Advocacy & Safety - 1,000 Pedestrians Struck By Bikes Annually In New York

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/09/19/study-approximately-1000-pedestrians-struck-by-bikes-annually-in-new-york/

The authors of the study only counted pedestrians who were hospitalized after being struck. The authors believe, therefore, more than 1,000 people in New York are hit by bicycles each year.

The study was done on behalf of the Stuart C. Gruskin foundation. Gruskin was killed by a delivery biker who was riding in the wrong direction on the street in 2009.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/09/19/study-approximately-1000-pedestrians-struck-by-bikes-annually-in-new-york/

The authors of the study only counted pedestrians who were hospitalized after being struck. The authors believe, therefore, more than 1,000 people in New York are hit by bicycles each year.

The study was done on behalf of the Stuart C. Gruskin foundation. Gruskin was killed by a delivery biker who was riding in the wrong direction on the street in 2009.
Let us know when the "authors" cite the source of their counts. Until then, I will "believe" 1001 pedestrians are hit by other pedestrians (or maybe falling flower pots) on NYC streets.

An article that says almost nothing with no links to the 'study'. Pretty worthless.

Depending on what one calls 'hit' the number seems rather small to me. \

I'd be shocked if there wasn't a collision involving a bike and a pedestrian in the section of the Beach Bikepath where it goes through Venice just about every summer day, and several each weekend. Same for Hermosa Beach farther south.

And while not as many quite a few on the section along Ballona Creek and near the sewage processing plant (due West of LAX).

Thinking about it there almost have to be more than 1000 collisions on just the Beach Bike path.

Not slobberknockers, most no more significant than when 2 pedestrians bump, but still collisions.

EDIT: Yes this is in California, but I'm sure there are similar places in New York. I can come up wth a half Dozen more pretty easily.

Even if true, this is pretty useless information without some sort of breakdown of who was at fault in these incidents. I'd bet that a VERY significant portion were caused by pedestrians obliviously stepping into bikelanes without looking.

Link to the study (http://maxweber.hunter.cuny.edu/urban/resources/Pedestrian%20Cyclists%20Acidents%20in%20New%20York.pdf)

Please note that this "study", which seems to come at the subject matter with a particular bias, is talking about 1000 pedestrian/bike collisions in all of New York State. NOT only New York City as one might believe at first read.


This present study, based on every hospital in New York State, has found that in New York State alone, there were approximately 1000
pedestrians struck by cyclists each year necessitating medical treatment

Please note the biased wording in the above statement re: in New York State alone. The non-specific total "approximately". There is little breakdown as to the severity of the injuries apart from being treated in-patient vs out patient with the vast majority being treated out-patient. Nor did I see a distinction between bicyclist injuries and pedestrian injuries. One is left to assume that these 1000 persons being treated are the pedestrians involved since no mention is made of the bicyclists involved and their injuries.

And why no mention of bicyclist injuries? You would think that an unbiased study might also include bicyclists and their injuries. The use of the term "struck" again implies the bicyclist is always at fault and the pedestrian always the "victim".

How many of the pedestrians were drunk or using drugs? How many were jaywalking? How many of the collisions were at night? Bicycles are silent and tend to be closer to the curb than automobiles, how many accidents involved pedestrians who just didn't look? Bikes are probably 50% at fault in these collisions at worst.

Also, throughout the study no mention is made of cause, fault or blame for the accident. I ride down Commonwealth Avenue in Boston quite frequently, where it passes by Boston University. Jay walking, headphone wearing, distracted, unpredictable pedestrians collide with each other, automobiles and cyclists with some frequency.

This is a flawed study funded in memory of someone who was probably deeply loved and admired who died in a tragic accident that might have been preventable but unfortunately, as "well intentioned" as this study may be it will do little to mitigate these types of rare accidents.

1000 a year is about 6% of the ~15,620 pedestrians hit by cars in NY state in 2008.


