Vehicular Cycling (VC) - just the facts

I'm doing a paper for a college class on cycling, I need some facts to back up statements. I need some statistics too, like on cyclists/motor vehicle accidents due to position on the road, or due to cyclists acting as pedestrians. the main points are going to be cyclists(a basic overview of riding styles, etc.), their rights(most states allow cyclists the right to take the lane, etc.) and maybe a couple of paragraphs on law enforcement(this would focus on those who make cyclists look bad by riding unpredictably or illegally). if anyone can supply some good informative websites that would help I would really appreciate it.
Thanks.

I'm doing a paper for a college class on cycling, I need some facts to back up statements. I need some statistics too, like on cyclists/motor vehicle accidents due to position on the road, or due to cyclists acting as pedestrians. the main points are going to be cyclists(a basic overview of riding styles, etc.), their rights(most states allow cyclists the right to take the lane, etc.) and maybe a couple of paragraphs on law enforcement(this would focus on those who make cyclists look bad by riding unpredictably or illegally). if anyone can supply some good informative websites that would help I would really appreciate it.
Thanks.

Try getting some stats from the League. They're "in the business" of promoting cycling and safety training. You may do better there than in the wolves den of opinions. Maybe sit in on a class. Good luck with the paper.

http://www.iowabicyclecoalition.org/

http://www.bikeleague.org/

Here is a pretty good compilation of various reports.

http://www.industrializedcyclist.com/lies.html

Trying to get the cyclist road position data however is going to be rather difficult.

I'm doing a paper for a college class on cycling, I need some facts to back up statements. I need some statistics too, like on cyclists/motor vehicle accidents due to position on the road, or due to cyclists acting as pedestrians. the main points are going to be cyclists(a basic overview of riding styles, etc.), their rights(most states allow cyclists the right to take the lane, etc.) and maybe a couple of paragraphs on law enforcement(this would focus on those who make cyclists look bad by riding unpredictably or illegally). if anyone can supply some good informative websites that would help I would really appreciate it.
Thanks.

The most statistically robust study of car-bike collisions is that done by Kenneth D. Cross and Gary Fisher, A Study of Bicycle Motor Vehicle Accidents: Identification of Problem Types and Countermeasure Approaches, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1976.

Copies of Cross's study are hard to find; your university library may be able to find a copy. You will also need some analysis of Cross's data, for which read Forester, John, Bicycle Transportation, The MIT Press, 1994.

Bek, do you want to tell the OP or should I?

you go ahead.

I'm doing a paper for a college class on cycling, I need some facts to back up statements.

Wait. Do you already have the statements?

studies of bicyclists road position versus acting like pedestrians?

interesting......

There's a lot of research extant on cyclist safety in cities around the world. I'd suggest the OP look at two rather exhaustive monographs of bicycling safety studies and see if he can find any tidbits thru further research:

"The impact of transportation infrastructure on bicycling injuries and crashes: a review of the literature" 2009, Renyolds, Harris Teshke, Cripton and Winters, Environmental Health,

that study is available online.

Additionally,
John Pucher, Jennifer Dill and Susan Handy's 2009 monograph "Infrastructure, Programs and policies to increase bicycling: an international review" prepared for the active living program of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and scheduled for publication in Feb2010 Preventative Medicine.

that is also available online. sorry i don't provide the links, i just have them sitting around in hard copy.

Try those two, they will lead you to many studies and programs more recent than a singular, over referred to, 35 year old study.


forester and his review of the cross/fisher stats is widely discredited in the bicycle transportation field.

Try those two, they will lead you to many studies and programs more recent than a singular, over referred to, 35 year old study.


forester and his review of the cross/fisher stats is widely discredited in the bicycle transportation field.

Mr. Bek, this is the first that I have heard about my review of the Cross/Fisher stats being widely discredited in the bicycle transportation field. Not that I haven't received criticism in the thirty or so years since I first published about Cross's study, but I don't recall the specific criticism that you claim exists. I think that you should provide support for your claim with specific attention fo my review (I prefer to call it analysis) of the Cross/Fisher statistical study of car-bike collisions.

john, I will let your reputation speak for itself.

anything you've written about the cross/fisher study is seldom even referred to nowadays in the annals of bicycle transportation literature. You being 'widely discredited' may not be most accurate, perhaps i should have said throughly debunked.

to the OP: take a look at the many dozens of studies referenced at those two papers. I don't believe JF even gets a nod there. maybe he did, i gave it a quick once over, but no.

john, I will let your reputation speak for itself.

anything you've written about the cross/fisher study is seldom even referred to nowadays in the annals of bicycle transportation literature. You being 'widely discredited' may not be most accurate, perhaps i should have said throughly debunked.

to the OP: take a look at the many dozens of studies referenced at those two papers. I don't believe JF even gets a nod there. maybe he did, i gave it a quick once over, but no.

And with that I must advise the OP to be very careful at what john forester claims or states about anything bicycle related. He has a militant, I am always right, you are always wrong attitude about it. He is arrogant and thinks he knows everything there is to know about cycling. He may be old, but in his case wisdom does not come with age. He is not willing to accept council from anyone, or perhaps form anyone younger then he is.But he has no problem with giving his so called council. the problem is he is way too in your face about it. He does not admit to or apologize for mistakes and claims he makes none when he states his rhetoric regarding cycling. He calls anyone who does not ride bike likes he think they should incompetent. When anyone disagrees or critisizes him he is insulting and his arrogance is even worse.

That said I am in no way saying my method of cycling is the only or perfect way to ride. I admit to mistakes I make and I never think I am always right and everyone else who does not ride like I do or like I think they should is wrong or incompetent.

