cyclist seriously hurt after running stop sign
#26
Randomhead
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Happy Valley, Pennsylvania
Posts: 24,396
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked 3,696 Times
in
2,517 Posts
Just from my observation of casual cyclists around here, he probably blew the stop sign without looking. Either that, or these people have simply amazing peripheral vision. OTOH, I do recognize that there is a possibility that the motorist simply ran over a cyclist going the same way as he was and it was conveniently next to a stop sign.
#27
L T X B O M P F A N S R
#28
You gonna eat that?
Wow. Talk about speculation!
#29
Carbon FTW
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 191
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
#30
Carbon FTW
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 191
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
More details here:
https://www2.tbo.com/content/2009/aug...news-breaking/
The article indicates that motorist did not have a stop sign but the cyclist did and that he rode through without stopping.
If this is indeed the case, then the cyclist is 100% at fault. He should've made sure the intersection was clear before crossing. Nonetheless he has my sympathies.
https://www2.tbo.com/content/2009/aug...news-breaking/
The article indicates that motorist did not have a stop sign but the cyclist did and that he rode through without stopping.
If this is indeed the case, then the cyclist is 100% at fault. He should've made sure the intersection was clear before crossing. Nonetheless he has my sympathies.
Last edited by beetz12; 08-04-09 at 04:18 PM.
#31
The Improbable Bulk
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Wilkes-Barre, PA
Posts: 8,379
Bikes: Many
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times
in
7 Posts
Yes, all crossings are independent, as stated in the post. However, individual probability can be used to calculate the chance of an event happening over an extended number of happenings. They are just that, measurement of chance.
Another example: if I think of a number between 1 and 10 and have someone guess the number I'm thinking of, they have a 10% chance of guessing the correct number. If we do it again, they still have a 10% chance of guessing on that chance, so on and so forth out to 5 chances (each with a 10% chance). However, if we look at the group of 5, each with it's own chance of 10%, they have a probability of not guessing the correct number at least once of 59.05% (0.90 ^ 5). If we extend it to 10 times, they probability that they won't guess the correct number is 34.87%. The probability that they will not guess the correct number decreases with each chance, and approaches 0%, though it never reaches 0%.
The numbers are just that, a measure of mathematical probability.
Another example: if I think of a number between 1 and 10 and have someone guess the number I'm thinking of, they have a 10% chance of guessing the correct number. If we do it again, they still have a 10% chance of guessing on that chance, so on and so forth out to 5 chances (each with a 10% chance). However, if we look at the group of 5, each with it's own chance of 10%, they have a probability of not guessing the correct number at least once of 59.05% (0.90 ^ 5). If we extend it to 10 times, they probability that they won't guess the correct number is 34.87%. The probability that they will not guess the correct number decreases with each chance, and approaches 0%, though it never reaches 0%.
The numbers are just that, a measure of mathematical probability.
That isn't quite right, and I think it is an issue with the way you said it, and not necessarily your understanding.
The increased probability of guessing the number in a certain number of guesses increases, the probability for a specific guess being correct does not increase.
In other words, the probability that a guess is correct in one guess is 10%.
If two guesses are made, assuming a fixed probability (as in this case) the probability for the first and second guess remains at 10%, but the probability that at least one of guess 1 or guess 2 are correct does increase.
So, even if I guess 999 times and get it wrong each time (or right each time, or any combination), the probability of guess 1,000 being correct is still 10%, even though before I start guessing, the chances that I will guess right at least once in 1,000 guesses is nearly 100%.
In the case of the accident reported at the start of this thread, there is bound to be flexibility in the variables based on car speed, bicycle speed, attentiveness of the rider and/or driver, type of vehicle involved etc.
Also in the case of the accident reported, I would hope that the first time a collision happens it modifies the parameters significantly by causing the cyclist to stop, or slow significantly, at stop signs... rather than terminating the series.
__________________
Slow Ride Cyclists of NEPA
People do not seem to realize that their opinion of the world is also a confession of character.
- Ralph Waldo Emerson
Slow Ride Cyclists of NEPA
People do not seem to realize that their opinion of the world is also a confession of character.
- Ralph Waldo Emerson
#32
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,297
Bikes: Too many.
