Bikes vs. Cars: Cyclists Cause More Accidents

It’s been a long-running dispute around the Bay Area. Bicyclists complain that drivers don’t share the road; drivers complain that bicyclists ignore traffic laws and get in the way. The issues fuel the monthly Critical Mass rides in San Francisco and in cities across the country, and tensions are rising after recent clashes here. So, “we wanted to get to the cold, hard facts” as we reported tonight at 11pm.

The latest CHP data on car-bike collisions that resulted in injury or death shows, most often, the cyclist is at fault. Take a look for yourself at the CHP statistics covering more than 11-thousand accidents around the bay during the past five years. Sixty percent of the time, the cyclist caused the crash. The most common violations that led to accidents were riding on the wrong side of the road, refusing to yield to an automobile's right of way, unsafe speed and ignoring traffic signals and signs. Cyclists who caused collisions were nearly three times more likely to be under the influence of alcohol, compared to drivers who caused accidents.

We’re also posting a 2001 study from the Bicycle Coalition, which accuses officers of failing to file reports on behalf of bicyclists. The Coalition's Executive Director Leah Shahum says that's often still the case.

Two sides to every story. We’d like to hear what you think.

Comments

[Sean]

Investigative reporting? Hardly. You ran a query on a database. Good job!

"Thanks, CHP officer, for telling me you're objective. Now I don't need to interview anyone that's been in a bicycle related accident except the highly credible messenger I spoke to earlier."

Don't bother trying to differentiate between the many different types of cyclists. There are large differences in how a recreational rider, commuter, and messengers behave. Go ahead and interview the rider that's most likely to break laws for the sensationalism of the 11PM news. It's an easy slam dunk, and that's what journalism is these days, right? Easy.

Don't bother citing potential factors that lead cyclists to ride the wrong way. The majority of people who ride bikes in Central America ride against traffic. If that's what you grow up doing it's tough and/or scary to go the other way.

Don't bother noting that alcoholism is more prevalent in lower socioeconomic classes; the classes that can't often afford cars.

Finally, don't bother citing the number of bike riders in the Bay area and comparing it to Critical Mass participation numbers. It's better just to assume 'Massers are a good representation of your typical cyclists.

It's a shame that this was even presented as investigative journalism. Where's the investigation?

[Michael Sweeney]

Bicyclists are supposed to abide by all the rules that the cars abide by and they don't. Running stops signs and sitting in the intersections at traffic signal so you can't turn right. They don't even need to get a licence

[Sean Reynolds]

From my personal experience - the SFPD does not file reports on behalf of bicyclists

I was hit by a car door while riding my bike on 19th Street in SF this Month. I was thrown off my bike and my bike frame was totaled. (http://www.flickr.com/photos/neas/490779319/)

The driver admitted his fault for not looking, gave me his information and insurance contact. I then walked over to the Valencia police station to file a police report.

The police said I didn't need to file a report. They called the driver to verify the information was correct, asked me if I needed medical help, told me to contact the driver's insurance to fix my bike, but did not file a report.

It is certainly not standard procedure for the SFPD to file bike vs car collision reports when the driver is at fault.

My collision did not go into any database.

[Steve]

Your reporting was flawed. As the saying goes, figures never lie, but liars sure can figure. In this case, the liars are the CHP, most other police organizations, and Channel 7 for perpetuating their propoganda. The law enforcement organizations do not want bicycles on the road because of the inconvenience they create. The police know that the average California driver is inconsiderate, distracted, and makes poor decisions. Put that person in a 2 ton vehicle travelling at 2-4 times the bicycle speed, and you have a recipe for disaster.

I am a regular cyclist, and when I watch other cyclists disobeying road regulations I am greatly bothered because it reflects poorly on those of us who do obey the law. I am a regular cyclist and I am disgusted by the enviro-snobs of Critical Mass and the belief that they have the right to inconvenience hundreds of thousands of people for their cause.

