I-Like-To-Bike

It is a word whose definition often varies widely as required by the agenda of the "safety advocate" using it. Overtaking metrics may be downplayed, ignored or manipulated if the agenda requires low numbers to promote a bicycling program that poo-poos overtaking accidents as only an "irrational fear" or a "superstition" of "incompetent cyclists."

Jiggle

I knew two people before they were killed by being struck from behind. Both were struck by utility trucks that had something hanging off of the side of the truck far enough to hit them as the truck passed.

Null66

We live in a culture of fear.
Culture of fear - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The data is clear, the decrease in heart attacks alone vastly offset the risk of getting killed on a bicycle. Yet people are afraid to ride a bike. There's a line in all the fast "food" places at lunch...

1/3rd of deaths are cardiac related. Doesn't take much of a decrease in that to offset a whole bunch of things.

Many of the cycling related deaths are not cyclists. 1/2 of deaths involve these things, each: drunk rider, riding on sidewalks, riding against traffic... Yes each death may involve overlap. But still, that's a hell of a pattern.

spare_wheel

So no criticisms from you over the methodology used by the LAB?
I guess collating media reports is a valid statistical sampling approach in ILTB-landia.

dougmc

The reason that most studies look at fatal collisions only is that those are the situations that are well documented and reported.

"Mere" injuries are reported far less reliably and consistently.

As for the study itself, this would give a lot more detail on it. Given that they were trying to show that FARS could be improved, they had to get their data from somewhere.

From their report --

Personally, I'm surprised that they didn't get any from police press releases -- our police releases such things every time somebody dies.

But ultimately, I don't have any real problems with their methodology. Its not perfect, but this sort of thing never is.

I-Like-To-Bike

Anytime I do not provide a comment on whatever topic YOU are thinking about, feel free to fabricate an imaginary straw man response for me if it pleases you. So much for rational arguments.

I-Like-To-Bike

Do you mind providing your definition of a "cyclist"?
What kind of non cyclists were involved in the cycling related deaths?

buzzman

The quote below comes from the link in my original post. In a "rural" setting almost 4 times as many accidents occur at non-intersections but that only makes sense doesn't it?- I mean, fewer intersections. And conversely it makes sense, at least to me, that in an urban environment the increase in intersections would mean an increase in accidents at intersections due to greater opportunity of interaction. But still we see a roughly equal number of accidents at interesections as not in an urban environment and that is cause for concern.

Again, I repeat, I believe that LAB is highlighting come from behind collisions in order to isolate and address one problem at a time. As many of you are pointing out there are a mix of conditions and causes of accidents but separating them out, while challenging, helps us to address and prioritize those areas that we need to fix.





Besides being one of the more callous statements I've seen in a while on BF, B. Carfree seems to advocate even more of a "do nothing" response to fatal bike accidents. But based on this logic I guess we should not address teen driving accidents or most driving accidents for that matter since they often involve driver impairment or error. Even if bicyclists were puritanical prohibitionists observing all laws we'd still be sharing the road with impaired, flawed drivers and given that they cause a greater proportion of the accidents I still think these fatalities needs to be addressed.


Regarding LAB's "agenda", having been a member of LAB off and on since 1969 (when it was LAW) I feel the most intolerable and unproductive years were when their "agenda" was to serve a subset of bicyclists whose only interest was in preserving "road rights". While I had much in common with these riders, in that I rode almost exclusively on the road, and had, at the time, little interest in bikeways, bike paths or bike lanes I was astounded at the tactics they were willing to employ to shut down and out any other voices. Those voices were particularly the voices of women, many of whom were interested and supportive of separated pathways for cyclists.

There was also, at the time, little or no effort to encourage voices from outside the realm of white males of relative economic privilege who were club riders, hobby riders and occasionally, mostly suburban, commuters.

The LAB of today, by comparison, seems to have an agenda that is more inclusive, is encouraging of voices that are more diversified and yes, that means that the power and the voice of that old subset of cyclists with a more singular focus on "road rights" has been diminished. Frankly, I don't miss it.

But I am curious what it is that causes such paranoid suspicion about LAB's "agenda". What do you take issue with from the following statement made in response to the date presented?

Null66

Well, one would be court appointed bike riders...

There's a lot of people who ride bikes but aren't cyclists.

And they make up a lot of the bicycle fatalities.

achoo

Wut?

No true Scotsman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

buzzman

Wow. In my previous post I reference an old elitism I found intolerable in the old League of American WheelMEN.

I guess it still exists when it comes to advocacy today. I prefer advocacy that wants to represent those who cycle for whatever reason, be it economic, legal, hobby, recreation what have you.

To me a cyclist is someone, anyone who is riding a bike.

I remember League members in the 70's who rode exclusively on weekends for club rides and centuries etc, maybe a "Wednesday night ride" too and drove a car to the start of every one of those rides (!), who considered the guys (usually immigrant) who rode beater bikes every day of the week, did not even own a car but didn't do club rides or ride the latest and greatest in bikes, as "non-cyclists" this drove me away from the League at the time and it seems inexcusable in 2014 to be so limited and limiting in what we consider a cyclist and as someone worthy of protecting on the road.

As for me, I am a "cyclist" when I am out riding my bike, when I am driving I am a "driver" and sitting here typing on my computer I am someone who transports themselves primarily but not exclusively by bike but even that only makes me a "cyclist" when I am actually out on my bike.

Null66

Wow, someone has issues.

An identity like "cyclist" is a self description. Very few people who ride bikes such that maximizes risk; ninja, salmons, or on sidewalks identify as "cyclist".
Has nothing to do with elitism...

