Drivers at fault in majority of cycling accidents

buffalo

BikeRadar article:

New research from Australia* has shed light on the causes of collisions and near misses involving cycle commuters. 13 adult cyclists in Melbourne were given helmet-mounted video cameras and asked to film 12 hours of commuting each over a four-week period.

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/drivers-at-fault-in-majority-of-cycling-accidents-28489

I'd love to know the ability levels of the cyclists involved, as well as their road attitudes. Were any newbies to road cycling, or RLJers? Can anyone hunt down a link to the actual study?

godwin

As someone who cycles a lot , I see quiet a lot of near misses due to other cyclists not cycling in single file.

It's nice to be out with friends but have some consideration for car drivers and please stay single file.

tunney

godwin wrote: »

As someone who cycles a lot , I see quiet a lot of near misses due to other cyclists not cycling in single file.

It's nice to be out with friends but have some consideration for car drivers and please stay single file.

You obviously don't cycle much at all.

Cycling doubled up is safer for cyclists as it forces poorly skilled drivers to treat them as a vehicle rather than buzz by as close as possible.

Saving you 2 minutes on your journey or saving my life?

Back to motoring with you!

godwin

godwin wrote: »

As someone who cycles a lot , I see quiet a lot of near misses due to other cyclists not cycling in single file.

It's nice to be out with friends but have some consideration for car drivers and please stay single file.

I think this is merited:

Chips Lovell

You are aware that cycling two abreast is perfectly legal?

tunney

el tonto wrote: »

You are aware that cycling two abreast is perfectly legal?

HEHEHEHEHE - breast.

Lumen

Wow, I never thought I would see Godwin himself actually appear on one of these threads.

godwin

Lumen wrote: »

Wow, I never thought I would see Godwin himself actually appear on one of these threads.

Nazi!

godwin

tunney wrote: »

You obviously don't cycle much at all.

Have you got figures to back that claim up?

buffalo

godwin wrote: »

As someone who cycles a lot , I see quiet a lot of near misses due to other cyclists not cycling in single file.

It's nice to be out with friends but have some consideration for car drivers and please stay single file.

To stay on-topic, describing these as near misses gives these statistics:

Three of the six near-collisions involved trucks, at least five of the drivers didn't see the cyclist, and at least four of the incidents were deemed to be the motorist's fault

So 5 out of 6 drivers didn't see the cyclist - cycling two abreast would make cyclists more visible, and therefore safer.
And 4 out of 6 were the motorist's fault, so probably this equates to dangerous overtaking in this situation. So how about as a motorist, please have some consideration for cyclists, and wait for five minutes or so, until one can overtake safely?

CramCycle

New study entitled "Common Sense" shows that a majority of accidents are not linked to any form of transport but linked to the amount of attention people pay, how ignorant of their duty of care on the roads they are, as well as ignorance of the necessity to follow the rules of the road.

On another note, the actual study is here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21050610

dario28

The one that sent me Osbourne over her bonnet last week was deffo at fault and the UPC van driver this morning that tried to mill me off the bridge was deffo at fault

Capt'n Midnight

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21050610

Abstract

The study aim was to identify risk factors for collisions/near-collisions involving on-road commuter cyclists and drivers. A naturalistic cycling study was conducted in Melbourne, Australia, with cyclists wearing helmet-mounted video cameras. Video recordings captured cyclists' perspective of the road and traffic behaviours including head checks, reactions and manoeuvres. The 100-car naturalistic driving study analysis technique was adapted for data analysis and events were classified by severity: collision, near-collision and incident. Participants were adult cyclists and each filmed 12 hours of commuter cycling trips over a 4-week period. In total, 127 hours and 38 minutes were analysed for 13 participants, 54 events were identified: 2 collisions, 6 near-collisions and 46 incidents. Prior to events, 88.9% of cyclists travelled in a safe/legal manner. Sideswipe was the most frequent event type (40.7%). Most events occurred at an intersection/intersection-related location (70.3%). The vehicle driver was judged at fault in the majority of events (87.0%) and no post-event driver reaction was observed (83.3%). Cross tabulations revealed significant associations between event severity and: cyclist reaction, cyclist post-event manoeuvre, pre-event driver behaviour, other vehicle involved, driver reaction, visual obstruction, cyclist head check (left), event type and vehicle location (p<0.05). Frequent head checks suggest cyclists had high situational awareness and their reactive behaviour to driver actions led to successful avoidance of collisions/near-collisions. Strategies to improve driver awareness of on-road cyclists and to indicate early before turning/changing lanes when sharing the roadway with cyclists are discussed. Findings will contribute to the development of effective countermeasures to reduce cyclist trauma.

no post-event driver reaction was observed (83.3%). - says it all really

Haleakala

The Guardian Bikeblog has this article on accident causes today. A study of accidents in Portland, Oregon (which seems to be mecca for this stuff for some reason).

