njkayaker

You called it "essentially useless". I agree.

mr_bill

You know who isn’t counted in the FARS database? Can you guess?

As poor of the quality of the data we have on people on bicycles who die on public roads in motor vehicle crashes, you know what is even poorer quality? (Did you guess injuries?)

-mr. bill

genec

How do you make safer drivers?

genec

Post 41.

GamblerGORD53

Yes some cyclists DO die on their own.
The typical dead cyclist is actually a late 40s MAMIL on a CF bike. Next is the inexperienced cyclist on a wal-mart bike. I wouldn't ride either of these bikes.

Daniel4

There are many solutions studied around the world but again political will gets in the way in favour of the bad driver.

Intentional traffic calming obstructions force motorists to drive carefully. But critics say they slow down traffic times too much.

In Ontario, legislation is being proposed to increase the fine for road fatalities to $50,000, max 2 years in jail and demerit points. Current fine is only $500. An election is coming up and I can see critics state that the proposal is another cash-grab. How much is a life worth?

I have stated many times in these discussion forums that in order to earn a drivers license one should be required to have 8 hours of in traffic bicycle experience. One survey indicated a lot of would-be cyclists don't because of motorists. That's people being afraid to cycle because of themselves.

Daniel4

I'd like to see the statistics for each of these:
Pedestrians, motorists, cyclists.

How many are killed due to collision with
Pedestrians
Motorists
Cyclists
On their own.

I bet the number of motorists who die on their own would be much higher than for pedestrians and cyclists.

I'm also willing to bet that the majority of fatalities for each of these travellers are due to collisions by motorists.

As one flight attendant had stated to her passengers on arrival, the most dangerous part of the trip is the drive home.

phoebeisis

It is a lot simpler-according to NHTSB- than this thread would indicate.
Drivers are TEXTING more(zero texting in 1990)-so they are hitting cars bikes pedestrians more often.

And everyone who rides drives-JUST LOOK AT THE DRIVERS-especially those who are stopped for ANY REASON(yeah many at intersections)
and many who are actually moving- are TEXTING

Geez 2 years ago I was hit by one-bright clear Sunday 9am while I was 4 feet from the road on the shoulder!!
I always FRAP-still do-but I was still WHAPPED by his spring loaded mirror-dumped into a nice grassy soft ditch

It is SIMPLE-drivers TEXT- a large percentage admit they TEXT and drive.

Arguing that the numbers DON'T necessarily indicate what they obviously Do indicate
Just open your eyes-watch the drivers
LC VC middle of the lane positioning is even MORE dangerous now that it was pre-texting
Pre-Text LCers could claim-plausibly-that their position in the middle of the lane made them more visible
Of course pre-texting drivers would hit BIG YELLOW SCHOOL BUSES and say "I didn't see it"
and they weren't lying
They just weren't paying attention(distracted driving isn't new)

Middle of the lane is where cars spend the most time(even ones only intermittently guided by TEXTERS) is the most dangerous position in TEXT AGE

There is no good solution-for bike riders-in the TEXTING AGE

My guess is the insurance CORPS will push a tech. solution-blocking texting while driving
Yeah Texters drivers will whine
But Big Insurance has LOTS of power-they would have to raise rates(pretty high already) or lower profits or force change on the phone and car "makers/sellers/plan providers"
Bicycle riders-ZERO power

njkayaker

No, the citation of what you are claiming VC advocates are saying.

njkayaker

Yes, I knew all that. What you say here isn't really relevant to what I said.

Paul Barnard

Where did you get that data?

mr_bill

Apparently completely made up. Like so much "data" in these threads.

-mr. bill

phoebeisis

NHTSB does have single vehicle accidents for bicycles and all other vehicles (which frequently are "mostly" driver error)
Just look it up
There are LOTS of sub categories-

You can always quibble about data quality
but TRENDS over time -more deaths spike in deaths-
are meaningful DESPITE quibbles about collection methods and difference jurisdictions to jurisdiction
as long as the data is collected in the same way over time-

The numbers probably mean just what they seem to mean-TEXTING causing more bike deaths-

Why in hell wouldn't TEXTING cause more bike deaths????

GamblerGORD53

How many times have 5 wal-mart bikers died at once?? ZERO ... Multiple deaths do happen with MAMILs.
I've looked at those annual maps that show ALL the accident sites of all 40,000+ deaths. Ages of victims and circumstances. There are lots of data breakdowns, nothing mysterious or FAKE at all.

