New--study-challenges-assumptions-about-fatal-bike-crashes
 

""For years, friendly bike advocates have re-assured nervous newbies that — despite their fears — it's very rare for bikes to get hit from behind by cars or trucks. Turns out, maybe the newbies have reason to be nervous."""

Q&A: New League study challenges assumptions about fatal bike crashes | Bicycle Retailer and Industry News

The report the article is based on: http://bikeleague.org/sites/default/...port_final.pdf

I don't know what assumptions this challenges.

Rear end collisions are the most likely fatal accidents because these are the ones with the highest speeds involved. Also, car passing from rear is far and away the most common bicycle encounter.

But while every death is a tragedy, the actual rate or risk of accident is still low when we consider the number of cyclists out on roads. But it's not a matter of being fatalistic, because rear end collisions aren't totally out of the rider's control. Various risk factors are involved, including things like riding in the dark unlit or inadequately lit.

So while even the most prudent cyclist is at risk from negligent drivers, the actual risk is lower than many of the risks we face and accept daily.

Please don't take this as minimizing the risk or saying it's acceptable and doesn't need to be addressed. It does, but the risk shouldn't discourage anyone from riding.

The Challenged Assumption:

Unless you propose 100% separation of bikes from the roads, we'll always be spending a decent amount of time on shared roads. I have no aversion to segregated facilities along major corridors, but we still need to address the issue of safety on shared roads, because that's where bicyclists will be riding a large percentage of the time.

Also, the safety/segregation argument works two ways. If we keep saying that sharing roads is unsafe, we might get a remedy we don't want, total segregation and a ban from many roads for our own safety.

there is no evidence in this report as to the relative safety of cowering in the gutter vs. taking the lane. This is anecdata, but the incidents I know of that have involved cyclists most like me have resulted from motorists going onto the shoulder to kill. So who knows if taking the lane would change anything?

Rear end collisions are rare, the study does show that

Frankly I don't believe a ban from "taking the lane" as indicated in the report, on high speed arterial roads, is such a bad thing. I don't believe the report established that "sharing the roads" is the problem, but that "taking the lane" as "a standard practice" may not be such a good idea. That is the specific issue they addressed right up front. Sharing the roads through the use of buffered bike lanes was one suggested practice.

My own anecdotal view is that speed differential on various types of roads is the key to understanding when taking the lane vice using separate or buffered facilities is the best practice. Taking the lane while riding 16 MPH on a 25-30 MPH road is far less likely to be deadly in a rear end collision than taking the lane and doing 16MPH while on a 55MPH road. Trying to lump all roads under a heading of "shared roads" leads to broad generalizations that are quickly dismissed.

If you've seen my posts here, you might have noticed that I'm not a strong advocate of the "take the lane" approach. I use a situational approach picking my lane position based on specific conditions. I also believe that the biggest thing cyclists can do to improve their safety is to choose roads smartly.

Back when I led tours, we made every effort to use the blue roads (for the younger set, Rand Mcnally maps colored main roads red, and secondary roads blue), because these tended to be driven at lower speeds. These days I still avoid 4 lane corridors whenever I can. However, on another thread here of BF I was very surprised that the vast majority of responders would chose a 4 lane road over a 2 lane. Apparently, something changed in cyclist attitudes over the last 45 years.

Well perhaps "the take the lane" mentality is part of that "equal roads equal rights" agenda that some practice... As I stated, this was the the primary item that the report addressed. Sounds as if your experience has taught you to intuitively seek slower and perhaps safer roads.

The militant take the road approach is part of why I parted company with advocacy. I've always believed in shared roads and common sense. For me cycling isn't about rights. We have the rights to do all sorts of things we don't do, and while I want to preserve the right to ride most roads, I don't intend to make a steady diet of riding highways. I'll use them when I must (why the right is important), but I prefer side roads.

Safety is a factor in my choices, but it's not the dominant factor. Since I ride by choice, even on my daily commute, ride quality and enjoyment rank very high. If I wanted to slug it out on major corridors, I might as well drive.

Of the three rear-end incidents described in the article, two involve the vehicle drifting off into the bike lane or into the shoulder, and the last one involves the cyclist going uphill while taking the only lane on a 40 mph two-lane road with no shoulder and the vehicle attempting an unsafe pass. I don't think that either one really challenges the assumption. We sorta knew that taking the only lane while going 30 below the speed of traffic is not a good idea. The first two are not arguments in favor or against taking the lane. Of course separated lanes are ideal. If they are unavailable, the question whether to take the lane and under what circumstances remains open.

