cyclist fatality statistics

gds said:

I just read that in 2005 in Arizona there were a total of 1177 traffic
fatalities of which 35 were cyclists. There was no info given on rates
per mile, per hour, etc. So, at just under 3% of the total how does
this compare to data from other area?

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/TSF2005/BicyclistsTSF05.pdf

shows all by state.

At 3%, Arizona is the 4th highest/worst. It is 2nd worst per capita.

It order to get a better picture of what is happening, the police
reports of the 35 fatalities should be examined for predisposing
precipitating, and contributing factors.

Wayne

Wayne Pein said:

gds said:

I just read that in 2005 in Arizona there were a total of 1177 traffic
fatalities of which 35 were cyclists. There was no info given on rates
per mile, per hour, etc. So, at just under 3% of the total how does
this compare to data from other area?

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/TSF2005/BicyclistsTSF05.pdf

shows all by state.

At 3%, Arizona is the 4th highest/worst. It is 2nd worst per capita.

I don't doubt it, but not because the cycling here is more
dangerous... it's simply because a lot of people ride. Compare the
number of bikes you'll see in the Phoenix east valley on a given day
to the number you'll see in a suburb of Baltimore or Chicago or St.
Louis and it's easy to see that there are a lot more opportunities for
accidents. Add in the fact that people ride here all year round, and
it's even more of a factor.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Mark Hickey said:

Wayne Pein said:

gds said:

I just read that in 2005 in Arizona there were a total of 1177 traffic
fatalities of which 35 were cyclists. There was no info given on rates
per mile, per hour, etc. So, at just under 3% of the total how does
this compare to data from other area?

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/TSF2005/BicyclistsTSF05.pdf

shows all by state.

At 3%, Arizona is the 4th highest/worst. It is 2nd worst per capita.

I don't doubt it, but not because the cycling here is more dangerous...
it's simply because a lot of people ride. Compare the number of bikes
you'll see in the Phoenix east valley on a given day to the number
you'll see in a suburb of Baltimore or Chicago or St. Louis and it's
easy to see that there are a lot more opportunities for accidents. Add
in the fact that people ride here all year round, and it's even more of
a factor.

That may be true, and ridership does vary greatly across the country.
Keep in mind that .5% to 2%, the typical range of % of trips by bike in
American cities, is a fourfold difference.

However, both cyclist and pedestrian fatalities seem to be increasing in
real terms in most areas, an alarming trend. It's alarming enough that
VDOT is starting to take it seriously, although most efforts are going
into pedestrian safety because the numbers are bigger there.

Matt O.

Mark Hickey said:

Wayne Pein said:

gds said:

I just read that in 2005 in Arizona there were a total of 1177 traffic
fatalities of which 35 were cyclists. There was no info given on rates
per mile, per hour, etc. So, at just under 3% of the total how does
this compare to data from other area?

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/TSF2005/BicyclistsTSF05.pdf

shows all by state.

At 3%, Arizona is the 4th highest/worst. It is 2nd worst per capita.

I don't doubt it, but not because the cycling here is more
dangerous... it's simply because a lot of people ride. Compare the
number of bikes you'll see in the Phoenix east valley on a given day
to the number you'll see in a suburb of Baltimore or Chicago or St.
Louis and it's easy to see that there are a lot more opportunities for
accidents. Add in the fact that people ride here all year round, and
it's even more of a factor.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Wayne, that is interesting info and it is surprising to me that AZ
ranks so poorly. There is some more data. ~1 third of the cyclist
fatalities occurred during periods of darkness. At least here in the
Tucson metro area there are vast stretches of roads with minimal or no
lighting. From my memory of the 5 Tucson area fatalities as reported in
the press it seemed to skew toward folks riding at night without
lights.

Mark, you are suggesting that because the per capita number of cyclists
in AZ is very high that goes toward explaining the high per capita
number of fatalities. That could be a contiributer. As we are talking
about fatalities and not all accidents I think there is another big
contributer. Road speeds here are very high. Most arterials in Tucson
tolerate speeds of ~50 mph. The high speed on dry, straight roads may
or may not result in more accidents but I'd think that once an accident
happens that the chance of a fatality is higher because of the speed
(and because average vehicle size out here is also pretty big).

gds said:

As we are talking
about fatalities and not all accidents I think there is another big
contributer. Road speeds here are very high. Most arterials in Tucson
tolerate speeds of ~50 mph. The high speed on dry, straight roads may or
may not result in more accidents but I'd think that once an accident
happens that the chance of a fatality is higher because of the speed
(and because average vehicle size out here is also pretty big).

