Bike Forums

Bike Forums (http://www.bikeforums.net/forum.php)
-   Vehicular Cycling (VC) (http://www.bikeforums.net/vehicular-cycling-vc/)
-   -   Tactical Analysis Thread: Cycling Related Fatalities/Serious Injury Incidents (http://www.bikeforums.net/vehicular-cycling-vc/309954-tactical-analysis-thread-cycling-related-fatalities-serious-injury-incidents.html)

John C. Ratliff 06-18-07 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Helmet Head
...Are you capable of not exaggerating my position when restating it? If you could, it would go a long way towards us being able to have a rational discourse.

Your statement is akin to accusing MADD of have a working theory "that all accidents are preventable if all drivers are sober", or Planned Parenthood of having a working theory "that all pregnancies are preventable with rubbers". It's disingenuous strawman creation. Never have I claimed that all accidents are preventable by the cyclist. So that most certainly is not the major disagreement that we have. In fact, we don't disagree about that at all, since we both recognize that some crashes like (Name deleted, HH, no names mentioned in this thread please, due to the previously mentioned concern for family members finding the analysis thread via Google-T.S) death, or the woman pulling the kid trailer) are certainly not preventable by the cyclist.

HH,

What your stated position is and how you act or react to incidents/accidents are apparently two different things. I was talking about my experiences with you on the accidents that we had discussed. By the way, your statement that this is "akin to accusing MADD of making a working theory..." is not the same, as you have demonstrated in the accidents we have discussed here that the driver is not at fault, at least initially, in a cycling accident.

When I say "the system," I'm talking about the legal and structural system, not on how you perceive your individual behavior as affecting the drivers around you. I'm talking about changing laws so that when someone dies, the fine is not less than $200 and the person walks away (as can be currently the case in Oregon). You have shown, to my knowledge, no interest in this, and indeed have written blogs stating that we should continue to concentrate on cyclist behavior. I think you may have written another one recently, although I don't know that for a fact; that person just sounds like you.

John

PS--Please leave names off in this thread.

randya 06-18-07 11:04 PM

HH has a double standard on following the forum rules; he only thinks it's important for everyone else to follow the rules, but not him.

Tom Stormcrowe 06-19-07 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Helmet Head
For the record, the only name I mentioned was a well-known (in the cycling community) public name (first name Ken, initials K. K.) of someone with his own website, and I said nothing about him or his collision except to say that it is a rare example of the type of collision where there really was nothing the cyclist could have done to avoid it. Thinking that his family stumbling onto that comment, as opposed to the countless others all over the internet that say the same thing, would be some kind of significant event is absurd.

That the "no names" rule in the OP would or should apply to a brief mention of KK's collision, and enforcing it accordingly, is a classic example of tossing reason aside for the sake of following rules literally.

Other than equal application of the intent of the standards of the thread, HH. No names means NO NAMES.....period. Whether they are already published before means nothing in the context of this thread. For this concept to work, this must be practiced in all posts here. That way, there is no precedent for other ways of slipping in a name. Please respect the guidelines set forth in the initial posting, and I'm also sure everyone else will as well. Thank you for your cooperation in this.

Helmet Head 06-19-07 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Stormcrowe
Other than equal application of the intent of the standards of the thread, HH. No names means NO NAMES.....period. Whether they are already published before means nothing in the context of this thread. For this concept to work, this must be practiced in all posts here. That way, there is no precedent for other ways of slipping in a name. Please respect the guidelines set forth in the initial posting, and I'm also sure everyone else will as well. Thank you for your cooperation in this.

Tom, with all due respect the OP clearly states: "Please don't include name of cyclists involved, ..." Involved in what? The title of this thread is "Tactical Analysis Thread: Cycling Related Fatalities/Serious Injury Incidents". The only reasonable interpretion of "cyclists involved" is "cyclists involved in the 'Cycling Related Fatalities/Serious Injury Incidents' that are analyzed in this thread". It does not say, or mean, "NO NAMES.... period". If that's what you want it to mean (and why would you?), then say that in the OP.

The reason for the "don't include names of cyclists involved" rule is laudable: to protect the emotions of the family members of those victims whose crashes are speculated and analyzed here. I did not include the names of any cyclists involved in any of the crashes analyzed in this thread. Unless you start reinterpreting the rules to mean something else, like "NO NAMES.....period", no rules were violated here, not in spirit, not literally, not in any way, and I resent the implication to the contrary. But it's par for the course around here. I just expect better from you.