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 92 Post(s)
Liked 174 Times
in
86 Posts
That isn't quite right, and I think it is an issue with the way you said it, and not necessarily your understanding.
The increased probability of guessing the number in a certain number of guesses increases, the probability for a specific guess being correct does not increase.
In other words, the probability that a guess is correct in one guess is 10%.
If two guesses are made, assuming a fixed probability (as in this case) the probability for the first and second guess remains at 10%, but the probability that at least one of guess 1 or guess 2 are correct does increase.
So, even if I guess 999 times and get it wrong each time (or right each time, or any combination), the probability of guess 1,000 being correct is still 10%, even though before I start guessing, the chances that I will guess right at least once in 1,000 guesses is nearly 100%.
The increased probability of guessing the number in a certain number of guesses increases, the probability for a specific guess being correct does not increase.
In other words, the probability that a guess is correct in one guess is 10%.
If two guesses are made, assuming a fixed probability (as in this case) the probability for the first and second guess remains at 10%, but the probability that at least one of guess 1 or guess 2 are correct does increase.
So, even if I guess 999 times and get it wrong each time (or right each time, or any combination), the probability of guess 1,000 being correct is still 10%, even though before I start guessing, the chances that I will guess right at least once in 1,000 guesses is nearly 100%.
Another example: if I think of a number between 1 and 10 and have someone guess the number I'm thinking of, they have a 10% chance of guessing the correct number. If we do it again, they still have a 10% chance of guessing on that chance, so on and so forth out to 5 chances (each with a 10% chance). However, if we look at the group of 5, each with it's own chance of 10%, they have a probability of not guessing the correct number at least once of 59.05% (0.90 ^ 5). If we extend it to 10 times, they probability that they won't guess the correct number is 34.87%. The probability that they will not guess the correct number decreases with each chance, and approaches 0%, though it never reaches 0%.
And the chance of you making it through 999 guesses without being correct is: 1.94 × 10^(-46)%, or 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000194%. Like we both said, the limits on both ends of the equation approach 100% and 0%, but never quite get there.
In the case of the accident reported at the start of this thread, there is bound to be flexibility in the variables based on car speed, bicycle speed, attentiveness of the rider and/or driver, type of vehicle involved etc.
Also in the case of the accident reported, I would hope that the first time a collision happens it modifies the parameters significantly by causing the cyclist to stop, or slow significantly, at stop signs... rather than terminating the series.
Also in the case of the accident reported, I would hope that the first time a collision happens it modifies the parameters significantly by causing the cyclist to stop, or slow significantly, at stop signs... rather than terminating the series.
#33
L T X B O M P F A N S R
I don't see what the point is of all the calculations since it does not take into account the level of awareness of the cyclist. You can play the lottery your whole life and never win. So the real probability of getting hit is somewhere significantly lower than that of getting hit while riding blindfolded through intersections and (probably) playing Powerball your whole life and never winning.
So absent any real information about how often stop-sign-runners getting hit, your point is not relevant to the discussion.
Ten years? 100 years? A thousand years? Got a ball-park estimate?
So absent any real information about how often stop-sign-runners getting hit, your point is not relevant to the discussion.
Ten years? 100 years? A thousand years? Got a ball-park estimate?
#34
Cycle Year Round
More details here:
https://www2.tbo.com/content/2009/aug...news-breaking/
The article indicates that motorist did not have a stop sign but the cyclist did and that he rode through without stopping.
If this is indeed the case, then the cyclist is 100% at fault. He should've made sure the intersection was clear before crossing. Nonetheless he has my sympathies.
https://www2.tbo.com/content/2009/aug...news-breaking/
The article indicates that motorist did not have a stop sign but the cyclist did and that he rode through without stopping.
If this is indeed the case, then the cyclist is 100% at fault. He should've made sure the intersection was clear before crossing. Nonetheless he has my sympathies.
#35
www.theheadbadge.com
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Southern Florida
Posts: 28,513
Bikes: https://www.theheadbadge.com
Mentioned: 124 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2422 Post(s)
Liked 4,393 Times
in
2,092 Posts
-Kurt
#36
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 89
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Precisely. Even if the cyclist had stopped, this scenario is equally and easily possible.
