Mostly "Cyclsts are at fault"

[ColinOldnCranky]

There is an article in todays Sunday Times in Perth with the headline "Crash jolt for cyclists".

Penned by Calla Wahlquist, it leads off with

Cyclists are at fault in the majority of serious crashes involving a car, according to new figures authorities hope will end the blame game between road users.

with the basis in Police determinations.

It will be interesting to see why this conclusion is so different to findings in other states. I can't imagine it being left unchallenged as it is far different to what has been determined elsewhere.

It will certainly not end the blame game, rather it will just resurrect it and give credence to the worst sort of driver.

Googles bots are having a lazy day. I haven't been able to find the article online so far.

[g-boaf]

Of course they are at fault, because they simply dare to ride a bicycle on a road. Apparently bicycles are only to be taken on the back of the car to a local park to trundle along at slow speed, or to be there for the family picnic in the unlikely event someone might decide to want to ride a few hundred metres.

Riding them for the purposes of transport or for sport, good grief - woah, governments can't seem to get their minds around that.

[ColinOldnCranky]

It will be interesting to see a breakdown by age. On a research paper of QUT (Qld Uni of Tech) the researchers established fault of riders at 56.6% (I think this was for bike-car accidents). However it was heavily influenced by riders under the age of 16 being 3/4 at fault. For over 16 cyclists were at fault only 27.6%) I am unsure what percentage were not considered anyone fault.

But the point is that without differentiating between ages, it is likely to demonstrate more on the stupidity of people who think they are indestructible in their youth and less on the habits of motorists or riders.

[il padrone]

Diametrically opposite to the study carried out by MUARC from a few years back.

Drivers were at fault in 87 per cent of incidents with cyclists and most did not realise they had behaved in a reckless or unsafe manner, according to the Monash University Accident Research Centre (MUARC) and The Amy Gillett Foundation.

The three-year study into cyclist safety on the roads used mounted video camera footage, as well as helmet-mounted cameras worn by cyclists, to determine the main causes of road accidents between cyclists and motorists.

Something different is also suggested from a Queensland study:

From 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2008, there were 6328 crashes reported to police involving bicycles and motor vehicles, comprising 93.4% of police reported bicycle crashes. The bicyclist was deemed the at-fault vehicle in 2809 instances (44.4%).

[trailgumby]

It will be interesting to see a breakdown by age. On a research paper of QUT (Qld Uni of Tech) the researchers established fault of riders at 56.6% (I think this was for bike-car accidents). However it was heavily influenced by riders under the age of 16 being 3/4 at fault. For over 16 cyclists were at fault only 27.6%) I am unsure what percentage were not considered anyone fault.

But the point is that without differentiating between ages, it is likely to demonstrate more on the stupidity of people who think they are indestructible in their youth and less on the habits of motorists or riders.

Much too nuanced for News Limited owned rags. It has to be black, or white. They don't want to confuse people with facts.

[Nobody]

Much too nuanced for News Limited owned rags. It has to be black, or white. They don't want to confuse people with facts.

Someone had left a Daily Terror in the lunch room at work and it claimed it had by far the highest circulation of the Sydney papers. Probably one reason for our problems on the road.

[trailgumby]

Definitely one reason for our problems on the road.

Fixed that for you.

I think the link between the attitude of coverage in tabloid media and the risk to cyclists of driver behaviour would be an interesting subject for a PhD thesis, and an interesting challenge in test design.

[AdsPear]

http://m.perthnow.com.au/news/western-a ... 6938913924" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here's the link. Normal rego and running red lights rubbish in the comments

[ColinOldnCranky]

A few have alluded to quite opposite findings elsewhere. And it does seem to be at variance with much of what we have had reported in recent times.

However, there seems indeed to be a level of consistency across jurisdictions that says (roughly):

• That under 16yo cohort cyclists are at fault by around 3 to 1
• That over 16 yr cohort the driver is at fault by about 4 to 1

and, yes, taken together that cyclists are more often at fault than drivers by a small margin (as kids are over-represented in the numbers). However, for an improvement the message that police commissioners prefer to give is the one that can affect driver behaviour. The stats about mature riders. (I guess that schools look after the other bit.) And that is what is relevant to us and the whole improve-the-hater context.

