cyclist fatality statistics

[gds]

I just read that in 2005 in Arizona there were a total of 1177 traffic
fatalities of which 35 were cyclists. There was no info given on rates
per mile, per hour, etc. So, at just under 3% of the total how does
this compare to data from other area?

[Wayne Pein]

gds wrote:

> I just read that in 2005 in Arizona there were a total of 1177 traffic
> fatalities of which 35 were cyclists. There was no info given on rates
> per mile, per hour, etc. So, at just under 3% of the total how does
> this compare to data from other area?
>
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/TSF2005/BicyclistsTSF05.pdf

shows all by state.

At 3%, Arizona is the 4th highest/worst. It is 2nd worst per capita.

It order to get a better picture of what is happening, the police
reports of the 35 fatalities should be examined for predisposing
precipitating, and contributing factors.

Wayne

[Mark Hickey]

Wayne Pein > wrote:

>gds wrote:
>
>> I just read that in 2005 in Arizona there were a total of 1177 traffic
>> fatalities of which 35 were cyclists. There was no info given on rates
>> per mile, per hour, etc. So, at just under 3% of the total how does
>> this compare to data from other area?
>>
> http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/TSF2005/BicyclistsTSF05.pdf
>
>shows all by state.
>
>At 3%, Arizona is the 4th highest/worst. It is 2nd worst per capita.

I don't doubt it, but not because the cycling here is more
dangerous... it's simply because a lot of people ride. Compare the
number of bikes you'll see in the Phoenix east valley on a given day
to the number you'll see in a suburb of Baltimore or Chicago or St.
Louis and it's easy to see that there are a lot more opportunities for
accidents. Add in the fact that people ride here all year round, and
it's even more of a factor.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

[Matt O'Toole]

On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 06:22:38 -0700, Mark Hickey wrote:

> Wayne Pein > wrote:
>
>>gds wrote:
>>
>>> I just read that in 2005 in Arizona there were a total of 1177 traffic
>>> fatalities of which 35 were cyclists. There was no info given on rates
>>> per mile, per hour, etc. So, at just under 3% of the total how does
>>> this compare to data from other area?
>>>
>> http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/TSF2005/BicyclistsTSF05.pdf
>>
>>shows all by state.
>>
>>At 3%, Arizona is the 4th highest/worst. It is 2nd worst per capita.
>
> I don't doubt it, but not because the cycling here is more dangerous...
> it's simply because a lot of people ride. Compare the number of bikes
> you'll see in the Phoenix east valley on a given day to the number
> you'll see in a suburb of Baltimore or Chicago or St. Louis and it's
> easy to see that there are a lot more opportunities for accidents. Add
> in the fact that people ride here all year round, and it's even more of
> a factor.

That may be true, and ridership does vary greatly across the country.
Keep in mind that .5% to 2%, the typical range of % of trips by bike in
American cities, is a fourfold difference.

However, both cyclist and pedestrian fatalities seem to be increasing in
real terms in most areas, an alarming trend. It's alarming enough that
VDOT is starting to take it seriously, although most efforts are going
into pedestrian safety because the numbers are bigger there.

Matt O.

[gds]

Mark Hickey wrote:
> Wayne Pein > wrote:
>
> >gds wrote:
> >
> >> I just read that in 2005 in Arizona there were a total of 1177 traffic
> >> fatalities of which 35 were cyclists. There was no info given on rates
> >> per mile, per hour, etc. So, at just under 3% of the total how does
> >> this compare to data from other area?
> >>
> > http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/TSF2005/BicyclistsTSF05.pdf
> >
> >shows all by state.
> >
> >At 3%, Arizona is the 4th highest/worst. It is 2nd worst per capita.
>
> I don't doubt it, but not because the cycling here is more
> dangerous... it's simply because a lot of people ride. Compare the
> number of bikes you'll see in the Phoenix east valley on a given day
> to the number you'll see in a suburb of Baltimore or Chicago or St.
> Louis and it's easy to see that there are a lot more opportunities for
> accidents. Add in the fact that people ride here all year round, and
> it's even more of a factor.
>
> Mark Hickey
> Habanero Cycles
> http://www.habcycles.com
> Home of the $795 ti frame

Wayne, that is interesting info and it is surprising to me that AZ
ranks so poorly. There is some more data. ~1 third of the cyclist
fatalities occurred during periods of darkness. At least here in the
Tucson metro area there are vast stretches of roads with minimal or no
lighting. From my memory of the 5 Tucson area fatalities as reported in
the press it seemed to skew toward folks riding at night without
lights.

Mark, you are suggesting that because the per capita number of cyclists
in AZ is very high that goes toward explaining the high per capita
number of fatalities. That could be a contiributer. As we are talking
about fatalities and not all accidents I think there is another big
contributer. Road speeds here are very high. Most arterials in Tucson
tolerate speeds of ~50 mph. The high speed on dry, straight roads may
or may not result in more accidents but I'd think that once an accident
happens that the chance of a fatality is higher because of the speed
(and because average vehicle size out here is also pretty big).

[David L. Johnson]

On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 09:09:26 -0800, gds wrote:

> As we are talking
> about fatalities and not all accidents I think there is another big
> contributer. Road speeds here are very high. Most arterials in Tucson
> tolerate speeds of ~50 mph. The high speed on dry, straight roads may or
> may not result in more accidents but I'd think that once an accident
> happens that the chance of a fatality is higher because of the speed
> (and because average vehicle size out here is also pretty big).

Well, I don't think that adds up. For one thing, in lots of states what
speeds are "tolerate"d are well in excess of the posted limits, and it is
the excess that makes it dangerous. Someone driving 50mph on a typical
Western artery, straight and level with wide, multiple lanes, and wide
shoulders is far less dangerous to cyclists than someone driving the same
speed on a narrow road typical of Eastern cities, with no shoulder, cars
parked all over the place, with dips and curves that date back to the 18th
century when the road was "designed".

