Fault with accidents

LSMike said:

Hi All,

Does anyone have links on data about where blame lies in accidents
between motor vehicles and other vulnerable road users? I saw some
ages ago, but can't currently find it via google.

Cheers,
Mike.

<bump>

LSMike said:

LSMike said:

Hi All,

Does anyone have links on data about where blame lies in accidents
between motor vehicles and other vulnerable road users? I saw some
ages ago, but can't currently find it via google.

Cheers,
Mike.

<bump>

The causes of cycle crashes.

Research shows that in the great majority of cycle/motor vehicle
crashes it is the driver of the motor vehicle who is wholly or
substantially at fault. For example, Transport and Road Research
Laboratory Report RR 220 (1989) found that cyclists were to blame in
only 17% of cyclist/vehicle collisions. Similarly, the motoring
organisation the AA, notorious for underplaying the responsibilities of
drivers and being very quick to pass the blame onto cyclists where ever
possible, produced a report called 'Urban Accidents: why do they
happen?' which found that a cyclist was at fault in only 27% of cases,
the lowest 'at fault' rating of all road users. These two figures are
actually remarkably consistent given that the AA report only considered
urban crashes. Mile for mile cyclists on rural roads are far more at
risk of a serious or fatal injury than cyclists in town due to the
higher vehicle speeds involved and in many cases such cases they
cyclist will simply be hit from behind by a driver who is travelling
far to fast to able to stop in the distance they can actually see to be
clear.

Also of relevance is the TRRL report 'Blood alcohol levels in
fatalities in Great Britain, 1978-86'. This found that the average
blood alcohol content of those involved in fatal crashes were 69
mg/100 ml for pedestrians, 51mg/100 ml for motor vehicle drivers, 46
mg/100ml for motorcycle riders and just 15 mg/100ml for pedal cyclists.

A large percentage of crashes involving a cyclist and motor vehicle are
due to a few common errors.

1) The driver of a motor vehicle pulling out of a junction or onto a
roundabout into the path of a cyclist. This is often due to the driver
failing to take due note of the speed of the approaching cyclist.

2) The driver of a motor vehicle overtaking a cyclist immediately
before executing a left turn.

3) A driver opening a car door into the path of a cyclist. (This is an
offence even if the cyclist does not strike the door).

4) The majority of crashes occurring on country roads, many of which
are fatal, are due to drivers going into corners at a speed above that
at which they can stop well within the distance they can see to be
clear.

5) Drivers forcing their way past cyclist at road narrowings. DfT
research shows over 70% of drivers will overtake a cyclist just before
or at a gap as narrow as 3.1m.

6) Overtaking a cyclist too closely. 'The Highway Code' recommends that
a driver only overtakes when it is safe to do so, indicating and moving
across the centre line when they do overtake.

http://www.thebikezone.org.uk/thebikezone/campaigning/besafe.html

Quoting LSMike <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

<bump>

If you want to do that, find a stinking Web forum.
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> Distortion Field!
Today is Potmos, September.

"LSMike" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

LSMike said:

Hi All,

Does anyone have links on data about where blame lies in accidents
between motor vehicles and other vulnerable road users? I saw some
ages ago, but can't currently find it via google.

Cheers,
Mike.

According to most posters to this group, blame always lies with the
motorised driver, and NEVER NEVER EVER with a cyclist who is as oure as the
driven snow.....

ian henden said:

"LSMike" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

LSMike said:

Hi All,

Does anyone have links on data about where blame lies in accidents
between motor vehicles and other vulnerable road users? I saw some
ages ago, but can't currently find it via google.

Cheers,
Mike.

According to most posters to this group, blame always lies with the
motorised driver, and NEVER NEVER EVER with a cyclist who is as oure as the
driven snow.....

"According to most posters to this group, blame always lies with the
motorised driver, and NEVER NEVER EVER with a cyclist who is as oure as
the
driven snow....."

Really?

Who said this?

ian henden said:

According to most posters to this group, blame always lies with the
motorised driver, and NEVER NEVER EVER with a cyclist who is as oure as the
driven snow.....

Oh Ian, don't be so silly.

Everyone knows its always the bus driver's fault ;-)

John B

LSMike said:

Hi All,

Does anyone have links on data about where blame lies in accidents
between motor vehicles and other vulnerable road users? I saw some
ages ago, but can't currently find it via google.

A report prepared for the Scottish Executive in 2005[1] is quite
interesting. The main finding relevant to your question is that 7% of
cyclist 'accidents', resulting in the cyclist requiring a visit to
hospital, were (according to the injured cyclist) the fault of a motorist.

[1] "Extent and Severity of Cycle Accident Casualties"
(http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/55971/0015830.pdf)

--
Matt B

Matt B said:

LSMike said:

Hi All,

Does anyone have links on data about where blame lies in accidents
between motor vehicles and other vulnerable road users? I saw some
ages ago, but can't currently find it via google.

