Auto vs Cyclist Accident Stats? (Enviromental Considerations)

[luv2bike]

Hi,

Have been recently reading about a lot of new cycling products aimed at visibility of cyclists in low light conditions (dusk, night time, rain, etc)
Just got me to thinking about all the recent auto on cyclist accidents. Pretty much everything I can remember reading has occurred in broad daylight in good weather conditions.
Anyone ever seen statistics compiled on cyclist vs auto collisions that includes environmental factors (weather, light level, etc)?
My gut feel is that most of these collisions happen under "good visibility" conditions?

Thanks
George

[SlackMan]

It doesn't answer your question but: Even in broad daylight on a clear day, it's easy for cyclists to "blend in" to backgrounds for drivers only halfway paying attention. That's one reason I use flashing lights front and back every single time I ride, day or night. And if it's dark when I leave for the office, I now have a second rear flashing light on my backpack. This is in addition to wearing a reflective ankle band, having reflective tape on my backpack, reflective tights, etc.

[rePhil]

I was hit on a clear day with the sun shining on my back, wearing a bright colored jersey, with a blinky, riding in a marked bike lane.
Driving distracted doesn't have boundaries.

[Schmed]

I know it's just one data point, but it did surprise me that a high/drunk driver ran over my father-in-law's 3 riding buddies at 10:30 in the morning on a Wednesday.

Luckily, he was in front and didn't get hit, but the other 3 were seriously injured, and two gave up riding completely after surgeries.

I half expect to get run over if I'm riding at 1 am on a Saturday night, but a drunk driver at 10:30 in the morning on a Wednesday? Sheesh.

[spoonrobot]

The vast majority of cyclists only ride during daylight hours. Of those that ride at night the majority are sidewalk cyclists. So it makes sense most collisions would be in "good visibility"

But the whole visibility thing is a red herring. I'd wager a huge portion of the cyclists hit are from motorists misjudging their vehicle's size/speed combined with a lack of due care in passing. Then the motorist will lie because it is perfectly acceptable to say "I didn't see them" and get no penalty. Whereas, "I was texting" or otherwise admission of distraction is now a ticket or arrest.

They see you, they just don't care.

If you're curious you can check out this survey from 2012:
http://www.nhtsa.gov/nti/811841

[rePhil]

My guy either lied or was really distracted when he tried to tell Deputies I was riding on the sidewalk. I guess he thought that made running me over OK.
I am so thankful to the two witnesses who stayed on scene.





The vast majority of cyclists only ride during daylight hours. Of those that ride at night the majority are sidewalk cyclists. So it makes sense most collisions would be in "good visibility"

But the whole visibility thing is a red herring. I'd wager a huge portion of the cyclists hit are from motorists misjudging their vehicle's size/speed combined with a lack of due care in passing. Then the motorist will lie because it is perfectly acceptable to say "I didn't see them" and get no penalty. Whereas, "I was texting" or otherwise admission of distraction is now a ticket or arrest.

They see you, they just don't care.

If you're curious you can check out this survey from 2012:
http://www.nhtsa.gov/nti/811841

[BobO]

The vast majority of cyclists only ride during daylight hours. Of those that ride at night the majority are sidewalk cyclists. So it makes sense most collisions would be in "good visibility"

I've often wondered if it would actually be safer to ride at night where the contrast of the bright red blinky light would be greater.

But the whole visibility thing is a red herring. I'd wager a huge portion of the cyclists hit are from motorists misjudging their vehicle's size/speed combined with a lack of due care in passing. Then the motorist will lie because it is perfectly acceptable to say "I didn't see them" and get no penalty. Whereas, "I was texting" or otherwise admission of distraction is now a ticket or arrest.

They see you, they just don't care.

If you're curious you can check out this survey from 2012:
http://www.nhtsa.gov/nti/811841

I was driving around yesterday when a red Chevy Avalanche wandered into my lane. I braked to avoid him and when he returned to his own lane I pulled along side. Sure enough, dicking with his ****ing phone. Interestingly enough, the car immediately behind him was a City of Tucson Police Officer in a marked car. "Well Good," I said to myself, I'll inform the officer that the guy in front of him is driving distracted and making a hazard out of himself. I will be damned if he wasn't on his ****ing phone too. :mad:

[2LeftCleats]

Sometimes it is simply hard to see a cyclist. My wife told me the other day she had difficulty seeing a guy riding a recumbent even with the flag thing sticking up behind. This was on day with good visibility. She never uses the phone while driving and has good vision. Do not know what he was wearing but florescent is not a bad idea.

[William]

Do not know what he was wearing but florescent is not a bad idea....



Some riding gear catches more attention... :)




William

[William]

Seriously though, the majority of close calls I've had on the road the last couple of years has been with people ***king with their phones while driving. I tend to wear bright obnoxious colors most of the time and it didn't matter what time of day it was.

Not paying attention on the road is not paying attention to what's in the road.







William

[luv2bike]

Looking over the responses got me to thinking some more. Pretty much impossible to gather data on incidents where lights or clothing type prevented a collision as the simple fact that it did not happen makes it unavailable as a data point.
Lights or clothing might make a difference if a driver at least has their head up,
but if they are looking down, asleep, or texting you could be riding an elephant and it won't make a difference.
Interesting stats in the survey referenced a few posts above, one that jumped out, over 50% don't wear a helmet. Wow?