Vehicle sizes out here are pretty big, too. Imagine a Hummer trying to
pass a group of cyclists on a narrow street packed with traffic. Driver
gets ****ed off when he is delayed 5 seconds and guns it. It takes that
tank a while to build up speed, but he keeps at it, blowing by the
cyclists with inches of clearance since the damn thing is so wide it
hardly fits in the lane. I don't have to imagine it; it happened to me
and the group I was with on Saturday. Not uncommon.


--

David L. Johnson

__o | The lottery is a tax on those who fail to understand
_`\(,_ | mathematics.
(_)/ (_) |

[gds]

David L. Johnson wrote:
>>
> Well, I don't think that adds up. For one thing, in lots of states what
> speeds are "tolerate"d are well in excess of the posted limits, and it is
> the excess that makes it dangerous. Someone driving 50mph on a typical
> Western artery, straight and level with wide, multiple lanes, and wide
> shoulders is far less dangerous to cyclists than someone driving the same
> speed on a narrow road typical of Eastern cities, with no shoulder, cars
> parked all over the place, with dips and curves that date back to the 18th
> century when the road was "designed".
>

I don't know that we are disagreeing. I agree with you that driving 50
mph on a dry straight road out here may not result in a higher rate of
accidents. However, once an accident happens I'm suggesting that a big
pickup doing 50 mph is going to cause a lot of damage. So, perhaps the
accident rate here is not so bad but the fatality rate certainly is.

[Wayne Pein]

Generally the higher the exposure rate (there are several ways to
consider this) the higher the body count. Fatalities obviously generally
occur from high speed differential impacts, but it doesn't take much
differential to make a fatal impact. A 20 mph impact is often fatal with
pedestrians, and while bicyclist impacts have different mechanics, the
the 20 mph figure is probably fairly accurate for bicyclists as well. I
was ringside, while on my bike, at a roughly 25 mph collision between 2
cars, and the energy involved was enormous.

I'm sure some of the fatalities involved getting hit from the rear, and
most of those will involve unlit bicyclists, but I'm also sure the bulk
are from turning/merging movements, and many of those will involve unlit
bicyclists too. Alcohol/impairment will often be involved for one or
both participants, and the percentage of children is another important
consideration.

Wayne

[Wayne Pein]

David L. Johnson wrote:

> On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 09:09:26 -0800, gds wrote:
>
>
>>As we are talking
>>about fatalities and not all accidents I think there is another big
>>contributer. Road speeds here are very high. Most arterials in Tucson
>>tolerate speeds of ~50 mph. The high speed on dry, straight roads may or
>>may not result in more accidents but I'd think that once an accident
>>happens that the chance of a fatality is higher because of the speed
>>(and because average vehicle size out here is also pretty big).
>
>
> Well, I don't think that adds up. For one thing, in lots of states what
> speeds are "tolerate"d are well in excess of the posted limits, and it is
> the excess that makes it dangerous. Someone driving 50mph on a typical
> Western artery, straight and level with wide, multiple lanes, and wide
> shoulders is far less dangerous to cyclists than someone driving the same
> speed on a narrow road typical of Eastern cities, with no shoulder, cars
> parked all over the place, with dips and curves that date back to the 18th
> century when the road was "designed".
>
> Vehicle sizes out here are pretty big, too. Imagine a Hummer trying to
> pass a group of cyclists on a narrow street packed with traffic. Driver
> gets ****ed off when he is delayed 5 seconds and guns it. It takes that
> tank a while to build up speed, but he keeps at it, blowing by the
> cyclists with inches of clearance since the damn thing is so wide it
> hardly fits in the lane. I don't have to imagine it; it happened to me
> and the group I was with on Saturday. Not uncommon.
>

David,

I generally agree with your point, but your Hummer example doesn't quite
fit either. When a driver does what you describe (it happens on my group
rides all the time too), it sucks and is risky, but the driver is
calculating and aware of the situation. This is not the typical fatality
situation. A fatality typically occurs when the motorist has no time to
react or makes an egregious mistake, unless of course it is an assault.

Wayne

[gds]

Wayne Pein wrote:
>>
> I'm sure some of the fatalities involved getting hit from the rear, and
> most of those will involve unlit bicyclists, but I'm also sure the bulk
> are from turning/merging movements, and many of those will involve unlit
> bicyclists too. Alcohol/impairment will often be involved for one or
> both participants, and the percentage of children is another important
> consideration.
>
> Wayne

That does seem to hold true. We have had two cycist fatalities within
the past couple of weeks. The first involved a teenager riding a night
on an unlit street with no lights. The driver was not cited. The second
involved an impaired driver (at night) who swerved onto the shoulder
and hit a cyclist. She was arrested!

[bdbafh]

On Dec 8, 1:37 pm, "gds" > wrote:
> Wayne Pein wrote:
>
> > I'm sure some of the fatalities involved getting hit from the rear, and
> > most of those will involve unlit bicyclists, but I'm also sure the bulk
> > are from turning/merging movements, and many of those will involve unlit
> > bicyclists too. Alcohol/impairment will often be involved for one or
> > both participants, and the percentage of children is another important
> > consideration.
>
> > WayneThat does seem to hold true. We have had two cycist fatalities within
> the past couple of weeks. The first involved a teenager riding a night
> on an unlit street with no lights. The driver was not cited. The second
> involved an impaired driver (at night) who swerved onto the shoulder
> and hit a cyclist. She was arrested!

Had she not been imapaired would she have been charged (only) with
"improper lane usage"?

-bdbafh

[[email protected]]

Wayne Pein wrote:
> Generally the higher the exposure rate (there are several ways to
> consider this) the higher the body count.

This is true, there will likely be more fatalities if there is are more
cyclists. But it's worth noting, the rise in fatalities is (almost?)
never as great as the rise in cycling.

This means that, if there are more cyclists present, the risk _per
cyclist_ goes down. "Safety in numbers" is what it's called, and it's
been very well documented.

- Frank Krygowski

[gds]

wrote:
> This means that, if there are more cyclists present, the risk _per
> cyclist_ goes down. "Safety in numbers" is what it's called, and it's
> been very well documented.
>
> - Frank Krygowski

And this is probably what Mark was alluding to when mentioning the
large number of cyclists in the Valley.

