Slashdot Mirror
Why Biking Injuries and Deaths Are Spiking In the US
HughPickens.com writes: NPR reports that more and more adults across the U.S. are strapping on helmets and hopping on bikes to get to work. Unfortunately, between 1998 and 2013, the rate of bicycle-related injuries among all adults increased by 28 percent, from 96 injuries per 100,000 people in 1998-1999, to 123 injuries per 100,000 people in 2012-2013. And while the death rate among child cyclists has plummeted in the past four decades, the mortality rate among cyclists ages 35 to 54 has tripled. Dr. Benjamin Breyer isn't sure what's driving the surge in accidents among Generation Xers and baby boomers, but one reason could be what's known as the Lance Armstrong effect. "After Lance Armstrong had all of his success at the Tour de France, a lot more people were riding, and there were a lot more older riders that took up the bicycle for sport."
The most recent National Household Travel Survey showed that the vast majority of the increase in bicycling between 1995 and 2009 came from Americans older than 25, with the biggest increases coming in the oldest groups. That has meant more men in their 50s and 60s on road bikes, riding at high speeds, Breyer says — a recipe for serious injuries. Though a rapidly growing share of older people would like to ride, American cities built during the last 60 years don't make it easy for most people to do so. At the end of the day, reducing cycling accidents may boil down to something simple: Making sure that bikers know the rules of the road — and that drivers know how to deal with bikers.
The most recent National Household Travel Survey showed that the vast majority of the increase in bicycling between 1995 and 2009 came from Americans older than 25, with the biggest increases coming in the oldest groups. That has meant more men in their 50s and 60s on road bikes, riding at high speeds, Breyer says — a recipe for serious injuries. Though a rapidly growing share of older people would like to ride, American cities built during the last 60 years don't make it easy for most people to do so. At the end of the day, reducing cycling accidents may boil down to something simple: Making sure that bikers know the rules of the road — and that drivers know how to deal with bikers.
You got it backwards dumbass. The "older age group" mentioned in the article is 35-54, which has the lowest accident rate for motorized vehicles.
Bicyclists DO have the right to use the full lane.
"block a full lane of traffic"
Speaking of arrogant little fucks - yes, they DO have the right to take up a full lane of traffic. A bicycle has the same right to use the road that a car, pickup, or tractor trailer has. Exactly the same. You really need to review traffic laws.
Personally, I haven't ridden a bicycle in decades. I do, however, ride a motorcycle. I use the entire lane. It's a defensive measure, taught long long ago. You use the entire lane in order to discourage automobile drivers who might want to crowd you. Never leave part of your lane unoccupied for long, because motorists might want to pass you while using part of your lane.
Before you make allusions that a bicyclist or motorcyclist doesn't know how to use the roadway, you really need to review the laws.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Depending on where you live, cyclists have rights to a full lane, and cars need to maintain a minimum 6' clear space when passing; this is the rule in California.
But, I am starting to think that the arrogant fsck's like yourself here that are anti-bicycle are a major part of the problem.
The other major factors are likely an increase in lower income riders in the recession, increased penetration of road vs mountain bikes, and cyclists that don't know how to ride in traffic. Personally, I think that people that ride on sidewalks are also a high risk group.
I have also been hit three times. One was a driver making an oncoming left turn into me, one passing right turn, and one with me stopped and a driver somehow managed to crush by rear wheel. Walked away from all three, I think the only one I had a helmet on was the last one. Last incident was 1998. I had another 5 years riding largely with the same risks (but with a helmet), but the last 10 years I have been much more conservative.
Everything we do has risks, some which can be controlled and some that can't. Avoiding road rage neighborhoods is important for safety (as is calling the cops when you experience road rage in these neighborhoods). Avoiding a peleton with inexperienced cyclists is another biggie. One of my theories though is that the weight-reduction strategies has made bike components more prone to failure when not properly maintained.
Daily commuter, but not a MAMiL.
This. I would have put it more tactfully, but a thousand times, this.
Almost without fail, cyclists ignore stop signs, ignore traffic lights, turn without signaling, and generally ignore traffic laws willy nilly. It's one thing to make a right turn on a bicycle without stopping; it is quite another to speed past a stop sign, going straight through an intersection where the opposite direction doesn't have any obligation to stop.
The number of serious mistakes made by cyclists in my presence has been climbing steadily over the past decade or so, which suggests that the level of recklessness exhibited by cyclists is increasing at an alarming rate, or at least the number of idiot cyclists is increasing at an alarming rate. You can't have cyclists ignoring the laws of the road and somehow expect drivers of cars to magically take up the slack. Responsibility for cyclists' safety must be shared.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
UK cyclists are just as stupid. I'm amazed there aren't more fatalities. There was an attempt to bring in a law that would assume driver guilt in the case of a collision. If that ever comes in, I'm getting a dash cam because I'm not being held responsible for some dickhead falling under my wheels because they didn't think one way Street signs applied to them. It would also be nice if the police stopped them from riding through pedestrian areas at break neck speed.
Bicyclists should wait at red lights just like everyone else, for example. It doesn't mean "stop, look, then proceed if you don't see a car crossing". It means you wait until it turns green.
This is called an Idaho stop and is legal in Idaho and Paris, France. Evidence is still out as to safety.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
All people in traffic break the law, you just choose to see the bad behaviour of cyclists, it's very easy to succumb to confirmation bias, or just plain we vs. them thinking. Anyways there are lots of studies on this if you care to read them, some peer reviewed and some not so peer reviewed.
That said you do need to break the law when bicycling, and it's often the safest way to bicycle. This is why we have things like "idaho stop", pregreen for cyclists etc.
if your a cyclist can you can't make road speed, then you're impeding traffic and are breaking a law anyway
No. You're ignorant of the law. Cyclist aren't required to make road speed. And your ignorance demonstrates something I've long suspected. Motorist who complain about cyclists breaking the law are in some fashion complaining about laws they imagine to exist.
46 & 2