Well, I don't think that adds up. For one thing, in lots of states what
speeds are "tolerate"d are well in excess of the posted limits, and it is
the excess that makes it dangerous. Someone driving 50mph on a typical
Western artery, straight and level with wide, multiple lanes, and wide
shoulders is far less dangerous to cyclists than someone driving the same
speed on a narrow road typical of Eastern cities, with no shoulder, cars
parked all over the place, with dips and curves that date back to the 18th
century when the road was "designed".

Vehicle sizes out here are pretty big, too. Imagine a Hummer trying to
pass a group of cyclists on a narrow street packed with traffic. Driver
gets [censored] when he is delayed 5 seconds and guns it. It takes that
tank a while to build up speed, but he keeps at it, blowing by the
cyclists with inches of clearance since the damn thing is so wide it
hardly fits in the lane. I don't have to imagine it; it happened to me
and the group I was with on Saturday. Not uncommon.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | The lottery is a tax on those who fail to understand
_`\(,_ | mathematics.
(_)/ (_) |

David L. Johnson said:

Quoted message said:

Well, I don't think that adds up. For one thing, in lots of states what
speeds are "tolerate"d are well in excess of the posted limits, and it is
the excess that makes it dangerous. Someone driving 50mph on a typical
Western artery, straight and level with wide, multiple lanes, and wide
shoulders is far less dangerous to cyclists than someone driving the same
speed on a narrow road typical of Eastern cities, with no shoulder, cars
parked all over the place, with dips and curves that date back to the 18th
century when the road was "designed".

I don't know that we are disagreeing. I agree with you that driving 50
mph on a dry straight road out here may not result in a higher rate of
accidents. However, once an accident happens I'm suggesting that a big
pickup doing 50 mph is going to cause a lot of damage. So, perhaps the
accident rate here is not so bad but the fatality rate certainly is.

Generally the higher the exposure rate (there are several ways to
consider this) the higher the body count. Fatalities obviously generally
occur from high speed differential impacts, but it doesn't take much
differential to make a fatal impact. A 20 mph impact is often fatal with
pedestrians, and while bicyclist impacts have different mechanics, the
the 20 mph figure is probably fairly accurate for bicyclists as well. I
was ringside, while on my bike, at a roughly 25 mph collision between 2
cars, and the energy involved was enormous.

I'm sure some of the fatalities involved getting hit from the rear, and
most of those will involve unlit bicyclists, but I'm also sure the bulk
are from turning/merging movements, and many of those will involve unlit
bicyclists too. Alcohol/impairment will often be involved for one or
both participants, and the percentage of children is another important
consideration.

Wayne

David L. Johnson said:

gds said:

As we are talking
about fatalities and not all accidents I think there is another big
contributer. Road speeds here are very high. Most arterials in Tucson
tolerate speeds of ~50 mph. The high speed on dry, straight roads may or
may not result in more accidents but I'd think that once an accident
happens that the chance of a fatality is higher because of the speed
(and because average vehicle size out here is also pretty big).

Well, I don't think that adds up. For one thing, in lots of states what
speeds are "tolerate"d are well in excess of the posted limits, and it is
the excess that makes it dangerous. Someone driving 50mph on a typical
Western artery, straight and level with wide, multiple lanes, and wide
shoulders is far less dangerous to cyclists than someone driving the same
speed on a narrow road typical of Eastern cities, with no shoulder, cars
parked all over the place, with dips and curves that date back to the 18th
century when the road was "designed".

Vehicle sizes out here are pretty big, too. Imagine a Hummer trying to
pass a group of cyclists on a narrow street packed with traffic. Driver
gets [censored] when he is delayed 5 seconds and guns it. It takes that
tank a while to build up speed, but he keeps at it, blowing by the
cyclists with inches of clearance since the damn thing is so wide it
hardly fits in the lane. I don't have to imagine it; it happened to me
and the group I was with on Saturday. Not uncommon.

David,

I generally agree with your point, but your Hummer example doesn't quite
fit either. When a driver does what you describe (it happens on my group
rides all the time too), it sucks and is risky, but the driver is
calculating and aware of the situation. This is not the typical fatality
situation. A fatality typically occurs when the motorist has no time to
react or makes an egregious mistake, unless of course it is an assault.

Wayne

Wayne Pein said:

Quoted message said:

I'm sure some of the fatalities involved getting hit from the rear, and
most of those will involve unlit bicyclists, but I'm also sure the bulk
are from turning/merging movements, and many of those will involve unlit
bicyclists too. Alcohol/impairment will often be involved for one or
both participants, and the percentage of children is another important
consideration.

