Drivers cause 90% of accidents with bikes

[staggerspool]

Regarding a University of Toronto study:

<http://www.research.utoronto.ca/behind_the_headlines/smart-cycling/>

From the text:

"While there is a public perception that cyclists are usually the cause of accidents between cars and bikes, an analysis of Toronto police collision reports shows otherwise: The most common type of crash in this study involved a motorist entering an intersection and either failing to stop properly or proceeding before it was safe to do so. The second most common crash type involved a motorist overtaking unsafely. The third involved a motorist opening a door onto an oncoming cyclist. The study concluded that cyclists are the cause of less than 10 per cent of bike-car accidents in this study.


The available evidence suggests that collisions have far more to do with aggressive driving than aggressive cycling."

Other threads have been discussing this from the viewpoint of personal perception (or bias).

Anyone objective care to discuss?

 

[Mia.Colpa]

This could be the case as I like to believe the vast majority of cyclists are very careful as they know they will the one who will lose out in any accident with a vehicle. In my case though, when I'm driving I happened to attract all the idiot cyclists and not the safe ones.

Seriously though, this study is based on a police report involving accidents only. The report does not look at near or potential collisions. For example, I believe there are way more cyclists than vehicles who do not stop properly at an intersection, contrary to the report which only looks at accidents that have already happened at intersections. I see many cyclists just biking through intersections without stopping, especially in the burbs.

 

[papasmerf]

I got back into bicycle riding this summer after many years. As a youth I had several accidents with cars but that never kept me off the bike. It did however kept me from motorcycles.

Had one close call this summer on my bike. Lady looked right at me and proceeded into the intersection. I had no stop sign, she had one. I am pretty sure she emptied her balder when I yelled. Her husband was sitting in the passenger seat and began laughing as I politely informed her she has to stop and allow all traffic clear the intersection before she proceeds.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Well maybe I was a bit less than polite.

My best advice to bike riders is to ride like they are out to get you.

And driver drive like the other guy is out to score from your insurance company.

 

[staggerspool]

Seriously though, this study is based on a police report involving accidents only. The report does not look at near or potential collisions. For example, I believe there are way more cyclists than vehicles who do not stop properly at an intersection, contrary to the report which only looks at accidents that have already happened at intersections. I see many cyclists just biking through intersections without stopping, especially in the burbs.

And I believe the opposite: almost no cars come to a complete stop at intersections. That is the law. AND ITS ALL JUST IMPRESSIONS!

The fact is, cars cause the vast majority of accidents serious enough to be reported. Those that are not reported are not important, unless you are looking for some way to stay 'right' in your perceptions, after you have been proven wrong.

Sorry, but I have lost my sense of humor over this. Time to talk real.

 

[Cycleguy007]

Drivers are the cause of all my near misses...

I have never been involved in an accident while riding my bike.

I have had 4 near misses though... 2 last summer involving cars turning in front of me while I had the right of way.

1. Car in oncoming traffic waiting to turn left into the street I was crossing. He didn't see me, I slammed my brakes to avoid hitting him... he sped off.

2. Car turning right into a parking lot in front of me going in the same direction. I slammed my brakes to avoid hitting her... she sped off while giving ME the finger... WTF!?

I have also had 2 this summer involving cars turning in front of me while I had the right of way.

1. SUV driven by a woman on her cell phone turning right into a parking lot (for Tim Hortons) in front of me going in the same direction. I slammed my brakes to avoid hitting her... she sped off while giving me the finger! WTF!? Apparently she was in desparate need of a caffeine fix!

2. I was crossing a rather busy street to rejoin the cycling trail, waiting for a red light to change to green. Light turns green, opposing traffic is waiting for me to go straight thru before they turn left... so I start off and out of the corner of my eye I see a flash of movement... I slam the brakes and a guy who NOW HAS A RED LIGHT sails right through the intersection missing my front tire by about 6 inches! Driver of the car gives ME the finger! WTF!?

