Tandem Cycling - Are tandemists more likely to get hit by cars from behind?

With the recent news that a tandem couple in Australia was killed, coupled with personal knowledge of at least four other tandem teams who have been hit from behind, I wonder: is there something about riding a tandem that makes us more likely to get rear ended? Or, am I just more aware of tandems getting hit vs. singles, because it causes more of a visceral reaction (the thought of having one's stoker get hurt, etc.)?

Note that I am NOT saying it's the tandem riders' fault, just that perhaps we are less likely to be able to get out of the way of an errant vehicle behind us that a single bike rider. The people that I have known that have been rear-ended have all been excellent and experience cyclists.

I wonder if tandem riders tend to be less aware of what's going on in traffic behind them, for some of these possible reasons (just conjecturing).

1. I tend to focus more on what's going on in front of the tandem than I do when riding my single. I'd say this is because the tandem is less maneuverable than a single, it's carrying more weight, etc., and I need to give myself more reaction time. Even though I always ride with a mirror, I'm sure I pay a lot more attention to what's in front that behind.
2. With a built-in companion right behind me, I'm more likely to be chatting and possibly less aware of what's going on further back.

Any thoughts?

Without any statistical data to back this up, I think it just stands out more in your mind when you hear of a tandem rear ended, because tandems are relatively rare, and you ride a tandem yourself, which both make the event stand out. ( You don't notice how many yellow cars there are on the road until you buy a yellow car.)

As for the actual likelyhood of getting rear ended, my bet is that is the same, or maybe slightly lower for a tandem compared to a single.

You really can't manuever out of the way of getting rear ended in the vast majority of cases. So added manueverability isn't going to help you on the single (besides many experienced tandem teams manuever as well or better than many singles)

On the plus side for the tandem, you have an extra set of eyes and ears, and you're a bit more conspicuous than a single.

All that said, rear end collisions aren't your main worry anyway; they account for a surprisingly small percentage of bike car collisions. What's in front of you, and coming from the side is a much greater concern statistically.

And just to add to the idea of the attentional bias, we hear and note of a tandem couple rear ended in Australia because of the relatively small community, and our membership in that community.

Yet we don't hear of, or note, the single bikes that as a statistical matter must be rear ended in Australia just about every day.

You really can't manuever out of the way of getting rear ended in the vast majority of cases. So added manueverability isn't going to help you on the single.

I agree. By the time you know (IF you have warning) that you are going to be rear-ended, there's either no time to get out of the way or there's nowhere to go.


All that said, rear end collisions aren't your main worry anyway; they account for a surprisingly small percentage of bike car collisions. What's in front of you, and coming from the side is a much greater concern statistically.

Again, that's my opinion also. That's why I use a forward-facing flashing amber light (Dinotte) at all times.

I use a handlebar-mounted mirror and am generally aware of cars approaching from behind, but I am constantly surprised by passing cyclists. They come up directly behind and announce that they are passing, but I rarely hear them because they're the equivalent of two bikes back. I wish other cyclists would announce twice; once before they pass the stoker and again before they pass the captain.

The preliminary report from Australia is that the couple were killed in a head-on collision. I think there will be quite a bit more about this accident in the news over the next few days, but I do not believe from the current news articles that they were rear ended.

That said, we have had a number of reports of tandems being hit from behind on this forum.

While historical data suggests that rear-ending has not been the highest risk to cyclists, I pesonally believe that you need to parse the FARS data quite a bit to make any assumptions about how at risk you might be compared to what the data conveys.

For example, if you don't ride after consuming alcohol, or in the late evening hours you'll be able to discount those statistics. If you follow the rules of the road and aren't at fault for riding the wrong way, blowing through stop signs, etc. you can discount those statistics. If you don't ride in heavily congested cities or urban areas the number of "right hooks" and front end from cars turning left in front of you drops off, etc...

At the same time, I think we're also seeing a much larger incidence of distracted driver collisions which are almost all rear-enders, several of which I've been made aware of either through search engines (typically when there's a fatality) or personal contacts where friends have been injuries (which is apparently not newsworthy, even if it involves hospitalization with critical or serious injuries).

So, as the FARS data base and/or other statistical sources are updated with newer data (noting that what gets collected and reported is what police officers fill-out on forms as part of their duties and/or when hospital ER's fill-out forms as patients / victims come in the doors), we may see some shifts in the historical data.

