Advocacy & Safety - Research shows about 75 percent of bicyclists are at fault.....

I found this story though a Goggle search. It's located on the web page of KTRE-TV in Lufkin TX.
http://www.ktre.com/Global/story.asp?S=2661539&nav=2FH5TvwO
I have no idea how long it will be online so I did a cut and paste of the story. I would like to find out her source for the research that supports the last line of the story. I've sent a e-mail to the station asking for a source of the information, but has anyone else seen this research?

This is not a call to arms, we don't need to flood the station with E-mail and phone calls. I just want to find this research

By Ramonica R. Jones

A 25 year-old East Texas man is dead after being killed in a car wreck. The wreck happened Monday night on Highway 190, 1.7 miles east of FM 2500.

Polk County authorities say Chris Tucker rode his bike in front of a truck driven by Priscilla Thompson of Livingston.

You've probably been told to look both ways before crossing the street, but that's not always enough, especially for pedestrians.

"You need to wear some type of reflective material," DPS trooper Greg Sanches says. "Make sure you get way off the roadway and be looking, be observant, because you never know what can happen on the roadway."

Just because you're not in a car, doesn't mean you should count on drivers to watch out for you. It's your job to make sure they see you.

"Even if you have a crosswalk, you gotta remember cars are coming down that roadway," Trooper Sanches says. "You may have the right of way if you're in an area where there's a crosswalk, but still, you gotta be looking left right left and make sure that somebody is not about to run over you. Make sure you can get in a safe location before you are hit."

Bike riders are supposed to ride along with traffic, following the same rules that apply to cars and trucks. Pedestrians should walk toward traffic. That way, you can always see what's headed your way and avoid becoming the victim of a preventable tragedy.

Research shows about 75 percent of bicyclists are at fault in fatal accidents involving a car.

Research shows about 75 percent of bicyclists are at fault in fatal accidents involving a car.

Depends on who's doin' the researchin'. The law says motorists have to give the right-of-way to bicyclists. Bicyclists have to give the right-of-way to pedestrians. But, hey, who cares about the law?

barenakedbiker,
"Depends on who's doin' the researchin'" Thats what I want to find out.

barenakedbiker,
"Depends on who's doin' the researchin'" Thats what I want to find out.

Well, how many smackers do you want to put down for American Auto Association, National Race Car Lovers Association, or the Institute To Get Bicyclists Off The Road?

I can tell you the researchin' ain't done by anyone who travels on two wheels. But, I could be totally wrong. There actually has been research done on car-bike collisions.

Number One collision type laid to rest on EXPERIENCED bicycists: The left turning goomba, aka motorist, plowing into a bicyclist going straight, in the on-coming lane. Countermeasure: Educate the bicyclist to always look at the vehicles in the opposite left-turn lanes when approaching intersections with left turn lanes. Prepare for evasive manuvers.

The LEAST common collision type, the one most inexperienced bicycists are most afraid of: the rear-end collision. Countermeasure: use a helmet-mounted rear view mirror and position the bike in the middle of the lane to force the motorist to switch lanes before passing.

The law says motorists have to give the right-of-way to bicyclists.

First I've heard of that! No more stopping at red lights for me!

I can belive the statistic considering that most fatal accidents probably involve kids and/or wrong way riders.

I've researched the accident stats for the City of Portland, from the local Transportation Department's crash data base, which is based on actual police accident reports. The police in Portland assigned fault to the motorist involved in a crash with a bicyclist 58% of the time, and fault to the bicyclist 42% of the time. That's for all reported crashes and four years of data, from 1998 through 2001.

In 2000, Charles Komanoff and Michael Smith did a study of NYC accident stats, and concluded that the NYPD wrongly assigned fault to bicyclists in many cases when the motorist involved was actually at fault. See: http://www.rightofway.org/research/cyclists.pdf

Lufkin,Texas is in the rural redneck northeastern part of the great state of Texas. I have no doubt members of the Highway Patrol there, despite state laws protecting bicyclists' right to use the roads, take a dim view of all bicyclists, and particularly of those cyclists attempting to assert their rights. Anyway, I'm reasonably confident that cops in cars tend to identify with other motorists and not with bicyclists. Judging from the quotes in the article attributed to Trooper Sanches, Trooper Sanches is not a bicycle advocate, he's a 'motor vehicles first and foremost' kind of a guy.