In each case, I have to say, there is NO WAY they couldn't see me! Unless they were totally oblivious to everything around them as well. I ride in BLACK/ BRIGHT YELLOW Livestrong gear!



This is PRECISELY WHY, I avoid the city streets as often as possible... Drivers (for the most part) just aren't aware of cyclists or just don't care about us.... and that is also why, when I AM riding city streets, I am ULTRA AWARE of all the cars around me. Had I not been, I would have most certainly been involved in an accident in each of the above instances. Regardless of who's "legal right of way" it is, I am responsible for me OWN safety while I am on my bike. No one else.

 

[Mia.Colpa]

Say what you want, but I can only talk from my experience as I don't do studies on this subject. In my over 40 years of driving, mostly in the suburbs, the vast majority of cyclists don't properly stop at intersections. They zip through four way stops without stopping at all in many cases.

Are vehicles also at fault? Of course, but in my driving experience, which I'm careful, I'd say cyclists cause me near heart attacks. btw, I also cycle and see some asshole drivers.

 

[staggerspool]

Say what you want, but I can only talk from my experience as I don't do studies on this subject. In my over 40 years of driving, mostly in the suburbs, the vast majority of cyclists don't properly stop at intersections. They zip through four way stops without stopping at all in many cases.

Are vehicles also at fault? Of course, but in my driving experience, which I'm careful, I'd say cyclists cause me near heart attacks. btw, I also cycle and see some asshole drivers.

There is a difference between verifiable fact and your experience. One is truth, the other is the story you tell yourself. You don't need to do studies, others do them so we can search for them on the internet. The study quoted proves that your 40 years of experience have lead you to incorrect conclusions.

You seem to be focused on situations where nothing really has happened. Sit one day at a four way stop and see how many car wheels actually stop rolling. These have the same impact as the cyclists you see rolling through intersections (none), and are just as illegal.

Again, the point is, drivers are making mistakes that cost the lives of cyclists. All these perceptions about how bad cyclists are basically come down to unjustified prejudice.

I've had my share of 'heart attacks" too - the difference is, I think "that guy almost killed me!" and a driver thinks "I almost killed that guy!"

 

[Pencap]

Slow down, staggerspool. If anyone were to go on this website and scroll down to the bottom of the article, they would see that this medical researcher does not actually say that drivers are responsible for causing 90% of the accidents involving bike-car. The police reports used in the report do not ascribe blame to anyone, cyclist or driver.

The 90% figure was actually come to by a New York pedestrian advocacy group called Right Of Way, who wrote a report with this conclusion in 1999. One major problem with this 90% number is that it lumps accidents involving both cyclists AND pedestrians together.

Another, more serious problem, about this Right Of Way report is that it assumes that ANY accident involving bike-car is automatically the fault of the driver. They assume what they seek out to prove.

More can be done by both sides, government, etc. to make the situation better. I also think that letting this debate devolve into a culture war would make coming to effective solutions even more difficult.

 

[SecretRendezvous]

The one thing the study did not account for was all the accidents cause by cyclists that did not result in injury.

You hit a car, you are thankful you are not hurt and both parties usually walk. A car hits you, hurt or not, you are calling the police.

In my opinion, the study does not show an accurate picture of the issues and faults between drivers and cyclists in the city.

 

[Mia.Colpa]

Sit one day at a four way stop and see how many car wheels actually stop rolling. These have the same impact as the cyclists you see rolling through intersections (none), and are just as illegal.

I have many times, and cars that don't make a full stop but slow down to a snail's pace at four way stops are not as scary to me as when cyclists zip through the four way stops thinking cars will stop for them. I've chased those cyclists many times to give them shit. Both are illegal but the bicyclist scenario scares me more. As I mentioned before I bike as well and have seen some motorists being pricks by driving close to me, opening doors knowing I'm coming through, etc. Both motorists and cyclists need a lot of education to share the road, I just don't believe the study claims of 90% plus at fault by drivers, that's all.

I know you asked anyone objective to comment, but it appears you're lacking objective.