Why all the speculation and "yeah, but what ifs"? He ran the stop sign. He got hit. He's at fault and paying dearly through his injuries. I don't think the cyclist knowingly put himself in a situation where he knew he was going to get hit, but did put himself in a position that increased that possibility. Maybe he thought it was safe to proceed without stopping...turns out he was wrong. Call it poor judgment, bad luck...it doesn't matter. The fact is had he stopped he would have stood far less a chance of getting hit.
#37
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,297
Bikes: Too many.
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 92 Post(s)
Liked 174 Times
in
86 Posts
When it only takes once to possibly ruin the rest of your life, does it matter if it takes a day, a month, a year, 5 years, 10 years?
And the chances are far greater than winning Powerball. The odds of a Powerball jackpot are: 1 in 195,249,054. If we bring the "point of no return" of the car down to 1 second, to reach those same odds of getting hit, we need to get down to one car every 3254150.9 minutes (or 54235.84833333333 hours, or 2259.827013888889 days, or 6.191306887366819 years). That would give us a equal odds of hitting the Powerball jackpot and getting hit by a car, for one iteration.
Even if we cut it down to 5 cars an hour, with a 1 second "point of no return", we have the following figures of PROBABILITY (at no point have I said this is a guarantee):
(you may have to scroll the box)
So, in that case it takes about 500 crossings to get us to a coin toss probability.
And the point is that running stop signs is a BAD IDEA in any case. These are just numbers to back up the fact that you may not get hit the first time, and you could the same low chance of getting hit each subsequent time, the chances COULD (not will) catch up with you.
And the chances are far greater than winning Powerball. The odds of a Powerball jackpot are: 1 in 195,249,054. If we bring the "point of no return" of the car down to 1 second, to reach those same odds of getting hit, we need to get down to one car every 3254150.9 minutes (or 54235.84833333333 hours, or 2259.827013888889 days, or 6.191306887366819 years). That would give us a equal odds of hitting the Powerball jackpot and getting hit by a car, for one iteration.
Even if we cut it down to 5 cars an hour, with a 1 second "point of no return", we have the following figures of PROBABILITY (at no point have I said this is a guarantee):
(you may have to scroll the box)
Code:
Single chance of not getting hit Number of times through Probability of not getting hit 99.86000% 1 99.86000% 99.86000% 5 99.30196% 99.86000% 10 98.60879% 99.86000% 20 97.23693% 99.86000% 50 93.23481% 99.86000% 100 86.92730% 99.86000% 250 70.45153% 99.86000% 500 49.63418% 99.86000% 1000 24.63552% 99.86000% 1500 12.22764% 99.86000% 2000 6.06909% 99.86000% 2500 3.01234% 99.86000% 3000 1.49515% 99.86000% 3500 0.74211% 99.86000% 4000 0.36834% 99.86000% 4500 0.18282% 99.86000% 5000 0.09074%
And the point is that running stop signs is a BAD IDEA in any case. These are just numbers to back up the fact that you may not get hit the first time, and you could the same low chance of getting hit each subsequent time, the chances COULD (not will) catch up with you.
#38
L T X B O M P F A N S R
And the chances are far greater than winning Powerball. The odds of a Powerball jackpot are: 1 in 195,249,054. If we bring the "point of no return" of the car down to 1 second, to reach those same odds of getting hit, we need to get down to one car every 3254150.9 minutes (or 54235.84833333333 hours, or 2259.827013888889 days, or 6.191306887366819 years). That would give us a equal odds of hitting the Powerball jackpot and getting hit by a car, for one iteration.
Even if we cut it down to 5 cars an hour, with a 1 second "point of no return", we have the following figures of PROBABILITY (at no point have I said this is a guarantee):
(you may have to scroll the box)
So, in that case it takes about 500 crossings to get us to a coin toss probability.
And the point is that running stop signs is a BAD IDEA in any case. These are just numbers to back up the fact that you may not get hit the first time, and you could the same low chance of getting hit each subsequent time, the chances COULD (not will) catch up with you.