Pedestrian Accidents in New York

According to New York State Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) statistics, there were 15,620 pedestrian accidents in New York in 2008. Simple physics means that a pedestrian hit by a car or other motor vehicle is going to suffer some type of injury. Those pedestrian accidents killed 302 people and New York DMV reports that 99.8 percent of pedestrian accidents resulted in an injury.


http://nylawthoughts.com/2010/06/16/pedestrian-accidents/

Given the volume of bicyclists riding on sidewalks and MUPs with pedestrians, not only crossing paths with pedestrians as motorists are, I don't find this surprising at all.

Oh, and I hit a pedestrian once on my bike. Pedestrian was crossing mid-block and stepped out in from front of a stopped van into my path at the road edge. Never hit one with my car, though.

Typical PR garbage

1000 a year is about 6% of the ~15,620 pedestrians hit by cars in NY state in 2008.


Pedestrian Accidents in New York

According to New York State Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) statistics, there were 15,620 pedestrian accidents in New York in 2008. Simple physics means that a pedestrian hit by a car or other motor vehicle is going to suffer some type of injury. Those pedestrian accidents killed 302 people and New York DMV reports that 99.8 percent of pedestrian accidents resulted in an injury.

In that same year, according to statistics cited in the study, 99 pedestrians involved in collisions with bicyclists had injuries that were treated "in-patient". Quite a difference. If the study proves anything it proves the pedestrians fare better in collisions with bicycles than with automobiles.

given the number of reported car-pedestrian collisions, my guess is the number of unreported car-pedestrian collisions is truly staggering. I've been hit by a car a number of times and never reported any.

Not very useful info on its own. As others have pointed out, we need to know who was at fault. Having been to NYC a few times, I'd bet a large percentage occurred when the pedestrian was crossing against the red, since 100% of NYC peds do so constantly. It's ingrained in the transportation culture there.

Well, this is about as useful as me stating the following: I have never hit a pedestrian. I have almost hit many, and every time it was the pedestrian's fault. How about that?

Let us know when the "authors" cite the source of their counts. Until then, I will "believe" 1001 pedestrians are hit by other pedestrians (or maybe falling flower pots) on NYC streets.

Do you suppose those were salmon flower pots or ninja flowerpots? And were the flower pots wearing helmets?

I think the answer is clear...pedestrians should be registered and wear license plates. Police should be cracking down on two footed infractions and we need an education campaign on NYC TV targeted at rogue pedestrian rule breaking.

Well, this is about as useful as me stating the following: I have never hit a pedestrian. I have almost hit many, and every time it was the pedestrian's fault. How about that?

+1...I typically average a near miss a month and have actually made contact with three over the years, none serious. Each instance was caused by the pedestrian not paying attention to his surroundings, breaking right of way and behaving unpredictably. I'm not a violent or vengeful person, but if I'm going down, and it's the fault of the biped, I'm making sure I use the person as much as possible to pad both my fall and that of my bike.

Okay, a guy was killed by ONE encounter with a bicycle, Stuart C. Gruskin. Regrettable and may he Rest in Peace.
Someone has probably been killed by a kitchen mixer, too, somewhere down the line.

Not to seem insensitive, but pedestrians hit by cyclists seems like an issue made from most of nothing. Something else to study, I guess.

Do you suppose those were salmon flower pots or ninja flowerpots? And were the flower pots wearing helmets?

pfff, as if that matters.... what we really need to now is if the plants were potted as far right as practicable in their pots, and did they bother to bloom hi-vis flowers or did they blend in to their surroundings by growing nothing but green leaves rendering them hard to distinguish from background foliage.

I'm not at all surprised at all the animosity towards flowerpots considering the negative image created by all those weeds that keep popping up on the last friday of every month.... 'critical bloom' or whatever they call themselves.

Not very useful info on its own. As others have pointed out, we need to know who was at fault. Having been to NYC a few times, I'd bet a large percentage occurred when the pedestrian was crossing against the red, since 100% of NYC peds do so constantly. It's ingrained in the transportation culture there.

True, there isn't much useful info to go by. However as others have pointed out the "study" included all of NYS, not just NYC. IF have been 1,000 pedestrian/cyclist crashes in the whole state of NY how many are there in NYC alone?

If there had been some sharrows there, Gruskin would be alive today.