To get to the point, though: (1) the article should have provided a source for their statistics, and (2) their statistical claim only examines a very small subset of crashes involving a motorist and a bicyclist - those in which a bicyclist was fatally injured. In addition to not providing a source, what the article also doesn't explain is whether these are stats for Texas, the US or some other geographic entity.

Actually, there's also about zero information in that article that would allow a determination of who was at fault in the particular crash the article is discussing:

"Polk County authorities say Chris Tucker rode his bike in front of a truck driven by Priscilla Thompson of Livingston"

Huh??

Actually, there's also about zero information in that article that would allow a determination of who was at fault in the particular crash the article is discussing:

"Polk County authorities say Chris Tucker rode his bike in front of a truck driven by Priscilla Thompson of Livingston"

Huh??

Note the source of the article: a local TV station. They are only accountable to their advertisers, not the Fact Nazis, aka college professors who insists on proper footnotes.

"Research shows..." should be followed by references to that research, whenever the media is involved. If references to specific studies are not given, there is no way to verify it.

And if references to scientific studies are given, often there are other studies that came up with different results. If two or more separate studies by reputable sources show similar results, it strengthens the case.

No references? Weak case.

If its the word of the cyclist against the word of the motorist, it will always be the cyclists fault if the cyclist is dead.

What a sham! "Research shows...watching TV leads to obesity." That is something you will never hear them state ;0). "Research shows....driving your car may be hazardous to your health." another quote...they won't state. What a joke they don't even present where they got their supposed, "research." I guess they just did a google and picked what met their fancy. Here is a link to more info on the, "reporter" who did this, "facinating" story... http://www.ktre.com/Global/story.asp?S=2083598

Here is a snippet: Ramonica R. Jones comes to KTRE-TV with a print journalism background. She joined the East Texas News team in May 2004, following a brief stint as a reporter / photographer at KSAN-TV in San Angelo, Texas. Prior to making the move to television, Ramonica worked as an intern with the Austin American Statesman and as a writer for Houston Style Magazine and the Lufkin Daily News.

She sounds like a, "Green Horn" to me... Her first, "big" story ;0)

Here is a link to some stats that actually show the source of where their "Research" comes from....

http://www.massbike.org/info1/stats.htm

Here is a quote that I believe shows the percentage to be much lower:

"In his analysis of the Cross and Fisher data, Forester found that the cyclist was riding in the roadway in the direction of traffic in only 37% of all car-bike collisions—in the remaining cases, the majority, the cyclist was entering the roadway, riding against traffic, turning or swerving from the curb lane, or riding on the sidewalk. In general, bicyclists are more likely to be at fault (in the sense of disobeying the rules for drivers of vehicles) than motorists when the two collide. The figures in the 1996 Hunter et al. study reveal that the bicyclist was solely at fault in 54% of cases, the motorist solely in 30%, and both were at fault in 30% of car-bike collisions where culpability was determined."

Another example of, "cut and paste" TV Journalsim @ it's best ;0)

I wouldn't even waste any more time with this dribble. ;0)

Peace,

kb0tnv

If its the word of the cyclist against the word of the motorist, it will always be the cyclists fault if the cyclist is dead.

I was about to make that very point myself. "At fault" depends very much on the viewpoint of the beholder, and as Andrew said, it's much easier to apportion blame if one party to the "accident" has been killed -- it kinda negates the need to press charges. When I start seeing phrases like "about 75%" I know they've just plucked the figure from thin air.

I think all we can do is ask the questions "who says" and "so what" when we see stats like this. And if they fall at the first one (as this one did), just consign them to the bin.

Well, not being one to pass on something as meaty as an uncited statistic, I wrote the following to the News Director of KTRE:


Dear Ms. Alexander,

I would like to ask a question about an article on your website dated December 7, 2004, entitled: Man Killed in Bicycle Crash.

At the end of the story, Ramonica Jones cites the following alarming statistic:

" Research shows about 75 percent of bicyclists are at fault in fatal accidents involving a car."

I would like to know where that information comes from, since there is no direct citation of any studies of any kind in the story. Any clarification of this statistic would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you very much for your time,
Vincent M. Ferrari

I'm not exactly expecting an answer, but who knows. If I get one, you guys will be the first to know.