Anyway, original study here

Essentially it suggests the environment (i.e. potholes etc.) should be a focus of accident prevention policy. Which I tend to agree with, excepting knowing the danger of large vehicles as being more important.

I thought an interesting thing from the Bike Radar article was that those cyclists who checked over shoulder frequently typically had safest experience (maybe as a combination of awareness, plus getting driver attention). Also the highlighting of checking left more often - I know I check right way more often, although cars approaching side roads on the left are definitely on the radar.

FatSh!te

another article/study review in today's guardian - this time in the US:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2010/nov/23/bicyle-accidents-a-us-perspective

Its much larger study 962 cyclists, and the general aim seemed to be to highlight the reduction in accidents if some simple road improvements were aimed at the issue.

I'd feel that looking at the habits & experiences of 13 cyclists might not be representative?

FatSh!te

oops...didn't see that last post - Haleakala you beat me too it!

Capt'n Midnight

Can't find the full article , though it should appear on one of these pages

http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/reports/rpts10.html
http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/projects/bicycles.html

poochiem

what is the road equivalent of IT's PICNIC?

(problem in chair not in computer)

Capt'n Midnight

FatSh!te wrote: »

another article/study review in today's guardian - this time in the US:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2010/nov/23/bicyle-accidents-a-us-perspective

Its much larger study 962 cyclists, and the general aim seemed to be to highlight the reduction in accidents if some simple road improvements were aimed at the issue.

I'd feel that looking at the habits & experiences of 13 cyclists might not be representative?

Looking for solutions, the OHSU team focused on the 20% of crashes – serious and otherwise – that involved poor road design and maintenance and that could be easily corrected. The most notable causes of this type of crash were gravel on the road, metal plates on the road in construction zones, and rail tracks, particularly ones that people on bikes need to cross when making left or right turns. Fixing these issues would presumably make cyclists a mere four times more likely to be injured than drivers.

that still leaves 80% of crashes NOT involving road conditions.

Yes improving road surfaces is cheap and easy and worth doing.
But drivers will still be the main hazard faced by cyclists. (48% of more serious crashes in the OHSU study that involved motor vehicles)

While they point out that you are five times more likely to have a bicycle incident than a car it's per distance travelled. If you remove roads that cyclists can't use like motorways and also factor in stuff like the 20% of accidents caused by road surfaces that are far less likely to occur to motorists and the fraction of the 48% of crashes where motorists are at fault and it's possible that on a per-mile basis being on a bike is as safe as being strapped into an impact resistant metal box. Now since cars travel much faster than bikes (except during rush hour) it would appear to me that bikes could be saver than cars per hour of usage ?

13 is a small sample of cyclists indeed, but no post-event driver reaction was observed from 45 out of 54 incidents is statistically significant.

Haleakala

Interesting result from that Portland study which controlled for cyclist characteristics. Basically suggests that "traumatic events were not related to rider demographics, safety practices, or experience levels".

Really surprised about the skills level implication.

Haleakala

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

13 is a small sample of cyclists indeed, but no post-event driver reaction was observed from 45 out of 54 incidents is statistically significant.

I might not be understanding this fully, but what is the point of a post-event reaction?

CramCycle

Haleakala wrote: »

I might not be understanding this fully, but what is the point of a post-event reaction?

As in did the driver even notice he hit you? Pretty important implication for driver awareness

Wicklowrider

Haleakala wrote: »

I might not be understanding this fully, but what is the point of a post-event reaction?

I'd have thought it would be along the lines of:
Realising (as opposed to being blissfully unaware) that motorist has caused/almost caused accident.Learning from mistake when accident has occured/been narrowly averted? Motorist stopping and aiding victim.

tomasrojo

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

While they point out that you are five times more likely to have a bicycle incident than a car it's per distance travelled.

Yes, fatalities per distance travelled is not a good metric, since it's the time on the road (the exposure) which is the determining factor, not the distance travelled. Car travel and bike travel are far more similar in terms of risk when measured per hour of exposure. Good item about it recently on Radio 4 on that statistics show, More or Less.

Extending the logic, the USSR space programme had an exemplary safety record, using fatalities per km travelled.

Chips Lovell

^ Excellent point.

