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.

Comments

If you ride a bike...

[michael_rendier]

Always ride like absolutely NO ONE can see you...like you are invisible. If you purposefully always avoid situations where you are in front of a driver that perhaps doesn't look both ways...

Re:If you ride a bike...

[bsolar]

Actually the typical advice given to bikers is to ride thinking that everyone around you is actively trying to kill you. It works because most people grossly underestimate how others can be *incompetent* but have much less difficulties in thinking about how others could be *malicious*. This is helpful in getting enough caution out of them.

Re:If you ride a bike...

[David_Hart]

Actually the typical advice given to bikers is to ride thinking that everyone around you is actively trying to kill you. It works because most people grossly underestimate how others can be *incompetent* but have much less difficulties in thinking about how others could be *malicious*. This is helpful in getting enough caution out of them.

And helmets are only rated to protect against low impact forces. Most people think that helmets off much more protection than they actually do. Safe Cycling skills are much more important.

http://bicyclesafe.com/helmets...

Re: If you ride a bike...

[ColdWetDog]

Here in anchorage alaska, pretty much every biking fatality is the result of a drunk driver, and usually also a hit a run. Not sure how that holds up nationally, but it might be worth seeing how duis correlate.

In Anchorage, pretty much everything is a result of a drunk driver. Not much else is going on there.

Re:If you ride a bike...

[ZeroPly]

That is horrendously bad advice. If I were actually invisible, I would ride on the sidewalk. For riding on the road, you want to stay far enough towards the middle that you don't blend into the surroundings. And when you stop at intersections, you generally need to assert enough room that cars don't squeeze past you. Both those things would be impossible if you were invisible.

Re:If you ride a bike...

[amiga3D]

I always thought the helmets were there to help the cops find your head when you get decapitated.

Re:If you ride a bike...

[meerling]

I hate to say it, but in this city, the majority of the bicyclists are apparently trying to win Darwin Awards.
On an average day, you'll see at least a dozen of them, and about 6 times a year you'll see one that's actually following the rules.
They go through red lights. Go the wrong direction in the lanes. Shoot out into traffic from behind large objects in the middle of the block. Jump back and forth between the sidewalk and the road with no warning. etc.
In short, they are suicidal incompetents that should be allowed near anything with wheels in the first place, much less actually be allowed on the roads.

I don't know what the hell happened, but it didn't used to be that way. When I was a teenager, I wasn't even allowed to ride past my block until I had read and learned all the road rules. My mom gave me a state drivers manual for me to study. It's true that most of these idiots aren't teenagers, but WTF don't they what they are doing is suicidal? In a collision between a car and a bike, I guarantee the bike will lose by at least half a ton! Speaking of which, I saw the aftermath of a recent bike-car collision a couple of months ago. It wasn't a head on, but both wheels on the bike were bent like chalupas. As to the rider, I don't know, the paramedics had a blanket and were blocking any clear view. (I wasn't driving that day, so I could afford to look.)

And of course, if someone wants to scream at me for being a car driver and not a bicyclist so it's obvious I wouldn't understand, I ride my bike most days of the week, and it's in a busy traffic area. It's not me that's mentally deficient.

Re:If you ride a bike...

[NeoMorphy]

Some drivers are malicious. One of my wife's students was rear ended after stopping for a stop sign. He went flying and broke his arm. The driver told him to get off the road and drove off. I stopped riding a bike in the 80s after multiple cars sideswiped me, once when I was on the sidewalk. It seemed like it was safer in the 70s and then in the early 80s drivers starting hitting cyclists like it was a sport.

My wife and I are riding again, but only on the rail trails.

Re:If you ride a bike...

[Jeremi]

I ride on the sidewalk -- but supposedly that's illegal in my area (because they think I'll hit a pedestrian).

It's probably different where you are, but around here there are a lot of sidewalks going past buildings with driveways between them. That means that anyone riding on the sidewalk is riding through an unprotected "blind intersection" at every driveway, and is in serious risk of getting t-boned (albeit probably at low speed) by a car coming out of the driveway, and possibly knocked out into the street for further abuse.

Given that, around here it's very unsafe to ride a bike on the sidewalks, although you can get away with it you're willing to bike slowly and slow further and look both ways carefully before crossing each driveway. Given that, it's usually faster and safer to just ride on the street, where drivers can see you and where your presence is more expected.

Re:If you ride a bike...

[wyHunter]

As are some cyclists. Many times I've seen them flying into roundabouts near my home without stopping as they are supposed to because that's the traffic regulation. Fortunately, I don't expect cyclists to obey traffic laws even though they are *supposed to do so* so I haven't hit them. Unfortunately, biking deaths will get worse in part because of this and in part because many auto drivers are unreasonable, too.

Drivers, cyclists and pedestrians: idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

Drivers, cyclists and pedestrians all draw from the same general population and none of them has the moral high ground. But watch this thread devolve into endless, ignorant sniping among the groups. I have a car, ride a bike and walk to work and I see members of each group act incredibly stupidly and selfishly. It's just a fact of life that people are generally terrible and their actions frequently endanger and even kill one another, bu they'd rather withdraw into their little cultural groups to claim the high ground. And nothing ever changes.

Re:Drivers, cyclists and pedestrians: idiots

[Brama]

Exactly. Just hate everyone equally.