HOWEVER, as a regular cyclist, at least once a week I am threatened by an automobile in such a way that if I were not on a nimble machine, there would be an accident. At least once per week, while riding less than 60 miles, I have to take evasive action that I could not have taken in a car. This does not include the motorists who honk their horns thinking I should get over into a glass-filled ditch so they can drive by.

If you want to make this report accurately, GET ON A BIKE for a week and learn what really happens. Otherwise get back into your car and drive to your salon so that your hair is perfect for your next piece of sensationalistic journo-trash.

[Michael Smith]

Gee, those statistics sure are funny. It listed my crash from 2003 as being my fault as per the police report. Turns out the police didn't even know the traffic rules. The jury from the resulting trial found the driver and passenger at fault.

[Marco Palmeri]

The is garbage journalism, with the potential to incite a negative opinion of cyclist amongst the motorists whom have seen this report.

There are many problems with this report that make it bad journalism:

1) The motive and resulting effect on the attitudes of the readers. You obviously did not think about how this is going to negatively impact the cyclist-motorist relationship out on the road, where I could be killed. This relationship is already fragile enough due to the hooligans in Critical Mass. Why make it any worse?

2) Reversing the shift towards alternative modes of transportation. During a time when cycling should be encouraged, you are discouraging it.

3) Data is invalid. Until the police can treat all bike-related accidents the same way that they treat car accidents, the data will not be valid. Sometimes the police don't even take reports. Either that, or they are not treated as seriously as an auto accident.

4) Lack of discussion regarding why there are these problems, and what can be done to fix them. Obviously there are reasons, besides blatant disregard for the law, that cyclists may occasionally break some rules. The transportation networks are designed to accommodate cars. To motorists, the cyclists are just "in the way." This is a topic which should have been included in this type of discussion.

Bottom line is: This report is shallow, and does nothing other than point a finger at someone. It does so with unreliable and /or incomplete data. Unfortunately, many readers will not look past this.

Thanks a bunch ABC, for being part of the problem instead of the solution.

[KWillets]

I remember witnessing a Golden Gate Transit bus cut off a bicyclist on Van Ness once. The bus passed him in the same lane (illegal) and then pulled over to a stop before it had cleared the cyclist, forcing him into my father's car parked at the curb. The biker wasn't seriously injured, but he broke a tail light on the car. When my father got the insurance report later, it said that the bicyclist was at fault! Likewise the man who ran down my wife from behind wasn't cited (she's OK, but doesn't ride a bike anymore). When I was hit by a red-light runner earlier this year, I was so busy making sure that she stopped (some large fraction of these incidents turn into hit-and-runs) that I didn't flag down any witnesses to prove things one way or the other.

I don't look at this as a black and white issue, but in conditions like these statistics are not going to prove much of anything. I have no problem believing that some bicyclists are poor riders; I've almost run into a few while riding.

[A.Jacks]

There's lots of blame to go around. I've commuted for 20 years and I've seen it all, including being pushed off my bike by an angry motorist (he cut in front of me to make a left hand turn) and told by the police there was no point in filing a report (I had the license plate #). We need an ongoing educational campaign for bicylcists, pedestrians and motorists. Until everyone's clear on the rules, we have little chance of improving the odds.

[Joseph Brody]

I agree that the CHP data is flawed due to police bias and under reporting. I have witnessed other cyclist report drivers and the officer just argued with the cyclist, taking the side of the driver.

When a driver verbally attacked me and then hit me with his open door, I went to the Santa Clara PD and reported the license number in a complaint. The officer displayed his bias quickly as he interrogated me. The police never followed up on my case.

Even though I strongly disagree with the report, I see a lot of cyclist making unsafe moves: Not stopping at stop signs, poor visibility, no helmet, poor traffic skills.

[David M.]

I spend about equal time driving and bicycling in San Francisco.