Haleakala

Wicklowrider wrote: »

I'd have thought it would be along the lines of:
Realising (as opposed to being blissfully unaware) that motorist has caused/almost caused accident.Learning from mistake when accident has occured/been narrowly averted? Motorist stopping and aiding victim.

The report AFAIK, isn't suggesting there was an accident, just that the situation demanded action to avoid collision etc. an "event" of which two were collisions.

Important distinction I think.

If the motorist hit you and didn't stop that is a matter for the cops!

Also, I'd say if you did the same for cars vs. cyclists the numbers would be similar.

Capt'n Midnight

tomasrojo wrote: »

Yes, fatalities per distance travelled is not a good metric, since it's the time on the road (the exposure) which is the determining factor, not the distance travelled. Car travel and bike travel are far more similar in terms of risk when measured per hour of exposure. Good item about it recently on Radio 4 on that statistics show, More or Less.

you have to wonder how much of this is due to risk equalisation ?

Captain Havoc

Of the two times I've been knocked down, once was entirely my fault and once was entirely the drivers fault.

tomasrojo

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

you have to wonder how much of this is due to risk equalisation ?

Do you mean risk compensation/risk homeostasis?

I think that the reason fatality per hour on the road is about the same is because bikes have better active safety features (small, maneouvrable, can leave the road, user can walk around hazarous stretches) and cars have better passive safety features, so they end up being about as hazardous as each other, when computed against hours of exposure to risk.

The car or car passenger still has lower risk by the exposure metric, but it's broadly similar. It's quite hard to correct for the lower age of cyclists (meaning more risk-taking generally), and the hours spent on motorways by motorists (which are safer than urban roads). The figures available are very broad.

On More or Less, the guest statistician said the uncorrected risk elevation is changing from car to bike was about the same as changing from motorway driving to urban driving, which she pointed out was not regarded as an intolerable elevation of risk by anyone.

Bunnyhopper

I think this is the episode of More or Less:

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/moreorless/moreorless_20100903-1248a.mp3

Discussion of cycling starts at about ten minutes in.

CramCycle

Bunnyhopper wrote: »

I think this is the episode of More or Less:

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/moreorless/moreorless_20100903-1248a.mp3

Discussion of cycling starts at about ten minutes in.

Thankfully I am no longer young statistically safer by the minute

Beasty

CramCycle wrote: »

Thankfully I am no longer young statistically safer by the minute

Statistically safer maybe, but a minute nearer death nonetheless ....:D

Jawgap

CramCycle wrote: »

Thankfully I am no longer young statistically safer by the minute

When you're in a club and you say "Jaysus, it's noisey in here!" - that's the point of no return - you've spiritually, if not demographically, moved into the "older" generation!!!

cdaly_

Wasn't the driver's fault this morning. Coming off the Clontarf Psychle path at Alfie Byrne road I mistimed the pedestrian lights and ended up braking to an embarrassed halt right in front of the car accelerating through their green...

superrdave

Two near misses in the last 24 hours, and in both cases I was seen by the car (in the second case well beforehand!). First was me making a right turn off Gardiner Street onto Mountjoy square south at about 1645. A car in front performed the same turn, but pulled well over to the side of the road. Fine, I thought, she's pulling in behind the bus, and I moved to overtake. Next thing I know, she sweeps hard right, using the junction to execute a 180 turn (nothing wrong with that, done carefully, given that pretty much no other user is going to expect it). Now, she almost hits me, but as we are both about to pull to a stop, seeing I am stopped, she revs again and gives me a little 'thank you' wave... I mean, wtf?!? You nearly smashed me, dear. I don't want your thanks, I want you to appreciate what you did was outrageously dangerous. If I was a car making the same turn, she might well have hit me and saying "i didn't see you" would be a jack **** defence. Now, I appreciate I should have given a little more care, but so should she.

The second was more outrageous than the first. At about 2:30am, I was cycling South on the Rathmines Road at the junction with the Upper Rathmines Road, Lower Rathmines Road and Rathgar Road, with my rear lights flashing (I don't have front lights, my bad) when I heard a car coming behind me. Next thing, I hear the horn tooting lightly (that's right, in a semi-residential area, at that hour of the morning) and it is obviously him, at which he passes me, and cuts across left in front of me and up the Upper Rathmines Road (I was going straight ahead). Now, I wasn't right at the junction, and had slowed down a little, but his behaviour was absolutely disgraceful. If I had continued at my original pace, I would almost certainly have been knocked over by that inconsiderate asshole. I AM NOT A SECOND CLASS ROAD USER!!!! AAAAAAAAAARGHHH!