Tom Stormcrowe 06-19-07 01:53 PM

HH, the thread is a work in progress, as I've mentioned earlier in the thread. I edited the original post to more clearly reflect the intent.

Please interpret it to mean no names means no names. This is to provide both anonymity for the cyclist and/or family as well as avoid any specifically citable speculation that could muddy up any legal issues for the aforesaid families. Fair enough?
Quote:

Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Tom, with all due respect the OP clearly states: "Please don't include name of cyclists involved, ..." Involved in what? The title of this thread is "Tactical Analysis Thread: Cycling Related Fatalities/Serious Injury Incidents". The only reasonable interpretion of "cyclists involved" is "cyclists involved in the 'Cycling Related Fatalities/Serious Injury Incidents' that are analyzed in this thread". It does not say, or mean, "NO NAMES.... period". If that's what you want it to mean (and why would you?), then say that in the OP.

The reason for the "don't include names of cyclists involved" rule is laudable: to protect the emotions of the family members of those victims whose crashes are speculated and analyzed here. I did not include the names of any cyclists involved in any of the crashes analyzed in this thread. Unless you start reinterpreting the rules to mean something else, like "NO NAMES.....period", no rules were violated here, not in spirit, not literally, not in any way, and I resent the implication to the contrary. But it's par for the course around here. I just expect better from you.


Helmet Head 06-19-07 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Stormcrowe
HH, the thread is a work in progress, as I've mentioned earlier in the thread. I edited the original post to more clearly reflect the intent.

Please interpret it to mean no names means no names. This is to provide both anonymity for the cyclist and/or family as well as avoid any specifically citable speculation that could muddy up any legal issues for the aforesaid families. Fair enough?

Now it is.

Thanks for taking the time and making the effort to clear this up. I will happily oblige.

genec 06-22-07 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hotbike
This story shows you that dogs being walked on bike trails are a deadly menace:

http://www.gazetteextra.com/bicycledeath062107.asp

Associated Press

APPLETON, Wis. - A retired college professor died when his bicycle crashed on a trail Wednesday, authorities said.

Name Deleted, 75, who taught French at Lawrence University for 32 years before retiring in 1996, was pronounced dead at St. Elizabeth Hospital about an hour after the accident.

Ruth Wulgaert, Outagamie County coroner, said subject (Name deleted) died of blunt force head trauma after he stopped his bicycle suddenly and crashed.

She said subject was riding down a hill when he approached a man walking a dog on the right side of the path.

"We dont know if at the last minute he saw the dog and braked quick and went head over heels or what," Wulgaert said.

Subject wore a helmet but landed on the left side of his face, she said.

Sounds more like improper brake use was the menace. The dog and owner were on the right side of the path... where they probably should be. The cyclist "braked quick" and probably did not shift his weight for the sudden stop, and went over the bars. A Road 1 class would have shown that cyclist how to stop and how to use the brakes for the most effective quick stop. (of course there are some here on BF that do not believe cyclists need any education)

A co-worker did that "quick stop and over the bars trick" about a year ago coming down a steep hill... broke her collerbone and shattered her cheek. Not a dog in sight.

Moderator note: Deleted name references to comply with the new thread-Tom Stormcrowe

hotbike 06-23-07 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by genec
Sounds more like improper brake use was the menace. The dog and owner were on the right side of the path... where they probably should be. The cyclist "braked quick" and probably did not shift his weight for the sudden stop, and went over the bars. A Road 1 class would have shown that cyclist how to stop and how to use the brakes for the most effective quick stop. (of course there are some here on BF that do not believe cyclists need any education)
.

The man was 75 years old, I think he probably had enough experience cycling to know how to use the brakes.
The front brake, if applied to hard, can flip any cyclist "arse over teakettle".

dobber 06-23-07 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hotbike
This story shows you that dogs being walked on bike trails are a deadly menace:

Not to be argumentative, but nowhere in the story does it state the dog was the cause of the accident.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Article
"We dont know if at the last minute he saw the dog and braked quick and went head over heels or what,"

Pretty broad. Maybe he was going to fast? Hit a bump at the most inopportune time and lost control? Had the other gentleman been walking with his son, would your statement have been "kids walked on bike trails"

Then again, the article stated "trails".