Clearly it is possible that by having hihg per capita cycling it can
follwo that a state like Arizona can rank poorly when cyclist
fatatlities are expressed as a percentage of total traffic fatalities
or as a percentage of population and still not have such a high
relative risk measure when properly measured as a percentage of all
cyclists.

That job of picking the correct denominator is always a tricky one.

[Mark Hickey]

"gds" > wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:
>> Wayne Pein > wrote:
>> > http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/TSF2005/BicyclistsTSF05.pdf
>> >
>> >shows all by state.
>> >
>> >At 3%, Arizona is the 4th highest/worst. It is 2nd worst per capita.
>>
>> I don't doubt it, but not because the cycling here is more
>> dangerous... it's simply because a lot of people ride. Compare the
>> number of bikes you'll see in the Phoenix east valley on a given day
>> to the number you'll see in a suburb of Baltimore or Chicago or St.
>> Louis and it's easy to see that there are a lot more opportunities for
>> accidents. Add in the fact that people ride here all year round, and
>> it's even more of a factor.
>
>Wayne, that is interesting info and it is surprising to me that AZ
>ranks so poorly. There is some more data. ~1 third of the cyclist
>fatalities occurred during periods of darkness. At least here in the
>Tucson metro area there are vast stretches of roads with minimal or no
>lighting. From my memory of the 5 Tucson area fatalities as reported in
>the press it seemed to skew toward folks riding at night without
>lights.
>
>Mark, you are suggesting that because the per capita number of cyclists
>in AZ is very high that goes toward explaining the high per capita
>number of fatalities. That could be a contiributer. As we are talking
>about fatalities and not all accidents I think there is another big
>contributer. Road speeds here are very high. Most arterials in Tucson
>tolerate speeds of ~50 mph. The high speed on dry, straight roads may
>or may not result in more accidents but I'd think that once an accident
>happens that the chance of a fatality is higher because of the speed
>(and because average vehicle size out here is also pretty big).

That could have something to do with it, to be sure. The roads are
better than - well, pretty much the rest of the country, but I suppose
that doesn't really help in the kind of accidents that tend to take us
out (turning left from the opposite lane - don't ask me why that one
springs to my dented mind). ;-)

It would be hard to quantify how many more bikes there are on the
roads here, but I'd have to put it at 10X plus compared to the
northeastern urban areas I've lived in before.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

[Mark Hickey]

"gds" > wrote:

wrote:
>> This means that, if there are more cyclists present, the risk _per
>> cyclist_ goes down. "Safety in numbers" is what it's called, and it's
>> been very well documented.
>>
>> - Frank Krygowski
>
>And this is probably what Mark was alluding to when mentioning the
>large number of cyclists in the Valley.
>
>Clearly it is possible that by having hihg per capita cycling it can
>follwo that a state like Arizona can rank poorly when cyclist
>fatatlities are expressed as a percentage of total traffic fatalities
>or as a percentage of population and still not have such a high
>relative risk measure when properly measured as a percentage of all
>cyclists.
>
>That job of picking the correct denominator is always a tricky one.

The hardest thing to work out of the numbers is what we really care
about - what are the numbers for "recreational cyclists"? Subtract
the eight year olds and the DUI bikes, and the overall fatality
numbers change dramatically.

On a related note, if you subtract those who ride bikes for
transportation, but have no particular love of riding (doing it only
because they don't have a better option), the numbers would almost
certainly come down. This is a superset of the DUI riders, and (here
in AZ) includes a lot of immigrants who (from my limited observations)
aren't likely to enter any bike handling contests. Note: I'm not
saying there's anything WRONG with riding a bike for transportation if
you hate doing it... just that those riders are not as likely want to
work on developing some of the skills most of us work on continually.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

[Riley Geary]

Mark Hickey wrote:
....
> The hardest thing to work out of the numbers is what we really care
> about - what are the numbers for "recreational cyclists"? Subtract
> the eight year olds and the DUI bikes, and the overall fatality
> numbers change dramatically.
>

They don't actually change all that dramatically. Due to the
demographic revolution in cycling over the past 30+ years (more adults
cycling, but far fewer children), the fraction of US cycling fatalities
taking place among juveniles (say under the age of 16) has plunged from
more than 2/3 (68%) in 1975 to less than 1/5 (18%) as of 2005.
Likewise, though cycling while intoxicated is clearly not a very good
idea, the portion of cycling fatalities who were considered DUI at the
time of their demise is generally less than 20% overall--though among
the 35-54 age group, this rises to ~35% according to FARS data.

Riley Geary

[Riley Geary]

wrote:
> Wayne Pein wrote:
> > Generally the higher the exposure rate (there are several ways to
> > consider this) the higher the body count.
>
> This is true, there will likely be more fatalities if there is are more
> cyclists. But it's worth noting, the rise in fatalities is (almost?)
> never as great as the rise in cycling.
>
> This means that, if there are more cyclists present, the risk _per
> cyclist_ goes down. "Safety in numbers" is what it's called, and it's
> been very well documented.
>
> - Frank Krygowski

While this seems to be generally true, something ominous appears to
have taken place among US cyclists over the past couple of years.
After reaching a modern low of 629 traffic-related cycling fatalities
in 2003, we've spiked upward by nearly 25% over the past two years to
784 in 2005--the highest number since the 814 reported in 1997, and the
largest two-year increase ever recorded since FARS was initiated in
1975--despite the fact that total exposure (i.e. overall number of
cyclists on the roads) appears to be about the same or even declining,
based on estimated total injuries reported (45,000 in 2005 vs 46,000 in
2003 and 58,000 in 1997).

This increase in fatalities is not reflected among pedestrians or
motorists in general, which have remained remarkably stable since ~1999
with respect to pedestrians, and ~1995 with respect to motorists. Only
motorcyclists have seen a larger percentage increase in fatalities
during the past several years than bicyclists--more than doubling from
2116 in 1997 to 4553 as of 2005, and far outstripping the increase in
reported motorcycle injuries (53,000 in 1997 vs 87,000 in 2005).