Wayne

That does seem to hold true. We have had two cycist fatalities within
the past couple of weeks. The first involved a teenager riding a night
on an unlit street with no lights. The driver was not cited. The second
involved an impaired driver (at night) who swerved onto the shoulder
and hit a cyclist. She was arrested!

gds said:

Wayne Pein said:

I'm sure some of the fatalities involved getting hit from the rear, and
most of those will involve unlit bicyclists, but I'm also sure the bulk
are from turning/merging movements, and many of those will involve unlit
bicyclists too. Alcohol/impairment will often be involved for one or
both participants, and the percentage of children is another important
consideration.

Quoted message said:

WayneThat does seem to hold true. We have had two cycist fatalities within

the past couple of weeks. The first involved a teenager riding a night
on an unlit street with no lights. The driver was not cited. The second
involved an impaired driver (at night) who swerved onto the shoulder
and hit a cyclist. She was arrested!

Had she not been imapaired would she have been charged (only) with
"improper lane usage"?

-bdbafh

Wayne Pein said:

Generally the higher the exposure rate (there are several ways to
consider this) the higher the body count.

This is true, there will likely be more fatalities if there is are more
cyclists. But it's worth noting, the rise in fatalities is (almost?)
never as great as the rise in cycling.

This means that, if there are more cyclists present, the risk _per
cyclist_ goes down. "Safety in numbers" is what it's called, and it's
been very well documented.

- Frank Krygowski

Quoted message said:

This means that, if there are more cyclists present, the risk _per
cyclist_ goes down. "Safety in numbers" is what it's called, and it's
been very well documented.

- Frank Krygowski

And this is probably what Mark was alluding to when mentioning the
large number of cyclists in the Valley.

Clearly it is possible that by having hihg per capita cycling it can
follwo that a state like Arizona can rank poorly when cyclist
fatatlities are expressed as a percentage of total traffic fatalities
or as a percentage of population and still not have such a high
relative risk measure when properly measured as a percentage of all
cyclists.

That job of picking the correct denominator is always a tricky one.

gds said:

Mark Hickey said:

Wayne Pein said:

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/TSF2005/BicyclistsTSF05.pdf

shows all by state.

At 3%, Arizona is the 4th highest/worst. It is 2nd worst per capita.

I don't doubt it, but not because the cycling here is more
dangerous... it's simply because a lot of people ride. Compare the
number of bikes you'll see in the Phoenix east valley on a given day
to the number you'll see in a suburb of Baltimore or Chicago or St.
Louis and it's easy to see that there are a lot more opportunities for
accidents. Add in the fact that people ride here all year round, and
it's even more of a factor.

Wayne, that is interesting info and it is surprising to me that AZ
ranks so poorly. There is some more data. ~1 third of the cyclist
fatalities occurred during periods of darkness. At least here in the
Tucson metro area there are vast stretches of roads with minimal or no
lighting. From my memory of the 5 Tucson area fatalities as reported in
the press it seemed to skew toward folks riding at night without
lights.

Mark, you are suggesting that because the per capita number of cyclists
in AZ is very high that goes toward explaining the high per capita
number of fatalities. That could be a contiributer. As we are talking
about fatalities and not all accidents I think there is another big
contributer. Road speeds here are very high. Most arterials in Tucson
tolerate speeds of ~50 mph. The high speed on dry, straight roads may
or may not result in more accidents but I'd think that once an accident
happens that the chance of a fatality is higher because of the speed
(and because average vehicle size out here is also pretty big).

That could have something to do with it, to be sure. The roads are
better than - well, pretty much the rest of the country, but I suppose
that doesn't really help in the kind of accidents that tend to take us
out (turning left from the opposite lane - don't ask me why that one
springs to my dented mind). ;-)

It would be hard to quantify how many more bikes there are on the
roads here, but I'd have to put it at 10X plus compared to the
northeastern urban areas I've lived in before.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

gds said:

Quoted message said:

This means that, if there are more cyclists present, the risk _per
cyclist_ goes down. "Safety in numbers" is what it's called, and it's
been very well documented.

- Frank Krygowski

And this is probably what Mark was alluding to when mentioning the
large number of cyclists in the Valley.

Clearly it is possible that by having hihg per capita cycling it can
follwo that a state like Arizona can rank poorly when cyclist
fatatlities are expressed as a percentage of total traffic fatalities
or as a percentage of population and still not have such a high
relative risk measure when properly measured as a percentage of all
cyclists.