By the way, the NHTSA has not yet posted data for 2010 to it's FARS data base.
http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx

I ran across this article which mentions a fairly even split between rear-end deaths and turning-in-front of rider deaths (assuming for solo bikes):

Wisconsin Bicyclists Deaths Already Match 2010 Total


Posted on Sep 22, 2011

In a recent post, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/lifestyle/129120758.html) reports that two more bicyclists have been killed, bringing the Wisconsin total bicycle fatalities to 9, equal to the total number of cyclists killed in 2010.
The crash occurred on August 19, in Kenosha. Wayne Bricco, a 50-year-old electrician and handy man was riding southbound on 24th Avenue and crossed 60th Street into the path of a westbound car. Roughly a month earlier, Ell Nealy Jr., aged 56, turned into the path of a car while bicycling westbound in the 2200 block of W. National Avenue in Milwaukee. Nealy crashed within a couple of blocks from his home, suffered severe head injuries and died on August 2nd.
Five of the cyclists killed in 2011 were struck from behind by motor vehicles. In four other cases, the cyclists rode into the path of vehicles, according to police reports.

I happened across this article because I'm in tech-service and had met and knew Sam, who is unfortunately in this statistic. It was an 18 year old that hit him from behind around 5:30 pm in the summer. His comment was that he "blacked out". I'm curious if the police ever found that that the kid was texting or anything at the time, but couldn't find a follow-up story.

Anyway, my guess is that tandems would have slightly less chance of a rear-end hit due to bigger size and noticability, but a bigger chance of a bad injury from a car turning in front of them. Most tandems just can't stop or swerve quickly, and less chance of the rider jumping clear of the bike.

This makes me want to buy another flashing light. ;-)

We run a Dinotte rear and front light at all times we are not riding in a group. I hesitate to to run a blinking light at night and prefer the steady mode. I feel some drivers fixate on the blinking lights at night and where a poor driver looks his car or truck tends to follow. It seems that police officers are often run down as they give tickets when drivers fail to simply to stay in their lane and drift on the shoulder toward the patrol car's extremely bright flashing lights.

Wayne

I switched late this fall from running a blinky to blinky and a solid light on my commuter. I'm not sure, but it seems I am getting more space?
R

While historical data suggests that rear-ending has not been the highest risk to cyclists, I pesonally believe that you need to parse the FARS data quite a bit to make any assumptions about how at risk you might be compared to what the data conveys.

For example, if you don't ride after consuming alcohol, or in the late evening hours you'll be able to discount those statistics. If you follow the rules of the road and aren't at fault for riding the wrong way, blowing through stop signs, etc. you can discount those statistics. If you don't ride in heavily congested cities or urban areas the number of "right hooks" and front end from cars turning left in front of you drops off, etc...

At the same time, I think we're also seeing a much larger incidence of distracted driver collisions which are almost all rear-enders, several of which I've been made aware of either through search engines (typically when there's a fatality) or personal contacts where friends have been injuries (which is apparently not newsworthy, even if it involves hospitalization with critical or serious injuries).

So, as the FARS data base and/or other statistical sources are updated with newer data (noting that what gets collected and reported is what police officers fill-out on forms as part of their duties and/or when hospital ER's fill-out forms as patients / victims come in the doors), we may see some shifts in the historical data.

By the way, the NHTSA has not yet posted data for 2010 to it's FARS data base.
http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx
This is one of the weaknesses with this data. Everywhere I have lived, when there is a bike/car collision, the default view of the police is that the cyclist is at fault. Sometimes they have to create some incredible versions of what must have happened to justify that bias, but many do it none-the-less. I have come upon a cyclist who was clearly the victim of a hit-and-run. The responding officer declined to file it as such and maintained that the cyclist must have just fallen off. We even had a cyclist killed in a dooring incident where the responding officer decided that there wasn't enough damage to the door for it to have been the cause of the cyclist's demise. (In a way, he was correct. It was the impact of his head with the asphalt that caused his death, but the door did knock him off his bike.) Thus, if you decide to reduce the death-rate of cyclists by those who were reported as the cause of their own demise, you are going to assume that the risk is lower than it is.

