Accident locations...

[ftf]

In the thread about bike lanes on roads, a couple of posters
suggested that most accidents/collisions occur at intersections. I
completely agree with respect to cars, however my theory is the
opposite with bicycles.

In my relatively short commuting history (7 years), I have been involved
in several collisions with cars and have witnessed or seen the aftermath
of numerous collisions as well. Not one of those was at an intersection
(here I define an intersection as the intersection of roads with traffic
lights) - mostly car doors, being cut off while turning into side
streets, driveways etc...

I completely agree that intersections are far more dangerous than other
parts of the road but because of that, I generalise and say that most
cyclists take extra (EXTRA) caution and are prepared for the worst when
approaching one. Of course, if and when an accident does occur at an
intersection it is likely to be more serious (vehicles moving in
opposite directions etc) but I suggest that they are far less frequent.

So I am interested to know what other people's experiences have been
with regards to collisions and where they have occurred...

Cheers, Troy



--

 

[yogi bear]

ftf wrote in message ...
>In the thread about bike lanes on roads, a couple of posters
>suggested that most accidents/collisions occur at intersections. I
>completely agree with respect to cars, however my theory is the
>opposite with bicycles.
>
>In my relatively short commuting history (7 years), I have been involved
>in several collisions with cars and have witnessed or seen the aftermath
>of numerous collisions as well. Not one of those was at an intersection
>(here I define an intersection as the intersection of roads with traffic
>lights) - mostly car doors, being cut off while turning into side
>streets, driveways etc...
>
>I completely agree that intersections are far more dangerous than other
>parts of the road but because of that, I generalise and say that most
>cyclists take extra (EXTRA) caution and are prepared for the worst when
>approaching one. Of course, if and when an accident does occur at an
>intersection it is likely to be more serious (vehicles moving in
>opposite directions etc) but I suggest that they are far less frequent.
>
>So I am interested to know what other people's experiences have been
>with regards to collisions and where they have occurred...
>

I tend to class an intersection as being where 2 different roads meet,
whether they have traffic lights or not.
In my experience accidents/near misses have been ( in order of most common):
1. Cars racing around me in order to do a left turn directly in front of me
( most common cause ).
2. Cars trying to do left turn on to the same road I'm on and cutting me
off.
3. Getting squeezed to the gutter
4. Pedestrians cutting across the road, usually opposite tram stops ( yes
I've cleaned up a ped this way).
5. Strangely the least common is cars doing a right turn. They nearly
always seem to notice me and give way.

So most of my near misses have been at intersections.
The one accident I've had was with a pedestrian.

 

[flyingdutch]

ftf wrote:
> Not one of those was at an intersection (here I define an intersection
> as the intersection of roads with traffic lights) - mostly car doors,
> being cut off while turning into side streets, driveways etc...
> Troy


since when is turning into a sidestreet or driveway not a
intersection??

The real deal about bikelanes and intersections is the very blatan
convenient ignorance applied by councils IMHO. The one place wher
things are statistically going to get messy (RTA and BV research, no
just a theory) are intersections. The one place where cyclists ar
always stupidly accused of 'getting in the way' are intersections
Getting struck from behind is a very small (albeit serious) occurence i
bike accidents

From a totally different angle, when a driver pulls into anothe
street or goes around a corner, how do they know there is a bike lan
without travelling 100-200 metres and being re-enlightened about th
lane's presence

That is also a huge weakness of those stupid 3 dashes plus a bike
lanes. Pulling out of a sidestreet gives you no indication whatsoeve

totally agree with car doors tho (when I was 18 i watched my best mat
killed a few metres ahead of me when a dolt opened their door and th
top corner went straight thru his helmet. PS - The driver, afte
complaining that Andrew had hit him, tried later to sue him for damagin
his door. PPS I broke his jaw. not something Im proud of, bu
circumstances and all that...