Even if we cut it down to 5 cars an hour, with a 1 second "point of no return", we have the following figures of PROBABILITY (at no point have I said this is a guarantee):
(you may have to scroll the box)
Code:
Single chance of not getting hit Number of times through Probability of not getting hit 99.86000% 1 99.86000% 99.86000% 5 99.30196% 99.86000% 10 98.60879% 99.86000% 20 97.23693% 99.86000% 50 93.23481% 99.86000% 100 86.92730% 99.86000% 250 70.45153% 99.86000% 500 49.63418% 99.86000% 1000 24.63552% 99.86000% 1500 12.22764% 99.86000% 2000 6.06909% 99.86000% 2500 3.01234% 99.86000% 3000 1.49515% 99.86000% 3500 0.74211% 99.86000% 4000 0.36834% 99.86000% 4500 0.18282% 99.86000% 5000 0.09074%
And the point is that running stop signs is a BAD IDEA in any case. These are just numbers to back up the fact that you may not get hit the first time, and you could the same low chance of getting hit each subsequent time, the chances COULD (not will) catch up with you.
#39
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,297
Bikes: Too many.
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 92 Post(s)
Liked 174 Times
in
86 Posts
I do my best to follow the laws of the road, and conduct myself in a manner to minimize the chance of accidents, thank you. I ride on busy streets daily, and have yet to have anything even approaching a dangerous situation, other than the occasional driver honking at me when they pass.
My numbers were in response to people who are expressing a "the odds are slim, I'll chance it" attitude.
And it's odd that on a forum dedicated to Safety, this would even be a discussion. If we want bikes to be taken seriously on the road, we need to follow the same rules that the cars are supposed to follow. The advocating of a rolling stop through a stop sign is counterproductive. All that reinforces is the stereotype of "Cyclists don't care, they roll through stop signs and run red lights all the time. They don't belong on the road."
My numbers were in response to people who are expressing a "the odds are slim, I'll chance it" attitude.
And it's odd that on a forum dedicated to Safety, this would even be a discussion. If we want bikes to be taken seriously on the road, we need to follow the same rules that the cars are supposed to follow. The advocating of a rolling stop through a stop sign is counterproductive. All that reinforces is the stereotype of "Cyclists don't care, they roll through stop signs and run red lights all the time. They don't belong on the road."
#40
Carbon FTW
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 191
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
If we want bikes to be taken seriously on the road, we need to follow the same rules that the cars are supposed to follow. The advocating of a rolling stop through a stop sign is counterproductive. All that reinforces is the stereotype of "Cyclists don't care, they roll through stop signs and run red lights all the time. They don't belong on the road."
#41
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,297
Bikes: Too many.
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 92 Post(s)
Liked 174 Times
in
86 Posts
Fine, then it's a free for all.
I advocate being above the cars vs. bikes BS and setting a better example. Cars are the norm. Nearly everyone drives a car exclusively. So, non-cyclists are going to find things to nit pick about. They are going to latch onto these things and it is going to make them mad. Right or wrong, it does, and it causes problems for cyclists. Please note that I said "supposed to follow" in the post you quoted.
Seriously, is it so hard to unclip and stop at a stop sign? Show the cars that you're better than them, and observe safety procedures. That will get us much farther in the road to acceptance, and thus more likely to have funding for things like bike lanes approved, than seeing it as an "all out war between cars and bikes" which it seems to be perceived on this forum. There is just as much anti car and "people who are drive cars are brain dead idiots" sentiment on this forum, as anti cyclist sentiment on the streets, and there's far fewer people on this forum, so that's saying something.
I advocate being above the cars vs. bikes BS and setting a better example. Cars are the norm. Nearly everyone drives a car exclusively. So, non-cyclists are going to find things to nit pick about. They are going to latch onto these things and it is going to make them mad. Right or wrong, it does, and it causes problems for cyclists. Please note that I said "supposed to follow" in the post you quoted.
Seriously, is it so hard to unclip and stop at a stop sign? Show the cars that you're better than them, and observe safety procedures. That will get us much farther in the road to acceptance, and thus more likely to have funding for things like bike lanes approved, than seeing it as an "all out war between cars and bikes" which it seems to be perceived on this forum. There is just as much anti car and "people who are drive cars are brain dead idiots" sentiment on this forum, as anti cyclist sentiment on the streets, and there's far fewer people on this forum, so that's saying something.