That said, the risk is phenomenally low for most of us and it is my opinion that the more we ride the lower it gets for all of us.

I think the differences in handling between tandems and single bikes could be a cause for increased likelihood of rear-end collisions for tandems. On my single bikes, I tend to ride very close to the edge of the road (closer than most other people I have ridden with), but on the tandem I am aware that movement by the stoker can cause unexpected steering inputs, and it is difficult to make quick directional changes on the tandem, and so I tend to ride farther away from the edge of the road when on the tandem than when on a single bike.

If a car doesn't see us and continues driving in a straight line, then they are more likely to rear-end us on a tandem than when I am on a single bike because I am more likely to be in their path when on the tandem.

Fortunately, we live in Europe, and so I believe that the chances of rear-end collisions here (for all types of cyclist) are far reduced compared to places like North America and Australia. The reason for this is that we don't have many featureless, straight, boring roads that normally allow drivers to be inattentive. The roads here are rarely straight, and the drivers are aware that there are intersections and other hazards that could come up at almost any time, and so keep more attention on the road than they would if they were driving on the featureless, straight, long roads that are more common in other parts of the world. In addition, trip distances tend to be far shorter, meaning that drivers have to hold their concentration on the task for a far shorter length of time.

I'm not trying to say that all drivers here are saints, and are always paying attention, there are certainly exceptions that occasionally lead to fatal outcomes. However, the design of the roads and the average trip distances does help to make people driving in Europe to be more attentive than they would be when driving in other locations. I am very thankful for that, and it is one more thing that discourages us from moving back to North America (I previously lived in the US and Canada for 10 years and my wife is Canadian, but we have lived in Switzerland for the past 6 years).

While historical data suggests that rear-ending has not been the highest risk to cyclists, I pesonally believe that you need to parse the FARS data quite a bit to make any assumptions about how at risk you might be compared to what the data conveys.

The way you phrased that, it's like not riding drunk without lights against traffic increases the risk of being rear ended.

Four points... and these are my deep-seated opinions, i.e., it's useless to debate.

Statisics: B.Carfree... spot-on. The statistics are only as good and accurate as the data collection process: Garbage in - Garbage out.

Tail lights... and perhaps even headlight in daytime and most certainly at night CANNOT HURT AND CAN ONLY HELP to increase your visibility. However, make sure they're highly visible lights with full charge aimed correctly and not obscured by saddle bags, etc. I see a lot of folks running "lights" on bikes while I'm on my motorcycle or in the car that are of little use since they only become visible when you're seconds of overtaking, if at all... day or night.

Tandems being more visible... not from behind at a distance, only once a motorist is close enough to see that there are "two cyclists" and then realizes they are on the same bike. Those motorists aren't your problem. It's the ones that never noticed the very narrow profile of a cyclist / cyclists well ahead because they weren't paying attention / looking somewhere else than the road ahead / dozing and drifting to the right edge of the lane (left-hand drive countries) because of road crown effect.

Riding in the lane vs. edge of the lane... Sorry, I'm a firm believer in riding in the lane where there's not a usable shoulder past the fog line. Objects in the road will get a motorists attention faster than something along the edge of the road because it's IN THEIR PATH and POSES A RISK: it's a human nature thing. If you use a mirror and keep an eye on traffic approaching from behind, you can hold your line until you're sure the vehicle has seen you and then decide if you want to yield your lane space (assuming there's a useable shoulder) for a moment to make it easier for the vehicle to pass. If there's on-coming traffic and no shoulder, I'll stay put vs. inviting a "squeeze by" by riding along the gutter.

Oh yeah, and if you do everything right you can still get nailed... it's called bad luck, fate, bad Karma, whatever. It's happened to several friends while riding their tandems over the years, thankfully with no fatalities. They were all very experienced and very conscientous cyclists. Do I ride in fear of being hit? Not a chance, but I also take precautions and keep my head in the game and abide by all of the things I've mentioned thus far, other than a headlight during the day. If I rode in the city or more congested areas, I'd probably use a headlight too.