From my non-scientific memory of local and news-reported fatalities, there seem to be two major categories. One is cyclists crushed by turning large trucks, the other is cyclists getting rear-ended by distracted drivers who have drifted off the road while texting or trying to retrieve that french fry from the floor.

Man, man, man. Tell me something I don't already know.

I have been defending my motivations for how I ride here on BF since 2007 and FINALLY someone did a study. I don't need no stinkin' study. I have powers of observation and fairly well tuned brand of common sense.

There are two situations in my city where I am, by far, the most vulnerable:

1. Cars overtaking me, and

2. Criminals assaulting me from curbside.

Up until very recently my city had zero bicycle infrastructure. So the only thing I could do is to quit cycling or adapt a riding style that minimized the numbers of cars passing me AND positions me away from curbs and parked cars. So how did I do that?

1. I ride as fast as I can. This one thing minimizes the number of cars overtaking me, sometimes on a good day down to ZERO cars passing me.

2. I ride in the middle of the street/lane whenever possible. Since cars rarely overtake me, this is no problem for the most part. And...

3. I run every red light and stop sign I can safely run. This allows me to ride in car-free gaps created by the signals and signs and keeps me from becoming a sitting duck for assault.

4. And when I am forced to stop, I never stop IN THE LANE if I can help it. I split lanes. This also puts me in a space where cars are very unlikely to hit me from behind.

So there. I feel somewhat vindicated.

Something I've wondered about that is never brought up in studies, what's the ratio of"cyclists" involved in accidents Vs. people on bicycles, people on bicycles being those who ride because its their only option due to poor life decisions.

Going by reported incidents, it seems experienced enthusiasts are at greater risk than the "gutter hugging" casual rider.

"Is it because kids are not riding anymore, or is it that kids are riding, but more are wearing helmets?" couldnt be bothered to keep reading on..

I found the map on their web site, and they only showed one fatality in Oregon in 2012. A woman from Corvallis. I don't remember reading about her death.

But they missed the three cyclists who were killed in my rural county that year. All three were run down from behind by sober drivers in broad daylight. One on a narrow, two-lane, no shoulder back road like I always ride; one just leaving Monmouth on a state highway; and one on the very wide shoulder of another state highway out in the country. 55 mph speed limit in each case. The killers of the first two were not charged with anything, and I never did find out about the third.

We have a blog in Southern California that keeps track of all cyclist fatalities. I looked through the last 10 reports. It's often hard to tell who exactly the victim was, but here's my best-guess interpretation:

* 2 were homeless
* 2 were working-class Mexicans (we have a lot of those riding bikes around here)
* 1 was a Mexican teenager from a poor neighborhood
* 1 was an "experienced enthusiast" who was doored and died from a blood clot a few weeks later
* 1 was a guy who was riding his bike at 11 pm because he just had his DL taken away for a number of DUIs and got hit by a drunk driver (ironic, I know)

That leaves 3 whose circumstances I could not fully place, most likely casual riders: 80 year old male, 61 year old male and 44 year old female.

Well the rider COWERING IN THE GUTTER - is less likely to be where that unguided car was last steered when the TEXTER looked up and made a steering correct 10 seconds before
Drivers aim for the middle of the lane-I don't want to be where most cars are trying to be-I will cower to the far right-play the odds-be where cars spend the least time.
You manly LANE CONTROLLERS can add a few points to the 40%.

I am not a doctrinaire lane controller. I control the lane when it makes sense to me. The issue with cowering in the gutter is that it encourages weak-minded motorists to totally ignore the presence of the cyclist. So it's quite possible that cowering is equally as likely to encourage rear ending as riding further out. It's not clear where the texters and facebookers are going to end up on the roadway. I submit that they are all over the place, and lane placement doesn't determine the likelihood of being hit.

I agree that the data, as reported, don't really say anything about the position of the cyclist hit by overtaking motorist relative to any marked traffic lanes, bicycle icons painted on roads, painted stripes, etc. Also, the methodology used (internet searches) was tested against the 2012 NHTSA data, and the methodology failed to capture a significant fraction of the fatalities. No apparent analysis of the significance of the missed data.

I note in the report that 57% of the fatalities were wearing helmets *when reported, again unknown what the reporting bias if any might be.

So, the League uses this to push for segregated infrastructure. I'm sure that would reduce motorist overtaking collisions, but IMHO is cost-prohibitive and as a result cyclists will be forced into a few routes "for their safety".

scott s.
.

