Originally Posted by
cyccommute
The above is not for just fatalities but for all reported accidents to the USDOT. Yes, I would consider 9% (rounding up) to be a small number compared to the other modes.
.
From my memory about the DOT data, I believe you are incorrect about the summary for type of accidents including injury only accidents. The links to the actual data on the MassBike site that you referenced are kaput.
Originally Posted by
cyccommute
I would not consider a right hook to be the same as being hit from behind. Yes, the car has overtaken the bicycle but no amount of lighting or reflective material will stop a motorist from preforming this kind of maneuver (lighting being the original point of the thread). The motorist has either already seen your lights and chosen to ignore them or they missed them entirely.
Fine,
you don't consider a motorist who comes from behind and "merges" into a bicyclist as an overtaking accident. Neither does John Forester, by doing so it helps him keep the incidence of "wrong" type of accidents down, what's your agenda?
Originally Posted by
cyccommute
Considering that the statistics are for all reported accidents and not just fatalities, I take them at face value. The
data, from what I can gather, is based on 698 fatalities and 43,000 injuries.
Again, I believe you are in error about this summary of accident scenarios.
That's not what I see on this site about what these "statistics" include. Where is there any association of injuries with crash type/location (overtaking, left turn, intersection, sidewalk, etc.)?
And of course none of these "statistics" are evaluated for the exposure of the cycling population to the various scenarios. i.e. Road cyclist are seldom exposed to suidewalk collisions; sidewalk/bike path/bike lane cyclists may have much less exposure to overtaking accidents.