It is not my understanding that the tandem couple was rear ended. One news article says the tip truck was travelling in the opposite direction from the direction the tandem was travelling, and another says the tip truck swerved to miss a dog and hit the tandem. And it was 2:30 pm ... in the middle of the day.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/two-cyclists-killed-as-truck-hits-tandem-20111206-1oglq.html
http://www.couriermail.com.au/ipad/david-and-heather-churchers-lives-full-of-adventure-before-cut-short-in-bike-tragedy/story-fn6ck4a4-1226216738091


Also as for the comment about featureless, long, straight roads ... I'm not sure exactly where the tandem couple was on the Mornington Penn, but my recollection of riding there does not include featureless, long, straight roads. It is a common misconception that Australia is completely flat and barren ... but the half of Victoria where Rowan and I live, and also where the Mornington Penn is, is hilly to mountainous, with curvy, winding roads.

The way you phrased that, it's like not riding drunk without lights against traffic increases the risk of being rear ended.

I make a broad point about the need to parse the NHTSA FARS Encyclopedia / data base statistics using examples of some of the data you'll find in the statistics.

For example, alcohol use by "people riding bikes" has consistently been a factor in 20% - 30% in fatal accidents over the years. FARS doesn't always allow you parse the "alcohol impairment" data down far enough to establish if it was the cyclist or motorist, so other sources and studies are typically needed to find those numbers.

20% of the 630 cyclist fatalities in 2009 involved riders under the age of 20.

20% of the 630 cyclist fatalities in 2009 occured between 9:00 pm and 3:00 am. That number rises to 25% for 9:00 pm to 6:00 am.

Again, you have to parse the numbers to figure out where you might fit into those statistics.

And then there are the 51,000 reported cycling injuries that occured in 2009... which is another mess to sort through.

Interesting discussion, as I assumed it would be. Thanks for your thoughts everyone! Perhaps I did read the Australia story incorrectly in thinking they were rear-ended.

I think the point about being more aware of it because we are a small community is probably spot-on, too. I'm certain lots of single-bike riders get hit every day and I don't hear about it unless they are local.

A Dinotte rear light is on our to-buy list. I got the Planet Bike "Super Blinky" (I think that's the name) but would still like something brighter. We rarely, if ever, ride after dark, but I've seen bikes with Dinotte rear lights and they certainly catch your attention, even during the day.

Absolutely agree with your 4 points...



Statisics: B.Carfree... spot-on. The statistics are only as good and accurate as the data collection process: Garbage in - Garbage out.

No matter how good they are, sometimes statistics don't apply to your situation. We never ride in the dark and pick routes based on the presence of a shoulder, condition of road surface, amount and speed of auto traffic, and popularity as a cycling route (presuming that motorists are accustomed to cyclists on that road) among other things. Hopefully we are skewing the statistics in our favor.

Sometimes though, no matter what you do, s**t happens. A cyclist was recently rear-ended and killed by a pickup truck on one of the more popular cycling routes in the area:

http://www.kirotv.com/news/news/kirkland-bicyclist-killed-in-apparent-collision-wi/nDjhH/

The 18-year-old driver was charged with unsafe lane-changing and fined $42:

http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattle911/2011/10/14/driver-who-killed-bicyclist-escapes-charge-gets-42-fine/



Tail lights... and perhaps even headlight in daytime and most certainly at night CANNOT HURT AND CAN ONLY HELP to increase your visibility. However, make sure they're highly visible lights with full charge aimed correctly and not obscured by saddle bags, etc. I see a lot of folks running "lights" on bikes while I'm on my motorcycle or in the car that are of little use since they only become visible when you're seconds of overtaking, if at all... day or night.

I hate the endless debate over the use of lights in the daytime; I certainly go with the CANNOT HURT AND CAN ONLY HELP philosophy. It's hard for me to believe that it doesn't help.



Tandems being more visible... not from behind at a distance, only once a motorist is close enough to see that there are "two cyclists" and then realizes they are on the same bike. Those motorists aren't your problem. It's the ones that never noticed the very narrow profile of a cyclist / cyclists well ahead because they weren't paying attention / looking somewhere else than the road ahead / dozing and drifting to the right edge of the lane (left-hand drive countries) because of road crown effect.

This is obvious; I know this but it never coalesced into a conscience thought. I sometimes have the opposite perception - two cyclists riding close appear to me to be on a tandem and it's not until they get close that I realize they're not.