#42
Carbon FTW
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 191
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I used to feel the same way as you before, but after joining this forum I guess you could say I've become cynical.
I don't care how motorists perceive me. They can honk and shout at me all I want, and I don't care as long as I can get home safely. So you're proposing that we all need to follow the rules in order to win motorists' acceptance.
That may work for you, but I like cycling, and I don't need anyone's acceptance. There will always be motorists who hate cyclists no matter what they do, and will always find excuses as to why we shouldn't be on the road.
If your argument is that following the rules will keep you safe, I have to also disagree. The traffic rules are designed around motor vehicles, and what's safe for cars isn't necessarily safe for cyclists.
If you get rear-ended while in a car, you can probably still walk away. But suppose you on a bike, you'll probably be seriously injured. We all run that risk when we stop at a stop light or stop sign. And if most cyclists in the area do not follow these rules, motorist will come to expect this behavior from, and might hit you if you suddenly stopped.
In summary, - I don't ride to win the acceptance of motorists and I keep myself safe based on careful assessment of the situation and not on a set of fixed rules. If the way I ride means breaking a few traffic rules, and causing a motorists a few seconds of delay, I'm fine with that.
p.s. I don't blow through stop signs. I slow to a pedestrian pace and visually check for traffic. If there are any vehicles in the intersection, I stop and yield to whoever was there first.
I treat stop lights as stop signs. I put both feet on the floor and come to a complete stop. Only after I've ensured that the intersection is completely clear do I proceed. If there are any cars in front of me, I wait behind the car until the light turns green.
So far this has worked for me.
I don't care how motorists perceive me. They can honk and shout at me all I want, and I don't care as long as I can get home safely. So you're proposing that we all need to follow the rules in order to win motorists' acceptance.
That may work for you, but I like cycling, and I don't need anyone's acceptance. There will always be motorists who hate cyclists no matter what they do, and will always find excuses as to why we shouldn't be on the road.
If your argument is that following the rules will keep you safe, I have to also disagree. The traffic rules are designed around motor vehicles, and what's safe for cars isn't necessarily safe for cyclists.
If you get rear-ended while in a car, you can probably still walk away. But suppose you on a bike, you'll probably be seriously injured. We all run that risk when we stop at a stop light or stop sign. And if most cyclists in the area do not follow these rules, motorist will come to expect this behavior from, and might hit you if you suddenly stopped.
In summary, - I don't ride to win the acceptance of motorists and I keep myself safe based on careful assessment of the situation and not on a set of fixed rules. If the way I ride means breaking a few traffic rules, and causing a motorists a few seconds of delay, I'm fine with that.
p.s. I don't blow through stop signs. I slow to a pedestrian pace and visually check for traffic. If there are any vehicles in the intersection, I stop and yield to whoever was there first.
I treat stop lights as stop signs. I put both feet on the floor and come to a complete stop. Only after I've ensured that the intersection is completely clear do I proceed. If there are any cars in front of me, I wait behind the car until the light turns green.
So far this has worked for me.
Last edited by beetz12; 08-05-09 at 09:01 AM.
#44
L T X B O M P F A N S R
#46
Carbon FTW
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 191
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Yes, it would still be the cyclist's fault. Since he did not have the right of way at the intersection, it is his responsibility to determine when it is safe to cross. Anything in the environment that could that could impede his sight lines should be taken into consideration in the assessment.
#47
L T X B O M P F A N S R
Yes, it would still be the cyclist's fault. Since he did not have the right of way at the intersection, it is his responsibility to determine when it is safe to cross. Anything in the environment that could that could impede his sight lines should be taken into consideration in the assessment.
#48
Carbon FTW
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 191
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Not really. I have good hearing, and can usually detect cars from a distance, especially if they are speeding. Plus this would be a great time for me to work on my sprints
#49
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 89
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Sight lines were fine...cyclist either didn't look at all, gave a passing glance or simply misjudged his ability to clear the intersection ahead of the oncoming vehicle.
You know, sometimes it is the cyclist's fault.
#50
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 89
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
For the record: Google Street View
Sight lines don't look so bad to me. Anyone stopped at that stop sign would easily see a car approaching.
Sight lines don't look so bad to me. Anyone stopped at that stop sign would easily see a car approaching.