 

[staggerspool]

Slow down, staggerspool. If anyone were to go on this website and scroll down to the bottom of the article, they would see that this medical researcher does not actually say that drivers are responsible for causing 90% of the accidents involving bike-car. The police reports used in the report do not ascribe blame to anyone, cyclist or driver.

The 90% figure was actually come to by a New York pedestrian advocacy group called Right Of Way, who wrote a report with this conclusion in 1999. One major problem with this 90% number is that it lumps accidents involving both cyclists AND pedestrians together.

Another, more serious problem, about this Right Of Way report is that it assumes that ANY accident involving bike-car is automatically the fault of the driver. They assume what they seek out to prove.

More can be done by both sides, government, etc. to make the situation better. I also think that letting this debate devolve into a culture war would make coming to effective solutions even more difficult.

Cool, thanks for that. But please, how does this alter the basic point? The revision states: "Dr. Cavacuiti has asked us to make readers aware that the Toronto Collision study was actually designed to look at the cause of bicycle/motorist collisions but not culpability." The headline is 'cause' not 'culpability.' The difference is a fine point not altering the larger implication.

Regarding the 'right of way' report, please provide link otherwise this could just be another opinion. It is also a separate study and says nothing about the UofT study. In fact it appears to support the UofT conclusions.

The culture war is already happening, we need to get to facts to have a real discussion. But if it comes down to war....

 

[staggerspool]

The one thing the study did not account for was all the accidents cause by cyclists that did not result in injury.

You hit a car, you are thankful you are not hurt and both parties usually walk. A car hits you, hurt or not, you are calling the police.

In my opinion, the study does not show an accurate picture of the issues and faults between drivers and cyclists in the city.

Another opinion that means nothing. No fact here. Same old "I know it all!!" attitude.

Everyone has a right to an opinion. The vast majority, like this one, have no value.

 

[Pencap]

Cool, thanks for that. But please, how does this alter the basic point? The revision states: "Dr. Cavacuiti has asked us to make readers aware that the Toronto Collision study was actually designed to look at the cause of bicycle/motorist collisions but not culpability." The headline is 'cause' not 'culpability.' The difference is a fine point not altering the larger implication.

Regarding the 'right of way' report, please provide link otherwise this could just be another opinion. It is also a separate study and says nothing about the UofT study.

The culture war is already happening, we need to get to facts to have a real discussion. But if it comes down to war....

the title of this thread is called "Drivers cause 90% of accidents with bikes". To support this claim you gave a link to a report done by Dr. Cavacuiti which you imply shows this as a conclusion. The way that I interpret the addendum at the bottom of the article, Dr. Cavacuiti says that he in fact cannot make this conclusion based on the police reports because the police reports did not in fact ascribe blame.

Because of all of this, I feel that what I wrote it my previous post gets right to the heart of your basic point, which is that drivers cause 90% of accidents with bikes. I call it into question because the info that you base this conclusion on does not in fact point in that direction.

rightofway.org is the website where you can find the report that DOES make this conclusion. I think it makes the fundamental error of supporting their conclusion by assuming that the conclusion is true.

btw: this rightofway report is discussing pedestrian and cycling FATALITIES, not accidents in general.

I don't own a car, nor have I driven a car in months. I don't bike, either. I walk and take the Better Way.

P

 

[staggerspool]

The study in full can be found here:<http://www.toronto.ca/transportation/publications/bicycle_motor-vehicle/index.htm>

I see from an initial look that there is a lot of detail here and will look through it as time permits. I note that 30% of collisions involving bikes also followed from the cyclist riding on the sidewalk... so while the basic notion remains that drivers have more to answer for than cyclists, it is also clear that stupidity knows no bounds... and some cyclists don't know how to ride from the sidewalk to the street.

 

[SecretRendezvous]

Another opinion that means nothing. No fact here. Same old "I know it all!!" attitude.

Everyone has a right to an opinion. The vast majority, like this one, have no value.

