Cyclists, death and blame

Kojo Nnamdi recently did a show on Vision Zero (a subject previously covered in 2015), the two recent fatal crashes and the ride organized for one of them. Predictably, and sadly, people called in to complain about scofflaw cyclists, with one such caller claiming that the way to make streets safer for cyclists is to crack down on bad cycling.

I have a suggestion about what the city can do to make things safer for cyclists and that is to enforce the existing traffic laws with regards to cyclists obeying them.  I have asked and I have been told that cyclists are supposed to obey the same laws as motorists, however, as a person who earns his living driving in the city, I do not see that.  Cyclists routinely go from the streets to the sidewalk, bypassing lights by using the pedestrian crossing walks, and weaving in and out of traffic, so when I hear of a cyclist getting hit by a vehicle I'm often not surprised what I see and I never ever ever see MPD enforcing traffic laws when cyclists do those unsafe maneuvers or bypass the uh, the rules of the road, which they feel, seemingly, that they are above.

If I made an exhaustive list of things DC could do to make the roads safer, that might make the list - but only if I could choose what was targeted. No doubt, cyclist error and failure to obey the law contributes to fatalities on the road. But even if we could get cyclists to comply with 100% of the laws 100% of the time, we'd only see deaths reduced by 1 to 1.5 people per year, because that's about how often cyclist failures result in fatalities. That's not nothing, but it's not really getting at the heart of the problem. Of course, I would argue that overly-aggressive enforcement of the wrong things would dissuade people from biking and might end up making the streets less safe. 

An underlying message in statements like the one above is that it was the cyclist who was to blame, and that's not surprising since there has long been a perception that (and reporting to go with it) vulnerable users are more often to blame in their own deaths. 

For example, this report from the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing (led by, I kid you not, Michael Scott) claims that

Unsafe pedestrian behavior is a major factor in pedestrian injuries and fatalities. In a recent study of 7,000 pedestrian-vehicle crashes in Florida, researchers discovered that pedestrians were at fault in 80 percent of these incidents.

Popcenter provides research and reports to policing organizations, so it's important that they get things correct. In this case, they have not. Popcenter is misreading the Comprehensive Study to Reduce Pedestrian Crashes in Florida (which they also mis-cited). First of all it's only a study of Florida State Roads, not all roads - meaning it skews towards highways.

More importantly, what the report actually says is that

Overall, pedestrians were found to be at fault in over 53.0% of the crashes.

In 80% of the crashes, the pedestrian was not in a marked crosswalk, which is where I suspect that number is coming from. So popcenter is getting “not in a marked crosswalk” confused with fault.

Furthermore, the study states that

crashes where pedestrian was at fault were found to be more severe compared to the crashes where the driver was at fault, and this difference was found to be statistically significant.

Or read another way in more severe crashes, pedestrians were more likely to be found at fault. In fact, in fatal crashes, pedestrians were found to be at fault 65% of the time (table 4-5) but in injury crashes only 52% of the time. So it appears that when vulnerable users die, they get blamed.

The study does state that pedestrians are more often to blame in the crashes they reviewed (53% vs 28.2%). There are probably several reasons for this that might close the gap.

For one, the pedestrians include very young people who are likely to make more mistakes (12.4% were below 19 years old), but drivers are all at least 15 years old. 

The other was stated above, when only the driver is around to tell their story, their story is more often told in their favor. A NYC study reported that 

In a crash scene investigation, investigators determine the apparent contributing factors for crashes.

For fatal crashes, they assign bicyclist-only factors 42% of the time and driver-only factors 20%. But for non-fatal crashes, bicyclist-only factors were assigned 13% of the time and driver-only factors 35%. That's a big difference. The report notes that:

In interpreting these data, it is important to remember that in some fatal crashes the motor vehicle driver’s recollection of the crash is the only one available, which may bias these findings to show more bicyclist errors compared to motor vehicle driver errors.

You don't say.

The paper "The Only Good Cyclist" showed a similar result. It showed that cyclists were found at-fault for running a red light in 19% of fatal cases, but that that number dropped to 8% when uncorroborated driver testimony is ignored. It also showed that drivers were primarily at fault.

A British study also found similar results.