The way I bike, I'd expect at least 75% of any accidents I get into to be my fault.

In a quarter million miles of bicycling have been hit 3 times.
One: by a 'newbie' 16 year old; he got the ticket for failing to yield right of way at a stop sign.
Second: by a drunk truck driver, hit from behind at 45 mph. He got ticket and license suspended for 3 months.
Third: by a 75 year old (bright sunny day at high noon) with glaucoma and a restricted drivers license who hit us from behind on our tandem at about 40 mph. He got ticket and loss of license.
This are personal statistics.

In a quarter million miles of bicycling have been hit 3 times.
One: by a 'newbie' 16 year old; he got the ticket for failing to yield right of way at a stop sign.
Second: by a drunk truck driver, hit from behind at 45 mph. He got ticket and license suspended for 3 months.
Third: by a 75 year old (bright sunny day at high noon) with glaucoma and a restricted drivers license who hit us from behind on our tandem at about 40 mph. He got ticket and loss of license.
This are personal statistics.

Yeah, I too have similar statistics... 3 accidents and all three times the motorist got ticketed AND had to pay for my bike and any medical. (2 times, not much, third time I got some major hurt)

OK that's two of us... Now all the rest of the live cyclists out there... what are your stats.

Sounds like it is only dead cyclists are part of their "75% statistic... " just like that woman that ran over those teens in Florida seems to have a different story than the kids and the witness. Gee, funny thing that.

Got an email back from KTRE. The News Director told me that the reporter will get the link to the study and let me know. We shall see.

I just looked at the link to the news story from the original post. It appears the statistic is being attributed to Ken Kifer by way of a link to the Ken Kifer pages.

"According to www.kenkifer.com/bikepages, most bicyclists are at fault in fatal accidents involving a car."

This differs from the cut and paste that was originally posted here. The "about 75%" stat quoted by the reporter has been replaced by the above.

It's interesting to note that this reporter is attributing her accident statistics to a man who himself was killed by a motor vehicle, while riding his bike.

75% seems about right to me. Don't forget that most "bicyclist" are children.

I'd say "most" is a quite welcome change from "about 75%." I'm pretty happy that they've changed the language and cited a source now.

Now all the rest of the live cyclists out there... what are your stats.
My actual physical contact with cars while bicycling:

Three dooring incidents, only one of which was potentially serious - I was knocked to the ground and sprained both my wrists, luckily there was no traffic coming.

One car pulled out from a side street into my path.

One low-speed sideswipe by a merging motorist in heavy traffic.

When: Four of these five incidents occurred over 20 years ago, one dooring occurred in the past year.
Where geographically: Three in suburban Long Island, NY; one in Buffalo, NY; and one in Portland, OR.
Police reports filed: zero.
Close calls over the years caused by motorists: too many to count, including another one this morning... :(

It's interesting to note that this reporter is attributing her accident statistics to a man who himself was killed by a motor vehicle, while riding his bike.
And a drunk driver was convicted... :(

Bicyclist at fault 0, Motorist at fault 1

Anyway, that's just a link to the home page of the Ken Kifer website...not a link to any statistics therein...

Probably means "at fault of being in the way of a speeding/badly driven car".

Accidents my fault: 0
Near misses by speeders: lost count (one or more a day)

Accidents ever: 0
Accidents not with cars and caused by my own dumb a$$ falling or hittin' a rut: How much time you got :D

Accidents ever: 0
Accidents not with cars and caused by my own dumb a$$ falling or hittin' a rut: How much time you got :D

^ ditto for me LOL

'Course, I ride off-road 90% of the time(to fabricate a statistic for this thread).

I see so amny more cyclists doing wrong things like riding the wrong direction weaving between parked cars no lights and wearing black at night and running lights. far mroe then I see riding the right way.

75% seems about right to me. Don't forget that most "bicyclist" are children.
Good point. Children and the inexperienced/uneducated among cyclists are involved in the lion's share of bicycle crashes. The numbers go way down for cautious, experienced vehicular cyclists.

I think it would be interesting to see how they define "cyclist."

Is it someone who just rides a bike? Or is it someone who rides in groups or has a certain level of skill. I mean, is someone like a bike messenger who may take risks regular riders won't take considered a "cyclist" in the generic sense of the word?

Would be interesting to find out.

I think it would be interesting to see how they define "cyclist."