And I believe that 1000 peds get hit by cyclists in NY state alone each year.

FYI the article explicitly states half of the 1000 were in NYC

I hate studies

FYI the article explicitly states half of the 1000 were in NYC

I hate studies
I know, huh? Someone does one and you gotta pay attention - and are expected to even go along with it.
We need a new study: "People who don't get caught up in the results of other peoples' studies."

I know, huh? Someone does one and you gotta pay attention - and are expected to even go along with it.
We need a new study: "People who don't get caught up in the results of other peoples' studies."

Who expects you to go along with this study? It seems like most people here are rejecting the findings or feel that it is unfair in some way.

Who expects you to go along with this study? It seems like most people here are rejecting the findings or feel that it is unfair in some way.

I think the study is probably accurate, for what it is. But the point is, who cares?

Even if the 1,000 bike-ped collisions were all in the City, that's only 3 collisions a day in a city where there are possibly half a million bicyclists on the streets, and maybe five million pedestrians walking around. Given that context, three collisions a day is an amazingly low number. If anything, New Yorkers who walk and ride should be getting medals for their safe behavior.

To put in context even more, how many pedestrians are pushed, bumped, tripped, mugged, or otherwise injured by fellow pedestrians?

(BTW, before the A&S literalists get their chamois in a knot, I made up the figures for peds and cyclists in NYC. The point is that it's a very large number for both, and therefore no surprise when a paltry few collisions do occur.)

Not to nit pick too much but the second primary investigator is in the "Department of Urban Planning & Affairs" Doesn't that make him the teacher of those guys who design the lovely roads that they usually have to redo to help cyclists stay alive on them..
Oh and it flat out says " This value of the code pertains only to the
pedestrians who necessitated medical treatment – not the cyclists." So if anyones still speculating, they are not counting cyclists.

I'm having a thought though looking at this.. these are as reported to the hospitals etc.. I know I've been in the ER and heard a lot of people change their stories when the doc/nurse shows up to sound less idiotic... so I really don't want to think this things accurate at all..
58% of the people getting hit by bikes are white?and 55% of all these "accidents" were in NYC..

I could be completely wrong, but between the Sociology Professor and the Urban Planner.. I have a feeling this might be less of an unbiased study as a , hey how do we grab some limelight move.

I got hit by a bike a month ago - a pretty decent knock on my head. The darn bike fell off the stand as I was re-installing the chain. Of course, It didn't happen in NYC and so does not count.

-G

I got hit by a bike a month ago - a pretty decent knock on my head. The darn bike fell off the stand as I was re-installing the chain. Of course, It didn't happen in NYC and so does not count.

-G
Those darn bicycles!

Who expects you to go along with this study? It seems like most people here are rejecting the findings or feel that it is unfair in some way.
Isn't that the point of a study - to make some point? Put another way, to present information which ultimately influence the decisions of others. Consider this: if all you did was read it, decide it is frivolous and discard it, well... it has accomplished that much.

I rather think those who conducted the study being discussed here would like to influence some sort of legislative change. Few report their findings simply for the effort. There is typically an ulterior motive.

I think the study is probably accurate, for what it is. But the point is, who cares?

Even if the 1,000 bike-ped collisions were all in the City, that's only 3 collisions a day in a city where there are possibly half a million bicyclists on the streets, and maybe five million pedestrians walking around. Given that context, three collisions a day is an amazingly low number. If anything, New Yorkers who walk and ride should be getting medals for their safe behavior.

To put in context even more, how many pedestrians are pushed, bumped, tripped, mugged, or otherwise injured by fellow pedestrians?

(BTW, before the A&S literalists get their chamois in a knot, I made up the figures for peds and cyclists in NYC. The point is that it's a very large number for both, and therefore no surprise when a paltry few collisions do occur.)

I care, for one. Information like this helps us understand the impact and relationship we have with other users of the road.

Isnt that the point of a study - to make some point? Put another way, to influence the decisions of others.
Few report their findings simply for the effort.
There is typically an ulterior motive.