Paul Barnard

I think we have a mix-up. 40,000 deaths?

GamblerGORD53

That is for cars, peds and cyclists.

mr_bill

It's a mythical database containing clothing, frame material, years of riding a bicycle, and point of sale information.

-mr. bill

genec

Some say there is no proof that cell phones or texting causes more deaths than starbucks or putting on makeup or... That there is no significant change due to texting.

mr_bill

They have data for DEATHS, including single vehicle accidents, on public highways.

They have *some* data for injuries on public highways, including single vehicle accidents, but the trigger for filing a report is either severe injury, or visible injury with trip to hospital/medical center, or visible injury with sufficient property damage (vehicle towed).

It's quite common for a single vehicle motor vehicle crash to have sufficient property damage.

It's uncommon for a single vehicle bicycle crash to have sufficient property damage. And unfortunately, until recently, a trip to the hospital/health center was often refused by people on bicycles since there was no policy to secure the bicycle for the trip to the hospital/medical center.

It's important to understand just how limited our knowledge is.

-mr. bill

genec

Frankly I have long thought that driving and the ethics and history of driving (ie bikes) should be taught in public schools... at the lower grades, on bikes to show how to interface with traffic and get used to signs and marks, at the upper grades, more emphasis on the ethics and safety, with simulator time (graded), eventually leading to a license. So rather than merely 40 hours of training on a couple of weekends... it would be something like several semesters. Heck more time is spent these days teaching sex than driving.

When I went to high school in the very early '70s, drivers ed was a one semester class... now it's two weekends with no real time for it to sink in.

Our only real salvation is to remove humans from the equation...

phoebeisis

Mr Bill
Sure it is limited
but the limitation- just counting "deaths from crashes"( not MI's or being shot)
is a good thing
because deaths are easy to count-
severity of injuries-much much harder to measure

Yeah counting just deaths is a strength-
and crash deaths increasing more than increased exposure means you have to hunt up a plausible reason
and CAR CRASH DEATHS INCREASING-at the same times cars are being made much much safer more crash worthy
Clearly means something has changed dramatically-
TEXTING-
Plain as day

Name One other possible cause-that is anywhere near as likely??(OK I will-smoking weed or smoking weed while texting)
But the TEXTING RATE has increased a lot more than the smoking weed while driving rate-
and INCREASING DEATHS has pretty much followed explosion in TEXTING
Dopers smoking weed-has been with us for many years

I-Like-To-Bike

Agree about the lack of quality of the knowledge (to include useful data and credible/competent/unbiased analysis of the data that is available). Quality data and its analysis may not offer the dramatic headlines or justification for hand-wringing sought by some perennial bicycling "victims".

I have to question the seriousness of the severity of injuries suffered by cyclists who refuse a trip to a hospital/health center due to placing a priority on security of their precious bicycle over their own health.

I suspect that including injuries with insignificant severity (such as skinned knees or bruises or injuries not important enough to treat due to a higher concern for bicycle security) or giving such insignificant injuries the same weight as truly severe injuries (i.e. overnight hospitalization, long term treatment, disabling, etc.) when analyzing bicycling risk is done either because of ignorance of the risk evaluation process or in a deliberate effort to inflate the alleged risk of bicycling for whatever purpose (drama, headlines, raising money for a cause, etc.) serves the alleged risk analysts' interests.

mr_bill

I refused a trip to a hospital/health center due to all my "precious" stuff being in the totaled car.

Why would you assume rational behavior after a crash?

When my friend picked me up, they convinced me to go to the hospital. I agreed, but only if we moved all my stuff to their car, (actually, they moved all my stuff to their car). FWIW, I was *visible injured*/refused transport. My injuries were *not* insignificant, but neither were they "severe" on your biased-scale of overnight admittance, disabling, life altering, etc etc etc.

In any event, Fort Collins found the refuse rate dropped when they added bike racks to ambulances. Your disbelief not withstanding.

ps. You might want to ask first responders if people who refuse transport have insignificant boo-boos.

-mr. bill

genec

I was blacked out after a bike crash decades ago and transported to the hospital... my first thought upon awakening was "where is my bike... and what happened to my glasses..."

You don't always have your best wits about when you are in shock.

phoebeisis

Genec-
Yeah swilling hot coffee-having to grab the cup-guide it to your mouth moving car
and putting on make up
Sure both are plenty distracting

But people have been eating drinking putting on make up while driving for the last 60 years