High Roller

Exactly. More cyclists is not the answer. More cyclists who are willing and able to accept individual responsibility for their own safety is the answer.

rogwilco

Always blaming the cyclists for crashes like you do is pretty ****ing simple too.

Bekologist

The statistics show a different story, high roller. More cyclists operating in a city appears to have measurable impacts on the crash rate, so to speak. More cyclists in and of itself may very well be one of the solutions.

Its certainly a positive objective now, isn't it?


New York City, rider counts rocketed from 100,000 to 180,000 in 4 years, and the numbers of crashes stayed flat. Minneapolis, the number of crashes declined as ridership went up, up, up.

Why resort to a false claim that riders nowadays are NOT taking responsibility for their safety when they ride?

Every turn of the pedals requires a conscious effort, every intersection an exercise in self-preservation.

Some cities just happen to also be making it easier (and safer somehow, the verdict is still out as to exactly why ) for more people to engage in roadway bicycling, like Minneapolis, Portland, and New York City, the cities mentioned as exhibiting a declining crash rate for bicyclists in the original LAB article.

crhilton

I don't think that made up moralizing is the answer. It might be that education and law enforcement could help. The education can create awareness of the law and established best practices and the law enforcement can force some responsibility for offenses more minor than crashes.

High Roller

No moralizing or blaming the victim intended. As Robert Hurst has stated, the reality is that many collisions require that two people make a mistake. As cyclists, we have much more skin in the game. We need to ride in a way that preempts the blunders that motorists commit. Cyclists who ride legally, predictably, visibly, vigilantly, and defensively: the more the better.

RobertHurst

I don't know. Maybe. How long did it take for commuting to rise by 80%? Over the same period, by how much did the crashes involving children decrease? Remember that kids have wrecks far out of proportion to their numbers, so it doesn't take a big drop in the numbers of kids on bikes to make a noticeable drop in the OVERALL numbers of crashes.

There are a lot of different statistical issues to work out before we can call Safety in Numbers a thing.

Jacobsen's paper wasn't all about time-series analysis. He also looked at many different cities in CA and compared census commuter figures to overall accident counts. Not surprisingly, cities with lots of bike commuters had the lower overall accident rates. You see what he did there? He erroneously equated total accident count with commuter accident count, without any sort of acknowledgment that there were other types of cyclists in those communities. (In the cities without commuters, the ratio of kid cyclists and drunks to "competent" adult cyclists would be very high; in Davis, with lots of commuters, the ratio would be relatively small.)

It's like magic -- add a bunch of adult commuters, and your total accident-per-participant rate goes down. Voila!

Now, is that because of Safety in Numbers, or Safety in Something Else?

To determine if things really are safer for adult commuters when adult commuter numbers rise, you have to count the accidents involving adult commuters, not all the accidents of all the cyclists in the community. It's not rocket surgery here. But no Safety in Numbers people seem willing to do that. Why not? Are they interested in actually proving the theory, or do they just want to make it look like it's proven?

Pardon me, it doesn't really seem like the Safety in Numbers people are interested in getting to the truth of the matter. They seem much more interested in pushing their fundamentally bogus analysis.

crhilton

Oh, I just can't stand the term you used. It's so politically loaded these days and I get to hear it as an excuse to not fix societal problems too often.

crhilton

Yea, I wanted to see those numbers too. 1993 to 2010 is a long time, although the commuter rise seemed to all happen after 1999.

Oh, I drank your kool-aid on that a long time ago. Agreed.

I suspect the safety in numbers people don't have access to get to this information. Like the rest of us, Kifer excepted, they're not much good at digging up statistics and have no ability to conduct them themselves (or not enough desire). So they depend on cities, and pro-city organizations paid by cities, to get it for them.

RobertHurst

In San Francisco, ridership went up, and the number of crashes went up even more. How come Safety in Numbers didn't work there?

How come Safety in Numbers didn't work for motorcyclists?

I-Like-To-Bike

"Legally" and "visibly" are understandable and reasonably well defined cycling practices.

But what the heck are references to vague, undefined cycling practices such as "predictability," "defensively" and "vigilantly"
supposed to mean to anybody who doesn't know the secret code?
Specifically, how the heck do you and other users of this buzz word terminology attribute reduced "crash rates" to the unidentified cyclists who practice these undefined techniques?

crhilton

https://lmgtfy.com/?q=defensive+driving

Not so sure about vigilantly, and I think predictable is obvious.

Welcome back.

sggoodri

I try to stay open minded about possibility of a safety in numbers correlation, but I insist on learning what the actual causal mechanisms are. It's quite possible that those mechanisms can be exploited in areas where numbers don't increase.

