Originally Posted by RobertHurst

True. The implication that VC/EC training specifically--as opposed to some other type of training or experience, commuting experience, messengering, what have you--leads to the safest riding is not supported by studies, surveys, or analyses thereof. It is true that about half of car-bike accidents are immediately preceded by an incident of blatant law-breaking by the cyclist (the cyclist is 'at fault'). This leads to the conclusion that VC-style cycling could prevent about half of car-bike accidents. Looking at the entirety of cyclists, this may very well be true. But--when you look at the experienced, adult riders we find that they are usually not 'at fault' for their accidents. That is, they still have plenty of accidents even while riding lawfully. For those looking for clues in statistical evidence, it seems that, as a safety measure, VC/EC takes us half the way there and leaves us hangin.

The much happier 80% figure comes from Forester's work, but does not specifically refer to VC-trained cyclists. Forester used the numbers from several available accident surveys (Chlapecka, Schupack, Planek, Klecker, and Driessen, NHTSA, 1975; Cross, 1980; Cross and Fisher, NHTSA?, 1977; Kaplan, 1976; Schupack and Driessen, 1976; Watkins, Cyclists' Touring Club, '84? I may be forgetting some) to make the claim that 10 years of cycling experience (note: not VC experience or training) at a moderate amount of yearly mileage would reduce one's accident rate by 80%. Spotty though these surveys were, the general shape of the curve they describe is further corroborated by more recent surveys such as Moritz' survey of LAB members and Ken Kifer's survey of touring cyclists. At the far end of the curve are riders who have rolled hundreds of thousands of miles on city streets in a decidedly non-VC fashion. The general point is that experience on the bike translates into a drastically lower accident rate--but it sure ain't 'Effective Cycling' that gets em there.