Riley Geary

[Matt O'Toole]

On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 13:48:05 -0800, frkrygow wrote:

> Wayne Pein wrote:

>> Generally the higher the exposure rate (there are several ways to
>> consider this) the higher the body count.
>
> This is true, there will likely be more fatalities if there is are more
> cyclists. But it's worth noting, the rise in fatalities is (almost?)
> never as great as the rise in cycling.

That's not what I've been hearing lately, from VDOT and some others.
Bike/ped fatalities are increasing, in total and per capita.

I haven't yet read the reports they're looking at though.

Matt O.

[[email protected]]

Riley Geary wrote:
> wrote:
> >
> > ... if there are more cyclists present, the risk _per
> > cyclist_ goes down. "Safety in numbers" is what it's called, and it's
> > been very well documented.
>
> While this seems to be generally true, something ominous appears to
> have taken place among US cyclists over the past couple of years.
> After reaching a modern low of 629 traffic-related cycling fatalities
> in 2003, we've spiked upward by nearly 25% over the past two years to
> 784 in 2005--the highest number since the 814 reported in 1997, and the
> largest two-year increase ever recorded since FARS was initiated in
> 1975--despite the fact that total exposure (i.e. overall number of
> cyclists on the roads) appears to be about the same or even declining,
> based on estimated total injuries reported (45,000 in 2005 vs 46,000 in
> 2003 and 58,000 in 1997).

Yes, I'm aware of this disturbing change. So far, I haven't heard any
attempts at explanation, and I suppose it would take detailed analysis
of incidents to spot a potential cause. Of course, it may be a random
event, one that will settle back down.

How do the numbers look when you disaggregate kids vs. adults? I
haven't checked.

At this point, I'm not terribly worried by the numbers. (After all, I
was cycling safely when the numbers were far worse.) I'm more worried
that some "Safety!" organization will latch on them as a way to promote
their agenda - whatever that may be.

- Frank Krygowski

[[email protected]]

wrote:

> How do the numbers look when you disaggregate kids vs. adults? I
> haven't checked.

According to the USDoT, the portion of total cyclist fatalities
involving children under 16 fell from roughly 1-in-3 in 1998 to
1-in-5 in 2004. I seriously doubt there has been a massive spike in
kids' cycling in the past two years that could explain the increase
in fatalities.

Total speculation but it wouldn't surprise me if the apparent
increase was due to some change in the way the numbers
are gathered--IOW the numbers of old underestimated cyclist
fatalities.

Robert

[Paul Turner]

wrote:
> Riley Geary wrote:
> > While this seems to be generally true, something ominous appears to
> > have taken place among US cyclists over the past couple of years.
> > After reaching a modern low of 629 traffic-related cycling fatalities
> > in 2003, we've spiked upward by nearly 25% over the past two years to
> > 784 in 2005--the highest number since the 814 reported in 1997, and the
> > largest two-year increase ever recorded since FARS was initiated in
> > 1975--despite the fact that total exposure (i.e. overall number of
> > cyclists on the roads) appears to be about the same or even declining,
> > based on estimated total injuries reported (45,000 in 2005 vs 46,000 in
> > 2003 and 58,000 in 1997).
>
> Yes, I'm aware of this disturbing change. So far, I haven't heard any
> attempts at explanation, and I suppose it would take detailed analysis
> of incidents to spot a potential cause. Of course, it may be a random
> event, one that will settle back down.

This isn't based on data, so it's not worth much, but I'd like to offer
a possibility. It seems plausible that most injuries are caused by
falling down or hitting stationary objects, while most fatalities are
caused by collisions with motor vehicles. Could there be trends leading
to fewer single-bike accidents and more bike-car collisions? A shift
from off-road to road cycling could do that.

I'm curious about the evidence that total exposure is steady or
declining. My experience is limited to parts of one city, and I haven't
actually been counting, but my strong impression is one of a steady,
dramatic increase in cycling here in Chicago over the last five years.
I used to be amazed when I found myself stopped at a light with five
bikes, now that happens often and continues into November and December.
It seems to me that there must be twice as many commuters and
transportation cyclists than there were a few years ago. It's been cold
and windy, but I still find myself lined up with others every morning
going to work and I ran into full bike racks Christmas shopping
yesterday. Perhaps transportation cyclists are a growing share of the
total. I would guess that they fall down less than competitive and
athletic cyclists, because they aren't trying to maximize speed, but
get hit by cars more, because they use busy streets those getting a
workout avoid.

I certainly don't have a sense of more danger from cars. On the
contrary, drivers seem more conditioned to sharing the road rationally
than they used to be. I'm riding more and having fewer perceived close
calls. It's been a long time since someone told me to get off the
street and onto the sidewalk.

--
Paul Turner

[Wayne Pein]

> wrote:
>
>>Wayne Pein wrote:
>>
>>>Generally the higher the exposure rate (there are several ways to
>>>consider this) the higher the body count.
>>
>>This is true, there will likely be more fatalities if there is are more
>>cyclists. But it's worth noting, the rise in fatalities is (almost?)
>>never as great as the rise in cycling.
>>
>>This means that, if there are more cyclists present, the risk _per
>>cyclist_ goes down. "Safety in numbers" is what it's called, and it's
>>been very well documented.
>>

I know of the statistics, but I'm not counting on an increase in local
bicyclists to increase my safety.

Wayne

[Tom Keats]

In article om>,
"Riley Geary" > writes:
>
> wrote:

>> This means that, if there are more cyclists present, the risk _per
>> cyclist_ goes down. "Safety in numbers" is what it's called, and it's
>> been very well documented.
>>
>> - Frank Krygowski
>
> While this seems to be generally true, something ominous appears to
> have taken place among US cyclists over the past couple of years.
> After reaching a modern low of 629 traffic-related cycling fatalities
> in 2003, we've spiked upward by nearly 25% over the past two years to
> 784 in 2005--the highest number since the 814 reported in 1997, and the
> largest two-year increase ever recorded since FARS was initiated in
> 1975--despite the fact that total exposure (i.e. overall number of
> cyclists on the roads) appears to be about the same or even declining,
> based on estimated total injuries reported (45,000 in 2005 vs 46,000 in
> 2003 and 58,000 in 1997).
>
> This increase in fatalities is not reflected among pedestrians or
> motorists in general, which have remained remarkably stable since ~1999
> with respect to pedestrians, and ~1995 with respect to motorists.