I personally don't believe that small increases in cyclists are likely to do much to increase motorist vigilance and care - at least not directly. However, I wonder what affects that increased numbers of cyclists have on the government and on other cyclists' behavior. Does having more active cyclists increase the government's willingness to build important roads with fewer lanes and lower speed limits? Does it provide more political support for effective traffic law enforcement campaigns? Does it improve support for public education campaigns about safe and lawful cycling? Does it increase cyclists' sense of entitlement to the roadway, reduce the percentage of cyclists on the sidewalk or riding against traffic, and improve awareness of the importance of lights at night?

I think some of these effects may be taking place in the Triangle area of NC. Road cycling is way up due to Lance Armstrong and a relaxation from a peak fad-level of mountain biking, but utility cycling by all ages is also up, especially among college students. The interest in utility cycling has sparked a number of government initiatives to educate/enforce/promote safe and lawful bicycle driving methods, including staying off of sidewalks and using lights at night. A number of important roads are getting road diets and slower speed limits; cycling according to driving rules in travel lanes is becoming normalized and sidewalk cycling is less common.

There are also some undesirable side effects of the increase in the government's interest in cycling, such as more striping of door-zone bike lanes and consideration of mandatory stay-right and single-file laws, but most of the attention seems to have raised public awareness about safe and efficient bicycle operation on important roads serving important destinations.

I-Like-To-Bike

Thank you.

Really? Do you consider it predictable to legally cycle in a bike lane and exit it at every intersection to avoid potential right hooks; if so, do you think many motorists would call such behavior "predictable"?

How "predictable" is a cyclist taking the middle of a high speed traffic lane and not deviating from a straight line regardless of traffic conditions? I suspect most cyclists and all motorists would find a cyclist taking the middle of a paved shoulder on same road to be far more predictable.

Bekologist

"the statistics aren't exhibiting enough rigor!"

Bekologist

Who says the crash rate in San Francisco hasn't been declining indexed to ridership? one hastily published study with dubious data points - self reporting over only less than 24 months, wasn't it?

Ridership in San Francisco fairly exploded in the years prior to the anomoly of a dubious study...... ridership up 56 percent in SF from 2004 to 2008, and continuing increases in ridership very likely shows a decline in the indexed crash rate for bicyclists there over the last decade.

New York, Portland, Minneapolis didn't just add those riders by magic. In New York City, Robert, ridership nearly doubled in 4 years...... maybe this too, is illusory? Adding 80,000 riders in 4 years to New York City wasn't a boost in experienced, traffic savvy commuters going all neon and 'best practices' on Manhattan Island.

It's also not a case of magic bike salmon in New York City that are impervious to collisions. Ridership skill level and obedience to traffic laws by all accounts is still fairly atrocious in New York, yet bicyclist safety is going up along with massive increases in ridership.




Counting serious reported crashes and comparing that to the numbers of cyclists -extrapolated by the US Census Bureau or commuter rider counts - IS sound methodology for showing trends in crash rates.

Again, i'm not attributing any magic powers to what appears to be safer cycling conditions for bicyclists in cities - due in some part to acheiving a type of critical mass of ridership - that is positively affecting cyclist safety. I find it a trend in bicyclist safety that is widespread and pernicious thruout cities that have been planning and facilitating more bicycling.

it's attributable to something. You've picked magic, I think, Robert, or is it less kids biking?

I'm going with a simpler explanation of more bike traffic, constant bike traffic - drunks, wrong way riders, disenfranchised working class, young ninja, commuters, kids to schools - of all variety creating a critical mass of sorts in cities bicycling has become quite a bit more popular in recent years in the USA, causing drivers at all hours to be more attuned to sharing the roads with bicyclists in these cities.


Here's what a Federal Highway Administration exploratory team had to say about 'safety in numbers' in other countries on a recent data gathering trip, detailed in a 2010 FHWA report on international policies on bicycling and walking...

The observable phenomenon of 'safety in numbers' as a result of more people walking and biking is most definitely 'a thing.'

High Roller

Just in case dictionaries are hard to come by there in the heartland, you can use the following link to find the meaning of the words you don’t understand:


https://dictionary.reference.com/

Specifically in the context of riding a bicycle in traffic:

Predictable: Operating from the same playbook as all the other drivers, i.e., following the basic rules of the road. To answer your subsequent post, yes that would mean positioning oneself according to destination at every intersection.

Vigilant: 360 degree situational awareness and 100% attention to what’s going on around you. That means pulling your latest electronic gadget out of your ear canal and using a rear view mirror if you find it helpful.

Defensive Cycling: Anticipate what might happen 5 seconds down the road. Think not just about what other drivers should do, but what they could do, and be ready to counteract it. Don’t assume anything. Take ownership of your own survival.

I’ll let you obsess about defining metrics, collecting additional data, commissioning a study, and compiling statistics to prove or disprove these practices. As for me, there’s absolutely no doubt in my mind that my flattened carcass would have been scraped off the asphalt a long time ago if I didn’t learn and follow them. Maybe things are different there in the land of corn and beans, but having racked up the miles in many different states for over fifty years, I rather doubt it.

genec

Hey Hurst et. al.