Is it someone who just rides a bike? Or is it someone who rides in groups or has a certain level of skill. I mean, is someone like a bike messenger who may take risks regular riders won't take considered a "cyclist" in the generic sense of the word?

Would be interesting to find out.

I think this is part of the problem of defining the whole road use scene. Some riders like lanes as they yet do not even understand rules of the road (newbie cylist/non driver), others prefer sidwalks as they are yet "children," while others yet want to be right in the thick of it with autos (experieced commuters) and yet others are "Sunday riders. (parks, paths, sidewalks and weekends only). And then there are students... college types that are a cross between commuters and newbie/park riders.

All of these are "cyclists," and the current view of the government when dealing with this divergent group is to address the lowest common group... Meanwhile folks that typically do 20+MPH on city streets feel very slighted by this whole attitude. Typical cagers consider their limited youth experience on bikes and tend to view most cyclists as "playing with toys." (get off my road) Forrester says educate... but that only works when someone desires to move to the next level.

In the world of cagers, they are required to get a certain education and take tests... this is where the world of cycling has problems... as anyone that can balance a bike can ride, inspite of experience or knowledge.

I typically do 15-25 depending on conditions and traffic. I'm the most polite cyclist you'll ever meet. I stay out of the way, stop at lights, give up the right of way even when I have it to save my skin, and so on, and yet I know that no one takes me into account when talking about the loathsome cyclist.

I saw this the other day in a Yahoo MB in response to CM and urban cyclists... I think the last line is great. All the stuff in Bold really defines what I consider the strongly experienced commuter... and encompasses my views as "casper" the invisible rider.

"Under the law, cyclists have the same rights to the public roads as motorists. Taxes & auto license fees have nothing to do with their respective rights. The only thing required is a license - a tiny plate or a ticker nowadays - for your bicycle. Also there are requirements for riding at night.

If you are not in favor of cyclists being allowed to use public roads, th you should work to get the laws changed. You will have the League of American Wheelmen / Bicyclists to contend with.

Some enlightened localities allow cyclists to ride on sidewalks if traffic requires it, and to yield the right of way to pedestrians.

Sadly, most of you posting venomous statements on this website have never encountered a competent urban cyclist. And you never will, unless you observe very carefully. The good ones use a skillful combination of roads, sidewalks , alternate streets & alleys to match the speed of traffic without obstructing it in any way. You will not see them in demonstrations, because their concern is transportatiion, not statement.

But they have to maintain the alertness and low profile of an antelope in lion country."



BTW the Yahoo report was at this link: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041207/ap_on_re_us/critical_mass_2

Actually, LAB is in favor of restricting the access we have to the roads. LAB is one of the biggest (if no the biggest) bike lane lobbies out there. And when there are bike lanes, drivers and cops expect us to stay off of the road. As to riding on sidewalks, that is something that makes cyclists feel safer, but actually makes us less safe. It also annoys pedestrians to no end.

Let's face it, the single best thing we can do to make ourselves safer is to follow the rules of the road--stop at red lights and stop signs, yield when turning or changing lanes, avoid passing on the right, have adequate front and rear lights, take the lane when appropriate, stay to the right of the lane when appropriate, etc., etc., etc.

It's fair to complain about dangerous driving (I've done it a lot myself), but our first focus should be on what we can do to be safer.

I think it would be interesting to see how they define "cyclist."

I'm sure the way you do or should unless you are a roadie supremacist. Anyone who is riding a bicycle is a cyclist. From someone riding a $10 Goodwill bike to someone riding a $5000 Trek wearing a $400 cycling outfit, they are all the same, they are all bicyclist.

I didn't mean it that way, but thanks.

What I meant is: Is a cyclist someone who rides around and does whatever only? Or is a cyclist anyone who happens to plop onto a bike? In other words, a two year old juts out in front of a car on his little bike with training wheels and gets hit and killed a cyclist? Or a kid?

You get the idea now, I'm sure.

I did hear back from Ramonica Jones regarding her sources, I was surprised to see
www.kenkifer.com/bikepages. Come to think of it I think I did see that on Ken's sight at one time. Other sources she listed include www.safeco.com, the National Center for Statistics & Analysis and www.wwgh.com

If you include children I don't think the 75% in out of line at all. I'm sure they included everyone who was on a bike. Both children and adults lumped into one sum.