Right, they gather their information, draw conclusions, and use the data to support them. So you mean the authors when the authors when you say people expect you to go along with the study?

Do you suppose those were salmon flower pots or ninja flowerpots? And were the flower pots wearing helmets?

flower pots ARE helmets

http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/80s/sites/tampabay.com.blogs.80s/files/images/typepad-legacy-files/50093.devo_photo_by_jay_spencer.jpg

I know, huh? Someone does one and you gotta pay attention - and are expected to even go along with it.
We need a new study: "People who don't get caught up in the results of other peoples' studies."

Hey gang, let's appoint a commission to do a study on how many people get caught up in other people's studies!

Oh crap, excuse me, I had a politician flashback there for a moment. :eek:

I got hit by a bike a month ago - a pretty decent knock on my head. The darn bike fell off the stand as I was re-installing the chain. Of course, It didn't happen in NYC and so does not count.

-G

Were you wearing a helmet? :D

I care, for one. Information like this helps us understand the impact and relationship we have with other users of the road.

I prefer the information I gain by actually riding and interacting with other users of the road...and following the golden rule, which really helps to prevent me from becoming a data point in someone's study. ;)

flower pots ARE helmets

http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/80s/sites/tampabay.com.blogs.80s/files/images/typepad-legacy-files/50093.devo_photo_by_jay_spencer.jpg

Sounds like you have that subject "whipped"

i don't believe this study. Makes no sense.

There are peds walking all over the place who are completely into their thing--their music, their phone, sightseeing, etc. They might initiate the contact. They might be at fault. Yet the study sidesteps this aspect to these collisions and the reader doesn't know what the issue is.

Is this a high number to begin with? What was the number 30 years ago? How hurt are these people?

There's no perspective or depth shown here. This is weak sauce! :eek:

I'll bet at least 1000 pedestrians are hit by cars yearly...

So, I guess the question is: What's the point of this study?

I'll bet at least 1000 pedestrians are hit by cars yearly...

So, I guess the question is: What's the point of this study?

To quantify how many peds are hit by cyclists in NYS? Just a crazy guess.

I'll bet at least 1000 pedestrians are hit by cars yearly...

So, I guess the question is: What's the point of this study?

To scare these poor, blameless, victimized pedestrians and make them more aware of the menace cycling poses to the average cell phone using jay walker. Obviously cyclists are the new lawless 1%'s who must be stopped, registered, regulated and license plated. Also - the jerks need to pay for their road use.

I'm not much for the whoa as me cyclist rights whining, and I don't feel the need to enforce my lifestyle on others (or even promote it), but I've also ridden my bicycle long enough to know how ridiculous the conclusion this "study" wants you to reach is.

About a year ago or so a pedestrian was killed in Philadelphia in a hit and run cycling accident. Local politicians were up in arms, news papers were livid and people wanted our blood...or at least our tri-flow. The guy did hit and run...which is certainly offensive...but the pedestrian was jaywalking, the traffic light up the road was against him and he was wearing an Ipod. In other words it was contributory negligence. It was also the only cycling caused death I can think of. In that same month, two cyclists were killed by drunk drivers (and those are just the ones reported), and a cyclist was hit by a policeman going against right of way...who's boss said they only investigate "serious" incidents...with NO media follow up.

Cry me a river for the pedestrians facing the great cycling menace. I'm all for ticketing salmon and sidewalk riders...they inconvenience me and ARE dangerous...but is this seriously a priority? Lots of cyclists are jerks, lots of autos are jerks - but the highest percentage of rule breaking, ignorant, dangerous menaces are, in my experience, the pedestrians.

What caused the accidents? Perhaps more than half of the pedestrians were hit while J-walking, or ignoring bells with the attitude "dare you hit me!".

There's another article also and I will let others express whether they feel Nancy Gruskin has a vendetta against bicyclist.

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2011/09/19/2011-09-19_east_harlem_is_the_most_dangerous_part_of_new_york_for_bicyclists_new_study_find.html

Especially after you read the excerpt below, it reads like she is trying to be impartial, but she has done nothing for bicycling.