Re:Drivers, cyclists and pedestrians: idiots

[nine-times]

I think it's less about who's an idiot, and more about who has what share of the responsibility. It seems sensible to me to think that the level of responsibility you should take for your actions scales with the amount to damage your actions can do. A pedestrian can afford to be an idiot-- if he runs into someone, he probably won't kill them. A truck driver, on the other hand, can easily kill a handful of people with one mistake.

So there are idiots among all of those groups? Fine. I don't disagree. But take away the licenses of the idiots among the drivers. If we can't stop them from being idiots, the least we can do is minimize the damage they do by making them walk.

Re:Drivers, cyclists and pedestrians: idiots

[Calydor]

Responsibility in proportion to your vulnerability? That's a dangerous precedent to set in a legal system, it will inevitably end up with victim blaming. It is not far from that to saying "Then don't dress provocatively if you don't want to get raped."

Do we apply more responsibility to people that have a gun pointed at them than the guy holding the gun? If not, why should the pedestrian about to get run over have more responsibility than the driver of the about-to-be-a-deadly-weapon car?

Cyclists DON'T obey the law!

[Murdoch5]

I can't even count how many times a day a cyclist breaks a traffic law and almost ends up getting hit, in which case that would be entirely there fault! When cyclists start obeying the rules of the road, then we'll finally start seeing cyclist accidents fall.

Re:Cyclists DON'T obey the law!

[cruff]

I see this all the time also. However to be fair, the other day I observed a Prius driver blow through a stop sign and dart across an intersection in front of a cyclist obeying all the rules. There are all kinds of idiots on the road. Drive defensively like they are all out to kill out.

Re:Cyclists DON'T obey the law!

[SteveSgt]

I did recently count, on my 10 mile pre-dawn bicycle commute to work, how many motorists I noticed violating traffic law:
From the helmet-cam video I counted: 11 motorists driving pre-dawn without lights, 8 motorists failing to signal lane changes, 4 motorists failing to signal left turns, 4 motorists failed to come to a complete stop at stop signs, 3 motorists running red lights, I'm guessing at least 8 motorists significantly exceeding the posted speed limit, and two who exceeded the limit where electronic signs were showing them their speed.
And that's just one Wednesday morning, on some of the least busy streets in my town.
When are motorists going to start obeying the rules of the road?

Re:Cyclists DON'T obey the law!

[Murdoch5]

You're absolutely right, except the number of cyclists who break the laws vs motorists is really unbalanced. I live in Toronto and the number of times a cyclist doesn't stop at a stop sign, traffic light, or will dart amongst traffic, really is getting ridiculous.

Re:Cyclists DON'T obey the law!

[Murdoch5]

How many cyclists don't signal lane changes? How many cyclists don't obey the crossing rules for the road? How many cyclists don't have acceptable lighting? I can do the same thing you're doing and at least in Toronto, cyclists break way more rules then motorists.

Re:Cyclists DON'T obey the law!

[WalrusSlayer]

Ummm, excuse me, but I fucking do obey the law. I stop for stop signs and stop lights. I yield to higher-speed vehicles when safe to do so. I signal turns. Even though I shouldn't have to, I light myself up like a christmas tree with bright flashing lights and reflective material so that you cannot help but notice me (a motorist should be watching for bicyclists just like they watch for cars, but the reality is that they don't, so I give them a helping hand). Occasionally I may "take a lane", which confuses and sometimes pisses off motorists who think I should always be safely 50 fifty beyond the curb. Sorry, I'm a vehicle with all the rights and responsibilities of any other vehicle. Look up your state traffic code to find this out. It is far safer for me to merge into slow-moving traffic (and therefore be seen) than to cower in the right. I represent no more of an obstruction than if I were a car in front of you, Less so as once traffic starts to move again I will move to the right and give you passing room. I will *always* take a lane when I have to turn left and there is a left-hand-turn lane. Just like other cars do. And I do it cautiously, safely, but assertively so that it is clear what I intend. It is by far the safest thing to do (for all the above reasons), and presents no more of an incovenience than a car doing the same thing, beyond the driver getting pissed off by the flawed dogma that "bicycles do not belong on the road". So yes, you've got your free-for-all folks on the road, but that should be a matter of enforcement, to give those bozos a serious reality check. Not only are they endangering themselves and other, but they endanger those of us who take cycling seriously yet have to deal with the road rage inspired by their irresponsible behavior. So please don't lump us all in the same box. Those of us who follow the rules are the ones you don't notice. But we are there and are in plenty supply.

Re:Cyclists DON'T obey the law!

[pruss]

I occasionally do see cyclists signaling turns. But I think I have never in my life seen anybody on a bike (other than myself :-) ) ever do the hand signal for stopping (and at least in our state it's required by law).

Re:Cyclists DON'T obey the law!

[tylikcat]

There was a study done one this, mostly pointing out that there was a lot of confirmation bias in play - that people who were incensed at bicyclists not obeying traffic laws generally did not noticed automobile drivers committing similar acts. (This is, of course, a general observation, I can't say jack about you in particular.)

