Motorists at fault in most cycle/car collisions

RobFowl

Just read a new bit of research (with a lot of bias and flaws) which suggests that 88% of cycle/car collisions were the fault of the motorist.
Was tempted to post it on motoring but didn't ...
Here's a summary
http://road.cc/content/news/27652-australian-helmet-cam-study-says-motorists-blame-88-cent-accidents-cyclists

And here is a link to some of the videoed incidents.
http://road.cc/content/news/46995-australian-helmet-cam-study-reveals-motorists-blame-vast-majority-cycling-crashes

And for balance here's a link to a UK study which suggests it more 50:40 (for all ages) but rises to 75% (motorists at fault) if 16-24yr olds are excluded
http://www.trl.co.uk/online_store/reports_publications/trl_reports/cat_road_user_safety/report_collisions_involving_pedal_cyclists_on_britain_s_roads_establishing_the_causes_.htm

Beasty

RobFowl wrote: »

Was tempted to post it on motoring but didn't ...

Thanks Rob - have you moved time zones, as it's only Thursday here ...;)

Beasty

One initial thought about potential "bias". I would guess volunteers for this type of study would typically be cyclists who take more care than the norm

RobFowl

I'm not sure how experienced they were but the fact that they volunteered to be filmed does suggest some degree of confidence in their own abilities.
I also wonder that if they knew they were filming "bad behaviour" would they be much more likely to "behave well" themselves.

ednwireland

cant see this thread causing any polarized views

Captain Havoc

Better than that Scottish knobjockey anyway.

Jawgap

This should be sh1t to Tim Allen's fly!

Quite biased is right!

Sure if you knew you had a camera on you wouldn't you cycle a lot more cautiously - meaning any incidents you're involved in are morel likely to be someone else's fault?


I'll hold the door open if you want to roll this hand grenade into motors:)

Beasty

I know the above comments made about the Motors forum were made in jest, but just for everyone's benefit we get a lot of help from the Motors mods who clamp down on anti-cyclist rants in their forum. It's better for both forums if we avoid generic cyclist versus motorist threads, although civil and constructive discussion of issues concerning the interaction of cyclists and motorists is welcome

Jawgap

Beasty wrote: »

I know the above comments made about the Motors forum were made in jest, but just for everyon'e benefit we get a lot of help from the Motors mods who clamp down on anti-cyclist rants in their forum. It's better for both forums if we avoid generic cyclist versus motorist threads, although civil and constructive discussion of issues concerning the interaction of cyclists and motorists is welcome

Beasty wrote: »

I know the above comments about the Motors forum were made in jest, but just for everyon'e benefit we get a lot of help from the Motors mods who clamp down on anti-cyclist rants in their forum. It's better for both forums if we avoid generic cyclist versus motorist threads, although civil and constructive discussion of issues concerning the interaction of cyclists and motorists is welcome

To be sure, to be sure.......

It is better to avoid generic cyclist versus motorist threads, but is it more fun???:)

monument

I've posted about this elsewhere on boards not to long ago. I'll quote myself:

monument wrote: »

I don't see where they say never. Cyclists account for a small amount of deaths and injures, and it's very unlikely among these few that cyclists account for the blame or full blame in most of these.

Take Dublin City Council report on Cycle Collisions in Dublin City (2002-06) [as attached]. And yes, I make some judgement calls here, but you're welcome to dispute anything I say if you want:



Most deaths and the most seiours injouries were caused by motorists turning left -- often shared blame (as most crashes are to diffrent degrees -- ie shared blame can range from 50/50 to 10/90), cyclists should know better than to go into the inside of left turning vehicles but that's also often where the cycle lane bring them, but you'll also find motorists doing very silly things like not looking, not indicating and things like overtaking cyclists fast and then straight away turning in.

Most minor and the second most serious crashes were caused by cars turning right into cyclists cycing straight on -- this is likely mostly to blame on motorists. If red light breaking cyclists were such a problem you'd expect "crossroads, perpendicular diretcion of travel" to be a large issue, it's not.

Side-swipe, same direction is mostly the fault of the person overtaking and not the person who is being overtaken.

Rear-ends in Irish law is the fault of the driver who rear-ends.

Opening doors is usually the fault of the person who opens the door but you could say (and I do say) cyclists shouldn't really be in the door opening zones but cycle lane bring them there and if they cycle further out in the road they'll annoy motorists to no end.

Hitting a pedestrian is mixed -- they walk out on front of cyclists as much as cyclists hit them at crossings.

Studies elsewhere also show cyclists "rarely to blame":

Risky cycling rarely to blame for bike accidents, study finds

In Toronto found that clumsy or inattentive driving by motorists was the cause of 90 percent of these crashes

Australian helmet cam study says motorists to blame in 88 per cent of accidents with cyclists

Dublin report attached to the original post.