The 64-page analysis found that police attributed responsibility for collisions more or less evenly between drivers and cyclists overall, but this was skewed by the fact that when child riders were involved their behaviour was named as a primary factor more than three-quarters of the time.

With adult cyclists, police found the driver solely responsible in about 60%-75% of all cases, and riders solely at fault 17%-25% of the time.

The figures were slightly higher when the cyclist was killed, but in such cases only the driver's account is available.

But even though drivers often get to tell a one-sided story, other studies have shown that cyclists and pedestrians are still not the ones primarily at fault. An Australian study of police reports states that 

The police identified the bicycle as the at-fault party in 35.9% of reported crashes for the years 2000-2005, while vehicles were at fault in 63.6%. In bicycle-vehicle collisions, the cyclist was the at-fault party in 369 instances (30.6%). In the remaining crashes (single
vehicle, or crashes involving pedestrians, wheeled recreational vehicles or railway stock, multiple bicycle incidents) cyclists were at-fault in 93% of crashes. 

When considering the age of the cyclist, younger cyclists were more likely than older cyclists to be at-fault, with those aged 5-11 responsible in 82% of crashes while those aged 30-39 were at-fault in 19% of crashes.

And studies in New York show similar results

A tally of NYPD’s monthly crash reports shows there were 14,845 pedestrian and cyclist injuries and deaths from January through November of last year (citywide crash numbers for December have not yet been released). For those 11 months, pedestrian and cyclist “error/confusion” was coded as a contributing factor in fatal and injury crashes involving 1,092 vehicles. That means only about 7 or 8 percent of pedestrian and cyclist injuries were coded as being the fault of the victim.

NYC DOT’s landmark 2010 pedestrian safety study, based on records of 7,000 crashes involving pedestrians, found that motorist behavior was the main factor in 78.5 percent of serious pedestrian injuries and fatalities. A 2012 report from Transportation Alternatives found that 60 percent of fatal New York City pedestrian and cyclist crashes with known causes between 1995 and 2009 were the result of motorists breaking traffic laws, according to data from the state Department of Transportation. And NYC DOT data from 2011 revealed that half of pedestrians killed in city crosswalks were crossing with the signal.

So, while it's true that better cyclist behavior, especially among the very young, is likely to save lives, it's not the low hanging fruit that some people think it is. The main problem, again, is driving. 

Comments

[oboe]

We don't always blame the victim; sometimes we blame the streetcar tracks.

[oboe]

(Fantastic piece, btw)

[hukserdont]

These types of comments depress me to the point that, when I'm not in a combative mood, I avoid articles where pedestrians and cyclists are killed by drivers.

You know how in many states the driver of a car who rear ends another driver is considered almost automatically at fault? I would like to see that applied for driver-pedestrian and driver-cyclist accidents. As the operator of a large vehicle that can very easily kill unprotected road (sidewalk, etc.) users, drivers should automatically be considered at fault, and the burden should be on them to provide evidence to the contrary. That would clean things up right quick. Can we get that done soonish? Thanks.

[washcycle]

I think that is how it works some places in Europe. In a crash there is presumed guilt (but that's not the right term) for the larger vehicle (car>bike>ped).

[hukserdont]

My imperfect memory is that's how it's done in the Netherlands.

I'd also like a pony, btw.

[Richard B]

The thing that bothered me second most about that driver's comments is that all of those things are totally legal for bicyclists to do. Another reason why driver's need to learn what actual laws are and follow them.

[contrarian]

It seems that there are some drivers who are really set off by cyclists switching from road to sidewalk or back, even though it's perfectly legal. It offends their sense of justice or something. I've never got it. Do they get mad when cars with 3 passengers switch in and out of the HOV lane? Or when buses move out of the bus lane?

[contrarian]

Another good data point is "Killed by Automobile" by Komanoff. Going from memory, but he has the observation that in fatal car/bicycle crashes the driver of the car is male in 90% of cases*. Since this is far greater than the proportion of male drivers on the road, and being male is strongly correlated with aggressiveness, this is strong circumstantial evidence that driver behavior is a major contributor to collisions and driver aggression is a major factor.

*(When the driver is identified. My recollection is that roughly a third of fatal accidents are hit-and-run and the driver is never identified.)