A report prepared for the Scottish Executive in 2005[1] is quite
interesting. The main finding relevant to your question is that 7% of
cyclist 'accidents', resulting in the cyclist requiring a visit to
hospital, were (according to the injured cyclist) the fault of a motorist.

[1] "Extent and Severity of Cycle Accident Casualties"
(http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/55971/0015830.pdf)

--
Matt B

Errr, did you actually read your own link?

The report covers off-road cycling, 72% of the accidents cited didn't
even involve another vehicle let alone apportion blame.

Quoting a report on mountain biking accidents as evidence that vehicles
are rarely to blame in collisions is a bit silly.

spindrift said:

Matt B said:

LSMike said:

Hi All,

Does anyone have links on data about where blame lies in accidents
between motor vehicles and other vulnerable road users? I saw some
ages ago, but can't currently find it via google.

A report prepared for the Scottish Executive in 2005[1] is quite
interesting. The main finding relevant to your question is that 7% of
cyclist 'accidents', resulting in the cyclist requiring a visit to
hospital, were (according to the injured cyclist) the fault of a motorist.

[1] "Extent and Severity of Cycle Accident Casualties"
(http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/55971/0015830.pdf)

--
Matt B

Errr, did you actually read your own link?

I did, but did you.

Quoted message said:

The report covers off-road cycling,

It covers /all/ cycling casualties requiring hospital treatment,
including off-road. Interestingly although 49% of all accidents
occurred in a town or city only 33% were on the road itself.

Quoted message said:

72% of the accidents cited didn't
even involve another vehicle let alone apportion blame.

No, exactly, and where another vehicle was involved it was more likely
to be another bicycle. Cars were only involved in 10% of collisions.

Quoted message said:

Quoting a report on mountain biking accidents as evidence that vehicles
are rarely to blame in collisions is a bit silly.

It would be, yes. If you read the report though you will see that it
covers all cycling casualties, including off-road, and that, as it says
in the conclusion:
"The large proportion of cycling casualties occurring off-road implies
that efforts aimed at preventing cycling accidents must be directed at
off-road use as well as safer cycling onroad."

--
Matt B

So you cite a report on mountain biking as evidence that car drivers
are rarely at fault in collisions?

Mmmmmmm.

Transport and Road Research Laboratory Report RR 220 (1989) found that
cyclists were to blame in only 17% of cyclist/vehicle collisions.
Similarly, the motoring organisation the AA, notorious for underplaying
the responsibilities of drivers and being very quick to pass the blame
onto cyclists where ever possible, produced a report called 'Urban
Accidents: why do they happen?' which found that a cyclist was at fault
in only 27% of cases, the lowest 'at fault' rating of all road users.
These two figures are actually remarkably consistent given that the AA
report only considered urban crashes. Mile for mile cyclists on rural
roads are far more at risk of a serious or fatal injury than cyclists
in town due to the higher vehicle speeds involved and in many cases
such cases they cyclist will simply be hit from behind by a driver who
is travelling far to fast to able to stop in the distance they can
actually see to be clear.

Also of relevance is the TRRL report 'Blood alcohol levels in
fatalities in Great Britain, 1978-86'. This found that the average
blood alcohol content of those involved in fatal crashes were 69
mg/100 ml for pedestrians, 51mg/100 ml for motor vehicle drivers, 46
mg/100ml for motorcycle riders and just 15 mg/100ml for pedal cyclists.

Meanwhile, back in the real world:

Hunt For Fatal Hit And Run Motorist

Wednesday, 6th September 2006, 09:13

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A speeding driver who mowed down and killed a cyclist before dumping
his car was today being hunted by detectives.

Police say cyclist Darren Hughes suffered fatal injuries when a Jaguar
sports car ploughed into him in Holloway, north London, last night.

The car was later found dumped nearby.

http://www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.asp?story=SQ628729L&news_headline=hunt_for_fatal_hit_and_run_motorist

There is a piece about the incident in a freebie local paper in
Islington this week. It says Darren had a number of high visibility
lights on to ensure motorists could see him. It also says the car is
undergoing forensic tests and the first indications are that the car
was not stolen as there is no damage to the locks or steering
mechanism.

Incidentally ICAG has informed me they are planning a simple memorial
event for Darren in the vicinity of the accident tomorrow evening at
18:30.

There is a roadside memorial on the northbound side just south of the
Mercers Road junction.

The instructions are that there will be no tub-thumping or blocking of
roads, just a quiet respectful event.

If you're passing by please consider attending.

