Originally Posted by
CrankyOne
Fatalities are what we were discussing though and, the only element that's fairly easily compared. Dead is, usually, the same as dead.
Comparative analysis of injuries is extremely difficult (though still valuable to look at). This starts with reporting which is fairly unreliable in injury cases. Then there's an ultra-complicated issue of range of severity, from minor scrapes to stitches, broken bones, loss of limb, TBI, etc. Fortunately a good chunk of injuries are non-permanant.
We certainly want to reduce both. John will not want to admit that being struck from behind is dangerous because that throws a rather huge kink in vehicular cycling. However, if being struck from behind is anywhere close to what the LAB report indicates then we want to make sure we don't forget about the section between junctions and thus the point of my statement.
You have it all wrong, Cranky! Certainly, it is reasonable to consider LAB's actions in terms of politics, because LAB exists to sell more bicycles. The machinations of the LAB board of directors is ample proof of that. Forty years ago, or more, they decided that the best way to promote greater bicycle sales was to advocate bikeways. That's understandable. To further that goal they naturally carry on the cyclist-inferiority great exaggeration of fear of same-direction motor traffic that had originally been invented by America's motordom. That this distorts the cycling safety facts doesn't bother them at all.
You are equally wrong, but in the reverse direction, in your statement that: "John will not want to admit that being struck from behind is dangerous because that throws a rather huge kink in vehicular cycling." That is because, right from its beginning, vehicular cycling was worked out in the interests of cyclists to make cycling much safer. The welfare of cyclists is the reason for the existence of vehicular cycling. The vehicular cycling pattern of behavior is directed to counter the traffic hazards of cycling approximately according to the frequency of those hazards. The goal is to improve the welfare of American cyclists operating in the American traffic pattern; there never has been an ulterior or political or financial motive attached.
Furthermore, you ignore the fact that traffic operations are interrelated. You write: "we want to make sure we don't forget about ... " the hit from behind fatal car-bike collisions. I don't recommend forgetting them, but they must be viewed in perspective. They are 1% of the car-bike collisions that occur. The trouble with your overemphasis on them is that whatever facilities are created to prevent them end up increasing the hazards of most of the other types of car-bike collision. More generally, 5% of the car-bike collisions are caused by this traffic mechanism, while 95% are caused by turning and crossing movements by either or both parties. Facilities created to separate cyclists from same-direction motor traffic increase the difficulties and dangers associated with turning and crossing movements, ameliorating the 5% while magnifying the 95%. Designing and introducing a system that solves this problem in American urban and traffic conditions has not been solved.