My method or type of riding is not vc, as forester would like to see me and everyone else do. It is called Adaptive Cycling, or AC. Just ask and I'll give you the definition and an example of it. I don't speak about it unless asked to in a situation like this. Unlike forester who is quick to throw in his rhetoric even in threads where it is not wanted or welcomed. Not saying this is one of those threads but there have been some. forester has gotten so bad I have had to put him on my ignore list and I suspect others have done the same. I no longer have any desire to discuss anything further with him. He can not control himself and his arrogance or insulting attitude.

So take what he says with a huge grain of salt and with care.

Mr. Bek, this is the first that I have heard about my review of the Cross/Fisher stats being widely discredited in the bicycle transportation field. Not that I haven't received criticism in the thirty or so years since I first published about Cross's study, but I don't recall the specific criticism that you claim exists. I think that you should provide support for your claim with specific attention fo my review (I prefer to call it analysis) of the Cross/Fisher statistical study of car-bike collisions.



john, I will let your reputation speak for itself.

anything you've written about the cross/fisher study is seldom even referred to nowadays in the annals of bicycle transportation literature. You being 'widely discredited' may not be most accurate, perhaps i should have said throughly debunked.

to the OP: take a look at the many dozens of studies referenced at those two papers. I don't believe JF even gets a nod there. maybe he did, i gave it a quick once over, but no.

I notice that you don't present evidence that Cross's statistical study of car-bike collisions and my analysis of them has been "throughly (sic) debunked, " to use your words, as well as failing to support your claim that it has been scientifically criticized.

However, your statement that bicycle advocates ignore that work is accurate. That work contains the scientific proof, dated 1978, that the governmental program regarding bicycle transportation, designed by motorists for the purpose of making motoring more convenient, acts to enlarge the known major traffic hazards because it caters to unrealistic popular fears instead of providing countermeasures to the known traffic hazards. Since the disproof of the governmental program so loved by bicycle advocates cannot reasonably be discredited, bicycle advocates and governmental personnel have to ignore it (although the Cross study is a government document issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration).

And with that I must advise the OP to be very careful at what john forester claims or states about anything bicycle related. He has a militant, I am always right, you are always wrong attitude about it. He is arrogant and thinks he knows everything there is to know about cycling. He may be old, but in his case wisdom does not come with age. He is not willing to accept council from anyone, or perhaps form anyone younger then he is.But he has no problem with giving his so called council. the problem is he is way too in your face about it. He does not admit to or apologize for mistakes and claims he makes none when he states his rhetoric regarding cycling. He calls anyone who does not ride bike likes he think they should incompetent. When anyone disagrees or critisizes him he is insulting and his arrogance is even worse.

That said I am in no way saying my method of cycling is the only or perfect way to ride. I admit to mistakes I make and I never think I am always right and everyone else who does not ride like I do or like I think they should is wrong or incompetent.

My method or type of riding is not vc, as forester would like to see me and everyone else do. It is called Adaptive Cycling, or AC. Just ask and I'll give you the definition and an example of it. I don't speak about it unless asked to in a situation like this. Unlike forester who is quick to throw in his rhetoric even in threads where it is not wanted or welcomed. Not saying this is one of those threads but there have been some. forester has gotten so bad I have had to put him on my ignore list and I suspect others have done the same. I no longer have any desire to discuss anything further with him. He can not control himself and his arrogance or insulting attitude.

So take what he says with a huge grain of salt and with care.

It is remarkable how well Mr Square plays the part of William Jennings Bryan at the Scopes trial when confronted by Clarence Darrow.

I notice that you don't present evidence that Cross's statistical study of car-bike collisions and my analysis of them has been "throughly (sic) debunked, " to use your words, as well as failing to support your claim that it has been scientifically criticized.

However, your statement that bicycle advocates ignore that work is accurate. That work contains the scientific proof, dated 1978, that the governmental program regarding bicycle transportation, designed by motorists for the purpose of making motoring more convenient, acts to enlarge the known major traffic hazards because it caters to unrealistic popular fears instead of providing countermeasures to the known traffic hazards. Since the disproof of the governmental program so loved by bicycle advocates cannot reasonably be discredited, bicycle advocates and governmental personnel have to ignore it (although the Cross study is a government document issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration).

Of course the Cross Report at no point even mentions any "facts" about government programs regarding bicycle transportation, nor a word about unrealistic popular fears, nor a word about countermeasures to cycling risk.

All the so-called "proof" about these Forester Brand issues is revealed ONLY in the Forester Brand "analysis' of the obscure Cross Report. The Forester Brand analysis technique includes cherry picked data subjected to Forester Brand conjecture, interpretations, extrapolations, and fabrications about actual cycling risk in order to arrive at the "proof" of a Forester Brand predetermined conclusion.

Of course the Cross Report at no point even mentions any "facts" about government programs regarding bicycle transportation, nor a word about unrealistic popular fears, nor a word about countermeasures to cycling risk.

All the so-called "proof" about these Forester Brand issues is revealed ONLY in the Forester Brand "analysis' of the obscure Cross Report. The Forester Brand analysis technique includes cherry picked data subjected to Forester Brand conjecture, interpretations, extrapolations, and fabrications about actual cycling risk in order to arrive at the "proof" of a Forester Brand predetermined conclusion.

