a Krytonite U-Lock like the Forgetitaboutit.

The 10% figure is taken from a limited, anecdotal dataset if I read the article right.

The actual numbers over time are about 46/49% cyclist/motorist at fault, with 5% uncertain or shared. The motorists have a slight edge on the cyclists for fault, but not by very much.

The most common cyclist behaviors that result in a car-bike crash are:
1. Riding on the wrong side of the road, against traffic;
2. Trying to make a left turn from the right edge of the roadway (which results in a hit-from-behind crash);
3. Riding out from a driveway without yielding;
4. Running a stop sign or stop light.

For motorists, the mostcommon causes are:
1. Left cross (turning left without yielding to an oncoming cyclist);
2. Right hook (turning right in front of a cyclist)
3. Running a stop sign or stop light;
4. Dooring
5. Driving out from a driveway without yielding to a cyclist in the traffic lane.

These are some fairly long-running numbers, and are skewed a bit in that they also include children's crashes. Hit-from-behind crashes do seem to be on the upswing, not only from driver inattention, but also more cyclists being out on the road and not using lights or reflective gear.

FARS is interesting. Look out for big trucks from the rear and pass cars head on.

(BTW, there is a correction to make. The 10% figure is actually taken from a different study. I found out when I went to the Canadian site.)

Yeah, New York is not Canada

http://www.research.utoronto.ca/behind_the_headlines/smart-cycling/


It is actually several studies conducted by the Charles Komanoff and member of the Right of Way organization in New York that concluded that concluded that cyclists were strictly culpable for less than 10 per cent of bike-car accidents.

In BC, we have an information booklet based on other studies.

http://bikesense.bc.ca/manual.htm

In it, it says,

Several studies in North America have found that the primary fault in bicycle/motor vehicle collisions is approximately equally shared between cyclists and drivers. These studies also found that the single most common bicycle accident was falling without any other vehicle being involved.

In BC, the most common error among cyclists was to ride without due care. Among motorists the most frequent fault was failure to yield right-of-way.

Operating vehicle without due care - Cyclists: 23% Car drivers: 14%
Failure to yield right-of-way - Cyclists: 13% Car drivers: 27%
Using the wrong side of the road - Cyclists: 10% Car drivers: 0%

Most collisions happened at intersections, where there were no traffic controls, and in residential areas.

* 63% of the collisions occurred at the intersection of a street with another street, alley or driveway, while 31% happened between intersections.
* 57% of the collision sites had no traffic controls at all; 19% had stop signs and 15% traffic lights.
* 40% occurred in residential areas, and 35% in business/shopping areas.

Charles Komanoff studied the NYC cyclist fatal crash data and concluded in The Only Good Cyclist (http://www.rightofway.org/research/cyclists.pdf) that the police were prone to erring on the side of the motorist.

Is anyone here surprised by this?

My personal experience is that 100% of bike-car accidents I've been in were the result of drivers violating my right of way. Yes, most of them I could have avoided by letting them have my right of way, but still....

That white bike needs to be locked up. Or it will be stolen by a junkie. I recommend a Krytonite U-Lock like the Forgetitaboutit.

Seriously?
A. It's not just a white bike, it's a Ghost Bike. Look it up.
B. Both Ghost Bikes in the article ARE locked up. And try getting a U-Lock around a tree....

These are some fairly long-running numbers, and are skewed a bit in that they also include children's crashes. Hit-from-behind crashes do seem to be on the upswing, not only from driver inattention, but also more cyclists being out on the road and not using lights or reflective gear.I would say skewed significantly. I saw a study for Honolulu that showed 75% fault for motorist when ONLY including ADULT cyclist.

Is that similar to your study results when only looking at adult cyclist?

Link to the Toronto study here http://www.toronto.ca/transportation/publications/bicycle_motor-vehicle/index.htm

I think the good Dr. also has an undiagnosed head injury in addition to the broken bones.

Using the wrong side of the road - Cyclists: 10% Car drivers: 0%


That is interesting. People will drive drunk, texting, putting on make-up, eating with two hands, and watching TV, but they keep it more or less on the right side of the road.

That is interesting. People will drive drunk, texting, putting on make-up, eating with two hands, and watching TV, but they keep it more or less on the right side of the road.

I can't say that I've seen people on bikes puting on makeup while they are riding but I have seen them doing the other 4. At night. Without lights. Without a helmet.

Link to the Toronto study here http://www.toronto.ca/transportation/publications/bicycle_motor-vehicle/index.htm

I think the good Dr. also has an undiagnosed head injury in addition to the broken bones.

The article the OP linked to is a puff piece for an interview that it links to. This is the correction now added to the interview:



Dr. Chris Cavacuiti has informed us that his interview contains a factual error.

In the interview, Dr. Cavacuiti is quoted as saying “The [Toronto Collision] study concluded that cyclists are the cause of less than 10 per cent of bike-car accidents”. Dr. Cavacuiti has asked us to make readers aware that the Toronto Collision study was actually designed to look at the cause of bicycle/motorist collisions but not culpability.

It is actually several studies conducted by the Charles Komanoff and member of the Right of Way organization in New York that concluded that concluded that cyclists were strictly culpable for less than 10 per cent of bike-car accidents.

Dr. Cavacuiti would like to apologize for any confusion this error may have caused


Also http://www.toronto.ca/transportation/publications/bicycle_motor-vehicle/pdf/car-bike_collision_report_execsum.pdf lists the major contributing factors to the 2500 accidents studied. The biggest were

629 Sidewalk riding
355 Darkness (arguably lack of adequate lights)
132 Child cyclist
72 Obstructed view
68 Motorist improper lane change

So a cyclist factor is number 1 and you have to go pretty far down to find a motorist controlled factor. And this is followed immediately by three cyclist errors