RobFowl

monument wrote: »

I've posted about this elsewhere on boards not to long ago. I'll quote myself:

Didn't see that.
Though not sure why it was buried in the middle of a thread about high speed rail links !

seamus

monument wrote: »

I've posted about this elsewhere on boards not to long ago.

I'm not sure if the high rate of fatalities and serious injuries from left-turning vehicles should be excluded from the data as that is almost exclusively composed of trucks or busses turning left.

Why would you exclude that? It is valid data after all. Well if I were to look at the graphs as a car driver, I would be under the impression that the area that required my most urgent attention was left turns.

But that's not correct, right? Exclude the deaths by truck/bus and the main areas of concern for car drivers become t-boning, sideswiping and a pulling into/out of driveways, with left turns relegated to 4th position.

While the data is correct (of course it is, it's just data), I think for the purposes of focussing on cyclist safety, the interpretation needs to take into account that not all vehicles are the same. There needs to be separate strategies for large vehicles and small vehicles.

RobFowl

seamus wrote: »

I'm not sure if the high rate of fatalities and serious injuries from left-turning vehicles should be excluded from the data as that is almost exclusively composed of trucks or busses turning left.

Why would you exclude that? It is valid data after all. Well if I were to look at the graphs as a car driver, I would be under the impression that the area that required my most urgent attention was left turns.

But that's not correct, right? Exclude the deaths by truck/bus and the main areas of concern for car drivers become t-boning, sideswiping and a pulling into/out of driveways, with left turns relegated to 4th position.

While the data is correct (of course it is, it's just data), I think for the purposes of focussing on cyclist safety, the interpretation needs to take into account that not all vehicles are the same. There needs to be separate strategies for large vehicles and small vehicles.

The study in the OP is a prospective attempt to see who's more likely to cause accidents/collisions. The other data is a mix of cause/fault of fatalities data and retrospective analyses to elicit cause of accidents.

The only thing that seems clear is that more cyclists are injured by motorists than vice versa. The judgement re fault is somewhat subjective.

Killme00

First comment on the article is this. http://www.youtube.com/user/westcountrytim#p/u/47/dMjK8cNVqKA

London looks worse than Dublin for inconsiderate idiotic driving.

monument

RobFowl wrote: »

Didn't see that.
Though not sure why it was buried in the middle of a thread about high speed rail links !

The infrastructure board is a strange place, and that thread has taken huge tangents down and in and out of rabbit holes, but is still somewhat on topic, mostly, maybe.

My post came from an argument of the external costs of the road network compared to rail. Somebody tried to claim that cyclists and peds were to blame for a large amount of one of the external costs (death and injury) -- my main point was that it's still a cost of roads, cyclists amount to a tiny fraction of these, and cyclists were mostly not to blame.

RobFowl wrote: »

The judgement re fault is somewhat subjective.

Most judgement is somewhat subjective.

Even if what I am deducing would not stand up in a peer review paper, this does not disqualify my deductions from being a possible valid point on boards.ie.

Again, look at some of the main types of crashes:

Cars turning right into cyclists -- cyclists could sometimes be a fault here, but legally when you're crossing another's path you have the greater duty of care are are supposed to yield the right of way to traffic travelling straight on. Like all types, there could also be a mixed amount of mixed blame (take this as a given for all of the below).

Side-swipe, same direction -- maybe the odd side-swipe happens when a cyclist is undertaking a motorist but the vast majority of side-swipes are more likely to happen when a motorist is passing out a cyclist. The duty of care is mainly on the one making the manoeuvre to make it safely.

Rear-ends -- as I said: in Irish law these are the fault of the driver who rear-ends.

Opening doors -- Even if the like of Cyclecraft and common sense would dictate that cyclists should not be in the door zone, a huge amount of cycle lanes put them there and the foolish general advice / requirement to always keep as far left as possible makes people think they should keep in too far, and, maybe more importantly, the duty of care is mostly on the one opening a door out into traffic.

Entering/Exiting private of commerials premises / laneway -- when exiting such the duty of care mostly falls to those exiting and right of way must be given to those on the public roadway, entering is less clearer but will likely have involved the motorist crossing the cyclist's path of travel.

Vehicle emerging for a side road -- same as directly above, they must give the right of way to those on the main road.

smacl

I'm surprised that overtaking and promptly turning left, and entering roundabouts in front of cyclists didn't make the list.

monument

There's not that many roundabouts in the city council area -- but it could be covered under side-swipes... or even under left turns at junctions as roundabouts are a type of junction.