I've seen countless incidents of car drivers not paying attention to the road, going through red lights and stop signs, and even deliberately threatening bicyclists with their vehicles for asserting their right of way on the road.

Where are these aggressive bicyclists that endanger themselves and others on the streets? As a San Francisco driver I just don't encounter them.

Sure, some bicyclists run reds and stop signs, but they generally do it very carefully and with great attention. Drivers may get pissed off because it's "not fair," but no driver is going to die because of it.

The same can't be said when drivers cheat, which they do ALL THE TIME.

The people behind this story obviously have no experience riding (or driving?) in San Francisco.

[jon]

Interviewing messengers about cycling is like treating cab drivers as representatives of the "drivers' community."

[Jay Cee]

I watched the news story last night with amazement. I went in believing that it would be likely that it would be a slanted story in favor of the car driver, but I had also hoped that Channel 7 would be above such things. I was soon proven disappointingly right. Using the story of a single SF bike messenger as a representation of all SF bicyclists shows intent at a bias. An intent possibly aimed at stirring up emotions for this month's Critical Mass/Bike Messenger (North American Cycle Courier Championship) events. That is left to be seen. (I'm hoping for lots of Zombies, and Santas, and pillow fights instead.) Erik Pavelka pointed out how poor an idea it was to have a story, as biased as it was, as the lead story for the night. Shame on channel 7.

I've been an avid bicyclist (both touring and commuting) since I first was able to bike. I've had similar experiences to those that others have pointed out on this blog. I too was hit from behind by a driver at highway speeds (I recall hearing wheels going on gravel, the gravel of the shoulder) just before impact. I credit my B.O.B. trailer with saving my life (the driver plowed through the center of that trailer, which would have been the center of my back wheel, and flattened it, throwing me into the ditch.) I too was cited by the Highway Patrol (this was Iowa, and I later found out that the driver was the daughter of the head of the state patrol, so I certainly wasn't surprised. Disappointed, but not surprised. And THAT sort of reaction from a highway patrol is certainly a normal way for them to operate, as has been pointed out.)

So I would point the CHP data as being as biased as your story was, and highly suspect. SFBC data suggests a high rate of non-filing of police reports for bike accidents here in the city. It's likely drivers may truly be at fault in those incidents. An interesting experiment might be to have some SFBC volunteers station at places in the city where there are higher rates of bike accidents with video cameras at the ready (stealthily, if possible) to compare the footage with the police report filed on any accident. (BikeinBlue, Andy, Sean Reynolds, Michael Smith, KWillets, A.Jacks and Joseph Brody pointed out their own experience of said police bias.)

Lastly, as has been pointed out by many people, this boils down to an issue of safety. In a matchup between a 2000 pound mass of metal and petroleum products and a human on a 20 pound stick of metal, the human faces very poor odds. Take away that 20 pound stick of metal as a pedestrian, and your odds are even smaller. (Which reminds me that I'd REALLY like to see a pedestrian version of critical mass, as it's pedestrians who should be given the greatest margin of safety. Anyone want to join in?) When has a bicycle been used to PURPOSEFULLY plow over a pedestrian and murder them (vehicle drivers have done this twice recently: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/03/21/BAGBFOOSJ21.DTL and http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/16/BAGQAP9CAT1.DTL ) Sounds like a case for car drivers being a rather mentally deranged lot.

I'm feeling the least safe on a bicycle as I've ever felt in almost 20 years in the bay area. I've always felt less safe in the suburbs, and it seems that the huge influx of luxury condos is bringing the suburb dwellers to the city, along with their SUVs. (Oh, I've personally vowed to never have sex with anyone who drives an SUV. You should too.) They've even started to use the two-way turning lanes in the center of Valencia as free parking, completely in violation of the CVC (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21460_5.htm ) It's always been up to us to educate and enlighten new arrivals as to the ways that are truly SF, but this story takes us backwards. Maybe Mr. Noyes should join the ignorant vehicle columnist who writes for the mission paper in continuing to disseminate wrong information.