I think there are a lot of factors here - some are cultural, where people think of bicyclists and interlopers and inappropriate in their use of space, and bicyclists regard automobiles as both physical and idealistic threats. But some of them are design - I've spent most of my time commuting in areas with very low commuter rates (and often high speeds - I am extremely polite and painfully aware of my lack of exoskeleton thank you*.) Some urban designs really don't encourage bicycles and cars to play well together.

I'm currently living in a midwestern city where the streets are generally not in the best repair but the shoulders are especially dire. Now, really, I'd prefer to ride on the shoulder as much as possible, and be out of everyone's way, but often the state of the shoulder makes that too dangerous. For my commute, and for places I go frequently, I've found routes that don't have this problem, but it's not a great situation (even though local drivers for the most part are considerate if sometimes clueless - I don't need a full carwidth's distance between me and a car, nice thought, not really helping traffic here.)

* In my Microsoft days, pretty every week at least one person would post to the internal discussion board about having joined the "roadkill club", which is to say having sustained a major injury while commuting.

Re:Cyclists DON'T obey the law!

[nine-times]

On the other hand, there really should be different rules of traffic for cyclists than for cars. I'm not saying there should be no rules, or that cyclists shouldn't follow the rules, but the rules should just be different. What a cyclist can see and hear is different from someone driving. The acceleration profile is different. The top speed is different, as is the amount of damage they can do. Riding a bicycle safely requires a different set of behaviors than driving safely.

We don't expect pedestrians to follow the same laws as cars. Let's not pretend that cars and bikes aren't on different footing.

Re:Cyclists DON'T obey the law!

[BronsCon]

Ummm, excuse me, but I fucking do obey the law.

And nobody sees you doing it. The reason everyone who sees you riding your bike thinks you're an asshole is because the only cyclists who disturb traffic enough to actually be noticed are assholes; literally the only cyclists most people ever actually notice (not see, but actually realize they are seeing) are assholes. Cyclists like yourself who, assuming you're being honest with us, obey traffic laws and don't disrupt the flow of traffic, largely go unnoticed. The end result is that you all look like assholes, even though the majority of you are not. If cops would start enforcing traffic laws equally, the problem would largely solve itself; short of that, though, the cyclist community is going to have to start self-policing before things improve.

Re:Cyclists DON'T obey the law!

[Alomex]

I know the minimum separation distance is a meter and it's total BS.

I knew from the kindergarden whine tone of your post that you would turn into chicken shit when confronted to the facts.

For instance I can't give you a meter of room is that means I have to drive in the wrong lane, because that would violate other laws. I can't give you a meter or room when the entire lane isn't a meter wide. I can't give you a meter of room when you don't hold your fucking [very mature] distance steady and bike on the curb.

If you can't give a meter then you must follow behind until you can find the space to safely pass. That is what the law says. Laws you seemed to care so much about when they were bottle feeding your baby tantrum and now you try to dismiss so quickly when they work against you.

And by the way, I'm a driver not a cyclist. I just simply have no respect for 2000 pound iron driving cowards complaining about 20 pound cycling vehicles.

Re:Cyclists DON'T obey the law!

[Alomex]

Says you, from the comfort and safety or your car. When cycling a small crack in the pavement can require a cyclist to swerve unexpectedly one or two feet. That is why minimum separation laws are there and must be followed, that is also why is even better to have separate lanes so the issue doesn't come up at all, but we have a ways to go before we get there.

Re:Cyclists DON'T obey the law!

[Alomex]

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/...

Re:Cyclists DON'T obey the law!

[jeti]

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.

Why? You make an assertion without providing a reason. Starting at the same time as cars exposes bicyclists to the risk of both right hooks and left hooks. Fully stoppimg also means that the bike is longer on the crossroads. If the crossing road is obviously clear of traffic, it can be safer to run the light. At least thats what a study conducted in Paris concluded. As a result, bicyclists are now explicitly allowed to run red lights at a few marked crossings.

Re:Cyclists DON'T obey the law!

[jeti]

I have yet to meet a motorist who stricly adheres to the speed limits. Or one who doesn't run a yellow light even though he could stop safely. Motorists seem to be very aware of the rules that bicyclists are breaking while they shrug off their own lawlessness as both normal and acceptable. At the same time, motorists kill thousands of people per year in the US alone and are most often at fault when a bicyclist gets hurt.

Re:Cyclists DON'T obey the law!

[emj]

There are good reasons for pedestrians to obey most of the "rules of the road" too.)

There are no good reasons. Jaywalking was a highly controversial concept when it was promoted as the future. I'm glad we are starting think about it again. If the infrastructure is for cars, then a cyclist or pedestrian has a hard time being law abiding. If there is good infrastructure for cyclists and pedestrians then it's easy to follow the law.

I do not see you thinking anything about safety, but just how to make pedestrians and cyclists give space to cars. If that is the foundation of your arguments, and mine are built on the reverse then it's going to be hard to discuss.

Re:Cyclists DON'T obey the law!

[pigwiggle]

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.

Re:Cyclists DON'T obey the law!