Riding in the lane vs. edge of the lane... Sorry, I'm a firm believer in riding in the lane where there's not a usable shoulder past the fog line. Objects in the road will get a motorists attention faster than something along the edge of the road because it's IN THEIR PATH and POSES A RISK: it's a human nature thing. If you use a mirror and keep an eye on traffic approaching from behind, you can hold your line until you're sure the vehicle has seen you and then decide if you want to yield your lane space (assuming there's a useable shoulder) for a moment to make it easier for the vehicle to pass. If there's on-coming traffic and no shoulder, I'll stay put vs. inviting a "squeeze by" by riding along the gutter.

Again - Right on.

As a follow-up, I've noticed that cars are much less "nice" to us and less conscious of us now that we've moved from pulling our son in a Burley trailer to riding with him on a triple. Certainly having a bright-yellow trailer with a flag did much to give us more road "presence" to an overtaking driver, but I can't help but think that there was also likely to be a subconscious or conscious thought from the driver to be careful because there might be a child in the trailer. As has been oft-cited, too, drivers tend to tune-out things that aren't on the road or in their immediate vision. I'm sure that anything that breaks that tunnel vision can only help cyclists (e.g., flags, blinker lights, panniers, trailers, etc.).

Whenever I hear about a tandem tragedy I think about little Kylie Breuhler. Her parents were killed on their tandem in Texas. The driver of the truck that killed them had swerved off one side of the road, off the other, and then took their lives. The DA never even investigated to see if the driver had been accessing his phone or texting, just dismissing it as a "an unavoidable tragedy" and "just an accident."

In some European countries the culpability for what happens when driving is so much better than in the US. There are no "just accidents," and drivers have to practice and prove they can drive on ice, gravel, etc. at a level of competency that tells me we just have it backwards.

In Boulder County, CO where we live there is a raging diaglog in the call-in comments section of the newspaper about people speaking out against cyclists. Comments are vociferous about cyclists not having to or not obeying stop signs, that they shouldn't be on the road, and that they don't pay fees or have to register their bikes. Some of the comments have risen to the level of a "bounty" being out on cyclists to teach 'em to get off the road. Frightening, considering how many cycling deaths occur in our little "cycling mecca" due to car collisions.

Recently a commercial driver killed a cyclist on nearby canyon road. He had a history of road rage directed against cyclists and had previously been cited for running cyclists off the road deliberately and other incidents including physical altercations with cyclists. He had always only received probation and fines. This time he pulled immediately out in front of a cyclist and killed him. This driver hated cyclists because they disrupted his driving his commercial truck in a narrow difficult to drive road with his big truck and sometimes trailer. You'd think there would be a prison term, but the expectation is he'll walk away after killing someone essentially without any debt to society having been paid.

Another recent incident was a road rage issue where a driver pulled in front of three cyclists, then got out and took a bat and attacked them and their bikes. It was a road rage issue where the car driver was angry that the cyclists had the hubris to not get out of his way, and that he was tired of cyclists coming up from Boulder (a class warfare them versus us thing) to Fort Collins. He destroyed a $5k bike. In the end he walked with just probation. There were multiple witnesses that corroborated what occurred and his hateful rant against cyclists.

What disturbs me is that these are actually "hate crimes" against cyclists.

After Khylie Brueler's parents were killed I swore off riding the tandem and road bikes on the road. We only ride on paths now, which is just lacking. However with two young kids, I'm never leaving them in a position where they help compose a similar image of a young child at the parents funeral. Whenever I feel like "just" going for short ride on the road, I google her name. I look at all the picture that are still on the web of her happy parents, holding her as a baby, sitting with her at the holidays, and of her devastated and crying uncontrollably at the funeral. Then I realize that that there are worse things in the world than riding our tandem on paths.

http://www.tucsonbikelawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/kylie.jpg

Whenever I hear about a tandem tragedy I think about little Kylie Breuhler. Her parents were killed on their tandem in Texas. The driver of the truck that killed them had swerved off one side of the road, off the other, and then took their lives. The DA never even investigated to see if the driver had been accessing his phone or texting, just dismissing it as a "an unavoidable tragedy" and "just an accident."

Not exactly....

The driver was indicted a year after the accident following extensive investigative efforts and charged with two counts of Criminally Negligent Homicide.
http://www.kens5.com/news/One-year-after-fatal-Hwy-16-bike-accident-driver-indicted-104105643.html

Unfortunately, I don't know if and when the case went to trial or the outcome. It went "quiet" after the indictment.

