3 ms·

Your underlying assumption (which is unfounded as it turns out) is that drivers are (you imply always, maybe you meant majority... both are wrong) at fault. Bi

Your underlying assumption (which is unfounded as it turns out) is that drivers are (you imply always, maybe you meant majority... both are wrong) at fault. Bicyclists are often found as the CAUSE of accidents due to erratic (and illegal) road behavior, leading to a finding of no-fault on the driver.

shkkmo 12y ago
> Your underlying assumption (which is unfounded as it turns out) is that drivers are (you imply always, maybe you meant majority... both are wrong) at fault. Where did I assume that? I was intending to speak about all vehicle related fatalities, of which the majority are due to driver error. > Bicyclists are often found as the CAUSE of accidents due to erratic (and illegal) road behavior, leading to a finding of no-fault on the driver. However, since you bring it up, do you have statistics for this? I haven't researched this topic carefully, but a quick google brings up this: http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/05/20/136462246/when-bikes-and-cars-collide-whos-more-likely-to-be-at-fault http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/05/20/136462246/when-bi... There does not seem to be a clear cut answer. Likely the ratio depends on the region and time period being studied. However, in none of the studies cited were bicyclists significantly more likely that drivers to be at fault. I would guess that the at-fault tends to average out to 50-50 with large and diverse enough sample sizes. This makes sense because I don't think bicyclists are any more or less prone to error than drivers. I said: >It seems insane to me that we blithely accept the number of deaths caused by drivers and don't hold them more than minimally responsible. What I was pointing out (and what I find insane) is that drivers (and bicyclists for that matter) who are at fault for traffic fatalities are usually not held criminally responsible for their actions.
- MetaCosm 12y ago
  DC - 2004 (when I was deeply involved in statistics for DC, crime and otherwise) cyclists where found at fault for the majority (only slightly) of accidents they where involved in: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bicyclists-are-welcome-in-dc-but-they-too-should-obey-the-law/2011/04/29/AFHIexUF_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bicyclists-are-welcom... It is my understanding that a new study is underway to see how Capitol Bikeshare (2500+ bikes rented from like little bike vending machines) has impacted this number (very new). Nothing will be publicly released for another year or so, but I suspect the outcome will be a much higher "at fault" rate for unskilled tourist bicyclists making that number even more skewed. EDIT: Additionally, from reading this thread, it seems like cyclists who don't follow road rules are also a terror for pedestrians.
  - shkkmo 12y ago
    That study was one of the four mentioned in the article I linked. It was only one where bicyclists bore the majority of fault. We don't know the true answer, a frankly, it doesn't matter. Care to dispute any of my points, and not a strawman assumption? EDIT: > Additionally, from reading this thread, it seems like cyclists who don't follow road rules are also a terror for pedestrians. No, reckless bicyclists are a terror. But still less than reckless drivers. A bicyclist that slows at a stop sign and carefully checks for traffic before rolling through it is not a terror. Are you done with strawmen yet?

shkkmo 12y ago

> Your underlying assumption (which is unfounded as it turns out) is that drivers are (you imply always, maybe you meant majority... both are wrong) at fault. Where did I assume that? I was intending to speak about all vehicle related fatalities, of which the majority are due to driver error. > Bicyclists are often found as the CAUSE of accidents due to erratic (and illegal) road behavior, leading to a finding of no-fault on the driver. However, since you bring it up, do you have statistics for this? I haven't researched this topic carefully, but a quick google brings up this: http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/05/20/136462246/when-bikes-and-cars-collide-whos-more-likely-to-be-at-fault http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/05/20/136462246/when-bi... There does not seem to be a clear cut answer. Likely the ratio depends on the region and time period being studied. However, in none of the studies cited were bicyclists significantly more likely that drivers to be at fault. I would guess that the at-fault tends to average out to 50-50 with large and diverse enough sample sizes. This makes sense because I don't think bicyclists are any more or less prone to error than drivers. I said: >It seems insane to me that we blithely accept the number of deaths caused by drivers and don't hold them more than minimally responsible. What I was pointing out (and what I find insane) is that drivers (and bicyclists for that matter) who are at fault for traffic fatalities are usually not held criminally responsible for their actions.

MetaCosm 12y ago
DC - 2004 (when I was deeply involved in statistics for DC, crime and otherwise) cyclists where found at fault for the majority (only slightly) of accidents they where involved in: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bicyclists-are-welcome-in-dc-but-they-too-should-obey-the-law/2011/04/29/AFHIexUF_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bicyclists-are-welcom... It is my understanding that a new study is underway to see how Capitol Bikeshare (2500+ bikes rented from like little bike vending machines) has impacted this number (very new). Nothing will be publicly released for another year or so, but I suspect the outcome will be a much higher "at fault" rate for unskilled tourist bicyclists making that number even more skewed. EDIT: Additionally, from reading this thread, it seems like cyclists who don't follow road rules are also a terror for pedestrians.
- shkkmo 12y ago
  That study was one of the four mentioned in the article I linked. It was only one where bicyclists bore the majority of fault. We don't know the true answer, a frankly, it doesn't matter. Care to dispute any of my points, and not a strawman assumption? EDIT: > Additionally, from reading this thread, it seems like cyclists who don't follow road rules are also a terror for pedestrians. No, reckless bicyclists are a terror. But still less than reckless drivers. A bicyclist that slows at a stop sign and carefully checks for traffic before rolling through it is not a terror. Are you done with strawmen yet?