[damienl451]

A lot of it is just jealously: drivers are incensed they have to wait at red lights when cyclists *sometimes* run the red light if it's safe to do so. The fact that it's against the law is mostly irrelevant: when the law changes to recognize that it's perfectly safe to do so at many intersections, drivers keep bitching about it, except that they now complain that the law is always favoring cyclists. Same for when lots of cities in Europe started allowing cyclists go against traffic in one-way streets (with signs and ground markings to warn drivers), even though it's perfectly safe. The vast majority of cyclists don't have a death wish: we're not going to blaze through a busy intersection with cars going 30+ MPH. On the other hand, there are many situations that do warrant running the red light. Simple example that I encounter daily: I reach the end of the bike lane and I'm supposed to be waiting for the green light at the Advanced stop line/bike box. Except that 90% of the time, there is already a car in that box, because some drivers think that it's just a buffer area that they're free to use. Which means that I'd be forced to wait right next to a car or, worse, a van or truck, which may or may not look when they decide to turn right. So, the safest course of action in this case would be for me to run the red light and take my rightful position in front of the car that has taken the safe spot the law provided for me. But, if I've already run the red light and now notice that there is no traffic in sight, I might as well keep going and clear the intersection. I've never endangered myself, or anyone else, whenever I've run a red light. Virtually all of my 'close calls' have been at uncontrolled intersections where I had the right of way, or when the light was green, and someone decided to turn right without looking properly.

Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Or install separate bike lanes separated by metal posts. Drivers don't want to damage their expensive cars.

Re:Solution

[ColdWetDog]

I know! I know! We need self driving bicycles!

Biking while intoxicated

[MisterSquid]

As a cyclist between the ages of 35 and 54, these statistics directly concern me. That said, I'm a very experienced and highly-capable (not bragging) cyclist.

The is anecdata, I know, but a handful of people I know (~5) who took up biking and then stopped because of a serious accident have done so because they had an accident while biking after having drinks. I know biking wine tasting in Napa is also a thing.

In any case, my point is out-loud wondering what percentage of these accidents can be accounted for by drunken cyclists and/or cyclists with impaired/lowered motor skills.

Please, everyone, ride and drive safely and soberly. Commuting injuries and mortalities are just not worth it.

Re:Biking while intoxicated

[godrik]

Is there really a story here? It seems that these numbers are normalized to a random population and not to the cyclist population. According to http://bikeleague.org/commutin... the number of cyclist rose sharply in that period as well.

As far as I can tell, there are more cyclist injuries mostly because there are more cyclist. Per mile accident rates are more meaningful than an absolute out of context number.

That being said, I chose not to bike to work because the drivers where I live (Charlotte,NC) are complete nuts and there are no bike path I can take.

I took up biking...

[Nova Express]

...because I hated running and it hurt my knees. Which is much the same reason George W. Bush took it up.

It's also easier to do in the Texas heat than running, thanks to the airflow, and doubles as a means of transportation.

Re:I took up biking...

[thinkwaitfast]

I took up running when someone tole my bike. I then broke my ankle and now I'm a fat slob.

Re: [smack my face]

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

We are the cyclists

[mrbill1234]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Naw, it's Doctors

[rsilvergun]

and Lawyers buying $3-5k bikes they have no business riding. If you're into road biking you know about this and if you're at the lower end of the economic spectrum they're the bane of your existence. They moved into the sport back in the mid 2005. I was shopping for my first real road bike and the price of a decent carbon fiber frame shot up a grand (Boeing's new planes didn't help either). I ended up with an Aluminum Cevelo (which ironically some old person hit me on and ruined :( ... ).

Anyway you've got rich people in OK Shape buying ridiculously fast bikes. I see them all the time at the little charity runs I like to do. If you're smart you steer as clear as you can. They don't have the riding chops to handle the bike they just bought but they're usually in OK enough shape to be dangerous (the fat ones end up on cruisers :P ).

Re: Naw, it's Doctors

[Anonymous Coward]

Bicyclists DO have the right to use the full lane.

Re:Naw, it's Doctors

[tepples]

Now, I'm not saying that I deliberately aim for arrogant little fucks like you who think that being on a bicycle gives you the right to block a full lane of traffic

If there were one and a half through lanes, I wouldn't be taking the lane quite as often. But often, there's one through lane and one turn lane, and I stay out of the turn lane if I'm not turning.

Re: Naw, it's Doctors

[thinkwaitfast]

An important lesson I learned while biking: There is right and there is dead right.

Re:Naw, it's Doctors

[DudeTheMath]

Easy there, big fella. Guess what? If the lane is not wide enough for a car to pass me with (in FL) a three foot gap, then, yes, I do have the right to "block" a full lane of traffic (hey, guess what else? I am traffic, so I'm not blocking it; I'm just slowing it). I also have the responsibility to signal my turns, stop for red lights (and in most states, stop signs; Google "Idaho stop"), and stay within the speed limit.

I don't know about your experience on the roads, but I see a far higher percentage of cars than bikes failing to signal and exceeding the speed limit, and about the same percentage rolling stop signs.

Re:Naw, it's Doctors

[Runaway1956]

"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.

Re:Naw, it's Doctors

[aaarrrgggh]

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.

Re:Naw, it's Doctors

[uncqual]

You must live somewhere quite different than where I do. Where I live, the vast majority of cars stop or slow almost to a complete stop (slower than a walking speed) at stop signs and an even larger percentage respect red lights and don't proceed until they turn green. However, it's quite rare to see a bicyclist come to a complete stop (usually when I do see it, it's a young child or a parent out with their small child teaching them how to ride and being careful to "set a good example") or even slow to walking speed at a stop sign and it's common to see them blow through red lights without even slowing down significantly.