I find that any reporting on a total count however serves no useful purpose but does give succor to those exactly those drivers that need to change. I have sent a quick message to the BTA and the BWA fleshing this out a little in the hope that they will challenge what is nothing more than a lazy, simplistic, misleading and damaging article. Before it gets too much traction.

We ourselves are often just as guilty of looking no further than the headline statement or of paragraph one of a summary. Me included.

[Scott_C]

Cross referencing the numbers in the article against the BITRE Australian Road Fatalities Database I think I can see how they are coming up with a higher number of cyclists at fault than other Australian studies. They are counting single vehicle accidents (i.e. cyclist only) in their totals when figuring out the percentage of accidents that are the cyclist's fault.

According to the article they have a sample of 16 fatal accidents and 43 critical injury accidents where 32 (54%) were the fault of cyclists and 23 (39%) were the fault of motorists (presumably leaving 4 with fault unknown). The 16 fatal accidents are also in the BITRE Database which shows that 7 of the 16 fatal accidents were single vehicle.

The previous studies have been the percentage of motorist/cyclist collisions that are the fault of cyclists/motorists this article uses the number of cyclist injuries/fatalities that are the fault of cyclists/motorists, including injuries/fatalities where there is no car involved.

[ColinOldnCranky]

Cross referencing the numbers in the article against the BITRE Australian Road Fatalities Database I think I can see how they are coming up with a higher number of cyclists at fault than other Australian studies. They are counting single vehicle accidents (i.e. cyclist only) in their totals when figuring out the percentage of accidents that are the cyclist's fault.

According to the article they have a sample of 16 fatal accidents and 43 critical injury accidents where 32 (54%) were the fault of cyclists and 23 (39%) were the fault of motorists (presumably leaving 4 with fault unknown). The 16 fatal accidents are also in the BITRE Database which shows that 7 of the 16 fatal accidents were single vehicle.

The previous studies have been the percentage of motorist/cyclist collisions that are the fault of cyclists/motorists this article uses the number of cyclist injuries/fatalities that are the fault of cyclists/motorists, including injuries/fatalities where there is no car involved.

Can we apply the same then to motorists fatalities and serious accidents?

Say, 3000 last year, only, what, 9 caused by cyclists. Hmmm. Motorists at fault, say, 0.00...%

[human909]

Thanks for that detective work Scott_C.

[il padrone]

and, yes, taken together that cyclists are more often at fault than drivers by a small margin (as kids are over-represented in the numbers).

A point to note is that the data referred to in the news item in Perth Now is talking only about fault for collisions that resulted in fatalities or severe injuries. This is a rather narrow band of the total bicycle/car collisions, does not even come close to covering the total injury collisions.

Lies, damn lies and statistics!

[trailgumby]

The previous studies have been the percentage of motorist/cyclist collisions that are the fault of cyclists/motorists this article uses the number of cyclist injuries/fatalities that are the fault of cyclists/motorists, including injuries/fatalities where there is no car involved.

Thanks for that Scott_C.

How surprising that a News Corp owned publication would stoop to such rampant distortion.

Said no one ever.

[Mulger bill]

Ahh statistics, the science and art of making numbers say whatever the hell someone else wants them to say.

[DavidS]

Yeah right, this will not fuel the flames will it? How can they write something like this and claim it contributes to reducing the blame game. Only a Murdoch rag could make a claim that silly.

DS

[Grejoh]

The old saying of lies, dam lies, and statistics!

[Red Rider]

Wow, that is some sloppy reporting. The article says numerous times the figures are on collisions with a car.

I'm also intrigued by Minister Day's comment, " wear helmets to ensure [cyclists] stay safe". What a rock solid guarantee.

[citywomble]

The Minister for Transport said:

“Motorists need to take extra care near a cyclist and cyclists need to obey the road rules at all times and wear helmets to ensure they stay safe.”

Whilst he is new in the role I had hoped that he would really understand and be a positive influence. With that one comment he is either not capable of comprehending the issues or speaks beyond his ability to reason. Unfortunately my hopes are now lower.