It would be interesting if a causal link could be established
between this effect (pattern?) and the proliferation of bike
lanes and paths.


cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

[Riley Geary]

wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > How do the numbers look when you disaggregate kids vs. adults? I
> > haven't checked.
>
> According to the USDoT, the portion of total cyclist fatalities
> involving children under 16 fell from roughly 1-in-3 in 1998 to
> 1-in-5 in 2004. I seriously doubt there has been a massive spike in
> kids' cycling in the past two years that could explain the increase
> in fatalities.
>

Indeed not. Juvenile (0-15) cycling fatalities have remained virtually
unchanged since 2003 (146 vs 144 in 2005), while adult (16+) cycling
fatalities have increased from 483 to 640--with the largest increase in
the 35-54 age group (241 to 306).

> Total speculation but it wouldn't surprise me if the apparent
> increase was due to some change in the way the numbers
> are gathered--IOW the numbers of old underestimated cyclist
> fatalities.
>

Not sure what you mean here. All traffic-related cycling fatalities
are reported by the various states under the Fatality Reporting
Analysis System (FARS), which has been in place since 1975; and while
there may still be the occasional error (bicycle fatalities miscoded as
something else, or vice-versa), these almost certainly amount to less
than 1% of the total at the national level. The only "estimated"
cycling fatalities are those that don't involve a moving motor vehicle
on a public road, and these generally account for just 15-20% of all
bicycle crash fatalities--none of which are actually included in the
"official" figures reported under FARS.

Riley Geary

[[email protected]]

Riley Geary wrote:

> Indeed not. Juvenile (0-15) cycling fatalities have remained virtually
> unchanged since 2003 (146 vs 144 in 2005), while adult (16+) cycling
> fatalities have increased from 483 to 640--with the largest increase in
> the 35-54 age group (241 to 306).

> > Total speculation but it wouldn't surprise me if the apparent
> > increase was due to some change in the way the numbers
> > are gathered--IOW the numbers of old underestimated cyclist
> > fatalities.
> >
>
> Not sure what you mean here. All traffic-related cycling fatalities
> are reported by the various states under the Fatality Reporting
> Analysis System (FARS), which has been in place since 1975; and while
> there may still be the occasional error (bicycle fatalities miscoded as
> something else, or vice-versa), these almost certainly amount to less
> than 1% of the total at the national level.

I'm not convinced that's true. From what I know of
police reports and such, there is a decent chance that
a bike-car accident is misclassified somehow. Furthermore,
when a cyclist dies after hospitalization I'm not sure that
situation makes it into the FARS as a traffic fatality much less
a cycling fatality.

The 485 seems _almost_ like an anamoly. The 640 is
more in line with longterm trends.

This is a morbid conversation. A moment of silence
for our cyclist friends killed in action.

> The only "estimated"
> cycling fatalities are those that don't involve a moving motor vehicle
> on a public road, and these generally account for just 15-20% of all
> bicycle crash fatalities--none of which are actually included in the
> "official" figures reported under FARS.

I never really considered that before. I thought that
some at least of the solo fatalities were classified under
FARS. Do they add some arbitrary figure to the
total or just try to forget about it and hope nobody
notices?

Robert

[[email protected]]

Paul Turner wrote:
> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, I'm aware of this disturbing change. So far, I haven't heard any
> > attempts at explanation, and I suppose it would take detailed analysis
> > of incidents to spot a potential cause. Of course, it may be a random
> > event, one that will settle back down.
>
> This isn't based on data, so it's not worth much, but I'd like to offer
> a possibility. It seems plausible that most injuries are caused by
> falling down or hitting stationary objects, while most fatalities are
> caused by collisions with motor vehicles. Could there be trends leading
> to fewer single-bike accidents and more bike-car collisions? A shift
> from off-road to road cycling could do that.

That's exactly what I was wondering about. I understand that the
"Lance effect" has increased the sales (and, presumably, use) of road
bikes. I know that several of my students have talked about starting,
or doing more, road riding - something I haven't heard for fifteen
years. These are guys in their twenties.

We know it's very unusual to kill onesself without the aid of a car, so
I suspect that part of the increase is due to an influx of newbies
trying to figure out traffic rules and techniques on a trial and error
basis.

Incidentally, on a related note: our bike club is aging. For the past
10 years, there's been insufficient effort at recruiting. Those of us
with skills and experience used to be constantly teaching newbies how
to ride properly. But no more, since the newbies aren't riding with
us.

I don't know if this is happening just in my corner of the world, or if
it's more universal. But the impression I have is that the bike club
scene is withering. The old apprenticeship system once provided by
clubs is going with it. And Buycycling magazine is much more likely to
tell a newbie how to get lean, shapely legs, rather than how to
skillfully negotiate a left turn in traffic.

So is there a chance that the fatality increase is due to a surge in
simple ignorance?

- Frank Krygowski

[Riley Geary]

wrote:
> Riley Geary wrote:
>
> > Indeed not. Juvenile (0-15) cycling fatalities have remained virtually
> > unchanged since 2003 (146 vs 144 in 2005), while adult (16+) cycling
> > fatalities have increased from 483 to 640--with the largest increase in
> > the 35-54 age group (241 to 306).
>
> > > Total speculation but it wouldn't surprise me if the apparent
> > > increase was due to some change in the way the numbers
> > > are gathered--IOW the numbers of old underestimated cyclist
> > > fatalities.
> > >
> >
> > Not sure what you mean here. All traffic-related cycling fatalities
> > are reported by the various states under the Fatality Reporting
> > Analysis System (FARS), which has been in place since 1975; and while
> > there may still be the occasional error (bicycle fatalities miscoded as
> > something else, or vice-versa), these almost certainly amount to less
> > than 1% of the total at the national level.
>
> I'm not convinced that's true. From what I know of
> police reports and such, there is a decent chance that
> a bike-car accident is misclassified somehow.