Re: Naw, it's Doctors

[dgatwood]

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.

Re: Naw, it's Doctors

[Kavonte]

Just to expand on that for those who don't have experience:

If you ride in the middle of the lane, when cars pass, they'll move entirely into the passing lane when doing so.

If instead, you ride on the right edge of the lane, people approaching from behind see a lane in front of them that is almost empty, and so they assume that they almost don't have to avoid you. So one of two things happens, depending on if there is approaching traffic in the adjacent lane that they need to utilize to pass you:

If there is no approaching traffic, as the driver gets closer and slowly realizes that there isn't enough room in the lane for them to skirt past you without leaving it, the driver will move about half way into the passing lane when passing you. The result is that, even though you're riding closer to the right edge of the lane, there will be less space between you and traffic that is passing you from behind.

If there is approaching traffic in the passing lane, the driver still approaches under the assumption that they don't need the passing lane, and when they get closer and realize that they do need it, they move only about a quarter of the way into the passing lane. The result is that they're now a serious risk to both you and the approaching traffic. ...and if it comes down to it, you know that they're going to choose to hit you rather than the approaching traffic, as that is less likely to kill them.

If you instead ride on the shoulder of the road, cars approaching from behind will neither bother to move over nor slow down, and so you'll have people constantly passing you on your left at 55 MPH, each time throwing you off-balance as they suck you into the stream of traffic. This is incredibly dangerous as all that has to happen for you to die is for this draft to cause you to fall over into the lane of traffic, then someone immediately behind whomever passed you will run over you.

It's really best to hang out around 1/3 to 1/2 way from the right side to the left side of the lane. Being more to the left ironically puts more distance between you and other traffic, and it keeps that other traffic from doing some incredibly stupid things, as it is now obvious to other traffic that they have to wait until it is safe to pass.

Essentially the problem is that motorists don't deal with bicyclists often, and so they don't know how to safely deal with them because they haven't put a lot of thought into the problem. As a bicyclist, you have to make it obvious to motorists what they need to do.

It's better to be alive and hated by all motorists than it is to be dead.

Re:Naw, it's Doctors

[funwithBSD]

It is not 6 feet, it is 3 feet.

If you are going to defend cyclists, please don't make us look bad by being ignorant.

http://www.sfgate.com/outdoors...

Re:Naw, it's Doctors

[dgatwood]

A bicycle has the same right to use the road that a car, pickup, or tractor trailer has.

Yes, and bicycles traveling in a traffic lane at speeds significantly below the posted limit are required by law to periodically pull off the road to let cars around, just like any other slow-moving vehicle. Neither bicycles nor cars nor any other vehicle are allowed to block traffic for an extended period of time.

Re: Naw, it's Doctors

[cyber-vandal]

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.

Re: Naw, it's Doctors

[rgbatduke]

Yeah, one major part of the problem is that even in supposedly "bike friendly" towns where they have a "bike lane", that lane ranges from 8 inches wide to less than a meter wide. Sometimes several times within a stretch of 1/3 of mile. There is often crap in it -- branches, leaves, rocks, bottles -- or open grates over storm drains. In the summertime south they can even have middling large poisonous snakes in it, especially early morning or late evening.

I'd love to ride my bike to work, and sometimes do in spite of the fact that the "bike lanes" I ride in have all of the features on the list above -- averaging around 18 inches in width (but actually disappearing altogether without warning as the road passes under an overpass where the pylons come down right on the edge of the road so there isn't any shoulder either). I've been blown past by full-scale dump trucks going 55+ mph and missing me by whole feet.

I lived in Durham for decades without hearing of a single bike fatality and few accidents. In the last few years, friends of mine have been killed or been dumped in the ICU for weeks, all because of precisely the conditions you list above -- you're damned if you ride in the lane because it provides the illusion of having enough room but when it is 8" wide, it doesn't, and you're damned if you ride out in the lane because there are folks on the road you don't think you should be there or are drunk and are driving massive vehicles at unsafe speeds even before you show up in their sights.

Personally, I think that if official policy is "riding bikes is good, reduces energy consumption, promotes good cardiovascular health" then government needs to make a serious commitment to making safe bikeways. In my opinion, that means unobstructed, clean bike lanes at least 1 meter wide NOT including gutter/grate or curb if present, and not borrowing from the road shoulder. It also means providing protected dedicated function bikeways that parallel things like 4 to 6 lane roads where biking will NEVER be safe, so you aren't forced to ride on roads that are dangerous to cars, let alone bikes, to get from point A to point B.

Finally, yeah, it wouldn't be crazy to license bike riders who plan to ride on non-neighborhood streets, even if it is a one time license that you get after you prove you understand the rules of the road and how they practically pertain to bikes. Accidents are often caused by bikers, not just by car or truck or motorcycle drivers. I've watched people biking down the road on the wrong side, thinking that they are some sort of pedestrian.

rgb

Re:Naw, it's Doctors

[Anonymous Coward]

"block a full lane of traffic"

Except in this case this is entirely subjective. I ride bicycles. I ride motorcycles. And I drive cars too. And there is NO DIFFERENCE when it comes to idiots and "blocking full lane of traffic". They get just as nuts no matter what and they pass you dangerously no matter what.