[Cyclist Rick]

What a fluff piece! If you are going to report on an issue, do some reporting; get the facts, not a dressed up, watered down bunch of misleading data. There is a lot of critical information that is missing from this data; ages and gender of the people on bicycles, ages and genders of the drivers, and a lot more. I mention those because real studies and analysis of data will show, as they usually do, that most of those 'bicyclists' at fault are juvenile males. To try to equate the actions of mostly juvenile males with what adult cyclists experience on the road daily and what has led to Critical Mass is absolute fallacy.

I see now why folks in droves are tuning out KGO; there is no journalistic integrity left at the station. Now if you want to step up, do a real piece, get your oversized backsides onto a bicycle and go out on the roadway for a month and experience what it is really like out there. Then get the full data and do a real analysis, and put the pieces together.

In the past 20 years I have been in 3 serious bicycle-car accidents, all 3 were the fault of the drivers, in one of the 3 I was left uncounsious on the side of the road. I follow traffic laws, and daily I have to take evasive actions to keep from being hit by oblivious or aggressive drivers. I have ridden in numerous metropolitan areas around this country, in Europe, and Asia. The drivers here in California are among the worst in the world and especially in how they treat cyclists. Portland, Oregon, not that far away, is a complete different world with motorists who actually know how to drive and treat cyclists.

[FolderPete]

hmm, jsut in time for Critical Mass ..., ok.

You will hear that "cars cause all the accidnets" and "bikers are dare-devils". It appears to me that both are incorrect.

I can understand there is a problem with underreporting of car-bike crashes (where more motorists would be listed as "at fault"). Also there appears to be a case of MISreporting, where the motorist was the actual culpret instead of the reported cyclist. I can imagine there are flaws on the other side, where motorists do get wrongly blamed, too. But it helps to realize that the cops recording these events are, essentially, "drivers", so there is an intentional or unintentional bias built into the process.

That said, are cyclists really 'to blame'? The SFBC estimates a "third" of incidnets go unreported. So, factoring that in, it would appear that cars are at fault about as much of the time as cyclists.

Also unreported is the large number of kids on bikes that are hurt, yet "at fault", in these stats. Roughly another 'third' of cyclist casualties.

Which indicates to me that cars don't cause all the accidents, and that there jsut might be some careful and repsonsible cyclists out there. Not quite the jist of your report.

With wrong-way riding chief among the causes, it sounds like Safety officials have an educational effort ahead of them. As well as addressing motorists refusing to yield ROW to cyclists. Your report should have focused on "Lsts stop the carnage!" rather than trying to inflame the non-conscious, ignorant, and aggressive tendencies of some drivers (and it only takes a few), who, after all, are responsible for most of the harm, even if the 'other guy' is "at fault".
-FP

[saul]

This topic is at the heart of why newsom should be fired in november. At his direction, we, the taxpayers, pay thousands of dollars in police overtime to escort these bicylcle misfit anarchists all over town as the police ignore the criminal incidents that continue to occur. He has no backbone to stand up to the so-called bike lobby. Then, he colludes with the clueless members of the B/S and once again caves into the bike freaks by not allowing a simple right-turn from eastbound Market St. onto the Octavia on-ramp. Instead, the motoring public, who, by the way, from their gasoline tax money, paid for the new freeway on-ramp, have to go out of their way and thereby congest neighborhood streets and detour for six or seven blocks to placate a miniscule pack of deadbeats. Last I looked, the two-wheelers don't pay a dime of road taxes.