In terms of the specific details, particularly where they depend on the
subjective evaluation of the police officer filling out the crash
report, it's certainly possible all sorts of errors could be
introduced. But in terms of whether someone was fatally injured or not,
or how to classify the victim (e.g. motor vehicle driver/passenger,
motorcyclist, pedestrian, bicyclist, etc), these types of errors tend
to be exceedingly rare.

The only situations I can think of that might lead to some confusion in
classification would be those involving a cyclist walking their bike
instead of riding it (in which case they should be classified as a
pedestrian rather than a bicyclist if struck by a motor vehicle), or
those operating a moped or electric-assist bike under human power
alone.

The only real change over time I've noticed is that very young children
riding tricycles or other wheeled toys who used to be classified as
"bicyclists" are now more commonly classified as "other pedestrians,"
but this obviously has little relevance to the classification of adult
cyclists.

> Furthermore,
> when a cyclist dies after hospitalization I'm not sure that
> situation makes it into the FARS as a traffic fatality much less
> a cycling fatality.
>

To the contrary--FARS and all state reporting systems afaik use the
commonly accepted international standard 30-day rule, where if someone
dies of their injuries within 30 days of a crash it is recorded as a
traffic-related fatality, otherwise it isn't (i.e. it would only be
considered a traffic-related injury).

> The 485 seems _almost_ like an anamoly. The 640 is
> more in line with longterm trends.
>

That depends on how you define your long-term trends. Back in the
mid-to-late 1970's, US adult cycling fatalities as defined by FARS were
down at the 300-320 level. By the early 1980's they had risen to the
390-450 level, and then the 450-500 level in the late 1980's. Since
1990, adult cycling fatalities appeared to have plateaued within the
range of 480-580, except for 1992 when they plunged to ~420, and 2005
when they broke above 600 for the first time ever.

In one sense, the 485 adult cycling fatalities in 2003 was something of
an anomoly, as it was the lowest number reported since 1992, but not in
terms of the essentially flat long-term trend in place since ~1990.
Unless adult cycling fatalities fall to well under 600 in 2006, we may
be witnessing the beginning of a worrisome new uptick in the trendline
(or perhaps a return to the remorselessly upward trending line
prevalent prior to ~1990).

> This is a morbid conversation. A moment of silence
> for our cyclist friends killed in action.
>
> > The only "estimated"
> > cycling fatalities are those that don't involve a moving motor vehicle
> > on a public road, and these generally account for just 15-20% of all
> > bicycle crash fatalities--none of which are actually included in the
> > "official" figures reported under FARS.
>
> I never really considered that before. I thought that
> some at least of the solo fatalities were classified under
> FARS. Do they add some arbitrary figure to the
> total or just try to forget about it and hope nobody
> notices?
>

While some states (e.g. CA) do include at least some of these non-MV
assisted cycling fatalities in their own statistical reports, they are
specifically exluded from the FARS database by definition. The CDC's
NCIPC database (WISQARS) does attempt to record both traffic-related
and "other" cycling fatalities, but its methodology is less reliable
than that found in FARS, and a major revision in coding definitions in
1999 leaves its accuracy in considerable question. Non-traffic cycling
fatalities supposedly jumped from 13-17% of total cycling fatalities
prior to 1999 to 23-28% since then, but since WISQARS now substantially
undercounts traffic-related cycling fatalities vis-a-vis FARS, it's
clear that large numbers of supposedly "other" cycling fatalities
(probably 40% or more) are being miscoded as such when in fact they
should be counted as traffic-related.

Riley Geary

[Stephen Harding]

wrote:
> wrote:
>
>
>>How do the numbers look when you disaggregate kids vs. adults? I
>>haven't checked.
>
>
> According to the USDoT, the portion of total cyclist fatalities
> involving children under 16 fell from roughly 1-in-3 in 1998 to
> 1-in-5 in 2004. I seriously doubt there has been a massive spike in
> kids' cycling in the past two years that could explain the increase
> in fatalities.
>
> Total speculation but it wouldn't surprise me if the apparent
> increase was due to some change in the way the numbers
> are gathered--IOW the numbers of old underestimated cyclist
> fatalities.

I wonder if simply more people [adults] are now riding the roads?

Kids increasingly get transported to where they need to be.
As soon as they can drive, they travel that way. No child bike
experience.

Adults increasingly ride bikes for recreation/fitness reasons.
Some enthusiasts may be opting to use the bike for transportation
as well. Certainly the recent rise in gas prices over this year
has lead to more transportation by bike locally.

Speculation on my part of course.


SMH

[Stephen Harding]

Wayne Pein wrote:

> I know of the statistics, but I'm not counting on an increase in local
> bicyclists to increase my safety.

It might though.

Simply by increasing motorist awareness of bicycles on
the road. They are no longer freaks and become just
part of traffic. No big deal!


SMH

[Wayne Pein]

Stephen Harding wrote:

> Wayne Pein wrote:
>
>> I know of the statistics, but I'm not counting on an increase in local
>> bicyclists to increase my safety.
>
>
> It might though.
>
> Simply by increasing motorist awareness of bicycles on
> the road. They are no longer freaks and become just
> part of traffic. No big deal!
>
>

I create my own awareness in motorists by my conspicuity and lane position.

By your rationale, motorists used to consider me a freak and would be
more likely to strike me (if they consider me a freak they know I exist,
so therefore they struck me purposefully), but since there are more of
us freaks they are less likely to because I'm not a freak anymore?

I think the motorist awareness explanation of the statistical
observation is merely wishful conjecture.

Wayne

[nash]

It is also because the more of you on the road the more experience drivers
are getting with the exposure.
We are global guardians.

[nash]

>>>>despite the fact that total exposure (i.e. overall number of
cyclists on the roads) appears to be about the same or even declining,
based on estimated total injuries reported (45,000 in 2005 vs 46,000 in
2003 and 58,000 in 1997).

How do they know total no. of cyclists? All cyclists do not get injuries so
they are not reported in the 45,000 etc

[nash]

Hate to state the obvious at this point but could it be the rise in SUVs
since the 90's

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 18:21:40 GMT, "nash" >
wrote:

>Hate to state the obvious at this point but could it be the rise in SUVs
>since the 90's
>

Don't discount the rise in helmet laws...