From this Federal Hiway Administration report: https://www.international.fhwa.dot.go...ety_in_Numbers

Yeah it's a theory, but how about if we try to see if there is anything behind it by promoting walking and cycling in our cities.

Here is what we should do:

crhilton

If that's what you're supposed to do and it's what you do each time, then yes that's predictable... I think that's how it's typically thought of.

Not saying it's good or bad, but if I saw you do it at 3 intersections I'd expect you to do it at the 4th.

Riding in the middle of the lane? Well, if you did it for 3 blocks I'd expect you'd continue to do it for the 4th. If that's what is expected of cyclists and you do it with consistency then yes I'd say it's predictable.

I think you want to assign moral or ethical value to this term.

crhilton

The thought strikes me that a couple things happen together:
1. Municipalities work to market cycling. They build infrastructure, maybe run billboards ads, put up signs, have educational events, etc to promote people biking.
2. More people bike
3. Safety appears to get better.

(I'm ignoring the kid thing Robert, because it's not my point).

Could it be that the #1 spawns #3 as much, if not more, than #2?

earth2pete

it seems to make sense that crashes rates of any group of cyclists, no matter the size of the group, may be linked to the tendency of the individual cyclists in that group to crash, in part.

insurance companies consider teenage drivers a greater risk, and charge accordingly. the same principle may apply to any age cyclist who lacks experience.

Bekologist

safety in numbers, or awareness in numbers in european active transportation parlance,

"when pedestrians and bicyclists are a common element in the street environment, motorists are more likely to expect their presence and take the necessary precautions at potential conflict points, such as when a motorist turns right across a through bicycle lane.

quite a simple and straightforward traffic dynamic, despite the statistics not exhibiting sufficent rigor for the doubting thomases in the peanut gallery.

RobertHurst

No it's not 'sound methodology.' It's fundamentally bogus. Being really insistent about it won't change that either, sorry.

I wish you luck in your quest to insist Safety in Numbers Theory into validity.

Bekologist

you think comparing traffic counts to reported crashes is bogus methodology? That's simply hilarious.

I have no need to validate an already proven - and widely observed - international traffic dynamic.

in case you missed the explanation just above, Robert, here is the social concept of awareness or safety in numbers once again....

when pedestrians and bicyclists are a common element in the street environment, motorists are more likely to expect their presence and take the necessary precautions at potential conflict points, such as when a motorist turns right across a through bicycle lane.

What about this traffic theory rankles you so badly, Robert, that you think its fundamentally bogus? Declining child cycling rates in europe? Black magic?

Robert, you can shout and cry 'fire' all you want, but hysterics about 'bogus' data collection in attempts to disprove a widely observable global traffic phenomenon associated with the normalization and popular uptake of cycling isn't proving anything except your burgeoning case of curmudgeon.

quite a simple and straightforward traffic dynamic, despite the statistics not exhibiting sufficent rigor to prove it to the critics.

invisiblehand

I'm fairly certain that Jacobsen's regression analysis was biased towards zero. I downloaded much of the data, but have not had a chance to look at it.

I think SIN-supporters from the same bias as the rest of the population. Everyone believes the observation/research that supports their position and denies contrary research. By far, people simply don't ask themselves questions like those below.

There is a pretty strong correlation via simple aggregate statistics and there probably is some direct effect from pure numbers, IMO. I just think that it is considerably smaller than the aggregate correlation suggests. Here in the US, I think that the big effect is going to be more "safer cyclists" riding along the lines of Robert's statement about adults and kids.

Of course, given that ILTB is back, another issue we should consider is what do we mean by safe and whether other components of cycling/transportation are kept constant (i.e., speed? convenience? pleasure/utility?).

Bekologist

The primary issue to keep in mind about awareness or safety in numbers is this: it is a valid, globally observable traffic phenomenon.

The safety in numbers maxim is an embodiment, an explanation for some of the reality of the commons.

The reality of the commons, folks.

Bringing greater numbers of bicyclists and pedestrians into the traffic mix by a variety of methods brings about greater traffic safety. When pedestrians and bicyclists are a common element in the street environment, motorists are more likely to expect their presence and take the necessary precautions at potential conflict points,

Facilitating more equitable road use thru a large variety of countermeasures is a tool used to enhance road safety for all users by transportation engineers worldwide.


Broadly speaking, of course, and specific countermeasures may be more or less successful, but the basic traffic concept is broadly defined as:

Safety in numbers. Awareness in numbers. More riders makes more motorists more cognizant of more bicyclists.


Evidence and observations from around the world prove this traffic theory. After all, it is simply an embodiment of the reality of the commons.