Not exactly....

The driver was indicted a year after the accident following extensive investigative efforts and charged with two counts of Criminally Negligent Homicide.
http://www.kens5.com/news/One-year-after-fatal-Hwy-16-bike-accident-driver-indicted-104105643.html

Unfortunately, I don't know if and when the case went to trial or the outcome. It went "quiet" after the indictment.

I didn't know that. At the time the DA was saying he would not be filing charges as it was just a "tragic accident," I remember someone posted somewhere the contact information for the DA's office, and I actually called to voice my dissent for that decision.

Strangely, there is nothing showing any resolution regarding those two counts.

After Khylie Brueler's parents were killed I swore off riding the tandem and road bikes on the road. We only ride on paths now, which is just lacking. However with two young kids, I'm never leaving them in a position where they help compose a similar image of a young child at the parents funeral. Whenever I feel like "just" going for short ride on the road, I google her name. I look at all the picture that are still on the web of her happy parents, holding her as a baby, sitting with her at the holidays, and of her devastated and crying uncontrollably at the funeral. Then I realize that that there are worse things in the world than riding our tandem on paths.



Do you not drive in a car with your wife? Every activity in life has risk, and as a statistical matter riding a bike on the road, exercising some common sense and obeying the rules of the road is not that dangerous, arguably not even as dangerous as dangerous as driving.

Everyone has to make their own decisions regarding what risks they find acceptable. For me, I'm not going to make that decision on the basis of one admittedly horrendous anecdote.

Unfortunately, I don't know if and when the case went to trial or the outcome. It went "quiet" after the indictment.

Another unknown to consider in these cases is that regardless of the whether criminal charges are filed, I suspect more than a few end up in civil court. Too bad the outcomes of the civil cases are not better publicized.

I didn't know that. At the time the DA was saying he would not be filing charges as it was just a "tragic accident,

The Bexar County Sheriff's office was the original law enforcement agency with jurisdiction over the accident and they did, in fact, attempt to sweep the collision under the carpet as "just an unfortunate accident" and stated that charges would likely not be filed before the accident scene was even fully processed. The District Attorney's Office and other law enforcement agencies stepped-in and took over jurisdiction. Were it not for the internet-facilitated public outrage in Texas and the media's interest in the deaths -- noting Texas had had another cycling fatality the week before (a friend and executive co-worker) where there was no good reason for the collision -- the local Sheriff would have probably been successful in protecting the motorist.

Not tandem-related, but since we're on the subject of automobile/bicycle collisions:

This happened this morning just about a mile from our house. We ride through this intersection on many of our rides (but not at 2:50AM).

http://www.kirklandreporter.com/news/135241953.html

Do you not drive in a car with your wife? Every activity in life has risk, and as a statistical matter riding a bike on the road, exercising some common sense and obeying the rules of the road is not that dangerous, arguably not even as dangerous as dangerous as driving.

Did you really just assert that riding a bicycle on the shoulder of a roadway is safer than driving in a car? Wow.

I don't think that thought expresses any reasonable comprehension of the number of cycling deaths in the this country, the cause of death being "car", relative to the number of bicycle rides taken. While there are more car driving/riding deaths, that is a function of orders of magnitude more car driving/riding occurrences.

The danger of an activity is a function of proportionality. I'm just guessing, but I'm betting that one is hundreds of times more likely to die riding a bike on a roadway, or the shoulder of a roadway, than one is driving/riding in a car on a roadway.

I'm risk averse. I live in a place where more than half the county population smokes marijuana, and a scary but small percentage of the population are meth tweakers. Combine that with a festering hostility around here for cyclists and its an ugly recipe. Hell, in my state I avoid the insanity of the interstates like the plague. People drive like freakin' maniacs anymore, and you can't drive past ten cars without seeing someone reading something off their phone.

Obeying the rules of the road while riding a bicycle has nothin' to freaking do with it. Cyclists aren't getting killed by cars because it was the cyclists fault.

Did you really just assert that riding a bicycle on the shoulder of a roadway is safer than driving in a car? Wow.

I don't think that thought expresses any reasonable comprehension of the number of cycling deaths in the this country, the cause of death being "car", relative to the number of bicycle rides taken. While there are more car driving/riding deaths, that is a function of orders of magnitude more car driving/riding occurrences.

