Helmet-Head

Cycling safety discussions and efforts seem to place a lot of effort and focus on motorist behavior and more and more bikeways. It is easy to understand why this happens. After all, if there were no motor vehicles on the roads, cycling would be much safer. So, if we could just get motorists to change their behavior such that they never collide with cyclists, or cut in front of us, it would effectively be the same - - in terms of safety -- as riding on roads without motor vehicles. So the perception seems to be that if motorists were better drivers, cyclists would be much safer. So, we seek methods to "improve motorists".

As an engineer, I am trained to identify the root cause of problems before jumping to a solution. Let's look at cycling safety from this perspective, and consider the following facts:

1. Most car-bike collisions are the cyclist's fault.
2. Most motorists are reasonably good at obeying the rules of the road.
3. Most cyclists are not reasonably good at obeying the rules of the road.
4. In most car-bike collisions the motorist simply did not see the cyclist, usually because the cyclist was not obeying the rules of the road and/or riding in a road position that was unexpected, obscured, not very obvious, out of the way, etc.
5. Even if every motorist magically became a perfect driver, most car-bike collisions that occur today would still occur.
6. To cyclists who ride according to the rules of the road, the biggest threat is the drunk driver.
7. Any efforts to reduce the incidence of drunk driving made by cyclists is likely to not make a big difference considering the amount of efforts already being made to do this by other factions of our society that dwarf all cycling advocates put together.
8. Cyclists have much more potential effective influence over cyclists than over motorists.

When I consider this list and think about it, I reach the following conclusion:

The solution to significantly improving cycling safety cannot be about improving the driving skills of motorists, but lies within each individual cyclist

If we are serious about improving cycling safety, then trying to improve motorists driving skills is a waste of time and resources. First of all, in the U.S. alone we're talking about close to two hundred million drivers, most of whom could care less about cyclists and cycling, and there are relatively very few cyclists, of which only a fraction would be sufficiently interested to do something about this, so the impact we could have is insignificant. Secondly, even if we could significantly improve the driving skills of significant numbers of drivers, even if we could turn all motorists into perfect drivers, the effect this would have on reducing car-bike collisions would not be very significant (because most car-bike collisions are not caused by reasonably preventable motorist negligence). If we are serious about improving cycling safety, then we must take the current state of motorist driving skills as a given that we have no significant influence over.

So many cyclists are so focussed on the "moron drivers" out there, as if that's the problem that needs solving. It isn't. What few cyclists realize, either because they don't know how, or know how but don't believe it's true so are unwilling to try, is: when a cyclist rides defensively in the vehicular manner according to the rules of the road (almost) all of the "moron drivers" disappear!

Instead, convinced that the roadways are riddled with moron/incompetent/homocidal drivers, most cyclists result to at least some of these tactics that they feel are defensive, but, in fact, tend to cause collisions:

• Riding on the wrong side of the road.
• Riding on the sidewalk faster than ped speeds (4mph).
• Riding in a crosswalk faster than ped speeds.
• Riding at night without lights.
• Initiating a left turn from the right side of the roadway.
• Crossing straight across an intersection from the right curb (instead of merging left prior to the intersection to make themselves and their intent obvious: that they are going straight and not turning right).
• Riding too far to the right where he was not expected and not visible.
• Riding too far to the right in a narrow lane, thus communicating to motorists that he believes the lane is wide to safely share side-by-side, and inviting motorists to squeeze in (it is counter-intuitive to most cyclists to ride in the center or the right-tire-track of the lane when it is narrow like this).
• Riding in bike lanes even when doing so violates the rules of the road (typically by putting the cyclist too far to the right of traffic, making him less obvious and effectively invisible to motorists, including motorists who will be turning into him or his path).
• Riding in door zones.
• Entering and exiting bike paths without properly merging and yielding.
• Passing slow or stopped motorist traffic on their right, often in a bike lane, where the cyclist is not obvious and effectivey invisible to motorists, including motorists who will be turning into him or his path.
• Running a stop sign or red light.
• Merging into traffic without yielding first.
• etc. (can you think of any other examples of cyclist behavior that leads to car-bike collisions?)

It seems to me that cycling advocacy would be much, much more effective in terms of promoting cycling safety if we poured our focus, efforts and resources on educating cyclists to change cyclist behavior, and to promote vehicular cycling, rather than trying to change motorist behavior and promoting bike lanes (see my thread on bike lanes for why).