ILTB is indeed correct when he states that the Cross statistics makes no mention of "government programs regarding bicycle transportation, nor a word about unrealistic popular fears, nor a word about countermeasures to cycling risk." The Cross statistics demonstrate the relative frequencies of the different types of car-bike collision and their contributing factors, and, as I say, it is the best such study ever done. It is universally recognized in the safety engineering field that such a study is the required basis of any comprehensive safety program, for only through the understanding provided by such a study can a useful safety program be designed.

The governmental program regarding bicycle transportation is designed almost entirely to provide protection from same-direction motor traffic. Keeping bicycle traffic out of motorists' way suits motorists, who designed the system. The system is also strongly supported by bicycle advocates, whom one might think would be suspicious of a program designed to make motoring more convenient, because they recognize that the public so fears same-direction motor traffic that its members won't cycle unless protected from that traffic.

The Cross statistics demonstrate that same-direction motor traffic causes only about 1/20 of the car-bike collisions while turning and crossing movements cause about 19/20 of them. That proves that the governmental program is not directed at cyclist safety, and that the public fears that "justify" that program are irrational, and that the proper countermeasures for cyclist safety would be entirely different from the governmental program.

The Cross statistics demonstrate the relative frequencies of the different types of car-bike collision and their contributing factors, and, as I say, it is the best such study ever done.
1. Sorry, the John Forester endorsement as the "best such study ever done" doesn't carry much weight outside of LCI circles.
2. The Cross statistics only shows the "relative frequencies of different types of car-bike collision" for the limited number of accidents which were included in the survey. It provided no measure of the probabilities of any type of accident occurring because it did not gather any data about where/how the total population of cyclists ride on the street, road or sidewalk.

Risk is determined by measuring with probabilities to include the exposure rate in combination with an evaluation of the severity of the various injuries incurred after exposure to the hazards.

The Cross report included none of these measurements and just went with a total count of accidents and what circumstances may have led to those specific accidents. Any extrapolation of the Cross "statistics" to a conclusion about cycling risk requires a [I]Forsteronian Leap of Faith that cyclists are exposed to all type of car-accidents scenarios equally, and that all type accidents produce injury severity of equal value.

1. Sorry, the John Forester endorsement as the "best such study ever done" doesn't carry much weight outside of LCI circles.
2. The Cross statistics only shows the "relative frequencies of different types of car-bike collision" for the limited number of accidents which were included in the survey. It provided no measure of the probabilities of any type of accident occurring because it did not gather any data about where/how the total population of cyclists ride on the street, road or sidewalk.

Risk is determined by measuring with probabilities to include the exposure rate in combination with an evaluation of the severity of the various injuries incurred after exposure to the hazards.

The Cross report included none of these measurements and just went with a total count of accidents and what circumstances may have led to those specific accidents. Any extrapolation of the Cross "statistics" to a conclusion about cycling risk requires a [I]Forsteronian Leap of Faith that cyclists are exposed to all type of car-accidents scenarios equally, and that all type accidents produce injury severity of equal value.

Here is ILTB raising issues which he is too smart not to know are irrelevant and therefore equivalent to lies. Consider that in some community in recent years there have been 29 accidents from people falling into storm drains and 2 accidents from people falling into wells. Quite clearly, a program to install safe grates into storm drains will have much more effect in reducing falling-into accidents than will one to install safety covers over wells. No knowledge of risk is required.

1. Sorry, the John Forester endorsement as the "best such study ever done" doesn't carry much weight outside of LCI circles.


OK, ILTB, name a study of car-bike collisions that you think is superior to the Cross study and describe why it is superior to the Cross study. Both accuracy and usefulness are necessary criteria, for an inaccurate study is misleading while an accurate study that provides little useful information is useless.

ILTB is indeed correct when he states that the Cross statistics makes no mention of "government programs regarding bicycle transportation, nor a word about unrealistic popular fears, nor a word about countermeasures to cycling risk." The Cross statistics demonstrate the relative frequencies of the different types of car-bike collision and their contributing factors, and, as I say, it is the best such study ever done. It is universally recognized in the safety engineering field that such a study is the required basis of any comprehensive safety program, for only through the understanding provided by such a study can a useful safety program be designed.

The governmental program regarding bicycle transportation is designed almost entirely to provide protection from same-direction motor traffic. Keeping bicycle traffic out of motorists' way suits motorists, who designed the system. The system is also strongly supported by bicycle advocates, whom one might think would be suspicious of a program designed to make motoring more convenient, because they recognize that the public so fears same-direction motor traffic that its members won't cycle unless protected from that traffic.

The Cross statistics demonstrate that same-direction motor traffic causes only about 1/20 of the car-bike collisions while turning and crossing movements cause about 19/20 of them. That proves that the governmental program is not directed at cyclist safety, and that the public fears that "justify" that program are irrational, and that the proper countermeasures for cyclist safety would be entirely different from the governmental program.

The Cross statistics, regarding a few hundred car-bike collisions which occurred in one California town in the early seventies, as Cross himself explains, show one thing very clearly (and one thing only): that child bicyclists tend to have very different sorts of collisions than adult bicyclists. Your analysis of this study is bankrupt as long as you pretend not to notice the profound impact of age on the types of accidents recorded.

Forester's overall view of the 'bikeway program' may be correct, I don't know. Let's say that it is, for argument's sake. That doesn't mean we should make important planning decisions today based on what a bunch of little kids were doing in suburban California in the 1970s.

Edit: The first Cross study can be viewed on J. Forester's website: IDENTIFYING CRITICAL BEHAVIOR LEADING TO COLLISIONS BETWEEN BICYCLES AND MOTOR VEHICLES (1) (http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Safety/Cross01.htm)

The articles Bek mentioned and dozens of others can be downloaded for full view here (http://www.industrializedcyclist.com/lies.html).

