Cycle Commuting, Bike Buses and SUV accidents
by Warren McLaren, Sydney on 07.17.06
The Sydney Morning Herald ran stories this weekend just past, regarding the rise in cycle commuting as a reaction to the rise the oil prices. One of the city’s bicycle stores reckoned on a 20-25% in sales of bikes, and had also observed a greater number on pedal pushers on commuting routing into the central business district. The City of Sydney had earlier this year completed its own research which gave credence to such anecdotal observations. Cycle traffic across two major bridges into the city had increased five and sixfold in recent years. In a strange twist the newspaper wondered if road accidents involving cyclists might've also increased proportionally. But a major inner city hospital said they didn’t have figures to suggest this. This must be more through luck than design, as Sydney is sure not the most cycle friendly city to pedal in. A issue which may’ve spurred the growth in ‘bike buses’.....
These are groups of cyclists who collect others along a set commuting route at set times, working on that Meerkat principle of safety in numbers. It was reported that interest in bike buses had, in the past 12 months, doubled.
And this increased cycle visibility on the streets might indeed be a wise move, considering a joint UK/Australia research project that was recently released. It indicated that drivers of four-wheel-drive vehicles (4WDs), or SUVs if you must, are up to 16 times more likely to have a road accident, because they ‘feel safer’ than other road users, and are thus more inclined to use mobile phones, or not wear seat belts, while driving.
But this rise in bike commuting is not isolated to Sydney. We’ve seen a rash of news items on the topic springing up like mushrooms all over the show, like here, here and here to give but a small indication.
i love this statement that was put on the new recently about the number of people dying from not getting the transplant organs they needed (this is relavant i swear) they said that more people were dying now from not being able to get transplant organs becuase less people were dying in road accidents (hit by vehicle (on a bike this the relavence)) and therefore there were less organ being donated. does this not strike anyone as an odd thing to say and when you think about this is a bit of an odd balance isnt it.
In NYC I am more likely to get hit by a person on a bicycle than by a SUV.
Don’t get me wrong I don’t like SUVs, but bicyclists in NYC are worse.
SUV drivers don’t go through red lights like bicyclists
SUV drivers don’t jump from the street to the sidewalk like bicyclists
SUV drivers don’t go the wrong way on a one way street like bicyclists
SUV drivers don’t try and jam their vehicles through pedestrians like bicyclists
Bicyclists need to follow the rules of the road, they cause many of their own accidents.
The European city has evolved in such a way that it is still pretty feasible to ride a bike to work, in North America, the urban landscape is planned so that areas of commerce and labour are distinctly separated from areas of habitation. In essence the personal auto is much more ingrained in our way of life. Why not design our cities to reduce the need for vehicle travel. In North America this problem is an unavoidable fact of life.
A bicycle going through a red light isn't going to kill anyone. An SUV is. It's silly to try to compare the modes that way; they're not even remotely equivalent. And I have certainly seen car drivers go the wrong way on a one way and run a light - in fact, I've seen horrific accidents from exactly that behavior. I've never seen a cyclist kill anyone from it.
Mick - way to generalize. There are a lot of places in North America that are mixed-use. If you don't live in one, move.
Ben -
I think there is no defense for cyclists breaking traffic laws - and whether the result is death or merely minor injury, it will not end up in making people more bicycle friendly.
As an avid cyclist myself, nothing frustrates me more than seeing other cyclists behaving poorly, which I have to think will eventually lead someone in a car to throw something at me.
I agree that an SUV is more dangerous than a bicycle, but I live in an urban area too, and I would say that I usually see traffic violations by cyclists many, many more times than I do for cars.
At least try to see both sides of it.
A bike running a red light most assuredly can kill a person: by hitting a pedestrian, by being hit by a car, by causing an automobile accident.
Bikes are great, and cities should be designed to accomodate more bicycle and pedestrian traffic.
However, cities not being designed for bicycles does not give bicyclists (me included) the right to put other people's lives at risk. When bicyclists ignore the laws and right of way, they contribute to the ill will that drivers feel toward them, and this in turn means less votes and support for bike lanes and dedicated paths.