Our relatively feeble efforts (feeble because there are so relatively few of us as compared to the numbers of motorists) to change motorist behavior which has little potential impact on cycling safety anyway is a waste of our focus, time and resources.

We can have a much bigger impact on cyclists than we can on motorists. Changes in cyclist behavior towards riding vehicularly is where real significant advancements can be made in terms of improving cycling safety.

I urge all realistic and thoughtful cycling advocates to stop wasting time on anything other than cyclist education. When we have a nation full of vehicular cyclists, then we can afford to start looking at other initiatives with comparatively small marginal potential benefits in improving cycling safety. Until then, let us focus our efforts on initiatives that can make huge differences: Read books on vehicular cycling like Effective Cycling, Cyclecraft, etc., give these books as gifts, take a Road 1 course, become a certified instructor, teach vehicular cycling courses, encourage your family, friends, co-workers and fellow-forum-participants to read these books and take these courses... do what you can to improve cycling education for cyclists whenever and wherever you can!



Serge

trackhub

Hi Serge.
I grew up during the 60's,(Gasp!) when every young male either had a Schwinn Sting Ray, or wanted one. I attended the Newton, MA public schools. During this time, in this school district, bicycle safety was taught in the schools. Yes, you read that correctly. Here's how it worked:

-In the spring of each year, (March, April.) A few hours each week was set aside, so that teachers would discuss bicycle safety. It was also common sense instruction, such as riding on the right, with traffic, obeying all rules of the road, and wearing easy-to-see colors, and a headlight at night. There were colorful handouts and posters around the school (I wish I had kept mine.) There were no tests, and this was not part of any grading system. If memory is serving me correctly, this only continued for two weeks, but that is far better than nothing.

I don't know when this practice stopped. I would like to see it returned though. Typical american parents are simply not teaching their kids about safe cycling, on the road, or on the bikeways. I observe this every spring. In engineering terms, It is "quantifiable", and "repeatable".

Each spring, the MA dept. of public safety, and Registry of Motor Vehicles, begins their "think twice, save a life" campaign, for motorcyclists. This includes short public service announcements on tv, telling motorists to "look twice, motorcycles are everywhere", and large ads in the Boston Globe and Herald. So,,, I have written to my state representative and state senator, suggesting that the same be done for bicyclists. In my letters, I asked if there was any reason this could not be done. The first time, I received an answer from my senator, saying she "would forward the suggestion to the department of public safety". The second time, I received no answers at all.

If I had the cash to spare, I would buy the ad space and run the ads myself.

The amount of misinformation going around is shocking. Two years ago, a co-worker told me that his boy-scout aged son told him that "scoutmaster (name not known) said we should ride our bike on the left side, because we're pedestrians". Once misinformation like this gets entrenched, it is very difficult to remove it.

Quite the rant for Xmas eve, isn't it?

Helmet-Head

trackhub...

Education programs like the one you describe for students would be great.

I believe initiatives to encourage motorists to look for motorcyclists or cyclists are misguided. As long as motorcyclists and cyclists ride properly (vehicularly), they are riding where motorists are looking already. Motorists DO need to be reminded to look for pedestrians, because pedestrians travel where motorists are not automatically looking (where drivers of vehicles travel).

If cyclists want to ride according to pedestrian rules (which includes riding at ped speeds on sidewalks and crosswalks, but does not include riding on the wrong side of the street) that's okay, and motorists still don't need any additional reminders beyond looking for pedestrians (which should include cyclists riding according to ped rules).

Yes, this might be a bit much for Xmas Eve, but I've been tossing it around for a while, and was just ready to get it out today.

Serge

oaxacarider

rules, rules, rules i hate rules. whats next? bicycle riding license? madatory helmets? please!!

norton

Serge, your posts are great You have re-enforced some self-taught vehicular cycling habits gained over 60 years (off & on) of cycling. I'm 67 years old & recently got a wonderfully light agile folding blcycle. I feel like a kid again! But I don't want to RIDE like a kid again! (naively unaware) So you have helped me re-think some of my more questionable habits: "California" stops at stop signs, but for some reason not at red lights....(this next one will be hard to break) Riding on the right past a line of slow moving or stopped cars. "Ha! You're in gridlock, but I, on my bike, am not!" That is sooo satisfying! Unsafe, but satisfying.


Anyway, thanks for your well thought out & incredibly detailed posts on vehicular cycling I will be getting hold of some of your recommended books.


