About this topic

  • Posted by joe 3 years ago. There are 5 posts. The latest reply is from joe.
  1. U of T Research has an interview with Dr. Chris Cavacuiti (who also writes for Dandyhorse) about cycling issues, including the results of a study that found that less than 10% of bike-car accidents are caused by cyclists:

    • While there is a public perception that cyclists are usually the cause of accidents between cars and bikes, an analysis of Toronto police collision reports shows otherwise: The most common type of crash in this study involved a motorist entering an intersection and either failing to stop properly or proceeding before it was safe to do so. The second most common crash type involved a motorist overtaking unsafely. The third involved a motorist opening a door onto an oncoming cyclist. The study concluded that cyclists are the cause of less than 10 per cent of bike-car accidents in this study.

      The available evidence suggests that collisions have far more to do with aggressive driving than aggressive cycling.

    More of the interview at U of T Research.

  2. The Freakonomics Blog on the New York Times website has picked up this story. :)

  3. Wow - have you seen the comments threads? Totally the antithesis of anything I've seen on any mainstream newspaper's site.

  4. Here's another follow-up:

  5. Bike Intelligencer - Ride and Prejudice, Part II: When an error goes viral

    The point — and the reason I originally linked to the Toronto account (incorporating the reference to the New York study) — is this: Society carries a prejudice, regrettably amplified by police investigations, that automatically blames a cyclist in a car-bike collision. There are many reasons for this, but it’s simply wrong. It’s not statistically valid. It marginalizes cycling as a legitimate form of transportation and is inimical to progress for cycling as a healthy and environmentally beneficial alternative to the automobile. It vitiates legislative remedies to protect cyclists. It essentially excuses and perpetuates actions which, had they involved a second driver instead of a cyclist, would result in manslaughter or homicide charges being filed.

    The Toronto and New York studies may not be perfect, but until we get something better, they’re a useful step forward in recasting public perception of car-bike accidents. Hopefully studies are under way now that will further put the issue in statistically and scientifically sound perspective. The growth of cycling advocacy — both on the road and off — attests to the exploding momentum for changing society’s tired old prejudices toward cycling.

  6. Duncan's City Ride - That's my blog about cycling in the city of Toronto, natch!
  • Here's an article from the Metro chain of newspapers in the wake of the Bryant / Sheppard confrontation:


    • Statistics help explain cyclists’ anger

      The number of injuries has remained steady in recent years at about 1,000 per annum. This isn’t bad, the argument goes, given that nearly one million adult Torontonians ride bikes. The total, however, includes a large group of people who cycle just once or twice a week for fun or fitness.

      A much smaller group dodges cars on a daily basis. Only about 20,000 Torontonians cycle to and from work, according to census data.

      A 1999 survey (currently being updated) counted 338,000 “utilitarian” riders who bike to work, school, shopping and for errands and visiting.

      My bet is these cycling stalwarts are the most likely to be injured. Bike crashes, it’s worth noting, tend to occur on weekdays between 8 and 9 a.m., over the lunch hour, and between 3 and 7 p.m. These are not times when dabblers frequent the roads.

      This all makes me wonder at the city’s lack of commitment to separating bikes and cars.

  • RSS feed for this topic

    Reply

    You must log in to post.