Even on MUPs, most people riding bikes would not say they are "cyclists" and take exception to being called so.

Most people who self identify as "cyclists" only ride as such as an exception to their usual practice likely trying to adapt to an unusual circumstance.

I-Like-To-Bike

Yes, Someone does. Everyone who doesn't fit your approved profile for a cyclist is one of the unworthy untermenchen on bicycles who don't count in your scheme of cycling.

Self Identified Cyclists? Is that the new name used by those who preciously identified themselves as Real Cyclists, True Cyclists, Competent Cyclists, and/or Serious Cyclists?

MMACH 5

This thread has certainly taken an odd turn. But while we're on the subject...

Ideally, LAB represents all cyclists (defined as those who ride, not by how or what they ride). And they are doing a fairly good job of looking at the interests of club/fitness cyclists as well as utilitarian/commuting cyclists.
They are also supported by cycle manufacturers and those manufacturers know that more bicycle infrastructure encourages more cycling and more cycling translates into more sales. In recent decades, this has translated into LAB adopting a philosophy that favors more infrastructure. I'm not saying this is a good or bad thing and I'm basing this on mostly word-of-mouth anecdotes.
Most of the hardcore, anti bike laners have supposedly abandoned LAB in favor of Cycle Savvy.

buzzman

Looks like ILTB beat me to it but I will add a voice to the chorus. Yes, you are right I do have issues. I have issues with those who claim the moniker (self identify) as "cyclists" and presume to speak and advocate for every one who rides a bike.

I am really curious how you "self identify" as a "cyclist" and what parameters you are using to make that claim.

If you don't mind carrying over this conversation to this new thread since it veers us off the topic of "come from behind collisions" and bicyclist fatalities- though maybe there are no real "bicyclist" fatalities involved according to some posters or none/not enough worth getting concerned about.

B. Carfree

No, you have missed the point. A drunk/ninja/salmon cyclist is creating a hazard on the road that almost entirely puts the risk on him/her. A drunk motorist puts the risk on everyone on the road. If someone is bent on self-destruction, I'm willing to let them do it. If someone is bent on harming others, then even a callous old grouch like me believes we need to take steps to prevent them from succeeding.

buzzman

I guess you've kind of answered what I just asked in the other thread I created to address this issue, which, for me, is a separate issue than the "come from behind issue" of the OP. If you don't mind, I'd like to quote this in the other thread and respond there.

walrus1

As someone who cycles in a very aggressive city and who gets tailgated at least 1 to 2 times a week I seriously disagree with you about those odds. That being said it's much more likely I'll get taken out by a side swipe or a car completely blowing a red light. But I'd put money on being much more likely to be killed by rear ending then typhoid.

MMACH 5

We all cycle in aggressive cities. We all think our bicycle trips are worse than everyone else's.

The death rate in America for typhoid is less than 4%. The percentage of cyclists being struck from behind is less than 4%. Your odds of being struck in an intersection are far higher (~64%) and yet you keep pedaling along, crossing those intersections.

gregf83 

4% of what? 4% of the people who actually contract typhoid? There are less than 6000 cases of typhoid in the US per year. If treated the death rate is around 1% so of those 6000 maybe 60 die. That explains why most people have never heard of anyone dying from typhoid fever.

Null66

Both of you need external validation of who you yourselves think you are, pretty serious issues.

What matters in an identity is not someone else's understanding but each person understanding of themselves.

Many, perhaps most people who ride bikes don't think of themselves as "cyclists", even though they ride bikes. Call them that and you'll likely get an ear full of what they think "cyclists" are like. Down here, it involves a rather negative view of lycra, leg shaving, racing, performance enhancers, a particular attitude, and a big dose of "you're not from around here, are you?".... But they still ride bikes... And they do make up a disproportionate number of fatalities.

A neighborhood kid loves riding, but you'd get an earful if you called him a "cyclist". I can't take him on any rides, but the MUP as he insists on riding against traffic.


Me? I'm many things, but I'm not a "cyclist" either... I do ride bikes a fair number of miles a year.

However, I do not ride on sidewalks. Unless there's no other way, a couple bridges over highways are not in my opinion suitable to taking a lane. There's no way a driver could see you in the lane in time to slow down given the usual and customary speed (well over speed limit). The sight lines are just too short for those speeds, yet those are the speeds.

But then, I'm not advocating anything for anybody. Just recognition of the reality that certain behaviors have an extreme risk. Given the numbers of people who ride bikes and do those things, they skew the overall data enough to make the data not applicable to those that don't.

And that the numbers are such that even if you did the high risk behaviors in the same proportion as people who ride bikes. Your overall risk of death is reduced given the offset of the most common way to die, cardiac issues. Think driving across country to flying. Some people do die in airplanes, but it is very few per trip/mile. So if fly instead of drive, there is a extremely small risk of dying in the plane, but it is ever so much less the dying in a car had you drove.




Mirrors are a good thing. Allows me to be more aware of what's coming at me, and at times the need to get off the road. Freddly? perhaps... But don't really care...

MMACH 5

Yes. It is a rarity. More rare than being struck from behind.
I was trying to show that struck from behind accidents are rare. They are tragic, but rare. Not the best comparison I could make. I'll try to do better in the future.

I-Like-To-Bike

cyclist

cyclist (sì´klîst) noun
One who rides or races a bicycle, motorcycle, or similar vehicle.

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language

genec

I can't help but wonder if people driving cars consider themselves "motorists."

spare_wheel

I'm very grateful that you have the courage to address the inconsistencies of a critique without addressing the subject of the critique.