1. Group of cyclists (about 40 people, so we take entire lane - to go faster and so cars can pass us easier), riding in morning on weekend on winding country road. Speed limit, 70km/h. Bike speed: 40km/h. Most of the road is single lane and you can't pass in turns. Fortunately, there is very little traffic. Maybe 5 car every 5 minutes in both directions.

But how do motorists pass us? Do they wait to pass safely what basically is a long tractor trailer length of bikes? Fuck no! They go full bore into blind corner in opposing lane where they can't see opposing traffic. And that is not isolated incident, nope. Another case, I was on that road alone on right side. No traffic, except two cars just happened to pass me at same time from opposite directions. They guy didn't even bother to give me 2 ft. of space because "I was blocking his way".

2. Motorcycle. I've had an idiot start passing a semi going the other way on a highway coming toward me. And the highway becomes divided for them about 2km further! I was forced to slow down and almost on shoulder because of idiots that are impatient.

3. Cars. Let's say you are going 105km/h on highway. Posted limit is 100km/h. But if there is one person behind you, they tend to pass you just to cut you off and ride in front at 106km/h even in situations where such passing is dangerous. 1km/h is somehow worth it for them.

What's the morale of this story? Impatient idiots are causing crashes and deaths no matter what. If they are "inconvenienced" enough to need to slow down for cyclists, or cars, then they are pissed because "they are blocking their way". These people take it as some personal insult. Instead of viewing others on the road as other people, trying to get places, they view them as obstacles that must be surmounted.

It doesn't matter if you ride a bike or motorbike or car, you'll come across such people even if you are one of them. Then you have to be careful - people can die because someone doesn't like to get somewhere 10 seconds or 2 minutes later. And I mean it - in all my time cycling I've put in over 50,000km on the bike, and I've never managed to "inconvenience" anyone more than 1 or 2 minutes, and that is very very rare. But there are these 2-5% of drivers that feel that their inconvenience is somehow purposely imposed on them and they will literally put their lives and lives of others in danger because of that.

And yes, 95-98% of drivers are excellent and pass safely. It's always the tiny minority of assholes that causes problems. The difference is on a bike, you get passed by a lot more cars, so your chances of meeting those assholes increases simply because laws of large numbers.

Here's an example of such idiot,
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I think that guy ended up with a major citation and a court date.

What is my recommendation for cyclists? Get a bike camera to record things (get one for your car too!). Also, get a mirror on your bike or helmet so you can see stuff behind you. But above all, ride safely. And if you ride in city, don't pass cars when they stand on red light - wait behind them in middle of the lane - like a normal vehicle. Only move to right when riding *and* it's safe to do so.

Re: Naw, it's Doctors

[Hognoxious]

if you're riding on street where the cars regularly travel at 50+mph, and there's a convenient sidewalk or bike path alongside the road, however winding, use the sidewalk or bike path.

And if I'm walking on it (what kind of idiot would walk on a sidewalk?) with my kids and we have our backs to you just feel free to shoot the gap and if you misjudge it and knock my five year old flat on his face feel free to yell at him because he didn't walk in a straight line. And then when I yell at *you* call the police and accuse me of assault.

Re:Naw, it's Doctors

[Hognoxious]

Without any possibility to let them pass? My arse.

Or perhaps you interpreted it as "any possibility to let them pass other than by pulling over to the kerb[1], stopping and undoing my toe clips, which is SO UNFAIR, WAAAGH".

[1] or curb. These days I forget who spells it which way.

Re: Naw, it's Doctors

[MouseTheLuckyDog]

As long as I am riding within the law. ( Not for example running a red light. ) I love people honking at me. It means that if they hit me they can't claim it was an accident.

Re:Naw, it's Doctors

[LynnwoodRooster]

CVC 21656:

21656. On a two-lane highway where passing is unsafe because of traffic in the opposite direction or other conditions, a slow-moving vehicle, including a passenger vehicle, behind which five or more vehicles are formed in line, shall turn off the roadway at the nearest place designated as a turnout by signs erected by the authority having jurisdiction over the highway, or wherever sufficient area for a safe turnout exists, in order to permit the vehicles following it to proceed. As used in this section a slow-moving vehicle is one which is proceeding at a rate of speed less than the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and place.

It is VERY rare to see a street without shoulders at least 18" wide - and that's plenty of width to ride a bike. In California, you need to get over as soon as you see 5+ people behind you, and use the shoulder so others can pass. That's the law. And it's the same basic law in WA and OR as well.

Re:Naw, it's Doctors

[CastrTroy]

Racing bikes tend to be more difficult to handle. Doubly so if they are equipped with aero bars. They are meant for highly skilled riders to move at high speeds. Compared to older road bikes, or something like a touring bike which can still go plenty fast but aren't quite as twitchy.

Re:Naw, it's Doctors

[Luckyo]

That is incorrect. There are several features on the bike that make it much easier to get to high speed even with less musculature driving it. I'm talking about things like thinner wheels and tyres, less air drag causing posture setup, lighter frame, higher quality moving parts and gearing and so on.