John

trackhub

Norton, I see you're in Florence, MA. The best source of real information may be found in the MA General Laws, Chapter 85, section 11B. (Accept my apologies, if you knew this already.) These may be read in your local library, in the reference section.
It may also be read on-line at The Mass Bike coalition. https://www.massbike.org.

Most of this is simple common sense, but there is some nitty-gritty regarding headlight strength, etc.

Oxacarider, the idea of licensing bicyclist's is nothing new. It was tossed around the MA state legislature back in the 70's, when the bike-boom was in full swing, and everyone was riding "one of those ten-speeds". I am told it comes up on occasion in other states as well, so it has never really vanished.
I don't like the idea at all, but I suspect it could actually happen some day.

operator

I for one is getting tired of this same old stuff being pushed by the same old people day in and day out. Give it a break.

norton

I may be old, but I'm not the same

Dchiefransom

You say you're an engineer, and look for the root causes, but then you say you believe motor vehicle operators are reasonably good at obeying the rules of the road? In how many accidents do we read that the operator "didn't see" the other vehicle/cyclist/pedestrian? From what I've read, that's way too many to believe that the operators have the required competence to operate a motor vehicle. I'm 51 years old, and have NEVER seen a question on a driver's test involving a bicycle using the roads. I also have had far to many close calls with autos while riding according to the rules of the road to believe we need to work on educatiing cyclists, and need to crack down on drivers, even if it means taking drivers licenses away. Driving a motor vehicle is a "hand to eye" coordination task. How many drivers would be off the road if we did a simple thing like making all cars with manual transmissions? Whose sources are you using to get the statistics that say that most accidents are caused by cyclists? The reports filled out by the police, many of whom believe we shouldn't be on the roads? I for one don't believe most cyclist/car accident studies would pass "peer review" for accuracy.
No matter how many cyclists are riding following the rules of the road, the results will still be the same, and the number of cyclist/car accidents will not be reduced.

Dchiefransom

Just how would you wait at that line of cars, backed up a half mile to the traffic light, with a bike lane running along the right side to withon 150 feet of the light?

norton

What's a bike lane?

Dchiefransom

Something they put on almost every street/road out here in California, where the right lane is wide enough for a car to slide through on the right of a waiting line of cars for a right turn. My record is over a half mile backup at a traffic light, riding past all the cars, while they waited more than 7 light changes to get through that light. Fridays are heck in traffic jams. I never cut between lines of traffic, even though it's legal here to move to the front for a left turn, although I do sneak up on the right of a long line of cars. Our bike lanes run to within 150 feet of an intersection, with a dotted line for vehicles to cross to turn right.

norton

Wow! Our backups don't seem to be that long, except on Friday night at the Coolidge brldge when it was under reconstruction. & I guess a lot of our 18th century New England roads are too narrow to have room for a bike lane...

Dchiefransom

That's easy to believe. I remember the streets back in the Midwest, and they were also fairly narrow. The place this happened is northbound Warm Springs Blvd, coming up to Mission Blvd in Fremont, CA. There is a series of lights that are not "timed", so traffic backs up. My personal record for keeping up with traffic in the city of San Jose, CA, while riding through rush hour traffic in the evening heading home, is nine traffic lights, and yes, the young lady in the front car at each light, that I caught up to and smiled at, was VERY attractive(she'd also probalby either call me either "Dad", or Grandpa").
I'd have to ride in your area to see how hard it is, but I've also seen pics of scenes where cyclists were killed in downtown Boston, and those areas are horrible for the type of legal riding we do here in urban California. Yes, I'd have to actually become a car to ride there. My hat is off to you guys/gals.

norton

I'm in Western Massachusetts. Should be a different state than Boston, like West Virginia is a different state than Virginia. Boston has all the population & money, so the Statehouse gang (in Boston) is usually favoring themselves & screwing us.

As a country mouse, I try not to go to Boston. It's a traffic maze & madhouse. Until recently, they also had the Big Dig (a hole in the ground in which to throw money, a lot of it Western Mass money) The Big Dig put major freeways under an already builtup 18th century city. Even the locals got fed up with its 10 year delays & corruption.

I have to confess I was pulling your leg a little with my bike lane question. I know what they are. We even have a 3 block long one in downtown Amherst. In my opinion an unnecessary & even slightly dangerous one. It adds more paint to a confusing & already overpainted street pattern. Not to mention all the objections Serge has detailed in another thread.