Jawgap

The view from Orlando on how not to become a statistic......

http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/animations/lane-control/

tomasrojo

Very much like the advice you find in Cyclecraft, that animation. I like it. Maybe should have shown the cyclist moving nearer the kerb between hazards, which I think is a feature of all Vehicular Cycling manuals.

superrdave

Another near miss yesterday! I've never had so many in so short a period of time! Car pulls out from a parking space without checking his mirrors and nearly side swipes me (i was cycling defensively, giving him wide berth and was a bit back) but i pull sharp on the brakes and let him out. Not sure he even saw me, so as I went on, I passed him, then thought better of it, and went back and remonstrated a little, something along the lines of 'use your mirrors' and a pointed at his mirrors. Aargh!

christeb

I had a delightful fender bender meeting with a red Lexus on the Howth Rd this morning. He pulled out of St. Lawrence Rd without seeing me and I went straight into him. If it wasn't for decent reaction skills and my disc brakes, I would have ended up over the bonnet.
We exchanged words, I ensured there was nothing wrong with me / the bike and cycled on. There was quite a gap from me to the car in front, and this driver was too scared to pull up beside me again. He eventually did and pulled over and we exchanged some civil words, he apologised and I went my merry way.

It's gonna be a looooooong winter, be careful out there guys.

tomasrojo

superrdave wrote: »

Another near miss yesterday! I've never had so many in so short a period of time! Car pulls out from a parking space without checking his mirrors and nearly side swipes me (i was cycling defensively, giving him wide berth and was a bit back) but i pull sharp on the brakes and let him out. Not sure he even saw me, so as I went on, I passed him, then thought better of it, and went back and remonstrated a little, something along the lines of 'use your mirrors' and a pointed at his mirrors. Aargh!

It doesn't really sound like a near miss though. You anticipated he might pull out, were well positioned and reacted well when he did it. Unless I'm missing a nuance in what happened?

cyclopath2001

cdaly_ wrote: »

Wasn't the driver's fault this morning. Coming off the Clontarf Psychle path at Alfie Byrne road I mistimed the pedestrian lights and ended up braking to an embarrassed halt right in front of the car accelerating through their green...

Strange that having constructed the most substantial piece of dedicated cycle-track infrastructure in Dublin, the city council has made absolutely no provision whatsoever for safe transition to/from the roadway.

X files

Though plenty of aggressive drivers and near misses each time I cycle I thought I was immune to traffic hits. That was until a garda car rolled into my rear wheel near the Malahide Rd Swords on my home from night shift yesterday. They apologised, no damage but weird experience.

Jawgap

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Strange that having constructed the most substantial piece of dedicated cycle-track infrastructure in Dublin, the city council has made absolutely no provision whatsoever for safe transition to/from the roadway.

Yeah one of the great imponderables of the city!!

Two excellent bits of cycle track - from Sutton to the Causeway and from the Woodenbridge to Fairview and at each end of each stretch no decent and safe way for cyclists to transit back into the traffic.

I think it's the difference between good tracks and good infrastructure.

DirkVoodoo

Jawgap wrote: »

The view from Orlando on how not to become a statistic......

http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/animations/lane-control/

Excellent information!

superrdave

tomasrojo wrote: »

It doesn't really sound like a near miss though. You anticipated he might pull out, were well positioned and reacted well when he did it. Unless I'm missing a nuance in what happened?

Well, yeah, but if I had missed him pulling out (lets face it, we all lose concentration sometimes), he would have hit me and it would have been his fault. In the current weather, I doubt I could have stopped as sharply as I did then, without coming to a sudden, slushy stop.

tomasrojo

superrdave wrote: »

Well, yeah, but if I had missed him pulling out (lets face it, we all lose concentration sometimes), he would have hit me and it would have been his fault. In the current weather, I doubt I could have stopped as sharply as I did then, without coming to a sudden, slushy stop.

I see what you mean, but to me a near miss is when you were lucky to avoid an accident. What you describe is a lamentable failure on the driver's part, but since you were well prepared for this failure, it wasn't a near miss. To my thinking anyway. Had you not anticipated it, and then took evasive action at the last fraction of a second, or had he stopped just in time having belatedly realised you were upon him, I'd count that as a near miss.

Perhaps I'm being picky.

Bumski

I was back in Dublin recently and had ocasion to cycle from NCR to the National Concert Hall and back. I was cut off 6 times in that short cycle and every time it was by taxis.... no accidents but you really do need to have your wits about you! And there were no "post-event driver reactions"