The danger of an activity is a function of proportionality. I'm just guessing, but I'm betting that one is hundreds of times more likely to die riding a bike on a roadway, or the shoulder of a roadway, than one is driving/riding in a car on a roadway.

I'm risk averse. I live in a place where more than half the county population smokes marijuana, and a scary but small percentage of the population are meth tweakers. Combine that with a festering hostility around here for cyclists and its an ugly recipe. Hell, in my state I avoid the insanity of the interstates like the plague. People drive like freakin' maniacs anymore, and you can't drive past ten cars without seeing someone reading something off their phone.

Obeying the rules of the road while riding a bicycle has nothin' to freaking do with it. Cyclists aren't getting killed by cars because it was the cyclists fault.

It expresses examination of actual data. Not irrational fear based on anecdotes.

When you break the data down, and exclude drunk cyclists, cyclists riding at night without lights, child cyclist dart outs, cyclists riding the wrong way etc. there are not that many cyclists killed. Of course 1 is too many, but the several hundred a year is not enough to make cycling inherently dangerous compared to participation in many other activities that are thought by most to be "safe"

http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/health/risks.htm. Admittedly Kifer's data is a bit dated, but its a good analysis. If someone were to do the same analysis with update figures, the results would likely be similar, or lower, given that cylcing deaths haven't increased significantly, and participation has increased.

And there is data to suggest that by hour of participation, you're less likely to die on a bike, than in a car. The statistics turn around the other way by mile traveled. But it's close enough to believe that neither drivin in a car or riding on a bike, with proper precaution is inherently unsafe.

A sad irony is that Ken Kiefer, referenced above, was killed on his bike by a drunk driver. http://www.kenkifer.com/death.htm

....... Were it not for the internet-facilitated public outrage in Texas and the media's interest in the deaths -- noting Texas had had another cycling fatality the week before (a friend and executive co-worker) where there was no good reason for the collision -- the local Sheriff would have probably been successful in protecting the motorist.

Unfortunately the public outrage here in Texas did not prevent the local authorities from banning bicycles from that road after the accident. Actually the tandem was hit while on the shoulder and bikes have been banned from the shoulder as well as the road itself. It is important to note that motorcycles have not been banned.

Under that theory of public safety, cars should be banned from all pubic roads since there is a much larger number of people killed while needlessly exposing themselves to drunk drivers on the road by driving their car..

Wayne

Unfortunately the public outrage here in Texas did not prevent the local authorities from banning bicycles from that road after the accident. Actually the tandem was hit while on the shoulder and bikes have been banned from the shoulder as well as the road itself. It is important to note that motorcycles have not been banned.

Doesn't surprise me in the least. We'll see more of this as time goes by.

And, yes, they were on the shoulder. Sadly, for reasons that are still unknown since Sullaway has never offered an explanation or any comments on the accident (makes me think he was in law enforcement at some point in his life...) he left his lane and shoulder and went off then clipped the Bruelers on his way back across the shoulder towards the marked lane.

Getting back to banning bikes from roads, there's a proposal on the table by the US Park Service that would ban bicycles from the Blue Ridge Parkway as one element of improving the "driving experience" for motorists: http://www.blueridgeoutdoors.com/outdoor-blogs/editors-blog/blue-ridge-parkway-closed-to-cyclists/

Doesn't surprise me in the least. We'll see more of this as time goes by.

And, yes, they were on the shoulder. Sadly, for reasons that are still unknown since Sullaway has never offered an explanation or any comments on the accident (makes me think he was in law enforcement at some point in his life...) he left his lane and shoulder and went off then clipped the Bruelers on his way back across the shoulder towards the marked lane.

Getting back to banning bikes from roads, there's a proposal on the table by the US Park Service that would ban bicycles from the Blue Ridge Parkway as one element of improving the "driving experience" for motorists: http://www.blueridgeoutdoors.com/outdoor-blogs/editors-blog/blue-ridge-parkway-closed-to-cyclists/

Bummer. We see lots of parks and rec money spent on parking and street improvements around the parks rather than expanding the park area or on facilities used by human beings. Somehow we have taught our public servants to serve the cars and not the people. We have parks with improved parking lots and no greater park space and no bathrooms.

Wayne