Cure to cycling

"Education not licensing, idiots!"
Quoted for truth.

Star is making up for their recent anti-biking sentiment. Atleast this article seems uncontrived and based in statistics (and not line after line of BS like the anti-cycling editorials).

Good stuff as always herb.

The study he refers to counts both cycling and pedestrian fatalities in New York over a period of a few years. The number he quoted of 74%/16% full/partial driver culpability includes BOTH cyclists and pedestrians. Which considering the article was specifically about cycling, was a bit of a misrepresentation.

For cycling fatalities - total number around 70 - about half were "unknown" culpability. Where they could establish culpability- the actual finding was 60% full and 10% partial driver culpability. (so cyclists are more often responsible than pedestrians). This is very different number than the one he presented. But still heavily skewed towards driver fault.

Do I think the guy has a good message - yes. He talks a lot of sense. Helmets are not a cure all, education and awareness is. But he makes himself seem less credible by going for the higher impact numbers at the expense of accuracy. And the accurate numbers are still pretty telling.

Hmmm. Well put sunnyside.
The 97% of drivers being male in cyclist fatalies is still accurate right?

I haven't read the study in depth, just fished for the tables containing the relevant data. (a bit of a cheat, but I'm supposed to be working right now :)

I think the 97% number looks right BUT aggressiveness in not the only contributor, and may be a minor one. The study refers to the fact that 75% of the drivers in the area of the study are male, so its already skewed there. Add in that over 1/3 of the vehicles involved were trucks/buses which are overwhelmingly driven by males and that could explain some more of the skew without invoking aggressiveness. But probably not all of it.

Just as a note, in my experience women give me more space when passing than male drivers do. Is passing closely aggressiveness or having better spatial awareness and assuming everything will be OK? The male drivers passing more closely might simply be being more efficient in their overtaking practices, but it also means that if I need to swerve suddenly there's a car there. I'm not convinced I'd call that aggressive. Stupid - yes. Bad planning and forethought - yes. Aggressive? Not so sure.

I also found it interesting that over the four years of the study five (count 'em 5) pedestrians were killed on sidewalks by cyclists. Unfortunately in the breakdown of type of vehicle involved they don't include bicycles as a vehicle type (just a victim!), so I cant find anything indicating whether there were any additional pedestrians killed by cyclists on the roads- so 5 is probably the low number there. Which is a little scary. I am rather too fond of thinking of the big bad cars as the lethal weapons, not my little sturmy-archer so much :)

I vastly prefer engineering and infrastructure to protect cyclists no matter what irresponsible and aggressive behaviour is perpetrated by caraholics.

Simply put, any reliance on human behaviour changing has got a major flaw in it. Car drivers are NOT going to stop being irresponsible and aggressive.

What I advocate are physical barriers to protect cyclists in bike lanes and protection through intersections. Residential neighbourhoods should be denetworked for cars with intersections being closed to cars so that there is only one way to drive a car through a neighbourhood - straight out to the nearest arterial road.

Cities like Copenhagen and Groningen provide excellent examples of how to protect cyclists. In these cities, car drivers are physically prevented from harming cyclists by barriers, intersection protections and neighbourhood car denetworking.

See, for example,

http://hembrow.blogspot.com/2009/02/how-groningen-grew-to-be-worlds-numb...

My helmet has saved my cranium in two wipeouts over the past five years, so I think it's a damn good idea to wear one.

When I go on short trips to the store I don't wear a helmet, when I ride a cruiser I don't wear a helmet. But when I am commuting through the city, with traffic, in summer & snow, I always wear a helmet.

Helmets may get a bad rap from some advocates, that leaves me feeling a bit miffed.

There are very real contrasts between the conditions that serve the average Northern European cyclist compared to those in North America. Although a lot of this gets played off of the behaviour of the cyclist, other factors like: the type of bike, the cycling conditions, and the behaviour or other road users can not be overlooked.

... I just don't think that irresponsible and aggressive behaviour is curable by education. I suspect that car drivers who engage in this behaviour already know that it is wrong. Their problems are moral and/or psychiatric, not a lack of knowledge.

So what works? I believe in effective law enforcement for lethally dangerous behaviour. The laws are in place, they just need to be enforced. In other words, car offenders who commit behaviour that could result in death or serious injury to cyclists, pedestrians or other vulnerable road users should be charged by the police with Careless Driving. And sentenced by the courts to six months in prison. I predict that a few six-month sentences would provide effective deterrence.

I also believe in engineering out the possibility of committing the aggressive and dangerous behaviour in the first place.

See, I'm of two minds about the whole "off road trails" thing. Certainly I feel much safer as a cyclist when I'm separated from traffic. But realistically, we can't expect 100% coverage for every place we want to go. So if there are these dedicated off road cycling paths, then drivers will have to deal with cyclists (and vice versa) less frequently, and a) not be expecting cyclists on the roads and b) feel even more than they do now that cyclists do not 'belong' on the roads.
I;m pushing the education card, because I believe its achievable (and yes, enforcing laws, in my mind, counts as a form of education). Awareness is built through exposure, not preaching. More cyclists on the roads generally equals better driver awareness(or perhaps resignation).
You're right in that some people are idiots and theres no cure for that. So we educate the salvageable drivers , fine and prosecute the morons and everybody learns to get along. Whether they want to or not.

I'd be inclined to pursue the driver's insurance provider simply on principle. I'm a big believer in hitting people in the pocketbook to make them pay more attention. I'm pleased the police are planning to lay charges, but whether anything will come of that, who knows?

You were not at fault for the accident. She was. If she'd done a proper shoulder check it wouldn't have happened. The police agree. Its up to her to cover the damages. If you had been driving a car you would have had less damage to your person and wouldn't even be questioning the wisdom of making her pay for the repairs to your vehicle. Don't devalue your your bike or your right to a safe ride. Whether the repair is expensive is so completely not the point in a case like this.