The Cross statistics, regarding a few hundred car-bike collisions which occurred in one California town in the early seventies, as Cross himself explains, show one thing very clearly (and one thing only): that child bicyclists tend to have very different sorts of collisions than adult bicyclists. Your analysis of this study is bankrupt as long as you pretend not to notice the profound impact of age on the types of accidents recorded.

Forester's overall view of the 'bikeway program' may be correct, I don't know. Let's say that it is, for argument's sake. That doesn't mean we should make important planning decisions today based on what a bunch of little kids were doing in suburban California in the 1970s.

Edit: The first Cross study can be viewed on J. Forester's website: IDENTIFYING CRITICAL BEHAVIOR LEADING TO COLLISIONS BETWEEN BICYCLES AND MOTOR VEHICLES (1) (http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Safety/Cross01.htm)

The articles Bek mentioned and dozens of others can be downloaded for full view here (http://www.industrializedcyclist.com/lies.html).

Hurst misidentifies the first and minor Cross study, made from all reported Santa Barbara County (not city) car-bike collisions in a year, for the California Office of Traffic Safety as the second and major Cross study, made from more than 1,000 car-bike collisions in four states deemed to be reasonably representative of the nation, for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, titled A Study of Bicycle/Motor-vehicle Accidents: Identification of Problem Types and Countermeasure Approaches. Dated 1976, but published in 1978

OK, ILTB, name a study of car-bike collisions that you think is superior to the Cross study and describe why it is superior to the Cross study. Both accuracy and usefulness are necessary criteria, for an inaccurate study is misleading while an accurate study that provides little useful information is useless.
The standard Forester defense of fabricating conclusions from whole cloth out of "statistics" that are inadequate in every respect to reach the conclusion. i.e "Name a study that is better than my The Center of the Moon is made up of Green Cheese study. If you can't come up with a superior study, then mine is the best available evidence and the Moon IS made up of Green Cheese until better evidence comes along."

Hurst misidentifies the first and minor Cross study, made from all reported Santa Barbara County (not city) car-bike collisions in a year, for the California Office of Traffic Safety as the second and major Cross study, made from more than 1,000 car-bike collisions in four states deemed to be reasonably representative of the nation, for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, titled A Study of Bicycle/Motor-vehicle Accidents: Identification of Problem Types and Countermeasure Approaches. Dated 1976, but published in 1978

Ah, the "Cross-Fisher study." This comes to the same conclusion as the first Cross study. Age is the primary determiner for accident type, and for accident culpability.

It's not just Forester. There are many out there trying to use studies like this to support an anti-bike lane agenda. They have to ignore the most glaring results of the study to do it. Should be a red flag for sensible folks.

Edit: I think these studies are useful, but it should be taken into account that the cycling population has changed rather drastically in the decades since these two Cross studies were produced, and the 'stratigraphy' of accidents has changed accordingly.

The Cross statistics, regarding a few hundred car-bike collisions which occurred in one California town in the early seventies, as Cross himself explains, show one thing very clearly (and one thing only): that child bicyclists tend to have very different sorts of collisions than adult bicyclists. Your analysis of this study is bankrupt as long as you pretend not to notice the profound impact of age on the types of accidents recorded.

Forester's overall view of the 'bikeway program' may be correct, I don't know. Let's say that it is, for argument's sake. That doesn't mean we should make important planning decisions today based on what a bunch of little kids were doing in suburban California in the 1970s.

Edit: The first Cross study can be viewed on J. Forester's website: IDENTIFYING CRITICAL BEHAVIOR LEADING TO COLLISIONS BETWEEN BICYCLES AND MOTOR VEHICLES (1) (http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Safety/Cross01.htm)

The articles Bek mentioned and dozens of others can be downloaded for full view here (http://www.industrializedcyclist.com/lies.html).

Mr. Hurst, Are you more or less saying that what applied and what was in use between 30 and 40 years ago very likely does not apply today and thus should not be used today if it does not apply?

If you are saying this and if this is the case, why does forester cite and draw from things 30 or 40 years ago? I am basing this on what I could stomach from him before I put him on my ignore list and when someone quotes him to respond to something he said.

However, your statement that bicycle advocates ignore (my) work is accurate.

don't kid yourself, john. why limit the scope of your critics?

Mr. Hurst, Are you more or less saying that what applied and what was in use between 30 and 40 years ago very likely does not apply today and thus should not be used today if it does not apply?

If you are saying this and if this is the case, why does forester cite and draw from things 30 or 40 years ago? I am basing this on what I could stomach from him before I put him on my ignore list and when someone quotes him to respond to something he said.

The highway safety group at U N Carolina did a simpler replication of the Cross study a few years ago, and determined that the pattern of collision types had not changed.

The articles Bek mentioned and dozens of others can be downloaded for full view here (http://www.industrializedcyclist.com/lies.html).
My apologies for neglecting to mention Robert Hursts' excellent on-line resource.

The highway safety group at U N Carolina did a simpler replication of the Cross study a few years ago, and determined that the pattern of collision types had not changed.

Can you please provide a more specific reference.

Mr. Hurst, Are you more or less saying that what applied and what was in use between 30 and 40 years ago very likely does not apply today and thus should not be used today if it does not apply?

If you are saying this and if this is the case, why does forester cite and draw from things 30 or 40 years ago? I am basing this on what I could stomach from him before I put him on my ignore list and when someone quotes him to respond to something he said.