It isn't that they are "all over the place" it is how much time does their vehicle spend carving out the middle vs carving out the gutter
Most cars spend 99.9 % of the time cutting out say the middle 1 foot of the lane(call it #7 "cut"in a 13 foot wide lane)-but maybe 15% of the time cutting out the #2 cut -starting 1 foot from far right.
A FRAPPER will spend less time in the target zone-
Lane controllers assume the drivers will see him-
in a rear impact safe bet they will say "I never noticed him"-and they might be telling the truth-
Rider is there big as day-but they might not be looking-TEXTING-or they might LITERALLY not have noticed him-
happens all the time-folks hit BIG ORANGE BUSES "I didn't see it"

Back when those two-lane roads had very little traffic, they were the obvious choice for both pleasure and safety. However, with the proliferation of suburbs/exurbs without any significant increase in the number of minor roads, these two lane roads are carrying so much traffic that they can be less safe than their four lane brethren. With heavy traffic both directions, motorists must either wait for oncoming traffic to clear or pass unsafely on two lane roads. It is much easier for them to change lanes to pass on a four lane road. Plus, four lane roads are more likely to have shoulders, at least in the West.

I 'take the lane', because I experienced too many close calls years ago, when I 'hugged the curb'. I was even hit a few times.

I agree that four-lane roads are safer. The only problem on the roads is, the motorist's feeling that they don't need to go completely into the passing/opposing lane to pass. I will encounter, people trying to pass me on the busy two-lane that border the town I live in. One of the me even has on-street parking on both sides. So, I constantly have to watch n' listen for traffic behind me wanting to make a bad pass.

I'll stick with my instincts bast on 45 years of riding experience. However there may be real differences in roads roads and road use patterns between the northeast and elsewhere. The northeast saw most of the serious growth many decades ago, so has a fine network of 2 lane roads feeding to 4 lane corridors. With the basic layout decades old, the rest is simply fill in, and the greatest change in traffic density is along the corridors which tend to feed commercial districts, now littered with stores of all sizes.

Also, most of our 2 lane roads that actually go places (not neighborhood streets) have lane widths that make shared lane passing possible, or worst case need only a bit of crossing of the center line. OTOH, the lane widths of out 4 lane roads (non-limited access) can be narrow, making any lane sharing at all impossible.

But generalities aside, everyone has to weigh various factors; lane width, traffic speed and density, entrances/exits from commercial driveways, and the big intangible of driver expectations, along with other factors and pick whatever works for them.

You all can ride the highways, I'll stick to the byways.

Are your roads radically different from my roads, or is it "not such a bad thing" if bicycling is restricted to recreation?

In the Eastern states I've bicycled in (PA, DE, MD, VA), if bicyclists are banned from taking 10-12' lanes on arterials this removes bicyclists access to many destinations on these roads. There is traffic because many people in cars want to go to these restaurants, malls, parks, etc; I'm not willing to concede their right to demand that I drive to go the same places, or to encourage them to pass me without changing lanes.

There is a section of a state bicycle route nearby, 2-3 lanes in each direction, no shoulder, no sidewalk, 50mph speed limit. While I would not recommend this "bicycle route" for beginners, prohibiting bicyclists from taking a 12' lane on a designated bicycle route seems strange. Are you suggesting that bicyclists encourage motorists to pass within this lane?

Many of the roads in PA have no shoulders and 10-11' lanes). Shoulders in N. Delaware are intermittent, so on a stretch of 202 in DE where the shoulder is converted to an additional lane, I was pulled over by a policeman. He told me I wasn't allowed to bicycle on a road with multiple lanes in each direction. If bicyclists are required to ride on the shoulder, you can ban outright them where there is no shoulder.

The shoulder was converted to a lane due to the large number of strip malls and intersections. The road has 4-5 lanes in each direction, limit 40-50, actual speed varies with traffic load. I don't see the state installing any facility at all where the shoulder was deliberately removed. They don't have pedestrian lights at most of the intersections, and then blame pedestrians for jay walking if they are hit.

I'm definitely not willing to wait until they install separated facilities to go to these destinations. Most of the engineers I've spoken to at public meetings don't bicycle; when I made some suggestions (to meet AASHTO standards), they said other cyclists also suggested this but that the facilities were meant to make beginners more comfortable, not for "bicycle people" that already bicycle.

If it's OK to prohibit bicyclists from taking the lane, is this meant to ban bicyclists, or is this to encourage motorists to pass within 10-12' lanes on 40-50mph arterials? How do I ride anywhere for transportation in these areas if I can't use a full lane?

They aren't going to ban it in MD. They just started putting up signs saying a cyclist may use the full lane.