Tips for Cyclists

It is important to understand the cause of accidents involving cyclists
in order to avoid and reduce them. Around 80% of reported injury
accidents to cyclists involve motor vehicles. In accidents involving
motor vehicles and adult cyclists, the fault lies predominantly with
the driver (National Cycling Forum 1999).

http://www.cyclingscotland.org/FileAccess.aspx?id=181.

Some additional information:

62 cyclists were killed or seriously injured in West Sussex in 1998.

Driver error was responsible in 68% of cases (official). 98% of serious
accidents involved cars.

http://www.glaucus.org.uk/Cycle-2.htm

spindrift said:

So you cite a report on mountain biking as evidence that car drivers
are rarely at fault in collisions?

No. I cited a report on /all/ cycle casualties. The full version
reports that of the 42% 'off-road' locations reported, 29% were on
pavements, 21% were on cycle tracks, 8% were in parks and only 2% were
on forest or mountain bike trails.

--
Matt B

spindrift said:

The causes of cycle crashes.

Research shows that in the great majority of cycle/motor vehicle
crashes it is the driver of the motor vehicle who is wholly or
substantially at fault. For example, Transport and Road Research
Laboratory Report RR 220 (1989) found that cyclists were to blame in
only 17% of cyclist/vehicle collisions.

Excellent, thank you very much! That's the one I remember, only I
couldn't find it even with much digging.

Does anyone know of similar stats for pedestrian/vehicle accidents?
I'm having a bit of a battle with some pro-car folks who seem to think
that accidents between motorists and cyclists/pedestrians are nearly
always the fault of the cyclists/pedestrians. It's quite funny really,
their sense of outrage at the merest suggestion that car driving
requires a certain amount of responsibility is amazing. The shocking
thing to me is that they are skaters, and really should know better
given the similarities between skating and cycling.

spindrift said:

Tips for Cyclists

It is important to understand the cause of accidents involving cyclists
in order to avoid and reduce them.

From the full text of the report, mentioned earlier in this thread,
prepared for the Scottish Executive in 2005 the main 'causes' according
to the cyclist are:
1. Motorised vehicle (7%)
2. Sport - stunts, jumps and mountain biking (6%)
3. Terrain - slippery surface, downhill and holes etc. (6%)
4. Mechanical - brakes, tyres, chains (6%)
5. Weather - ice, rain, mist (4%)
6. Accident - catching foot in pedal, braking, falling off etc. (4%)
7. Behavioural - speeding, not holding on properly (3%)
8. Obstruction - ropes, hoses, logs (2%)
9. Inattention (2%)
10. Animals (2%)

Quoted message said:

Around 80% of reported injury
accidents to cyclists involve motor vehicles.

Possibly 80% of those in which the police get involved. But the detail
of the Scottish report shows other vehicles are involved as follows:
1. Other bicycle (11%)
2. Car (10%)
3. Other (5%)
4. Bus (1%)
5. Commercial vehicle (1%)

Quoted message said:

In accidents involving
motor vehicles and adult cyclists, the fault lies predominantly with
the driver (National Cycling Forum 1999).

The Scottish study reports 15% of adult casualties and 1% of child
casualties claimed motorists as a factor contributing to the 'accident'.

--
Matt B

"It covers /all/ cycling casualties requiring hospital treatment,
including off-road. "

Just so that I understand you, you are claiming that assessing drivers'
liability in cyclist/vehicle collisions can be done fairly using a
report in which 72% of accidents don't even involve another vehicle?

spindrift said:

"It covers /all/ cycling casualties requiring hospital treatment,
including off-road. "

Just so that I understand you, you are claiming that assessing drivers'
liability in cyclist/vehicle collisions can be done fairly using a
report in which 72% of accidents don't even involve another vehicle?

No, I am not claiming anything. I was responding to the OP's request
for sources of data. The study I mentioned collected data for /all/
cyclist injury 'accidents'. The data included attribution of cause and
whether another vehicle was involved - the things the OP was interested
in, so was helpful to him I hope.

--
Matt B

Nice work Matt.

I suggest you get a job with the DOT, you can help them assess the role
of speed in motor car accidents with special attention paid to stock
car racing, you muppet.

spindrift said:

Transport and Road Research Laboratory Report RR 220 (1989) found that
cyclists were to blame in only 17% of cyclist/vehicle collisions.

Do you have a source for that because 'Cycle Campaign Network' offer
very different figures for the same report on their website
(http://www.cyclenetwork.org.uk/info/blame.htm).

--
Matt B

spindrift said:

Nice work Matt.

I suggest you get a job with the DOT, you can help them assess the role
of speed in motor car accidents with special attention paid to stock
car racing, you muppet.

Personal attack - a key indicator for a lost argument.

We can all see that the report I cited includes data for /all/ cycle
casualty 'accidents'. Why does it trouble you so that it /also/
includes data for the 90% of cycle casualty 'accidents' that do not
involve a car?

--
Matt B