Those have a direct impact on your driving speeds. I myself am in decent shape, riding a "normal" steel frame 26" wheelbase mountain bike, I go about 15-20km/h average speed. On my 28" alumimum one with better handles and proper suspension under the saddle and on the front fork, I push 25-30km/h average. The few times I got to try out the road bike with carbon fibre, I could easily go over 35km/h average.

Bike matters. A lot. Steel frame sitting on fat 26" wheels that makes you sit upright means that once you actually manage to get all that mass accelerated to about 20km/h, air friction, rolling friction on wheels and heavy mass of the bike is just going to get nasty if you want to go faster. Carbon fibre road bike means that you have bike that weighs almost nothing, so much better acceleration, and your completely different posture combined with thin, large wheels means that air friction and rolling friction on wheels starts to get noticeable at much faster speeds.

Additionally lower posture means that controlling the bike is much harder, as it's less ergonomic.

Re: Naw, it's Doctors

[Kavonte]

and knock my five year old flat on his face feel free to yell at him because he didn't walk in a straight line

Worst is when they yell "on your left" as they approach, which naturally leads one to wonder who is yelling what from behind them, and so they turn around to look behind them and, in doing so, step into the path of the bicycle.

Bicyclists and drivers both need to learn that they aren't entitled to never have to slow down.

Re: Naw, it's Doctors

[Sique]

I don't know about the U.S. traffic laws, but here at least, you are only allowed to overtake if you keep a distance of at least a meter to the vehicle you are overtaking. This almost ever forbids passing cyclists in the same lane. You actually have to use another lane to overtake a cyclists. Anything else is considered dangerous driving (albeit it is still common). So cyclists are using their lane rightfully, and demanding of them to "not block the lane" is akin to admitting that you regularly endanger others in traffic and get angry if you are not allowed to do so.

Re:Naw, it's Doctors

[indytx]

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.

I suppose it depends on where you live. In Texas, Section 551.103 of the Transportation Code states that "a person operating a bicycle on a roadway who is moving slower than the other traffic on the roadway shall ride as near as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway . . . " There are obviously exceptions, but as a general rule you don't get to ride in the middle of a lane here.

Almost as if

[ArchieBunker]

Cyclists shouldn't be sharing the road with two ton steel boxes. Yeah yeah I know you have the same rights as cars but get real. From a physics standpoint you'll always lose. Cycling on roads is a death wish.

Re:Almost as if

[umafuckit]

Cyclists shouldn't be sharing the road with two ton steel boxes. Yeah yeah I know you have the same rights as cars but get real. From a physics standpoint you'll always lose. Cycling on roads is a death wish.

It's really not as dangerous as you seem to think.

Re:As someone who has been hit by cars..

[amiga3D]

If I had been hit 3 times by cars I know I'd have to take a look at what I was doing wrong. It might be their fault as you say but most cyclists seem to manage to wobble down the road without getting run over repeatedly. Not to mention that sooner or later it's going to be fatal. Think about it.

Injuries per 100,000 persons NOT cyclists persons

[tomxor]

From their very own reference: https://jama.jamanetwork.com/a...

Another case of people making non news out of misinterpreting statistics. The statistics are from hospital admissions of cycling related injuries "per 100,000 persons" NOT 100,000 cyclist persons. This is no different to saying roads are getting more dangerous because there are more people driving and thus proportionally more driving injuries, get your base line right.

Re:As someone who has been hit by cars..

[aaarrrgggh]

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.

Re:Oh great

[BronsCon]

I'll start and end it with this: The ones who follow the rules of the road don't get noticed. The ones who don't, the ones who blow the stop sign *AND* turn left in front of my half-completed right turn, the ones who shouldn't be on the road in the first place, those are the ones people see. So yes, they make you all look like assholes, evne though the majority of you are just trying to safely get form point A to point B. If you're in the former group and are tired of being called an asshole just for riding a bike, recognize that this is the fault of the latter group and do something about it. when you see it happen, catch up to the asshole, ride alongside them for a bit, and explain how the thing they just did is unsafe for them in the moment and, by enraging drivers against cyclists, makes ccling less safe even for those who do follow the rules.

I actively look for bikes, motorized, pedaled, or otherwise, so I see you guys, and I see most of you with pedals doing exactly what you should be doing, staying to the side of the lane (or in the bike lane if there is one and it is free of debris), stopping at signs and lights, and generally being safe. But I only see you guys because I am actively looking; most drivers only see the assholes, so do something about the assholes and you'll make all cyclists look better. Most motorbikes I see are doing all kinds of stupid shit like splitting lanes *at speed* which is against the law everywhere and very dangerous in any kind of traffic; I'm not sure there's any redeeming them, but I digress.

Require a license

[mark-t]

I've come to believe that cyclists should require a license to use public roads, if for no other reason than to ensure that the cyclist is at least aware that they are subject to all of the same laws that cars are, because at least half of the time, it really doesn't seem to me like cyclists have a clue. Make the minimum age on it low enough that it not impractical for kids to ride on the roads (once they are old enough to do it safely), but old enough that you can have some kind of statistical assurance they would be able to do so competently in the first place. Maybe age 12 or something. Before that age, they can only cycle on private property or bicycle paths.