HoustonB 06-23-07 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by genec
Quote:

Originally Posted by hotbike
This story shows you that dogs being walked on bike trails are a deadly menace:

http://www.gazetteextra.com/bicycledeath062107.asp

Associated Press

APPLETON, Wis. - A retired college professor died when his bicycle crashed on a trail Wednesday, authorities said.

Name Deleted, 75, who taught French at Lawrence University for 32 years before retiring in 1996, was pronounced dead at St. Elizabeth Hospital about an hour after the accident.

Ruth Wulgaert, Outagamie County coroner, said subject (Name deleted) died of blunt force head trauma after he stopped his bicycle suddenly and crashed.

She said Reed was riding down a hill when he approached a man walking a dog on the right side of the path.

"We dont know if at the last minute he saw the dog and braked quick and went head over heels or what," Wulgaert said.

Subject wore a helmet but landed on the left side of his face, she said.[/QOTE]Sounds more like improper brake use was the menace. The dog and owner were on the right side of the path... where they probably should be. The cyclist "braked quick" and probably did not shift his weight for the sudden stop, and went over the bars. A Road 1 class would have shown that cyclist how to stop and how to use the brakes for the most effective quick stop. (of course there are some here on BF that do not believe cyclists need any education)

A co-worker did that "quick stop and over the bars trick" about a year ago coming down a steep hill... broke her collerbone and shattered her cheek. Not a dog in sight.

Moderator note: Deleted name references to comply with the new thread-Tom Stormcrowe


You missed an instance of the involved person's name - I've highlighted it in bold for you. Also Tom has clarified the original guide lines for this type of thread and the restriction on names is no longer the involved person's name - it is ANY names period. It is safe to assume this also means place names so your post should really have read:
Quote:

Originally Posted by hotbike
This story shows you that dogs being walked on bike trails are a deadly menace:

http://www.gazetteextra.com/bicycledeath062107.asp

Associated Press

Censored, Censored. - A retired college professor died when his bicycle crashed on a trail Wednesday, authorities said.

Censored, 75, who taught French at Censored University for 32 years before retiring in 1996, was pronounced dead at St. Censored Hospital about an hour after the accident.

Censored, Censored County coroner, said Censored died of blunt force head trauma after he stopped his bicycle suddenly and crashed.

She said Censored was riding down a hill when he approached a man walking a dog on the right side of the path.

"We dont know if at the last minute he saw the dog and braked quick and went head over heels or what," Censored said.

Censored wore a helmet but landed on the left side of his face, she said.

Now all we have to address is the issue of Google links and the fact that if Google has a link to this thread or this thread has links to the outside world, then (oops) all this censorship is for naught.

I-Like-To-Bike 06-23-07 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by genec
The cyclist "braked quick" and probably did not shift his weight for the sudden stop, and went over the bars. A Road 1 class would have shown that cyclist how to stop and how to use the brakes for the most effective quick stop. (of course there are some here on BF that do not believe cyclists need any education)

Are you so sure of the education program that you promote that you have no doubt that every person exposed to such eduction practices it all times under all conditions and reacts in the "approved" manner regardless of the circumstances?

Selling your favorite eduction shtick as the all purpose solution at every ghoulish opportunity without any facts gets mighty tiresome; HH is giving it a rest; why don't you too?

genec 06-23-07 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
Are you so sure of the education program that you promote that you have no doubt that every person exposed to such eduction practices it all times under all conditions and reacts in the "approved" manner regardless of the circumstances?

Selling your favorite eduction shtick as the all purpose solution at every ghoulish opportunity without any facts gets mighty tiresome; HH is giving it a rest; why don't you too?

Hey, I am not an educator, I don't make any money educating and I have no connection to any education agencies or anything else... I only push it as I saw how some real newbies improved. And BTW I have no plans to become an educator.

I took the classes and frankly I learned very little myself... I could have easily taught the classes. But I did see how the classes improved others... so in all honesty, I really can recommend them.

As for the braking bit... there is a good chance the professor may have learned how to best stop his bike while practicing high speed stops under supervision. Then again he might have gone over the handlebars in class... and not learned a thing.

But the bottom line is I saw improvement in others; they benefited, so I know the classes have value.

The school of hard knocks will teach the same lessons... it is up to the student to determine which they wish to pursue.