That job of picking the correct denominator is always a tricky one.

The hardest thing to work out of the numbers is what we really care
about - what are the numbers for "recreational cyclists"? Subtract
the eight year olds and the DUI bikes, and the overall fatality
numbers change dramatically.

On a related note, if you subtract those who ride bikes for
transportation, but have no particular love of riding (doing it only
because they don't have a better option), the numbers would almost
certainly come down. This is a superset of the DUI riders, and (here
in AZ) includes a lot of immigrants who (from my limited observations)
aren't likely to enter any bike handling contests. Note: I'm not
saying there's anything WRONG with riding a bike for transportation if
you hate doing it... just that those riders are not as likely want to
work on developing some of the skills most of us work on continually.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Mark Hickey wrote:
....

Quoted message said:

The hardest thing to work out of the numbers is what we really care
about - what are the numbers for "recreational cyclists"? Subtract
the eight year olds and the DUI bikes, and the overall fatality
numbers change dramatically.

They don't actually change all that dramatically. Due to the
demographic revolution in cycling over the past 30+ years (more adults
cycling, but far fewer children), the fraction of US cycling fatalities
taking place among juveniles (say under the age of 16) has plunged from
more than 2/3 (68%) in 1975 to less than 1/5 (18%) as of 2005.
Likewise, though cycling while intoxicated is clearly not a very good
idea, the portion of cycling fatalities who were considered DUI at the
time of their demise is generally less than 20% overall--though among
the 35-54 age group, this rises to ~35% according to FARS data.

Riley Geary

Quoted message said:

Wayne Pein said:

Generally the higher the exposure rate (there are several ways to
consider this) the higher the body count.

This is true, there will likely be more fatalities if there is are more
cyclists. But it's worth noting, the rise in fatalities is (almost?)
never as great as the rise in cycling.

This means that, if there are more cyclists present, the risk _per
cyclist_ goes down. "Safety in numbers" is what it's called, and it's
been very well documented.

- Frank Krygowski

While this seems to be generally true, something ominous appears to
have taken place among US cyclists over the past couple of years.
After reaching a modern low of 629 traffic-related cycling fatalities
in 2003, we've spiked upward by nearly 25% over the past two years to
784 in 2005--the highest number since the 814 reported in 1997, and the
largest two-year increase ever recorded since FARS was initiated in
1975--despite the fact that total exposure (i.e. overall number of
cyclists on the roads) appears to be about the same or even declining,
based on estimated total injuries reported (45,000 in 2005 vs 46,000 in
2003 and 58,000 in 1997).

This increase in fatalities is not reflected among pedestrians or
motorists in general, which have remained remarkably stable since ~1999
with respect to pedestrians, and ~1995 with respect to motorists. Only
motorcyclists have seen a larger percentage increase in fatalities
during the past several years than bicyclists--more than doubling from
2116 in 1997 to 4553 as of 2005, and far outstripping the increase in
reported motorcycle injuries (53,000 in 1997 vs 87,000 in 2005).

Riley Geary

frkrygow said:

Wayne Pein wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Generally the higher the exposure rate (there are several ways to
consider this) the higher the body count.

This is true, there will likely be more fatalities if there is are more
cyclists. But it's worth noting, the rise in fatalities is (almost?)
never as great as the rise in cycling.

That's not what I've been hearing lately, from VDOT and some others.
Bike/ped fatalities are increasing, in total and per capita.

I haven't yet read the reports they're looking at though.

Matt O.

Quoted message said:

How do the numbers look when you disaggregate kids vs. adults? I
haven't checked.

According to the USDoT, the portion of total cyclist fatalities
involving children under 16 fell from roughly 1-in-3 in 1998 to
1-in-5 in 2004. I seriously doubt there has been a massive spike in
kids' cycling in the past two years that could explain the increase
in fatalities.

Total speculation but it wouldn't surprise me if the apparent
increase was due to some change in the way the numbers
are gathered--IOW the numbers of old underestimated cyclist
fatalities.

Robert

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Wayne Pein said:

Generally the higher the exposure rate (there are several ways to
consider this) the higher the body count.

This is true, there will likely be more fatalities if there is are more
cyclists. But it's worth noting, the rise in fatalities is (almost?)
never as great as the rise in cycling.

This means that, if there are more cyclists present, the risk _per
cyclist_ goes down. "Safety in numbers" is what it's called, and it's
been very well documented.

I know of the statistics, but I'm not counting on an increase in local
bicyclists to increase my safety.

Wayne