-

 

[ftf]

flyingdutch [/i]
since when is turning into a sidestreet or driveway not an intersection???
[/QUOTE]

Ok. I was thinking in terms of bike lanes and their continuation through intersections. If we include every point that a vehicle can turn into a road then I definately agree that most collisions occur at these intersections.

Originally posted by flyingdutch wrote:
> ... From a totally different angle, when a driver pulls into another
> street or goes around a corner, how do they know there is a bike lane
> without travelling 100-200 metres and being re-enlightened about the
> lane's presence? ...


You are spot on about turning out into the street. Most drivers aren'
going to notice there is a bike lane until they either look an
(possibly) notice you coming or notice that you have gone through thei
side window. Unfortunately there are no other visual indications... i'
not really sure what the answer is

So, like you say, the whole bike lane theory is flawed. Most accident
do not occur from behind, and you can't really see them from the side
oh and they make great parking bays along residential streets creatin
more of a hazard with opening doors..

It is more than a little unfortunate that such a simple and peacefu
form of transport is forced to share the same space as these man-mad
killing machines


-

 

[Peter Signorini]

"flyingdutch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> ftf wrote:
> > Not one of those was at an intersection (here I define an intersection
> > as the intersection of roads with traffic lights) - mostly car doors,
> > being cut off while turning into side streets, driveways etc...
> > Troy
>
>
>
> since when is turning into a sidestreet or driveway not an
> intersection???

But the intersections where the bike lanes disappear are the ones with the
traffic lights. All driveways and most minor roads alongside a bike lane
retain some form of bike lane marking.

> From a totally different angle, when a driver pulls into another
> street or goes around a corner, how do they know there is a bike lane
> without travelling 100-200 metres and being re-enlightened about the
> lane's presence?

With a bike lane there is normally a clear lane marking straight away.

From a different point of view, out my way in the 'burbs there are quite a
few main roads with continuous bike lanes, clearly marked eg. Blackburn
Road. Generally traffic stays well out of these lanes, except of course for
the allowed left turning. What is noticeable is the remarkable absence of
cyclists using the lanes.

Vicroads and local councils have a good program of bike lanes in progress,
but I wonder about their 'build them and they will come' philosophy. When
the oil crunch hits they will be an asset - but then it's not needed. Surely
the aim is to get people riding, but there are lots of other social,
financial and institutional factors that are holding the vast majority of
people back.

Cheers
Peter

 

[DRS]

Baka Dasai <[email protected]> wrote in message
[email protected]

> Don't ride in the door zone. Although it's illegal for somebody to
> open a car door without checking behind, virtually every driver does
> it anyway.

That nearly happened to me the other week. This bloke had just opened the
driver's side door and then reached across to fiddle with something on the
passenger seat. I just *knew* what was going to happen so I gave myself
enough room but still, just as he blindly opened his door exactly in time to
snare me had I not been alert, I shouted "Oi!" at him at the top of my
voice. The look on his face was priceless. He won't forget that in a
hurry.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

 

[Ray Peace]

Greetings,
Intersections are unquestionably more dangerous. I have
had three major bingles in twenty years, and two of those involved cars
at intersections, in one case turning right through traffic, (Oh, I
didn't see you) and in the second case, which was worse, coming through
a Stop sign on a clear road.
As one motoring expert put it, accidents happen when the average
motorist has an average lapse of their average concentration. Sometimes
we have the plain bad luck to be in the way when it does, and we are
more vulnerable without a tonne of metal surrounding us. This is
distinct from morons who do stupid things intentionally (see other
message this morning), and downright cretins who do things that are
terminally stupid, such as blabbing on their mobiles while driving,
which I see every other day.
My general rule is to assume that all car driver are idiots. 99 per cent
of the time you'll be wrong. The one per cent of the time you're right,
you'll ****ing well want to be.
Regards,
Ray.

ftf wrote:

>In the thread about bike lanes on roads, a couple of posters
>suggested that most accidents/collisions occur at intersections. I
>completely agree with respect to cars, however my theory is the
>opposite with bicycles.
>
>In my relatively short commuting history (7 years), I have been involved
>in several collisions with cars and have witnessed or seen the aftermath
>of numerous collisions as well. Not one of those was at an intersection
>(here I define an intersection as the intersection of roads with traffic
>lights) - mostly car doors, being cut off while turning into side
>streets, driveways etc...
>
>I completely agree that intersections are far more dangerous than other
>parts of the road but because of that, I generalise and say that most
>cyclists take extra (EXTRA) caution and are prepared for the worst when
>approaching one. Of course, if and when an accident does occur at an
>intersection it is likely to be more serious (vehicles moving in
>opposite directions etc) but I suggest that they are far less frequent.
>
>So I am interested to know what other people's experiences have been
>with regards to collisions and where they have occurred...
>
>Cheers, Troy
>
>
>
>--
>
>

 

[ftf]

Baka Dasai wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 23:04:38 GMT, ftf said (and I quote):
> > mostly car doors,
> Don't ride in the door zone. Although it's illegal for somebody to open
> a car door without checking behind, virtually every driver does it
> anyway. The only thing to do as a cyclist is to leave at least a metre
> between parked cars and you. If that means riding outside a marked bike
> lane, or taking a whole lane of traffic, then that's what you've got to
> do for your own safety.


Yes, good advice and I agree... but on the occasions I hav
unfortunately collected someone's door (twice) and most of the nea
misses have been from car passengers opening their doors while i
traffic i.e. not parked but stationary and on my right. Needless to say
I now slow down and anticipate the worst in these situations..


-

 

[Richard Sherratt]

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 01:57:28 +1100, "DRS" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Baka Dasai <[email protected]> wrote in message
>[email protected]
>
>> Don't ride in the door zone. Although it's illegal for somebody to
>> open a car door without checking behind, virtually every driver does
>> it anyway.
>
>That nearly happened to me the other week. This bloke had just opened the
>driver's side door and then reached across to fiddle with something on the
>passenger seat. I just *knew* what was going to happen so I gave myself
>enough room but still, just as he blindly opened his door exactly in time to
>snare me had I not been alert, I shouted "Oi!" at him at the top of my
>voice. The look on his face was priceless. He won't forget that in a
>hurry.

He's probably composing a post to aus.cars about the stupid cyclist
who nearly scratched his car door

I wonder how many motorists know that they are legally responsible for
the safety of others when they open their door. The blonde who nearly
got me on Monday certainly wasn't.


--
Regards.
Richard.

 

[Jose Rizal]

Peter Signorini:

> Vicroads and local councils have a good program of bike lanes in progress,
> but I wonder about their 'build them and they will come' philosophy. When
> the oil crunch hits they will be an asset - but then it's not needed. Surely
> the aim is to get people riding, but there are lots of other social,
> financial and institutional factors that are holding the vast majority of
> people back.

What are these factors?

 

[amirm]

Richard Sherrat wrote:
> wrote:
> > (snip)... The blonde who nearly got me on Monday certainly wasn't.
> --
> Regards. Richard.

Hey Richard

What are you complaining about? Just think of the aftermath if i
did happen ;



-

 

[Jorgen]

"flyingdutch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
[...]
> totally agree with car doors tho (when I was 18 i watched my best mate
> killed a few metres ahead of me when a dolt opened their door and the
^^^^^^

> top corner went straight thru his helmet. PS - The driver, after
> complaining that Andrew had hit him, tried later to sue him for damaging
> his door. PPS I broke his jaw. not something Im proud of, but

Post mortem suing his family? Really??

> circumstances and all that... )

Then again, it's something you _could_ be proud of, IMNSPCO (to coin an
acronym).

j

 

[Richard Sherratt]

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 00:04:55 GMT, amirm
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Richard Sherrat wrote:
> > wrote:
> > > (snip)... The blonde who nearly got me on Monday certainly wasn't.


>Hey Richard,
>
>What are you complaining about? Just think of the aftermath if it
>did happen

Only problem was that she was plug ugly Makeup applied like
render.