No offense meant to those who cycle and actually play it by the book, and follow all the rules of the road correctly.... I know that there are a lot of you out there, but there's also one helluvalot of people who cycle who apparently can't be bothered to care. A license would at least ensure a minimum education standard so that the person should know what to do, and would also provide a certain amount of accountability.

Re:Require a license

[CanadianMacFan]

By that logic there should be no bad car drivers on the road since every driver has a license. Most adult cyclists, at least in my city, have a drivers license and so they already know the rules for how they should behave but many are still idiots when they hop on the bike. The rules for bicycles are all included as part of the drivers handbook one studies in order to write the test for their license.

When I was in grade two or three they had bike safety lessons. I don't know if they still have them but they should.

Re:People are biking in stupider places

[93 Escort Wagon]

I live in a rather scenic, semi-rural area that sees a lot of bicyclists touring for fun and/or exercise - especially on weekends.

I have posted some rants against bicyclist behavior in this thread... but in the situation you and the parent post describe, the onus is completely on the automobile driver. It drives me nuts on a no-shoulder road when a car passes within a foot or two of a bike just because there is oncoming traffic. What is the driver going to do if the bicyclist wobbles, or worse falls? Whether cars or bikes... you can't operate them under the assumption that nothing unexpected is going to happen.

If you are behind a bike and oncoming traffic prevents you from passing with a safe margin - SLOW DOWN AND STAY BEHIND THE BIKE until there's room to safely pass. They have as much right to be there as you do.

Anecdotal evidence FTW

[PatientZero]

It's quite rare to see a bicyclist come to a complete stop . . . or even slow to walking speed at a stop sign and it's common to see them blow through red lights without even slowing down significantly.

A 2007 study of 7,502 cyclists at five random intersections in London concluded that "an average of 16% violated red lights, whilst the remaining 84% obeyed the traffic signals."

A similar study of 2,617 cyclists at seven intersections across in Oregon in 2013 found the red light compliance rate to be 69.1% (89.7% excluding right-turn-on-red which is illegal but generally safer since you're not crossing traffic lanes which was your complaint).

I don't consider 16% and 21% high enough to call "common."

Re:Anecdotal evidence FTW

[uncqual]

I would consider a 21% failure to comply with an unambiguous traffic law about intersections controlled by traffic signals to constitute it as "common" failure. Think about this for a minute -- if more than 1 in 5 automobiles failed to stop at red lights, would you consider it not to be a "common" occurrence? Anyway, in the area I live in, the failure rate is MUCH higher than this - it's true that I live in an area with a lot of bicyclists so they may feel a bit more self entitled than those in some other areas.

(Of course, you cherry picked - the actual violation rate seems to be over 30% if one doesn't exclude things that, for some reason, "don't count" even though everyone knows the law and expects others to follow them.)

You suffer from confirmation bias

[emj]

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.

Situational awareness

[alispguru]

Two principles to be aware of when you are on a bike in auto traffic:

1. You are in the most danger when auto traffic crosses your path. Intersections are the most obvious example. Especially dangerous are turning lanes and off-ramps when you are going straight - cars that are changing lanes or preparing to turn are looking for other cars, not bicycles.

2. If you hear a siren, get off the road NOW. Cars will be trying to get out of the way of emergency vehicles, and looking to avoid other cars, not bicycles.

I've been a short-distance commuting cyclist since 1994. I've been hit once in traffic - at an off-ramp, by a car that was getting out of the way of a fire truck.

Separate cyclists from cars

[rhdv]

When I (dutch guy) visited Florida this year, I was surprised that the bike lanes were a small strip at this side of the road.
So we have cars going at 60 mph next to bicycles going 15-20 mph. Notice the difference in speed?
That is why there are sidewalks, that are clearly separated from the road.

In the Netherlands bike lanes next to highways are separated by a strip of land, barrier, etc. or the maximum speed is 20-30 mph when cyclists and cars share the road.
If the number of cyclists in the US increase dramatically, the only way to reduce the number of accidents is to separate the two.
The Netherlands is there already, so the infrastructure is now in place. It just took a couple of decades + dead cyclists to get there.

Re:How about a bike license.

[serviscope_minor]

Bikers don't have bike licenses in most places.

Many of them have driver's licenses though.

They aren't taught where to ride, they ignore traffic signals, they don't try to get out of the way when traffic lines up behind them and police officers mostly do not enforce traffic laws when its a bike.

Yep and car drivers often ignore parking laws and obscure views at junctions for other drivers, they speed, do not leave safe braking distances, do not leave safe passing distances, ignore right of way especially when the person with right of way is a cyclist fail to indicate, perform illegal U turns and so on and so forth. Basically police offers do not enforce laws when it's a car on the whole.

They take up half a lane and are moving at a dangerously slow pace compared to motor vehicles.

Actually in the UK they take up a whole lane if they like and if everyone's going at the same speed as you then it's hardly a dangerously slow pace compared to other vehicles now is it :)

It is similar to when a sailboat is in the way of a freighter, but here the larger and faster vehicle really has no place to go other than to collide or slow down.

Sailing vessels always have right of way over powered ones.

The laws in my state say that they should be treated the same as a motor vehicle.

Well that's the trouble. If you try to act like a motor vehicle, you'll get subjected to huge amounts of abuse. If the law says one thing but reality dictates another then the law is at fault.