Wow - and your opinion is the one of value here?

Sorry boys, I leave this one to you. I don't have time for single minded people on a posting rampage. LOL

 

[Cycleguy007]

This behaviour:

when cyclists zip through the four way stops thinking cars will stop for them

Is just a recipe for disaster! Idiot cyclists giving us cautious riders a bad name!

 

[fijiman]

I ride a motorcycle downtown on a daily basis in the nonwinter months. Cyclists are the ones that concern me the most. Far more than cars. Cyclists rarely check their blind spots. They seem to rely upon sound to tell them if a car is coming, and they seem to rely upon cars taking the responsibility to stay away from them. However, as a BMW rider my engine is quiet and cyclist usually don't hear me. I've had far more close calls with cyclists than with cars.

In my opinion, all of the bicycle close calls have been their fault, whereas I can remember two clear instances where I was at fault in a near collision with a car.

fj

 

[staggerspool]

Pencap replied to me, it seems to have disappeared while I was replying. Here is the exchange:

the title of this thread is called "Drivers cause 90% of accidents with bikes". To support this claim you gave a link to a report done by Dr. Cavacuiti which you imply shows this as a conclusion. The way that I interpret the addendum at the bottom of the article, Dr. Cavacuiti says that he in fact cannot make this conclusion based on the police reports because the police reports did not in fact ascribe blame.

Me: However, he does make this claim based on his own study. At least that is the way I read it. Otherwise, the whole article should have been corrected, and it was not.

Him: Because of all of this, I feel that what I wrote it my previous post gets right to the heart of your basic point, which is that drivers cause 90% of accidents with bikes. I call it into question because the info that you base this conclusion on does not in fact point in that direction.

Me: How does it 'not point in this direction?' Does it point in the opposite direction? And the 90% figure is ballpark. Call it 80% or 91%, still way over 50%. Let's just say 70%. Still works to make my point.

He: rightofway.org is the website where you can find the report that DOES make this conclusion. I think it makes the fundamental error of supporting their conclusion by assuming that the conclusion is true.

Me:I looked at the website and it does look a little.... questionable on the face of it. Could you provide a link to the precise items with which you seem so familiar?

He:btw: this rightofway report is discussing pedestrian and cycling FATALITIES, not accidents in general.

Me:Haven't seen it, really isn't in question. But just because it involves DEATH, we should disregard it? What exactly does this point say about your attitude? The dying because of the stupidity of others is what bothers me.

He:I don't own a car, nor have I driven a car in months. I don't bike, either. I walk and take the Better Way.

Me:I ride a bike because it is fun, good for me, cheap, gets me where I need to be.

Thanks for engaging seriously, hope you can keep it up!

P

 

[staggerspool]

Wow - and your opinion is the one of value here?

Sorry boys, I leave this one to you. I don't have time for single minded people on a posting rampage. LOL

My opinion is supported by a quoted study. That has value.

And I leave it to the boys, also. Do you have time for a considered discussion working with published facts? That is what separates the men from the boys.

 

[staggerspool]

the title of this thread is called "Drivers cause 90% of accidents with bikes". To support this claim you gave a link to a report done by Dr. Cavacuiti which you imply shows this as a conclusion. The way that I interpret the addendum at the bottom of the article, Dr. Cavacuiti says that he in fact cannot make this conclusion based on the police reports because the police reports did not in fact ascribe blame.

Because of all of this, I feel that what I wrote it my previous post gets right to the heart of your basic point, which is that drivers cause 90% of accidents with bikes. I call it into question because the info that you base this conclusion on does not in fact point in that direction.

rightofway.org is the website where you can find the report that DOES make this conclusion. I think it makes the fundamental error of supporting their conclusion by assuming that the conclusion is true.

btw: this rightofway report is discussing pedestrian and cycling FATALITIES, not accidents in general.

I don't own a car, nor have I driven a car in months. I don't bike, either. I walk and take the Better Way.

P

Opps! Here it is. My replies in post above.