--
Regards.
Richard.

 

[DRS]

ftf <[email protected]> wrote in message
amUVb.34336$R%[email protected]

[...]

> I completely agree that intersections are far more dangerous than
> other parts of the road but because of that, I generalise and say
> that most cyclists take extra (EXTRA) caution and are prepared for
> the worst when approaching one. Of course, if and when an accident
> does occur at an intersection it is likely to be more serious
> (vehicles moving in opposite directions etc) but I suggest that they
> are far less frequent.

OK, here's one for the Melbourne folk: how does a cyclist safely ride north
on Punt Road whilst crossing the Swan Street intersection?

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

 

[cfsmtb]

Drs wrote:
> OK, here's one for the Melbourne folk: how does a cyclist safely ride
> north on Punt Road whilst crossing the Swan Street intersection?


Ideally via a teleporter from the Enterprise NCC-1702 A/B/C or D


-

 

[flyingdutch]

went to the boroondara traffic management meeting on Tues night, wher
they had maps showing stats of traffic flow (or lack thereof!), publi
transport, bike lanes, accidents, pedestrians-involved-accidents, bike-involved
accidents

According to these stats (RTA, police, boroondara

OVER 95% OF ALL INCIDENTS HAPPENED AT INTERSECTIONS

On the bike-specific map it was the same. Interestingly, Kew Junctio
was the worst spot by far (Im gonna take a punt and say it was traffi
turning right into the start of cotham or at the main junction itself
but it didnt say. Interestingly, Council have just blacked out the bik
lane on the north, east-heading side so as not presumably to upset ped
alighting the tram out front of the 'Skinny Dog' Pub

There were far more overall incidents at T intersections involvin
secondary roads entering main roads and very very few on straight o
open sections of road or backstreet. This was pointed out very clearl
to the attending traffic consultants, town engineers and councillors wh
were there

Be there next Wed PM at Hawthorn Town Hall, 6:30pm to back this u
people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Take it to the frontline. Great to here all this on a forum of grea
heads thinking alike but unless you do/say something it stays in th
confines of the forum :


-

 

[Jose Rizal]

Baka Dasai:

> On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 23:50:18 GMT, Jose Rizal said (and I quote):
> > Peter Signorini:
> >
> >> Vicroads and local councils have a good program of bike lanes in progress,
> >> but I wonder about their 'build them and they will come' philosophy. When
> >> the oil crunch hits they will be an asset - but then it's not needed. Surely
> >> the aim is to get people riding, but there are lots of other social,
> >> financial and institutional factors that are holding the vast majority of
> >> people back.
> >
> > What are these factors?
>
> Off the top of my head:
>
> 1. They like their car. Their whole self-image is wrapped up in
> their car, which they probably spent a lot of money on. Becoming a
> cyclist would mean that they'd have to change their whole self-image.

I don't know that the majority of vehicle owners are like this, or even
a significant proportion. I think that practicalities of everyday life
dictate that a car be available to most, time and distance being two
quite prominent factors.

> 2. They don't want to look like a dork. They don't want to stand out
> and be different. None of their friends do it. The whole of the
> society's image of itself is wrapped up in cars, and to ride a bike
> means to locate yourself outside that image - you necessarily become
> a rebel of sorts. Most people aren't willing to do this.

There are a number of items there:
a. Looking like a dork only happens when you wear the Lycra gear and
Team jerseys!
b. Standing out - see a. above
c. Friends - there is always an instigator in every group; who's to say
that person will be cast out for going against the grain?
d. Image and cars - I think advertisers only exploit what the underlying
premise is in living in modern societies these days: the necessity for
automobiles. I think that if this situation was somehow changed for any
other form of transportation, image will be associated with that
particular form; that is, without the underlying necessity for
automobiles, change comes much easier.

> And now for the boring ones...
>
> 3. They're afraid of the traffic.

With good reason. You don't have to have a great potential for
collision with automobiles to make riding in traffic an ordeal; dodging
vehicles, car exhaust fumes, verbal abuse from motorists and road
hazards make for a less than enjoyable experience.

