sweeks

Back in 2012 the League of American Bicyclists did a study (of sorts, reported HERE) in which they found that 35% of the fatalities were due to "struck from behind" types of events. I think there were plans to do further investigation into on-road bike accidents, but I never saw any more results. One piece of information I would have loved to see was whether or not the cyclist was equipped with a rear-view mirror. This sort of information is rarely, if ever, reported. My hypothesis is that riders who use rear vision equipment are less likely to be hit from behind. In the absence of supporting evidence, I always ride on the road with some kind of rear-view mirror.

livedarklions

My feeling about crash stats is any ratio calculations are likely garbage in garbage out because the reporting is so non-systematic and variables (like mirror usage) unquantifiable because no one is recording it. If you think you're safer with a mirror, that alone sounds like reason enough for you to do it.

sweeks

Sadly, I agree with you. My only supporting evidence (case report, n=1) is 27,000 miles of commuting in Chicago with consistent mirror use and no rear strikes. Not much to go on, but I *have* had a few evasive actions based on the mirror, so do I believe I am safer.

livedarklions

From what people have posted about riding in Chicago, anything that gives you confidence is probably a good thing.

njkayaker

Not sure why people feel the need to unbury Forrester and put him on trial repeatedly.

What problems do people have with the following?

https://www.bikexprt.com/streetsmarts/

(This seems (to me) like a fairly practical and not dogmatic description of “vehicular cycling”.)

sweeks

Well, that's true *unless* the confidence is excessive or unwarranted.

genec

Not to disagree with you in anyway... but just to point out the irony of the forward person, having to have a mirror, to see behind and avoid the person who is approaching from behind that has a clear view of the rider right in front of them.

Sure, mirrors are great, and I ride with one. But I wonder about the magic of windshields, that do not permit drivers to see cyclists in front of them.

(yes, there is sarcasm in that... as likely a cyclist that is "hit from behind" happens as a cyclist makes a lateral move, in front of an approaching vehicle the cyclist failed to notice.)

sweeks

Sarcasm noted and appreciated!
I guess the "struck from behind" can be subdivided into those occurrences where the approaching vehicle is encroaching on or invading the rider's space, and those where the rider makes a sudden lateral move. The "magic of windshields" applies more to the first category, I believe.
It's a bit ironic that the first Ride of Silence was in memory of a rider who was struck by the mirror of a passing school bus. Yet, if you look on the RoS web site, very few mirrors are in evidence, and there is no mention of them. Of course, it is only a hypothesis that a rearview mirror could have prevented the event, but it seems clear to me that there's no other good way to detect such a vehicular appendage approaching from behind.

genec

Indeed that is likely true... Too bad that vehicle operator, behind the cyclist, is just clueless about such issues, eh?

sweeks

"The best defense is a good offense."
(Loosely attributed to George Washington)
Hence my fondness for, and dependence on, mirrors and all my other safety habits. Trusting the abilities or "due diligence" of the motorist is a non-starter.