These old studies provide useful information, but context is very important. One aspect of that context is the way things have changed since the data was collected.

Perhaps the most important change that has occurred in cycling over the past three or four decades is the drastic reduction in kids' bicycling. Along with that has come a corresponding reduction of collisions involving kids. Though drastically reduced, kids' accidents still have an atomic bomb effect on whichever set of statistics they infiltrate. I don't care what the date of the study is -- why should we make decisions about adult cycling based on what happens to little kids who just got their training wheels off, or ritalin-crazed curb-hopping middle-schoolers? You have to sort the kids' wrecks from the adults' wrecks, it's as simple as that. I would say most bike accident 'studies' don't, and it ruins their whole program, yet few people seem to call them on it. Jacobsen's whole safety in numbers thing for instance. The Cross studies are potentially extremely useful studies because they sort vicitims by age and thus expose the true nature of the beast.

But now we have people who ignore the fact that the Cross studies were, in large part, evaluating child bicycling in the suburbs. They would do the same thing with a study produced this year. It's not so much the date of the research, but how it's used.

These old studies provide useful information, but context is very important. One aspect of that context is the way things have changed since the data was collected.

Perhaps the most important change that has occurred in cycling over the past three or four decades is the drastic reduction in kids' bicycling. Along with that has come a corresponding reduction of collisions involving kids. Though drastically reduced, kids' accidents still have an atomic bomb effect on whichever set of statistics they infiltrate. I don't care what the date of the study is -- why should we make decisions about adult cycling based on what happens to little kids who just got their training wheels off, or ritalin-crazed curb-hopping middle-schoolers? You have to sort the kids' wrecks from the adults' wrecks, it's as simple as that. I would say most bike accident 'studies' don't, and it ruins their whole program, yet few people seem to call them on it. Jacobsen's whole safety in numbers thing for instance. The Cross studies are potentially extremely useful studies because they sort vicitims by age and thus expose the true nature of the beast.

But now we have people who ignore the fact that the Cross studies were, in large part, evaluating child bicycling in the suburbs. They would do the same thing with a study produced this year. It's not so much the date of the research, but how it's used.


Thank you for explaining this. I understand a little better but still have more questions. I have been riding a bicycle since I was about 5 yrs. old and I am now 38. I know what you mean by how things have changed.

With the context and the way things have changed since the Cross studies were done, what has been done to conduct studies that do focus on adult cycling only? We should not make decisions based on accidents children have for adults. The focus should be studies done for children only resulting in decisions made just for kids based on that data. And a seperate focus on studies for adult cyclists only resulting in decisions that are for adults only based on that data. Has this ever been done by a reputable and accepted source? Do the Cross Studies cover this? I ask because you mention they sort victims by age. Does this mean the Cross studies already seperate the children from adults and further break it down by age?

Interesting you mention Jacobsen's safety in numbers. When I was safety coordinator for my bike club I used to preach this all the time. I did find it to be true. But none of us had any illusions that if a motor vehicle drivers runs through the middle it means more will be potentially hurt or killed vs. just one

I don't think the jacobson 'safety in numbers" study is tainted by the decline of child cyclists in this country in the last 30 + years unless jacobsen used dated baseline data. maybe he did.

Regardless of how the safety in numbers hypothesis is dissected and rejected, there is more than a consideration that bicyclists benefit from 'safety in numbers' on the road.

the indexed accident rates in portland and seattle show a steady rise in ridership in the last decade, but accident rates for bicyclists are flat. Indexed against the rise in cyclists, this is a decline in the accident rate for bicyclists in these two cities.

i suspect this pattern is replicated in cities around the country right now that have measurably increasing bicycle ridership. maybe not, maybe accident rates are climbing in other cities along with the numbers of cyclists. somehow, i doubt it.

portland and seattles indexed accident rates for bicyclists cast strong doubts on the relevancy of less child cyclists now than in 3 decades ago.

to square and compass, the 'safety in numbers' hypotheses is NOT riding in a group is safer, its:

the higher the percent of riders in a community, the motorists are more attuned to bicyclists and correspondingly collide with bicyclists LESS despite there being MORE bicyclists.

it is a sound argument. makes sense, analysis of its dynamics and accident stats appear to support it.

the amount of kids riding in the 1970's has little to do with it. Robert mentioned before he feels us bike boomers from the 70s have matured to be the road-seasoned bicyclists, and this affects the accident rates. there may be something to that. i believe that the vast, vast majority of bicyclists on the road are relative newcomers, children and other 'beginner' cyclists.

there may be many ways to extrapolate the scant data on cyclist safety extant, but there are clear, near universal elements and trends in policy and infrastructure that affect bicycling ridership and safety.

One near universal caveat for consideration of bicyclists, and bicycles as transportation:

As speeds and volumes of motor vehicle traffic increases, greater separation of cyclists from that motor vehicle traffic is the only sensible policy of consideration for all classes and skills of bicyclists. Wether that is bike lanes or sidepaths on 'no reasonable alternative' routes, there is NO rationale to plan for elementary schoolchildren in the middle of the traffic lanes on 50 mph arterial roadways for example.

[...]

the indexed accident rates in portland and seattle show a steady rise in ridership in the last decade, but accident rates for bicyclists are flat. Indexed against the rise in cyclists, this is a decline in the accident rate for bicyclists in these two cities.

i suspect this pattern is replicated in cities around the country right now that have measurably increasing bicycle commuters.

portland and seattles indexed accident rates for bicyclists cast strong doubts on the relevancy of less child cyclists now than in 3 decades ago.
[...]