I've got to hit the sack now. Its after 10:30 here in the East, way past my old man bedtime. Bike safe.

Dchiefransom

I figured you were pulling my leg. The bike lane I was in for that half mile backup is like this: If you were six feet tall, and laid down with your head against the curb, a bike could ride past your feet with plenty of room without leaving the bike lane. We riders here in Cal have it pretty good compared to pics I've seen posted of other places. Sleep well. It will probably rain here tomorrow, so I'll be at the Pearl Izumi discount store pondering which discounted cycling clothing to get with my Christmas money.

norton

Oooh! Pearl Izumi! Discounted! Drool! I have partially paralyzed hands. I have these Pearl Izumi SPD MTB shoes with a little wheel on the outside. Rotating the little wheel with your thumb or whatever you can reach it with tightens its fishline-like lace right down. These shoes were designed for me

I also have a Pearl Izumi windbreaker-front, polartec bike jacket. Two deep zippered front pockets, one large enough zippered back pocket. Zipper pulls I can actually get a grip on. Extra long sleeves with knit cuffs for my extra-skinny wrists. When worn over my tight wicking underwear, a good to ride tempurature range from about 50" F down to about 25" F (so far this winter...keep your motor running) Did I mention you can be comfortable inside at room temperature as long as your not exercising. Another minimalist ergonomic design triumph.

Have a Merry After-Christmas Discount Pearl Izumi Day

Dchiefransom

Just got back from the PI store. I learned that the outlet stores can only discount "out of season" stuff, per an agreement with local stores. They're not allowed to undercut prices. Since I'm near several Performance stores, I can wait for sales. The store manager gave me 10% off though, so I got one pair of Microsensor bib shorts, and a blinding yellow "Podium Jersey". Those two items ran $190. The shorts are regular $140. For a second pair, I'll keep an eye out for a Performance sale. The chamois in the shorts is quite a bit better than the ones in the Performance brand shorts. I've got a PI vest, bright yellow, that I bought on sale at REI, because others that go on cycling vacations wear them and I've seen them on rides waaaaaay out ahead of me.

ngateguy

Very good post Serge, I agree with you 100%. I have been commuting for 15 years now and have seen an increase of cyclists out there. at the same time there has been a steady decline in the cycling community in their observence of basic traffic and safety rules. With this has come a growing animosity from both the car and cycling commumities toward each other. Obeying the rules of the road is more than being legal, it is mainly for our safety. Until we can clean up our own act we will never get the full respect we are due as vehicles.

my58vw

I agree with 95 percent of what has been said. Let me say a little about me and where we all fall in this.

I obey traffic laws on the road. I have been through more traffic education then I care to remember also, most as part of my bike officer training. I always ride on the right side of the road (EXCEPT AT WORK, different story, where patrolling must be done on a particular part of the road). I always ride in the right 1/3 of the lane or in the bike lane. The only exception is when the road is narrow then I take the lane and make people wait and then pull over and let them by.

I always obey traffic control signals (i.e. lights), if it is red it means stop for all, not just cars. I have a little different theory about stop signs. If there are no cars at an intersection then why stop? You all know the reasons but say I am going 30 MPH I am not going to stop for no reason to just waste tons of energy going again... not like gasoline which can be put in again and again. We get tired as cyclists and expending energy stopping all the time is pointless. If there is one car, bike, pedestrian, horse (socal) etc I am going to stop or at least slow down to give the driver the chance to act. When I say slow down I mean under 5 MPH or less. I will not use a bike lane if it is crappy in surface or is filled with rocks, trash, etc. I also will not ride in a bike lane that has numerous objects to dodge, like cars, low hanging trees (yes at 6'6" a major problem) pedestrians, dead animals, etc.

I do not do stupid things on the road, I am smart and try to do everything possible to stay safe. I have been involved in 2 auto vs bike accidents, one a guy ran a light at work and hit me broadside on my MTB while I was crossing legally. The second a guy was mad because I was taking the lane on a very narrow road and hit me intentionally. Neither of the time I was at fault. My club 2 guys hit a car that pulled out in front of them on the road. It was clear, no obstructions and the driver did not look.

The majority of cycling accidents 90 percent I would say are the cyclist fault, that is true. Most are of people not following specific safety guildlines and common since. Of those cyclists who do very few get in accidents. The responsibility of being safe on the road lies in both the driver and the cyclist though. If drivers are more aware of cyclists then less would get hit naturally (expecially the 10 percent of driver at fault accidents). If the cyclists learned to ride safer then many of the 95 percent of accidents would not happen. Of course if 80 percent of the 95 percent are non
"cyclists" and people on bike only then it is going to be hard.