[Stephen Harding]

Wayne Pein wrote:

> I create my own awareness in motorists by my conspicuity and lane position.

That's fine.

If you're the only one doing that kind of riding, you're a inconsiderate
jerk as far as many motorists are concerned.

If all bicyclists on the road are pedaling that way, it might be more
obvious that that is simply the safest way for a bicyclist to share
the road with motor traffic. Motorists get used to it. That's the
way it is!

> By your rationale, motorists used to consider me a freak and would be
> more likely to strike me (if they consider me a freak they know I exist,
> so therefore they struck me purposefully), but since there are more of
> us freaks they are less likely to because I'm not a freak anymore?

I said nothing about anyone purposely running anyone down.

Motorists may simply not know that's the way bicyclists use
the road. Lots of bicyclists doing so makes the message
that much easier to grasp.

> I think the motorist awareness explanation of the statistical
> observation is merely wishful conjecture.

Perhaps, but I think there is something gained in motorists
being "familiar" with how bicyclists use the road.


SMH

[Wayne Pein]

Stephen Harding wrote:

> Wayne Pein wrote:
>
>> I create my own awareness in motorists by my conspicuity and lane
>> position.
>
>
> That's fine.
>
> If you're the only one doing that kind of riding, you're a inconsiderate
> jerk as far as many motorists are concerned.

Really? I hadn't detected that. But even if that is true, so what? The
worst possible outcome would be assault, but that has never happened.


>> By your rationale, motorists used to consider me a freak and would be
>> more likely to strike me (if they consider me a freak they know I
>> exist, so therefore they struck me purposefully), but since there are
>> more of us freaks they are less likely to because I'm not a freak
>> anymore?
>
>
> I said nothing about anyone purposely running anyone down.
>
> Motorists may simply not know that's the way bicyclists use
> the road. Lots of bicyclists doing so makes the message
> that much easier to grasp.

Motorists are not as stupid as some bicyclists like to believe.
Bicyclists have been using the road forever. We usually ride off to the
side. We're usually slower. Sometimes the ignorant ones ride the wrong
way. What's there for motorists to know?


>
>> I think the motorist awareness explanation of the statistical
>> observation is merely wishful conjecture.
>
>
> Perhaps, but I think there is something gained in motorists
> being "familiar" with how bicyclists use the road.
>

Bicyclists have been using the roads since before cars were invented.
This is not a new thing how bicyclists use the road. I've been riding a
bike in the road for 44 years. I've been motoring for 31. How many
bicyclists must I or anyone else see before they are "familiar" with how
bicyclists use the road? It seems to me I learned it the first time I
saw one bicyclist.

Further, one could argue that the more unique (rare) bicyclists are, the
more likely motorists are to proceed with caution when they encounter
one since it is a less familiar situation.

Wayne

[[email protected]]

Riley Geary wrote:
> In one sense, the 485 adult cycling fatalities in 2003 was something of
> an anomoly, as it was the lowest number reported since 1992, but not in
> terms of the essentially flat long-term trend in place since ~1990.
> Unless adult cycling fatalities fall to well under 600 in 2006, we may
> be witnessing the beginning of a worrisome new uptick in the trendline
> (or perhaps a return to the remorselessly upward trending line
> prevalent prior to ~1990).

Sorry, I thought that was 485 total. Sleep deprived.


> While some states (e.g. CA) do include at least some of these non-MV
> assisted cycling fatalities in their own statistical reports, they are
> specifically exluded from the FARS database by definition. The CDC's
> NCIPC database (WISQARS) does attempt to record both traffic-related
> and "other" cycling fatalities, but its methodology is less reliable
> than that found in FARS, and a major revision in coding definitions in
> 1999 leaves its accuracy in considerable question. Non-traffic cycling
> fatalities supposedly jumped from 13-17% of total cycling fatalities
> prior to 1999 to 23-28% since then, but since WISQARS now substantially
> undercounts traffic-related cycling fatalities vis-a-vis FARS, it's
> clear that large numbers of supposedly "other" cycling fatalities
> (probably 40% or more) are being miscoded as such when in fact they
> should be counted as traffic-related.


Interesting. Thanks.

R

[Stephen Harding]

Wayne Pein wrote:
> Stephen Harding wrote:

>> If you're the only one doing that kind of riding, you're a inconsiderate
>> jerk as far as many motorists are concerned.
>
> Really? I hadn't detected that. But even if that is true, so what? The
> worst possible outcome would be assault, but that has never happened.

It's always "so what" when someone misbehaves or doesn't get
it.

I see from time to time in my local newspaper, and even here
on this newsgroup, usually crossposted from some motoring NG,
how idiotic bicyclists are in their use of the road.

Ultimately their attitude is a "so what" one, unless it
escalates to some sort of physical confrontation, which does
occasionally happen.

>> Motorists may simply not know that's the way bicyclists use
>> the road. Lots of bicyclists doing so makes the message
>> that much easier to grasp.
>
> Motorists are not as stupid as some bicyclists like to believe.
> Bicyclists have been using the road forever. We usually ride off to the
> side. We're usually slower. Sometimes the ignorant ones ride the wrong
> way. What's there for motorists to know?

In theory that's also usually always the case. Motorists know
a bike operates off to one side of the road at low speed. They
frequently don't seem to know that a bicyclist does not have to
jeopardize their own safety in favor of a motorists' convenience.

Motorists know they're not supposed to run lights or park in
handicap zones or pass on double solid lines, but it happens.
It's rarely ever a case of not actually knowing what the rules
are.

>>> I think the motorist awareness explanation of the statistical
>>> observation is merely wishful conjecture.
>>
>> Perhaps, but I think there is something gained in motorists
>> being "familiar" with how bicyclists use the road.
>
> Bicyclists have been using the roads since before cars were invented.
> This is not a new thing how bicyclists use the road. I've been riding a
> bike in the road for 44 years. I've been motoring for 31. How many
> bicyclists must I or anyone else see before they are "familiar" with how
> bicyclists use the road? It seems to me I learned it the first time I
> saw one bicyclist.
>
> Further, one could argue that the more unique (rare) bicyclists are, the
> more likely motorists are to proceed with caution when they encounter
> one since it is a less familiar situation.