I agree that the pattern is probably replicated in other cities, but I don't believe this casts doubt on the relevancy of the decline in youth cycling. To the contrary. The average age of a bicyclist in Seattle and other N. American cities has grown over the past decade, because child bicycling continued to declline or flatlined while adult cycling increased. The cycling population has changed and continues to change in fundamental ways not addressed by 'safety in numbers:' The kids drift to other activities, their ranks replenished not by other kids but by beginner adults; the beginners of old become experienced, while yesterday's experienced rider is still more experienced. I remain compelled by the idea that an increase in age and experience of the bicycling population is likely to bear far more responsibility for any apparent decreases in accident rates than 'safety in numbers.'

there is a very compelling draw between a more experienced cycling population in cities with increasing ridership and a decline in indexed accident rates. absolutely.



I don't think the cycling demographic, the ratio of child:adult cyclists has changed in seattle and portland so drastically that it would have an effect in the continued indexed decline in accident rates. Are the cyclists that started cycling five years ago 'safer' in traffic operation than the kid that gets his first bike this week and he makes it a fixed gear sans brakes?

Very likely.

I have a feeling in a city with a ample, mature riding population a type of 'hundreth monkey' phenomenon occurs, and cyclists become MORE law abiding by and large, and can rapidly develop better traffic skills by observation and parroting. This also assists in cyclist safety IMO.

Safety flashers being one aspect of cyclist safety that has a definite 'trickle down' going on recently.

In cities where lines of cyclists stop for arterial red lights, there are less red light runners. I've seen it in San Francisco, Seattle, and Portland. Definitely in cities in europe with double digit ridership, less queue jumping and red light running. I don't know how to apply the New York City phenomenon to my theory, BUT i predict the bikeways in manhattan will soon lead to a more orderly mass of city cyclists there as well.


I don't see much to suggest how a purportedly shifting ratio of child:adult cyclists has much to do with the indexed accident rates declining the last decade in seattle and portland.

there may certainly be some effect, but i don't see any swiftly changing ratio of child:adult cyclists influencing the indexed accident rates going down for cyclists from a 'safety in numbers' phenomenon.

I agree that the pattern is probably replicated in other cities, but I don't believe this casts doubt on the relevancy of the decline in youth cycling. To the contrary. The average age of a bicyclist in Seattle and other N. American cities has grown over the past decade, because child bicycling continued to declline or flatlined while adult cycling increased. The cycling population has changed and continues to change in fundamental ways not addressed by 'safety in numbers:' The kids drift to other activities, their ranks replenished not by other kids but by beginner adults; the beginners of old become experienced, while yesterday's experienced rider is still more experienced. I remain compelled by the idea that an increase in age and experience of the bicycling population is likely to bear far more responsibility for any apparent decreases in accident rates than 'safety in numbers.'
What percentage of adult cyclists didn't do any cycling as children? I would think that an adult who did not learn how to bicycle as a child is very unlikely to start as an adult. I don't think that the childhood experience has to be extensive.


In cities where lines of cyclists stop for arterial red lights, there are less red light runners.
Most adults who go back to bicycling aren't going to start out as red-light runners. It takes some experience or atypical boldness to start viewing running lights as any sort of a "good" idea.

I do agree that other cyclists provide strong cues to how one should cycle (ie, other cyclists provide the knowlege of what the "social norm" for cycling is).

What percentage of adult cyclists didn't do any cycling as children? I would think that an adult who did not learn how to bicycle as a child is very unlikely to start as an adult. I don't think that the childhood experience has to be extensive.


Most adults who go back to bicycling aren't going to start out as red-light runners. It takes some experience or atypical boldness to start viewing running lights as any sort of a "good" idea.

I do agree that other cyclists provide strong cues to how one should cycle (ie, other cyclists provide the knowlege of what the "social norm" for cycling is).

Regarding the issue of red light running... I think that there is social pressure involved in not "red light running." The lone cyclist can pretty much do whatever feels right to him/her, but the cyclist that comes to a red light with many other cyclists waiting, now has a bit of social pressure to conform to the pack. Granted, there is no guarantee that one will heed such pressure... but none the less, it is there. It could very well be that as Bek mentions with more cyclists at a red, there are less red light runners.

Regarding the issue of red light running... I think that there is social pressure involved in not "red light running." The lone cyclist can pretty much do whatever feels right to him/her, but the cyclist that comes to a red light with many other cyclists waiting, now has a bit of social pressure to conform to the pack. Granted, there is no guarantee that one will heed such pressure... but none the less, it is there. It could very well be that as Bek mentions with more cyclists at a red, there are less red light runners.
I think the particular "red light running" issue is a bit of a red herring. I think most people (especially people who drive) know that running lights is "wrong". It's the other aspects of riding in traffic that people (starting out) are kind of clueless about.

But, yes, it could work that way. And other things might work that way (I'd say they almost certainly do work that way).

I think the particular "red light running" issue is a bit of a red herring. I think most people (especially people who drive) know that running lights is "wrong". It's the other aspects of riding in traffic that people (starting out) are kind of clueless about.

Can't disagree there... although if indeed we merely rode bikes the way that we drive other vehicles... even that should not be an issue... But alas that often is not true... new cyclists often play "road sneak" and hug the curb of the road and even attempt to do things like make left turns from beyond the far right lane... I could go on, but we've all seen it.



But, yes, it could work that way. And other things might work that way (I'd say they almost certainly do work that way).

Can't disagree there... although if indeed we merely rode bikes the way that we drive other vehicles... even that should not be an issue... But alas that often is not true... new cyclists often play "road sneak" and hug the curb of the road and even attempt to do things like make left turns from beyond the far right lane... I could go on, but we've all seen it.