We all need to work together to make biking safer and more respected.
- I bike to work 3 months of the year, but I agree with Alvin's comment that bike riders have to be very aware of pedestrians, especially when biking on the sidewalk. I would like to say that bicyclists should never ride on the sidewalk, but there are certain streets where I've had too many close calls.
- Despite such concerns, bikes are a great solution to what ails my world.
- This concept of bike buses sounds fascinating. I have to check to see if there are any in Boston.
When a bicyclist goes through a red light they usually also go though the crowd of pedestrians that are walking with the light and many times narrowly miss a vehicle that has the right of way.
Yes a bicyclist can get someone killed, the bicyclist themselves.
How many times has a pedestrian dodged an SUV or a bicyclist? I have dodged more bicyclists than SUVs.
Sorry but there is no, none, not one excuse for cyclists not to obey traffic laws. I know they think they have a moral entitlement not to obey, but they do not.
Rather than talking about "excuses" and things people "should" do, address the realities of the situation. Anytime you say "people should" do something they're not already doing, you've already lost.
Bicyclists run lights often because they can get away with it - we don't licence bicycle riders the same way we do drivers. There are ways to address this - increased enforcement, or licencing in urban areas are ideas, but I don't know what the issues would be.
The argument that a bicycle running a red light and a car running a red light are equivalent, though, is completely bogus. It's like saying being hit by a car and being hit by a train are the same - I've been hit by cars, and I'm alive. A guy gets hit by a train doing 20, he's dead - trains don't "give". It's similar with a bicycle - being hit by a bicycle is extremely unlikely to kill you, being hit by a car is much more so. I would rather have ten cyclists run a red than one car any day of the week.
Framing the discussion as "those damn bicyclists who run lights" is a good way to keep us oil-dependent and polluting, and to create animosity toward the vast majority of cyclists who obey the rules of the road.
By the way, in WA, it's legal for cyclists to run a red if the red is sensored. Bicycles can't trip the sensors - it's just up to the cyclist to ensure their own safety. I consider it the same way in traffic - if the bicyclist is willing to endanger themselves, let them!
In 2005 in Minneapolis, there was a huge surge in bicycling (due to a mild winter, a bus strike, new bike paths, bike racks on busses, and other factors). There _was_ a corresponding increase in accidents, as well. I sat in committee meetings where we tried to figure out why the accident rates had increased by about 60% after several years of decrease, and the best guess was increased ridership. The reports didn't point to an increase in any given party at fault (i.e. bicyclists breaking traffic laws or drivers ignoring cyclist's rights), but to an across the board increase in all types of accidents, and at all times.
Bicycle bus = mini critical mass
Great idea!
Actually, only a little tongue-in-cheek, I think bicyclists DO have some moral entitlement to disobey laws that are written for vehicle driving. As someone noted in another posting, there should be some kind of "moral credit" akin to "carbon credits" you can buy to offset your use of a car or other combustion-fueled transportation.
I'm relatively new to commuter cylcing, and tend to feel safest following the same rules as cars... Where I live, there are enough cars to make ignoring traffic lights dangerous, and too few sidewalks to ride on them even if I wanted to.
Alvin,
Make sure you acknowledge the VAST number of pedestrians that are oblivious, do not look, are yacking on cell phones, and jump out into traffic AGAINST the light when I have the green light ... and they have the stupid sense of entitlement to get mad at me !! Well, I do my best to wake them out of their self important snarky stupor.
The worst is when parents just thrust their baby carriages out from behind a car into the bike lane not knowing that they will not have to spend any more on baby food and college savings.
Oh, pedestrians hailing cabs from half way out into the street, In Bike Lanes making the cab block off 2 lanes of traffic for their lazy rear end.
Yes, I go through red lights... but I slow down and LOOK first. I always yield to the ped because that's the law and it's common sense. I also do not play games with buses, big trucks, and cars because, let's face it, whether I'm right or wrong, I am still dead. I do educate them about turn signal use.
A cyclist can kill someone. If the person just falls over and hits their head on the sidewalk, they can "cease to be".
Respect all around, that's what works.
vsk