People have been doing things they *know* they shouldn't do, or
mishandling situations they know how to handle from caveman times.

I fortunately live in an area of high bicycle use of the roads.
By and large, drivers are pretty good towards them on the road,
despite the very high proportion of young drivers from all the
local colleges and universities behind the wheel. People are
generally not too upset at being slowed by a bike around here.

That's not the case everywhere I've ridden, and I presume it's
simply because motorists don't encounter bicyclists on the road
very often in those locations. It's not like they don't know
what a bicyclist is, they just don't feel riding one on the road
mixed with motor traffic is appropriate use.

We get that view in this NG quite frequently.


SMH

[Pat Lamb]

Stephen Harding wrote:
> Wayne Pein wrote:
>
>> I create my own awareness in motorists by my conspicuity and lane
>> position.
>
> That's fine.
>
> If you're the only one doing that kind of riding, you're a inconsiderate
> jerk as far as many motorists are concerned.

As far as many motorists are concerned, I'm an inconsiderate jerk
regardless of my mode of transportation, my speed, or the weather or
road conditions. You see, I'm in front of them, so ipso facto, I'm a jerk.

It usually bothers them more than me.

Pat

[nash]

>>>>It usually bothers them more than me.

As it should. It takes roughly 5 seconds to pass you. They spend all day
sitting behind cars. The only reason they do not treat other drivers as
jerks is they would not get away with it.
I read one time that cyclists must have an inferiority complex. I guess
that makes drivers have the reverse. Is it human nature. Survival of the
fittest. Hmmmm
If we do not act inferior, and as you say, do what we have to ride safe do
they take the inferior role and get jealous and outraged. Just feel sorry
for them. Deep inside they wish they were you. ;-)

[Jeremy Parker]

"Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
news:AXkfh.3070$Et5.1396@trndny07...
> Wayne Pein wrote:
>
>> I create my own awareness in motorists by my conspicuity and lane
>> position.
>
> That's fine.
>
> If you're the only one doing that kind of riding, you're a
> inconsiderate
> jerk as far as many motorists are concerned.

There's an art to making them not decide that you are a jerk. It's
an art that's advisable to master, for obvious reasons. Fortunately,
messing with their mind is pretty easy.

What the motorists must think is that the reason they are unable to
share the road with you is that the lane is too narrow. You do not
want them to think that, if you were being less inconsiderate, lane
sharing would be possible, even easy.

See any good bike book for details on how to do it.

Jeremy Parker.

[John Kane]

wrote:
> Riley Geary wrote:
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > ... if there are more cyclists present, the risk _per
> > > cyclist_ goes down. "Safety in numbers" is what it's called, and it's
> > > been very well documented.
> >
> > While this seems to be generally true, something ominous appears to
> > have taken place among US cyclists over the past couple of years.
> > After reaching a modern low of 629 traffic-related cycling fatalities
> > in 2003, we've spiked upward by nearly 25% over the past two years to
> > 784 in 2005--the highest number since the 814 reported in 1997, and the
> > largest two-year increase ever recorded since FARS was initiated in
> > 1975--despite the fact that total exposure (i.e. overall number of
> > cyclists on the roads) appears to be about the same or even declining,
> > based on estimated total injuries reported (45,000 in 2005 vs 46,000 in
> > 2003 and 58,000 in 1997).
>
> Yes, I'm aware of this disturbing change. So far, I haven't heard any
> attempts at explanation, and I suppose it would take detailed analysis
> of incidents to spot a potential cause. Of course, it may be a random
> event, one that will settle back down.
>
> How do the numbers look when you disaggregate kids vs. adults? I
> haven't checked.
>
> At this point, I'm not terribly worried by the numbers. (After all, I
> was cycling safely when the numbers were far worse.) I'm more worried
> that some "Safety!" organization will latch on them as a way to promote
> their agenda - whatever that may be.
>
> - Frank Krygowski

It looks to me like the roads have just gotten a bit more dangerous
across the board. I did a graph of the data from Table 1 of
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/TSF2005/BicyclistsTSF05.pdf
and allowing for the different scales there seems to be an increase in
fatalities for all non-occupants of motor vehicles. Have a look at
http://ca.geocities.com/jrkrideau/cycling/uscylestats.pdf . Note
though that the y-axis scales are very different but if anything what
strikes me is how smooth a drop in pedestrian fatalites we seen until
last year.

Is there any chance that something like bad weather has been having a
nasty effect ?

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

[Daryl Hunt]

"Jeremy Parker" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
> news:AXkfh.3070$Et5.1396@trndny07...
>> Wayne Pein wrote:
>>
>>> I create my own awareness in motorists by my conspicuity and lane
>>> position.
>>
>> That's fine.
>>
>> If you're the only one doing that kind of riding, you're a inconsiderate
>> jerk as far as many motorists are concerned.
>
> There's an art to making them not decide that you are a jerk. It's an art
> that's advisable to master, for obvious reasons. Fortunately, messing
> with their mind is pretty easy.
>
> What the motorists must think is that the reason they are unable to share
> the road with you is that the lane is too narrow. You do not want them to
> think that, if you were being less inconsiderate, lane sharing would be
> possible, even easy.
>
> See any good bike book for details on how to do it.

I had a problem yesterday. On a 4 lane with center turn lane, I was all
the way right. Now, the Pickup that passed me didn't raise too much worry
as he honked and missed me by at least a foot, but that 8 foot wide trailer
put me into the drainage. Did he care? Nope.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 5135 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!

[nash]

I do not know what the bike book would say but when I give them the room
they want they continually want more to the point for some it is a game. If
I take my share of the road they purposefully block me out and then sit at a
light. Even if they are moving I pass on there left watching traffic very
closely. I will take their license no. or try to talk to them before I
report them to the police and ICBC.
The last incident was a year ago, loomis truck, big damn hunk of metal. I
guess it is not fun and games for him anymore.

[Mark Mitchell]

On 2006-12-14, Daryl Hunt > wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
> It has removed 5135 spam emails to date.
> Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
> Try SPAMfighter for free now!

....so that you can become a spammer for free!!!