Has there been a reduction in cycling by children? There certainly has with respect to cycling to school; that's easily noticeable by comparing pictures, or memories, of school parking areas. Has there been a reduction in recreational cycling by children? I haven't seen any data either way.

However, there apparently has been an increase in beginning adult cycling, though, again, I have not seen data either way. The current discussion appears to consider whether the decrease in child cycling and the increase in beginning adult cycling has changed the level of traffic competence. The beginning adults are more cautious, so it is argued. But neither timidity nor inexperience are conducive to traffic-safe cycling. Furthermore, these adult beginners have been raised in a society that has told them that bikeways make cycling safe for beginners such as they are, which is conducive to neither learning better nor wanting to learn. I think that there are as many factors lowering the average traffic-cycling competence as raising it.

(...)

That said I am in no way saying my method of cycling is the only or perfect way to ride. I admit to mistakes I make and I never think I am always right and everyone else who does not ride like I do or like I think they should is wrong or incompetent.

My method or type of riding is not vc, as forester would like to see me and everyone else do. It is called Adaptive Cycling, or AC. Just ask and I'll give you the definition and an example of it. I don't speak about it unless asked to in a situation like this. (...)

I would like to hear more about the Adaptive Cycling concept. I have not codified my ideas of best riding practices but I find the VC concept to be needlessly dangerous and IMHO not well thought out. Please share your ideas.

I would like to hear more about the Adaptive Cycling concept. I have not codified my ideas of best riding practices but I find the VC concept to be needlessly dangerous and IMHO not well thought out. Please share your ideas.

That's where one makes up the rules as one goes along. I'm not sure this would impress you as being " well thought out" either.

... but I find the VC concept to be needlessly dangerous and IMHO not well thought out.

Really? There is more written about it than any alternative.

You can search though the VC forum for an old thread on Adaptive Cycling.

I would like to hear more about the Adaptive Cycling concept. I have not codified my ideas of best riding practices but I find the VC concept to be needlessly dangerous and IMHO not well thought out. Please share your ideas.

First and foremost it is NOT making up the rules as you go along as some think. Those that think this strictly adhere to the vc concepts and are so inflexible they will not try other methods of cycling.

Adaptive Cycling, or AC means you ride in accordance with the ever changing cycling environment or environment in which you ride. I'll use myself as an example.

When I start out from home and use Hamilton Blvd to head south toward downtown within the first mile there are constant changes on that part of my route that I have to adapt to. My house is on the north side of the street, when I head west toward Hamilton I have to cross to the south side and turn left, thus crossing against traffic. Here are the typical steps I use as an adaptive cyclist to do this.
1. I safely execute a safe, legal turn/merge onto the roadway from my driveway to head west. Because it is downhill I quickly pick up speed and have to avoid the cars in the parking lane on the north side of the street. Because the distance is less then 3 blocks and it is down hill I typically take the lane until I get to the intersection at Hamilton.
2. As I approach the intersection I merge into the left turn lane and still maintain taking the lane, to head south on Hamilton.
3. If the light is green I execute my left turn, if it is red I stop until it is green.
4. When executing my left turn onto Hamilton I have to avoid cracks and holes in this area of the intersection. I do this by either taking the turn wider or shorter, but so short I am in the oncoming lane and not so wide I hit the curb.
5. Hamilton Blvd is 4 lanes from the intersection I turn from to the interstate. I only ride on Hamilton as far as Stone Park Blvd.
6. Along Hamilton to Stone Park Blvd I am at least 18" to 2' from the curb depending on road conditions. By road conditions I mean everything from the physical road surface itself to traffic conditions to weather conditions, this can also be called the Cycling Environment, or CE.
7. Hamilton Blvd has a light rise and curve to it as it heads south toward Stone Park Blvd.
8. As I approach the intersection of Hamilton and Stone Park I take the lane to avoid a right hook.
9. At the intersection of Hamilton and Stone Park, a 4 way light controlled intersection with left turn lanes and cross walks and a right turn lane only on Stone Park Blvd for traffic facing east, I merge into the crosswalk as I cross through the intersection so I can access the Perry Creek Trail. As I do this I have to be careful and aware of pedestrian traffic and more importantly I also have to be aware of right turn only traffic on Stone Park Blvd who want to pull out into the cross walk to turn right from Stone Park onto Hamilton.
9. I then make the transition from the roadway via the crosswalk onto the trail and continue on my way.

Another example is when I exit the Perry Creek Trail at the other end. I exit the trail with an immediate, sharp right turn onto a roadway, then another immediate, sharp left turn while crossing railroad tracks, onto another roadway. At the end of this roadway I am behind our events center and enter the parking lot/driveway near the loading area for the center.

As you can see I constantly have to adjust or adapt my riding depending on what the environment throws at me. Things that are one way one day are not the same the next.

When I start out from home . . .
With the possible exception of Step 9, where you make a careful transition to pedestrian mode, your description sounds pretty 'vehicular' to me. JF would be proud of you!