As an aside... I have noticed that brakes on newer bikes are far far better than on older bikes... that improvement alone may have been enough for the result... the prof may have learned this on his own simply by practicing a few panic stops.

Experience will teach that too. Unfortunately no lessons helped in time for this situation.

JMHO... I think HH thinks a lot more of the classes than I do... for any long expericed rider/commuter, I doubt the classes will offer anything.

genec 06-23-07 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hotbike
The man was 75 years old, I think he probably had enough experience cycling to know how to use the brakes.
The front brake, if applied to hard, can flip any cyclist "arse over teakettle".

I rather doubt that... that he had the experience that is. Otherwise he would have known not to mash down on the front brakes without shifting his weight.

I suspect he did have experience on bikes, and perhaps bought a newer one... with far better brakes than he ever had, and he did not subsequently really put it to a hard braking test.

All pure speculation on my part, mind you.

ghettocruiser 06-25-07 10:48 AM

I think I have to go with ILTB here. It's one thing to know your equipment inside out and know all your braking and balance points. It's another to suggest that this knowledge will prevent you from ever dumping the bike over forwards.

I've practiced stoppies and endos for years, and had a spectacular and largely unintentional 25mph-to-zero nose-wheelie on my road bike the other month when a box truck made a quick lane change. But given the right combination of inopportune circumstances, there's a pretty good chance I could still go over the bars.

Less likely perhaps, at best.

MichaelJay 07-02-07 08:22 PM

I cannot say that I know the area, but among the rules the motorist passing must obey are the requirement to pass safely, signal to the people being passed prior to passing, not to pass within 100 feet of an intersection (including bicycles), and that speed must be reasonable for conditions (that include road surface, weather, and traffic (including bicycles). It is also illegal to pass someone who is about to turn left if they are signalling.

A person who is under suspension has probably been driving badly, most likely for a long period of time. While there are some administrative reasons for suspension such as dropping out of high school for a juvenile, most reasons are serious violations and multiple violations. To me with my experience investigating and reconstructing traffic crashes, a person under suspension is usually exhibiting a pattern of bad driving.

All this is not to say that the bicyclists may not have made some errors. I would have to see the scene, take measurements, see the reports and vehicles to get a better idea. We as cyclists always have to remember that nearly everything out there can kill us and ride accordingly. One of my partners once investigated a head on bicycle to bicycle crash on a little bitty road in which BOTH cyclists were killed (believed to be playing chicken).

In 30 years I never handled a fatal bike crash. My friends had a few, and there was no real pattern. I've cycled all over the eastern USA, and I have had several close calls, including a semi that touched my pack as I labored up a hill in Florida tipping me off the road. (Semis have come closer to me than any other type of vehicle, and I try to stay off the roads they use heavily in my older age. Two acquaintences were killed after riding Ohio to Washington and were within 300 miles of returning home when struck from behind by a semi in Indiana.)

I've learned to enjoy bike paths too, but when I approach anyone walking a dog, anyone walking with their back to me, and especially any children, I slow and expect them to dart in front of me. (One did it today.) Between bad drivers and drivers who hate us being "in (their) way", there is a lot to be said about bike paths. Yesterday I was 18 inches off the (wide) road and moving right along in extremely light traffic when a passenger hit me with a bottle of Gator Ade from a car that overtook me. I wasn't in his way. I didn't slow him down. I was wearing safety green. To him I just represented a target, and fortunately the bottle was plastic and not glass. Dodging a few dogs on the bike path doesn't seem so bad any more. A shame about the older guy going over his handlebars. At least it wasn't clogged arteries.

LittleBigMan 07-08-07 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Stormcrowe
This thread is to discuss Cyclist fatalities/injury incidents and possible solutions to the issues.

Guidelines
  1. No names. This is to protect the families from emotional trauma and avoid complicating any legal cases. No names means NO NAMES, period in this thread.
  2. Location/date/time/known conditions
  3. If a post is speculation, it MUST be identified as such
  4. Respect and decorum at all times: Think rules of order. No insults or barbs.
  5. Follow general Bike Forum Guidelines and policies
  6. If an impasse is reached, agree to disagree and possibly revisit the issue later after all parties have had time to think.
  7. If you do revisit an issue, link back or quote the specific post in this thread to avoid confusion

Follow these guidelines and this can be developed into a resource for the forums and cycling in general.