That's another one on gutless newsom. Then there's the physically-able but down-right lazy-ass bums who are on every median strip in town hustling for drug and booze money. Newsom again shows zip leadership. Van Ness Avenue, from California St. to the freeway on-ramp on South Van Ness Ave., is nothing more than an extension of US 101. The CHP have every right to enforce the vehicle code which prohibits loitering on median divides. Chicken-legs doesn't even have to waste the SFPD's time. A letter from Brylcream Boy to the CHP Commissioner requesting those boys to enforce the highway laws
is the most simple cure to the problem. It is so obvious a solution, making one believe that hairboy doesn't have the guts to deal with this quality of life issue.
Have you recently been to Chicago, New York, Honolulu, San Diego, Boston, etc, etc.? They have taken quality of life issues seriously. There's a zero-tolerance policy in those city's and it shows. Not Mr. Talkalot Doolittle. He hasn't the intestinal fortitude to act and therefore the quality of life continues to deteriorate in SF.

Did you hear his response to the report that the homeless bums were harrassing the visitors to our "used-to-be" world-class main library? Instead of saying that their behavior would not be tolerated, he launched into one of his patent hot-air speeches about how everyone is entitled to use the library. He doesn't have a clue.

One more thing. About his newly-discovered "quality of life" court. You mean to tell us that it took 3 3/4 years for him to figure out there's a problem on the streets?? Who the hell does he think he's fooling? These problems have festered on his watch yet all of a sudden (with re-election coming up) he's had an epiphany??? If the electorate is prepared to return him then they deserve what they get.

He's alot of nothing in a slick suit.

[Cor van de Water]

"Bicyclists began demanding an equal share of the road when they started Critical Mass 15 years ago." Newsflash: bicycles are vehicles and by definition have equal rights to the road as cars, though the road can often be shared and that is why bicyclists are kindly asked by law to ride as far right as practicable in situations where this does not lead to a dangerous situation.
If you wonder why bicyclists have the right to the road - well, they started the roads and the rules of the road and as soon as cars were invented, motorists thought it was a cool idea and started sharing the bicycle roads and rules. I hope this clarifies why "cyclists think they have the same right to the road as cars."
More than a century later the cars claim a large part of the roads, not necessarily because there are more cars, but because they make so inefficient use of the roads. Have you ever seen the experiment that took a street packed with cars, removed the cars and let all drivers return as cyclists and pedestrians. Instead of a gridlocked street, it suddenly looked empty while the same amount of people were in the street.
Consider this: a 3-lane road with 2,000 vehicles per hour is busy, near the peak of its capacity, depending on how much priority it gets in the cycle of the traffic lights.
Now remove 2.5 lane and send 2,000 bicyclists through the same street. Suddenly there is no noise, no traffic jam and no desert of barren asphalt required to transport the same amount of people. Bicycling is really a transport means that has a future, especially now oil supplies are getting tight and in a couple of years the cars will be abandoned in masses. If we are not starting to build bicycle infrastructure and get more people out of their cars really soon, then the change will still come, but be more hurtful than when we are prepared.
It has its beauty, of course, to think that in a few years the cyclists will have 40 ft wide bike lanes all over town with 65 MPH speed limits and double-lane on/off ramps. And an occasional motorist who has saved up enough to fill his tank and drive that day. Just like the situation a century ago.
Oh, for the record: I have about 100,000 miles behind the wheel as well as on a bicycle, I follow the rules of the road and have never been in a serious accident. But I have seen my share of mistakes, close calls, road rage and inattentive or misguided drivers. I want the media to accept their responsibility in reporting and educating their subscribers, then a lot of mistakes can be prevented, because drivers would be informed about the reasons why a bicyclist rides in the lane, where he belongs according to the law, and those who become bicyclists would know more about which mistakes they should avoid, why and how.
For that reason there are free road skill classes for starting bicyclists. Drivers better get used to acting responsibly towards bicyclists, because there is going to be a lot more of them and road rage is not going to make them go away, it is going to put you in prison.
ABC, I challenge you to bring news instead of sensation!