"Wear helmets to ensure they stay safe". At least the previous Incumbent Troy the Buzz demonstrated he did not think helmets were necessary by riding around Freo without one.

[diventare]

and, yes, taken together that cyclists are more often at fault than drivers by a small margin (as kids are over-represented in the numbers).

A point to note is that the data referred to in the news item in Perth Now is talking only about fault for collisions that resulted in fatalities or severe injuries. This is a rather narrow band of the total bicycle/car collisions, does not even come close to covering the total injury collisions.

Lies, damn lies and statistics!

You might say this in good faith, but you have personally chosen to retrieve some dated reports to support your preferred position (response above).

These statistics are to be viewed as a checkpoint on the behaviour of us all. If it causes a moments reflection on life risking behaviour by us all then the outcome is positive.
There is no point us getting all worked up about the negative.

[Aushiker]

Two things stand out for me ... no link or reference to the actual report and the findings also conflict with other Australian studies ... really need to see the actual report so have asked the Minister for Road Safety, Liza Harvey for a copy.

Regards
Andrew

[g-boaf]

Wow, that is some sloppy reporting. The article says numerous times the figures are on collisions with a car.

I'm also intrigued by Minister Day's comment, " wear helmets to ensure [cyclists] stay safe". What a rock solid guarantee.

A helmet might be a great device, but against a car, it's about as useful in keeping you safe as Duncan Gay's proposed bit of plastic called a bicycle license. I still support MHLs - just for the sake of it, but the helmet won't protect you if a car or a heavy truck decides to run you down.

[wombatK]

This video from WA is rating on Digg
today and mostly contradicts the mostly cyclists are at fault story.

At the end, the motorist very clearly fails to give way correctly and the cyclist
look to have taken some serious damage.

Not sure if it's a bit harsh, but the cyclist was approaching two possible
SMIDSY threats quite quickly without covering his brakes - only reaches for
them the last 1 or 2 seconds before impact after car moves onto the
cyclists side of the median strip. You might not be at fault, but you're the
poor b~gger that winds up in hospital, if not worse. So maybe it's not good
for us to get too self-righteous.

[rangersac]

Not sure if it's a bit harsh, but the cyclist was approaching two possible
SMIDSY threats quite quickly without covering his brakes - only reaches for
them the last 1 or 2 seconds before impact after car moves onto the
cyclists side of the median strip. You might not be at fault, but you're the
poor b~gger that winds up in hospital, if not worse. So maybe it's not good
for us to get too self-righteous.

I'd nominate it for being a bit of a harsh call. If the expectation is you slow down at every intersection in case of a SMIDSY then it'd be a lengthy commute for most. Also I'd imagine that the cyclist probably had their attention fatally drawn to the car on the left, as it approached the intersection with a bit more speed than the one to the right.

[human909]

I'd nominate it for being a bit of a harsh call.

It sometimes is a fine line between offering helpful advice to a victim and blaming the victim. Personally I don't think wombatk has crossed that. When I look at that video it is quite clear to me that the cyclist is not riding nearly as cautiously as he could. Certainly his behavior makes me nervous, I personally would be far more cautious in my riding. In all cases except at the roundabout it is the drivers fault. But that doesn't mean that the cyclist should not adjust his behavior to improve his own safety.

If the expectation is you slow down at every intersection in case of a SMIDSY then it'd be a lengthy commute for most.

I do cover my brakes and slow down if necessary every time I approach such a situation. I would have had a dozen accidents if I did not. Instead I have had zero accidents with other vehicles.

I was slipstreaming a friend seconds before she was seriously injured by a car pulling out in front of her. I was unhurt because I slowed and moved out of the bike lane before the intersection. (I tried to warn her by shouting, but she didn't hear me. ))

I'd much prefer to be 2 minutes slower in my rider than severely injured. It isn't a hard choice.

In the final incident. I would have moved out of the bike lane long before the intersection. I would be standing up, looking directly at the car and be covering my brakes. Staying in the bike lane in such circumstances makes you less visible and gives you less room to move. At those speeds it is down right dangerous.

Just to be clear I am not blaming the victim. The motorists shown are idiots. But the victim is doing themselves a disservice if they continue riding the way they do.