Good idea, but I'll break you're rules. ("No names.")

The only really serious "accident" I had on my bike was when a pedestrian intentionally knocked me off my bike. Sent me to ER. The morphine did it's job.

I'll never put myself in that position again.

Motorists have never hurt me. Ever.

Tom Stormcrowe 07-12-07 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LittleBigMan
Good idea, but I'll break you're rules. ("No names.")

The only really serious "accident" I had on my bike was when a pedestrian intentionally knocked me off my bike. Sent me to ER. The morphine did it's job.

I'll never put myself in that position again.

Motorists have never hurt me. Ever.

I'll rule it an exception if you want to name your OWN name!:p No worries!:D

nova 08-09-07 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by genec (Post 4708898)
Sounds more like improper brake use was the menace. The dog and owner were on the right side of the path... where they probably should be. The cyclist "braked quick" and probably did not shift his weight for the sudden stop, and went over the bars. A Road 1 class would have shown that cyclist how to stop and how to use the brakes for the most effective quick stop. (of course there are some here on BF that do not believe cyclists need any education)

A co-worker did that "quick stop and over the bars trick" about a year ago coming down a steep hill... broke her collerbone and shattered her cheek. Not a dog in sight.

Moderator note: Deleted name references to comply with the new thread-Tom Stormcrowe

Or the dog walker had a 30 foot leash ran out across the trail like a trip line. I hit about 6 of those leashes over the years. Choked one dog close to death and all but that one broke when it got in my breaks and wheel and fork area.

Park rules here limit leashes to no longer than 6 foot with 3 and 4 foot suggested. Go above 6 foot and your leash will get taken by rangers and you get a nice escort out of the park.

ianbrettcooper 10-12-10 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by genec (Post 4661077)
So you are suggesting that on a 55MPH road, we should remain right in the motorists' path for complete safety.

There is no such thing as 'complete safety' on a road. But for optimal safety, of course it's safer to be in the motorist's path, where he can best see you. Your unspoken assumption here seems to be that being out of the path of a fast motorist is safest. It might seem safe, but as with many cycling issues, what seems safe is misleading.

gcottay 10-12-10 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ianbrettcooper (Post 11611431)
There is no such thing as 'complete safety' on a road. But for optimal safety, of course it's safer to be in the motorist's path, where he can best see you. Your unspoken assumption here seems to be that being out of the path of a fast motorist is safest. It might seem safe, but as with many cycling issues, what seems safe is misleading.

So, where would you ride on a high speed road with bad sight lines and a nice wide smooth clean shoulder? For me, there's not the hint of a question. I'm on the shoulder riding fully aware that my far right position poses extra risk at all intersections.

chipcom 10-12-10 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ianbrettcooper (Post 11611431)
There is no such thing as 'complete safety' on a road. But for optimal safety, of course it's safer to be in the motorist's path, where he can best see you. Your unspoken assumption here seems to be that being out of the path of a fast motorist is safest. It might seem safe, but as with many cycling issues, what seems safe is misleading.

Over-generalizations don't contribute to safety. The simple laws of physics dictate that being in the direct path of an object that is 4 times your size, 20 times your weight, traveling at twice (or more) your speed, is less safe than being out of its direct path. Yes, there are situational variables that may make one more or less safe than the other.

ianbrettcooper 10-12-10 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chipcom (Post 11611552)
Over-generalizations don't contribute to safety. The simple laws of physics dictate that being in the direct path of an object that is 4 times your size, 20 times your weight, traveling at twice (or more) your speed, is less safe than being out of its direct path. Yes, there are situational variables that may make one more or less safe than the other.

And in this case, a huge situational variable is in play: the unwillingness of the driver of the big heavy object to crash into you.

ianbrettcooper 10-12-10 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gcottay (Post 11611469)
So, where would you ride on a high speed road with bad sight lines and a nice wide smooth clean shoulder? For me, there's not the hint of a question. I'm on the shoulder riding fully aware that my far right position poses extra risk at all intersections.

Making up fictitious roads with impossibly poor visibility hardly makes a convincing argument. Only a complete moron or psychopath would build such a road, and I certainly wouldn't ride on it - even on the shoulder, unless I had a death wish.

hagen2456 12-03-12 05:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ianbrettcooper (Post 11614481)
And in this case, a huge situational variable is in play: the unwillingness of the driver of the big heavy object to crash into you.