Actually, LAB is in favor of restricting the access we have to the roads. LAB is one of the biggest (if no the biggest) bike lane lobbies out there.

I had no idea... sorry that there was a misunderstanding there... Really what I wanted to focus on was the quote the guy made regarding commuters... I should have snipped it down to just that.

Really Daily Commute and others, this is all that I wanted to say... and it supports my view of how a skilled rider is like Casper... generally invisible to autos:

{Most drivers** have never encountered a competent urban cyclist. And {they** never will, unless {they** observe very carefully. The good ones use a skillful combination of roads, sidewalks , alternate streets & alleys to match the speed of traffic without obstructing it in any way. You will not see them in demonstrations, because their concern is transportatiion, not statement.

But they have to maintain the alertness and low profile of an antelope in lion country.

I think the above statement really does encompass a skilled cyclist, especially the commuters... especially this: "...they have to maintain the alertness and low profile of an antelope in lion country..."

I still think that, even though I got the same email from Ramonica Jones, it would've been nice if she cited the specific study, not just a general cite that had it. It would be like saying something and then attributing it to "Bikeforums.net" with all 1,000,000+ postings.

Oh well. At least they changed the story in the end.

Research shows about 75 percent of bicyclists are at fault in fatal accidents involving a car.

This is pretty consistent with my experiences. (It would be 100% in my case, actually, and I mean adults, not children)

Accidents::

One :: Hit by motorcyclists who ran a red light... minor injuries

Two :: Hit intentionally by a truck as I rode in the bike lane the proper directions... major injuries

Hmmm.... At Fault!? Unless you call riding on the road at fault NO!

75 percent... ya if you count the bicyclists who do not know what they are doing

This is pretty consistent with my experiences. (It would be 100% in my case, actually, and I mean adults, not children)
So, you hit a car with your bicycle and there was a fatality? ;)

Whoops, I can't read. I ignored the word "fatal" somehow. However, my one car tangle was nearly fatal for me, and it was my fault.

It might actually be true. Forester found that the risk in cycling was inversely proportional to the cyclist's road savy. He found that rookie cyclists had very high accident rates and that commuters had accident rates that were so low that Forester could not measure them accurately.

Now as I recall, 80% of the cycling fatalities involve a motor vehicle. About 50% of the cycling fatalities occur at night and I bet that nearly 100% of those people were riding without lights. So if we assume that these night riders were all killed by motor vehicles, that would be 50/80 = 62% of the cyclists killed were at fault. Now a large number of the remaining fatalities on bikes are suffered by people doing dern fool things like riding the wrong way and riding like pedestrians on bikes (jaywalking and ignoring traffic laws) and so on.

Now I would say that in the case of club and other experienced cyclists, who generally follow the rules of the road, the percentages would probably be reverse with about 75% of the time the motorist being at fault. However, people that we would call "cyclists" have such low fatality rates that their contribution to the fatality figures is swamped by all the people out there on bicycles who behave like well... fools.

Genec, it's better to follow the Bicycle Safe stuff than not to ride at all, but if I had to ride so that cars didn't notice me, I wouldn't be able to get to work. That said, I think the difference between EC and BS is more of degree than of substance. Both theories agree that there is some traffic cyclists can't merge with, they just disagree where that line is. But there is one are in which EC is unquestionably superior to BS--EC has a much better acronym.

As to the LAB, look at the LABReform website (http://www.labreform.org/) to see one group's effort to restore the LAB to its previous role as a cyclists-rights organization.

We have a BikeSense pamphlet in BC (it's on the web too) that is a well researched sourch of information for cyclists.

In it they say, Several studies in North America have found that the primary fault in bicycle/motor vehicle collisions is approximately equally shared between cyclists and drivers, but they also say,

* Failure to yield right-of-way is the fault of motorists twice as often as cyclists and,

the three most common motorist-caused bicycle/motor vehicle collisions are:

* An oncoming driver turns left in front of the cyclist.
* A driver on a cross street stops, and then pulls out directly in front of the cyclist.
* A driver barely passes the cyclist and then turns right.

a previous version of the page on the web site mentioned the motorist were four times as likely to hit a cyclist while turning right and more than 11 times as likely to hit a cyclist while turning left as cyclists are to hit cars in the same situation.