"Gruskin - whose initiatives include a road-safety pledge for restaurant delivery workers - said she is not trying to pit one side against the other.

"This isn't about civil war," she said.

"I will be the first one to say that pedestrians behave badly - they're texting while walking, they're not being careful.

"It's not like pedestrians aren't at fault. I feel very strongly about pedestrian education training, as well. But it is a law that pedestrians have the right of way."

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2011/09/19/2011-09-19_east_harlem_is_the_most_dangerous_part_of_new_york_for_bicyclists_new_study_find.html#ixzz1YW5Euw wZ"


Please note that the article does not address how many of the 500 pedestrians that when to the hospitals caused the accident themselves by stepping out into the path of a bicyclist or for walking in the bike lanes. Both of which is very common in NYC.

It's interesting that they mentioned east Harlem as dangerous for pedestrians. I stayed there on a cycling vacation the past summer and was amazed at how aggressive and idiotic the pedestrians there were...with cars and bikes. I'd wager there's a high percentage of peds hit by cars as well.

I care, for one. Information like this helps us understand the impact and relationship we have with other users of the road.

And with only 1000 accidents a year--all non-fatal--the impact is so negligible as to be almost non-existent. If you want to care about something, care about the cars. They do most of the injuries and almost all of the fatalities.

The full study for anyone who wants to look at it.

http://gruskinfoundation.org/pdfs/Pedestrian-Cyclist-Accidents_3-1.pdf

Quite frankly, I think it is all a one sided BS study funded by a foundation which cloaks itself as bike friendly while taking every opportunity to slam biking but takes no action towards educating pedestrians.

I glanced through it myself, but I did not see any information which supports that all 500 people were pedestrians. On top of that, the disproportionate percentage of younger kids as mentioned in the article can be explained by the fact that the kids were on bicycles doing the running into pedestrians. For those that are not aware, kids below the age of 12 are allowed to ride on the sidewalk which will increase the incidences of pedestrian/bike accidents even though by law the kids will be allowed on the sidewalk. But...then the two researchers make this conclusion

"Several important findings have emerged from this study. First and
foremost, the incidence of pedestrians involved in accidents with cyclists
who needed to receive medical treatment at a hospital far exceeds previous
estimates"

I don't see how you can infer that all those treated medically were pedestrians without presenting a stitch of data delineating how many of the 500 patients were pedestrians or bikers.

Right, they gather their information, draw conclusions, and use the data to support them. So you mean the authors when the authors when you say people expect you to go along with the study?

http://www.blogcdn.com/news.bigdownload.com/media/2008/12/whoa.jpg

And with only 1000 accidents a year--all non-fatal--the impact is so negligible as to be almost non-existent. If you want to care about something, care about the cars. They do most of the injuries and almost all of the fatalities.
Well, yeah... that's another way of saying it.

Obviously those pedestrians were not acting vehicularly. If pedestrians want to be safe, they should take the bike lane and stop allowing cyclists to treat them like second-class citizens.

Anyone interested in funding a study to determine how many bicyclists are brought down by wayward, jay walking pedestrians? :p

FYI the article explicitly states half of the 1000 were in NYC

I hate studies

We're suppose to believe/take their word that out of the 1,000 peds hit in NYS that half of them were hit in NYC alone? Come on, isn't that stretching things a bit?

We're suppose to believe/take their word that out of the 1,000 peds hit in NYS that half of them were hit in NYC alone? Come on, isn't that stretching things a bit?

Why is that hard to believe? I'm guessing that at least half of the walking and cycling trips are taken in NYC. NYC probably has one of the highest proportions of both bikes and walkers in the nation. That's not even including tourists and commuters from NJ or wherever. Also, many people who take the subway or bus walk for part of their trips.

...

The study was done on behalf of the Stuart C. Gruskin foundation. Gruskin was killed by a delivery biker who was riding in the wrong direction on the street in 2009.

To be more accurate, Gruskin jaywalked into the street mid-block and was struck by a delivery biker who was riding the wrong direction.

Nothing associated with the 'Gruskin Foundation' will throw any light on what is by far the most common cause of ped-bike collisions: jaywalking.