Solutions...
1. Mandatory test of bike rules to purchace a bike (like gun safety, bike safety).
2. Questions on driving test in regards to bicycles.
3. Stiffer penalities for matorists who intentionally hit cyclists (like attempted murder). It works with street racing, why not with cyclists.

Of course since I was hit intentionally by a truck on one occasion I am favorable to 3.

Otherwise Safety is everyones responsibility...

trackhub

If you reside in MA, then you should contact your state representative and / or state senator, and ask for their support for bill number H.1553, the "bicyclist's bill of rights and responsibilities". This bill was filed by representive Anne Paulsen, and would greatly strengthen the existing statutes. This bill was favorably reported out of the transportation commitee, but keeps getting snagged by the infamous house ways and means commitee. Rep. Paulsen will need to re-file this bill for this session, and it will be given a new number.

A small victory was won last year, when the legislature voted to override a veto of a bill which requires the Registry of Motor Vehicles to include questions on bicycle law and pedestrian safety on all future releases of the written exams for a class D license. (Most automobiles in this state) That bill is now law, much to the chagrin of Governor Mittens Romney.

Something to do: In MA, every citizen has the right to file a bill. This is not a constitutional right, it is referred to as a "right of tradition", dating back to colonial times. A lot of people try this, and sometimes, a private citizen's bill actually becomes a law. (rare, but it does happen)

Check this out in your respective state. It there are no questions on a written driver's license exam regarding bicycle laws and safety, maybe you can get it put there.

sbhikes

In California where there are tons of bike lanes I believe you are more obvious if you use them. You are also quite within your right to ride up the bike lane all the way to the front of a long line of traffic. To avoid the right-turning car problem, you wait as far left as you can.

Also, merely riding in the road like a car does not make you visible. For example, if you are behind a larger vehicle that is making a right turn, any cars waiting to pull out into the intersection cannot see you and will assume you are not there. You should wait until the car in front of you completes that right turn entirely and you make eye-contact with the vehicles that now can see you.

Further, I do think that motorists need to learn better driving skills. There appears to be a breakdown of society these days around the rules of the road, and it affects me whatever vehicle I'm operating. People do not stop at stop signs. I'm not talking the California stop, I'm talking full on 30mph right through without stopping. People run red lights. People cross the double-yellow line. People pass where it's prohibited. They drive way too fast. They don't know what to do at a 4-way stop sign. They're talking on cell phones, eating and drinking, watching movies and GPS units. And drunk driving is still a huge problem. I've seen guys in their cars with a can of Schlitz between their legs and even hoisting a bottle of Michelobe while driving. I've picked up cans of Coors tossed out of cars to the side of the road.

Last time I took the driver's exam (17 years ago) it was one page, 90% questions about alcohol. Last time I took the motorcycle driver's exam it was two pages, very technical, and very focused on the rules of the road. They need to improve the driver's exam and make people take it more often. As for bikes, they should give out a safe riding booklet with each purchase like I got with my Vespa. They should hand out the motor vehicle's handbook with each purchase of a new car, too.

LittleBigMan

The crux of Serge's argument is that the power to ride safely already rests largely in our own hands, and that we don't need a governmental authority to grant it to us.

I don't think that means we shouldn't press the government when needed, but that we could already have more power over our own safety than we might think.

closetbiker

The crux there is true in that we can always improve our cycling behaviour, but the claim that most car-bike collisions are the cyclist's fault, is pure bunk and makes me question the posters claim of quailfication (engineer?- right -) and certainly taints the merits of his claims. It made reading the rest of the post extremely difficult.

Blame for accidents is often split evenly and improvement in behaviour is needed for both cyclists and motorists.

A good argument could be made that motorists have more responsibility in driving safe because their vehicle has more potential for damage.

LittleBigMan

One can also argue that motorists are responsible for most of their own "accidents." If all cyclists rode like most experienced vehicular cyclists, cycling would be one of the safest activities on the road. But since so many "cyclists" are ignorant of how to ride with traffic, they are their own worst enemies. I believe it's these "cyclists" who cause the lion's share of bicycle accidents, making cycling appear more dangerous than it actually is (for the trained cyclist.)