[Jay Cee]

Saul's comments mean it's time to lessen the ignorance about another facet of life; the cost of building roads and driving motorized vehicles on them. Bicyclists actually are burdened with a disproportionate amount of the costs. (They cause virtually zero amount of wear and tear, sometimes don't even have access to the roads (think freeways, etc.) yet still have to pay for them in taxes.) The World Resources Institute estimates that gas taxes and other user fees cover only about 60 percent of the money spent building, improving, and repairing roads.

As for the overall cost of driving, that gets subsidized by the general public too. This is from the Santa Cruz Regional Transportation Commission (http://www.sccrtc.org/mtisfaqs.html) but the stats bear out nationwide; drivers only directly pay 65.5% of their costs of driving:

Myth: Bus and rail service require public subsidies but automobiles pay their own way.

Fact: Automobile travel also requires public subsidies; gas taxes don't cover the full cost of even road construction and maintenance. According to a report called The True Costs of Driving compiled by the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission, the fully-allocated cost of driving is about $1 per mile. 65.5¢ of this cost is born directly by the driver, in the form of gasoline, maintenance, parking, car purchase and finance costs, taxes, etc. Public subsidies cover the remaining costs of 32.2¢ per mile. The public subsidy per transit rider for the Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District for FY1996/97 (the last year available) was $2.12 per passenger, across a total of 7.7 million passengers.

And who knows if they factored in ALL the other external costs borne by the public; the costs of pollution, traffic fatalities, the war for oil, etc.

So you best at least buy the next cyclist you see a beer and thank them for helping fund your addiction.

[dan]

I consider myself a very observant driver and am very considerate of bicyclist and people driving in the slow lane of the freeway. If my bike wasn't stolen, I'd be on my bike when the weather is nice. I've had a friend that was a victim of a hit and run and clipped on his bike and suffered some head trauma and other injuries. Fortunately, he's pretty much recovered.
Still, I'm not surprised by the CHP data and true to form, the group in which the data puts in a bad light denounces the data. As bikers, keep in mind who's more vulnerable and has the most to lose if you tangle with a car. Sure bikers are supposed to have an equal right to the road, but you're asking for trouble if you ride like you are entitled to it. Driver's are distracted by cell phones, eating, or worse. Driver's constantly try to beat the red light. Driver's today don't even know stop and pull over when an emergency vehicle is approaching. You're stupid if you ride like bikers own a piece of the road.
Had this happen to me a month ago. Driving down Fell St. in SF. It was at dusk and definitely dark. Caught a glimpse of a biker on the sidewalk speeding along. I was preparing to make a right turn (I had a green light), signaled to turn and took a peak back down the block cause no one was at the corner. I was forced to make a sudden stop cause the idiot biker went right into the crosswalk without slowing down a bit. I started to accelerate and lo and behold, idiot #2 goes zipping into the intersection. Neither were wearing helmets, reflective clothing nor bright colors. They're lucky to be alive and it would've totally been their own fault.

[dan]

How many bicyclers were killed as a result of accidents with cars, and what percentage of drivers were killed in collisions with bikes?

There is a basic rule of driving that I learned long ago, "the pedestrian always has the right of way."

The reason is that no matter who is at fault, the pedestrian is the one who gets crushed like a bug, I presume.

There really and truly should be a similar attitude toward bike riders using the same reasoning.

Simply because it is the biker who
rides off in an ambulance, there should be a greater consideration for them.

[frank snapp]

Wouldn't it be better to have a shared lane?, or to eliminate car lanes. If you live in a city and within two miles of a major transit hub--that's more or less reliable, such as BART or MUNI, not AC transit, then you really are obligated by the needs of changes required to adapt to runaway global warming to take public transport or to bike.

[auto motix]

Cyclists should always drive with safe manner beacause there are many other automobiles on the road and they drive in speed so cycles accidents occurs commonly.
Thanks

car parts accessories

'very nice post'
http://www.automotix.net/

[Ajf 4]

When you are skinning your customers, you should leave some skin on to grow so that you can skin them again.