People make mistakes. Like texting, picking up things they dropped, seeing-without-noticing, or falling asleep. That's generally why and how the really bad accidents happen. And in most of these cases, it's a really good idea NOT being in the lane.

Take the shoulder, if it's of any use at all.


Edit: And there's one more reason for not taking the lane on high speed, heavy traffic roads: People tend to tailgate, and if one driver sees you a little late, and swerves to avoid hitting you, the one behind him may not be able to react in time.

ianbrettcooper 12-03-12 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hagen2456 (Post 15009666)
People make mistakes. Like texting, picking up things they dropped, seeing-without-noticing, or falling asleep. That's generally why and how the really bad accidents happen. And in most of these cases, it's a really good idea NOT being in the lane.

Rubbish. Yes, people make mistakes. But they don't make deadly mistakes very often, and they're more likely to make a mistake if they don't see us, and when we're out of the lane, we're less visible. I've been cycling in the road for 40 years and I've yet to be knocked off my bike while cycling in the road. Such is the usual experience of integrated cyclists. There's a reason gutter and bike lane cyclists have so many close calls and injuries, and it has everything to do with their failure to cycle visibly.

Quote:

Take the shoulder, if it's of any use at all.
What 'shoulder'? One would think, from your response, that shoulders were ubiquitous. They are not. Besides, the shoulder is not a safe place to cycle. Studies show that using it results in a minimum two-fold increase in turning collisions. If you want to be injured, by all means use the shoulder. I prefer to stick to the main travel lane, where I'm safer.

And in what way are you qualified to offer such advice to other cyclists? Are you a cycling instructor? Have you even taken a cycling safety course? Have you even done an in-depth review of cycling collision studies? Or are you just talking out of your arse? These are rhetorical questions by the way: your stated geographical location, your attitude and your opinion already tell me that you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

By the way, I have taken a cycling instructor course, and I've taken many cycling safety courses. I've also studied all the research I can find relating to cycling safety. The vast majority of the research shows that your opinions and your advice are wrong and dangerous.

For example, here are two studies from Denmark that show that removing cyclists from the roadway is not quite as safe as 'bicycle advocates' seem to think:

2007 Jensen: Bicycle Tracks and Lanes, a Before - After Study (Copenhagen, Denmark)
http://trafitec.dk/sites/default/fil...nd%20lanes.pdf
"The safety effects of bicycle tracks in urban areas are an increase of about 10 percent in both crashes and injuries. The safety effects of bicycle lanes in urban areas are an increase of 5 percent in crashes and 15 percent in injuries. Bicyclists’ safety has worsened on roads where bicycle facilities have been implemented."

2008 Agerholm: Traffic Safety on Bicycle Paths (Western Denmark)
http://vbn.aau.dk/files/14344951/age...ycle_paths.pdf
"So the main results are that bicycle paths impair traffic safety and this is mainly due to more accidents at intersections."

And here's the reason:

1987 Grüne Radler review: Police Bicycle Crash Study (Berlin, Germany)
http://john-s-allen.com/research/berlin_1987/index.html
"...with increasing experience, it became ever clearer that the sidepaths are dangerous - more dangerous than riding in the roadway. There is a simple reason for this: the design and location of the sidepaths conflict with the most important principle of traffic safety, the slogan 'Visibility is safety'."

And the latest research says this:

2011 Reid: Infrastructure and Cyclist Safety (UK)
http://www.ctc.org.uk/resources/Camp...safety_rpt.pdf
"...evidence suggests that the points at which segregated networks intersect with highways offer heightened risk, potentially of sufficient magnitude to offset the safety benefits of removing cyclists from contact with vehicles in other locations."

Cyclists who avoid the road or who ride in the gutter are at far greater collision risk than those who choose to ride well into the roadway. 90% of published peer reviewed studies confirm this. You can say what you like, but it's not going to change the fact that what you're advocating has been proven time after time to be less safe than what I'm advocating.

Quote:

And there's one more reason for not taking the lane on high speed, heavy traffic roads: People tend to tailgate, and if one driver sees you a little late, and swerves to avoid hitting you, the one behind him may not be able to react in time.
All the more reason to take the lane. Cyclists who take the lane are visible from much farther away. Cyclists who ride in the gutter are in far greater danger from tailgating motorists.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:48 AM.