Study finds bad driving, not bad cycling, the cause of most cycling accidents
A tiny proportion of accidents involving cyclists are caused by riders jumping red lights or stop signs, or failing to wear high-visibility clothing and use lights, a government-commissioned study has discovered.
. . .
The data, which was analysed by the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL), showed that more than a quarter of all cycling deaths in 2005-07 happened when a vehicle ran into the rear of a bike. This rose to more than one-third in rural areas and to 40% in collisions that took place away from junctions.
. . .
“We believe this report strongly supports our view that the biggest problem for cyclists is bad driving. With that in mind we are greatly concerned that the government still seems fascinated with analysing and promoting cycle helmets, the value of which appears to be inconclusive. We believe that the government should now focus on tackling the causes of injury which appears to be mainly inconsiderate and dangerous driving. Reduced speed limits, stronger traffic law enforcement and cycle-friendly road design are the solutions.”
I’ve often argued that it’s the hit-from-behind accidents we need to address. Those are the ones that are killing and seriously injuring us, and they’re the ones that we have virtually no control over. Even extremely cautious, extremely experienced riders can be hit from behind, and it all too often results in the death of the cyclist. A starting point to solving this would be for local authorities to begin enforcing the three-foot rule, and letting drivers know that they owe a cyclist three feet even if the cyclist is in a bike lane. (Something even Flagstaff city bus drivers don’t seem to know.)
Prohibiting cell phone use in cars would be next. And then? Well, as long as I’m dreaming, decrease the minimum drinking age and increase the minimum driving age.
I believe in educating cyclists to ride more carefully and I am a huge, huge fan of proper lighting. But in the end I know there is only so much I can do against the bad driving I contend with every single day.
–Erik Ryberg
December 29th, 2009 at 11:10 am
I absolutely love and agree with your call to decrease the minimum drinking age and increase the minimum driving age. But yes, we’re probably both dreaming.
Also, I’m headed to Tucson in the next few days to stay through March. Looking forward to getting a taste of what Arizona has to offer for cycling!
Cheers,
Heidi
December 29th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
One of the things we may do in Tempe in 2010 is work with Tempe PD SE (Selective Enforcement) division to have the 3 foot rule enforced on some of our rides.
This new data is interesting as the data in our LAB LCI training materials suggests that only 3% of car/bike incidents are “bicyclist hit from behind by car”.
In all my talks with uneducated cyclists, the “I’m afraid a car will hit me from behind” is the most cited reason that they choose to ride on the sidewalk, the wrong way, etc. Now it seems their fears are more founded than the older data suggests.
December 29th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
It’s good that TBL put this study out there (and Red Star thanks him). But there are limitations. For one thing, the study was done in the UK (where motorists drive on the wrong side of the road, as Chevy Chase discovered to his frustration in National Lampoon’s “European Vacation”). So there are generalizability (sp?) issues, always a difficulty in epidemiology. What falls out is why isn’t this (or is it?) studied in USA?
Anyway, a different take on things is provided by a relatively obscure Sheldon Brown-like character:
Is Cycling Dangerous?
over at:
http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/health/risks.htm
(it’s not a scholarly/professional/peer-reviewed work, just some things to think about, talking points, from a seasoned cyclist)
Part of the well-meaning adventure over at:
http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/sitemap.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~
Spoiler alert:
Kifer’s thoughts and assertions are a bit dated (circa turn of the century). Here’s why, some sad irony:
http://www.kenkifer.com/death.htm
December 29th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
The full 64 page report can be downloaded here, though you have to create a free account with TRL: http://bit.ly/70hy94
December 29th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Tom, it’s logical that both be equally true, if the lower one refers to the more inclusive car/bike “incidents” and the higher to fatalities only, as this type of incident carries a greater chance of fatality than most. Therefore even if it doesn’t happen very often (3%), if it does you’re probably going to die, which raises the percentage for that outcome.
December 30th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Ed has a great page for collision studies in Arizona
http://azbikelaw.org/blog/understanding-collision-summaries/
I think Tom is citing Phoenix crash data. I saw 11 percent hit from behind in 2007 I do believe.
Ed missed Scottsdale’s crash data though. Which is buried in the master bike plan.
64 percent of crashes were from sidewalk wrong riders.
only 15 percent were in the roadway riding the right way.
http://www.scottsdaleaz.gov/traffic/alttransmethod/bikeways.asp
And if Scottsdale master plan can’t get any better. The specifically address where the focus of enforcement should be. wrong way riders, failing to yield to pedestrians and I am guessing wrong way sidewalk riding, riding with out lights, and finally at the very very bottom obeying traffic signals.
This is very true I have had many officers observe me safely rolling through stop signs.
also almost 25 percent of our officers are trained to be bicycle cops.
I agree with E. raise that dam driving age and lower the drinking age. Ban cell phone usage period.
Lower the speed limits
Get EDRs into cars now not 2012. Start using the data in crashes which have EDRs in cars.
Start revoking more DLs for longer periods of time. etc etc. This should be a no brainer.
December 30th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
I agree with you on lowering the drinking age. I think young adults in Europe are much more responsible drinkers because they do not perceive alcohol as a forbidden pleasure. That’s a difficult argument to make in the US, though, especially in this age.
Thanks for sharing the study, it’s confirmed what I’ve long suspected and it’s nice to have data to reference.
January 5th, 2010 at 4:00 pm
Here’s another take on the same problem — the drivers just aren’t paying attention:
http://www.distraction.gov/