Another part of AC is sometimes you have to violate the traffic code to keep yourself safe. Case in point: My city has a ordinance that says if there is a parth or trail parallel to a roadway cyclists are to use the path or trail instead of the roadway. I constantly violate this. Not because it is the vc thing to do. But because it is the safe thing to do. The MUP where this ordinance would apply goes right by the local river boat casino. There is a lot of traffic coming and going to/from the casino. Casino patrons are in a hurry to go waste their money when arriving or pissed off because they lost all of their money when leaving. They do not pay any attention to trail traffic where it crosses the casino driveways. For cyclists riding on the roadway is safer. I have even violated this ordinance while riding with a police officer who is also a cyclist. I have even violated it in front of a officer driving on the roadway in his squad car.

foresters definition of vc is riding in a manner in accordance with the traffic laws or code, or words to that effect. Yet forester and his followers are dead set against traffic laws such as these mandatory side path laws. As such forester and his followers are being hipocritical. They insist that vc is adherance to the traffic code, yet are against laws like this. They want to have their cake and eat it too. This is one reason I do not like vc, nor do I use it as a method of riding.

With the possible exception of Step 9, where you make a careful transition to pedestrian mode, your description sounds pretty 'vehicular' to me. JF would be proud of you!
No one is perfect!

Anyway, "adaptive cycling" can't be a "real thing" since it hasn't been codified in a book published by MIT by someone crusty and cantakerous, who has legions of people endlessly complaining about how crusty and cantakerous he is!


Case in point: My city has a ordinance that says if there is a parth or trail parallel to a roadway cyclists are to use the path or trail instead of the roadway. I constantly violate this. Not because it is the vc thing to do. But because it is the safe thing to do.
JF would be proud!


foresters definition of vc is riding in a manner in accordance with the traffic laws or code, or words to that effect. Yet forester and his followers are dead set against traffic laws such as these mandatory side path laws. As such forester and his followers are being hipocritical. They insist that vc is adherance to the traffic code, yet are against laws like this. They want to have their cake and eat it too. This is one reason I do not like vc, nor do I use it as a method of riding.
No, "strict" VC is riding a bicycle in accordance with the laws for all vehicles and not with laws that treat bicycles as something else.

JF objects to the manditory sidepath laws for the same reason you do. The point of VC isn't to be "law abiding". It's that one set of laws should and can apply to all vehicles (including bicycles). JF's position is that there should be no "bicycle specific" laws (and people might disagree with that).

Note that I don't care whether or not you hate VC or JF but at least understand what they are saying (and don't put words in their mouths!).

Whether or not you agree with it, VC isn't "hypocritical".

With the possible exception of Step 9, where you make a careful transition to pedestrian mode, your description sounds pretty 'vehicular' to me. JF would be proud of you!

I will stipulate that I ride in a vehicular manner, but only when I need to or when it suits me to do so. That does not make me a vehicular cyclist. vc'rs only ride vc 100% of the time. I do not.

There have been times when commuting to/from work I have to ride on the sidewalk for a block or 2. I have had to do so when I come upon emergency road repair where the street is closed but the sidewalk is still open and I am too close to home to turn around to back track to find another route home. This is most certainly not vc. vc, because it is illegal for a cyclsits to ride on the roadways would have me turn around, back track to find another on road route home, instead of using the sidewalk.

Also when riding down the hill of my street to Hamilton where I take the lane I probably could get away with not doing so. in the opinion of vc'rs taking the lane should only be done when needed, not all the time because of riding in accordance with the traffic laws. Yet I awlasy take the lane down the hill when riding toward Hamilton.

No one is perfect!

Anyway, "adaptive cycling" can't be a "real thing" since it hasn't been codified in a book published by MIT by someone crusty and cantakerous, who has legions of people endlessly complaining about how crusty and cantakerous he is!


JF would be proud!

It doesn't have to be codified to be real. Besides the term AC is farily new, but the practice has been around for a long, long time. I would venture to say as long as if not longer then vc. Most probably ride AC and do not realize they are doing so.

It doesn't have to be codified to be real. Besides the term AC is farily new, but the practice has been around for a long, long time. I would venture to say as long as if not longer then vc. Most probably ride AC and do not realize they are doing so.
Dude, it's a joke, nothing more. (I don't have any problem with the way you ride.)

No one is perfect!

Anyway, "adaptive cycling" can't be a "real thing" since it hasn't been codified in a book published by MIT by someone crusty and cantakerous, who has legions of people endlessly complaining about how crusty and cantakerous he is!


JF would be proud!


No, "strict" VC is riding a bicycle in accordance with the laws for all vehicles and not with laws that treat bicycles as something else.

JF objects to the manditory sidepath laws for the same reason you do. The point of VC isn't to be "law abiding". It's that one set of laws should and can apply to all vehicles (including bicycles). JF's position is that there should be no "bicycle specific" laws (and people might disagree with that).

Note that I don't care whether or not you hate VC or JF but at least understand what they are saying (and don't put words in their mouths!).

Whether or not you agree with it, VC isn't "hypocritical".

Where did I state vc is riding in accordance with laws that treat bicycles as something else? I don't believe I did. I did say vc is riding in a manner in accordance with traffic laws or code. Granted I did not specify, did not realize I had to. But I meant for all vehicles.

I have no problem with bicycle specific laws, as long as they work. The mandatory sidepath laws do not work and should be removed. There are some bicycle specific laws that are fine though and there are some that have yet to be adopted that are needed.

Where did I state vc is riding in accordance with laws that treat bicycles as something else? I don't believe I did. I did say vc is riding in a manner in accordance with traffic laws or code.
You said that "strict" VC was "hypocritical" for being against "side path" "traffic" laws.

Since strict VC is against bicycle-specific laws, it isn't "hypocritical" to be against bicycle-specific laws!

Strict VC is riding in accordance with non-bicycle specific traffic laws.


Granted I did not specify, did not realize I had to. But I meant for all vehicles.
You criticise "strict VC" for be "hypocritical" for not following bicycle specific "traffic" laws!