Of course, all these will change if more people used their cars less.

> 4. They don't like exercise.

This is too much of a generalisation. How many fee-paying gym attendees
ride bicycles?

> 5. They don't want to ride in the rain.

Who does?

> 6. Many of their trips are too far for comfortable cycling.

This is a fair reason though.

> 7. They often have to carry things or people (kids).

Another fair reason.

> Seriously, if the first two reasons didn't exist, people would find
> excuses TO ride, rather than the excuses not to ride seen in numbers
> 3 to 7.

Possibly, but it will take a lot of effort to overcome the
practicalities, some of which you mentioned. In fact, I don't think the
utopian ideal of cyclists comprising a significant proportion of
commuters can ever be achieved.

 

[ftf]

Drs wrote:
> OK, here's one for the Melbourne folk: how does a cyclist safely ride
> north on Punt Road whilst crossing the Swan Street intersection?
> --
> A: Top-posters.
> B: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?


Cyclist, Punt rd, Safe... choose 2

Cheers, Tro


-

 

[flyingdutch]

Avoid the hill totally and turn left at Alexandra Parade and then
turn right ang go over the bike/pedestrain only bridge (cant remember
the name) and continue north along bike path back to the intersection
of Swan St.

I am assuming you meant the parade brifge as Swan St bridge and Punt
road are about 1.5km apart!



--

 

[Peter Signorini]

"Baka Dasai" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 23:50:18 GMT, Jose Rizal said (and I quote):
> >
> > What are these factors?
>
> Off the top of my head:
>
> 1. They like their car. Their whole self-image is wrapped up in
> their car, which they probably spent a lot of money on. Becoming a
> cyclist would mean that they'd have to change their whole self-image.
>
> 2. They don't want to look like a dork. They don't want to stand out
> and be different. None of their friends do it. The whole of the
> society's image of itself is wrapped up in cars, and to ride a bike
> means to locate yourself outside that image - you necessarily become
> a rebel of sorts. Most people aren't willing to do this.
>
> And now for the boring ones...
>
> 3. They're afraid of the traffic.
>
> 4. They don't like exercise.
>
> 5. They don't want to ride in the rain.
>
> 6. Many of their trips are too far for comfortable cycling.
>
> 7. They often have to carry things or people (kids).
>
> Seriously, if the first two reasons didn't exist, people would find
> excuses TO ride, rather than the excuses not to ride seen in numbers
> 3 to 7.

All these things, especially #1 & #2 will deter many non-cyclists from
taking up cycling for transport, and #7 is one that impacts on me. But I was
thinking more about other built in deterrents, that stop keen cyclists like
myself from commuting:

1. Workplaces that have no provision for secure storage of bikes, showers or
even a space to store clothes and get changed. Hilly suburban commutes of
10-20 km or more are not easily done in street clothes, so a change is
necessary.

2. Employers who provide nice salary packages with a car included for
motorists. If you knock it back will you get an extra $10K pa to spend on
lots of nice bike bits?

3. Cities built around the sort of low density sprawl that the silly Save
Our Suburbs Nimby group want to preserve. Most people find a car an
essential tool on account of travel distances invovled.

4. Tax concessions available for the use of a motor vehicle in the course of
business, not to mention that outrageous tax break on 4WDs because they're
'farm vehicles'

5. Growing attitudes in society that it is UNSAFE for even a 14 yr old to
walk, let alone ride to school; coupled with women's fears of walking, using
public transport or even cycling. It's much safer driving on the roads _of
course_!! So if you do cycle your colleagues look on you as a slightly
crazed, irresponsible left leaning tree-hugger. Who needs it.

Most will find the practical organisation of cycle commuting in the suburbs
too hard and just get in their driving seat. Some active discouragement of
motor vehicle use is needed to show that society values the use of cheaper
sustainable transport like cycling, PT, and walking. I won't hold my breath
though.

Cheers
Peter