NTSB bicycle safety report

The National Transportation Safety Board recently issued its first bicycle safety report in 47 years.

Among those bicyclists involved in crashes with motor vehicles, 15% were hospitalized, treated and transferred, or held for observation, indicating a serious injury level. In comparison, only 7% of bicyclists in other crashes received the same treatments. This difference suggests that crashes between motor vehicles and bicycles produce more severe injury outcomes for the bicyclists.

You don't say?!

The report was written in response to recent studies that showed a percentage decline in motor vehicle fatalities, yet an increase in deaths of vulnerable road users as well as some other disturbing trends. NTSB admitted that the annually reported number of fatalities were just a floor and acknowledged they didn't really know for sure if they included all the deaths, and likewise that they likely underestimate the level of bicycling activity in the United States. They also conceded that the injury data was almost meaningless. 

The research goals were to (1) describe fatal and nonfatal injury trends associated with bicycle crashes involving motor vehicles, (2) examine the scope and nature of bicyclist crash and injury risk factors and assess data limitations, (3) identify proven countermeasures that may be underused, (4) assess obstacles that may interfere with the full use of the identified countermeasures, and (5) explore emerging issues that are relevant to bicycling safety

Some of their findings echo things most safe streets advocates have been talking about for years: protected bike lanes and slower car speeds can reduce fatalities, road diets make roads safer. Others are somewhat novel like " allowing adaptive headlight systems and
to require evaluating headlights in real-world settings rather than in a laboratory would likely result in headlights that improve drivers’ ability to detect other road users, including bicyclists."

The report calls for the DOT to consider bicyclists and pedestrians in current and future safety research, assessments and guidelines for cars; to push for more separated bike facilities; and for more to be done to improve conspicuity of cyclists. 

They also recommend that state governments:

Require that all persons shall wear an age-appropriate bicycle helmet while riding a bicycle

So there's that. They do present many studies that back up the efficacy of helmets, but I'm not sure that helmet laws work (though they have data that implies they do). And, of course, it mandatory helmet use is a good idea for cyclists, why not pedestrians and motorists?

With conspicuity (think lights and reflectors) they note that the standards are from the 1980's but that technology has come a long way since then and that perhaps they should be updated to include LED-based lights for example. The section on car lights was interesting and new to me. 

Yet, the current Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) for headlights, FMVSS 108, does not include minimum illumination distance or on-vehicle performance testing of lighting systems. Rather, manufacturers self-certify that their lights meet criteria for bulb output, using the results of component tests―that is, operating tests carried out on parts that have been removed from a vehicle. Additionally, DOT rules permit a low beam and a high beam; however, unlike European standards, they do not allow vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States to continuously adjust the light pattern and provide high-beam illumination except within a segment of the beam that is adjusted to limit glare for oncoming drivers.

They also seem bullish on technology like Collision Avoidance Systems and Vehicle-to-Pedestrian systems, which I remain hopeful about. The call for helmet laws was controversial, but I was glad to see them give so much attention to safer cars and safer roads. The US has a long way to go.

Comments

[Brian Ogilvie]

It is heartening to see an emphasis on safer automobile design. As as 50-something, I've noticed that the lights on many new cars, especially if they are misaligned, can be dazzling to oncoming drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians. And that's in Massachusetts, where the annual safety inspection for cars includes testing and correcting headlight aim.

I notice that Norway seems to be an exception to the inverse correlation between miles cycled per capita and bicyclist fatalities. Having driven in Norway, I would speculate that it's due to Norway's strict enforcement of speed limits and DUI laws. For DUI, the legal limit is 0.02, and the penalty for being even slightly over that is a fine equal to one month's pay and suspension of one's driver license for up to a year.

[Mr Surly]

On the rare occasions I’m in an automobile I’m always struck with how difficult they are to see out of. And at night I’m doubly struck how impossible it is to see anything else but other, brightly lit, cars.

[Randy]

Thanks for writing about this report.

"And, of course, if mandatory helmet use is a good idea for cyclists, why not pedestrians and motorists?"

Snarky. NTSB has long recommended mandatory helmet laws for motorcyclists. I'm not aware of studies showing the safety benefit of helmets for pedestrians or motorists.

[washcyle]

Randy, I'm surprised that YOU of all people aren't aware of studies showing the safety benefit of motoring helmets.

https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/safety/publications/2000/Protect_Head_3.aspx

As for pedestrian helmets, the lack of studies is a reason we should do some, not a reason to pooh-pooh the idea. Maybe we can drop weights on them from various heights.

I don't know of any studies about electric scooter helmets, but I know of websites that promote them.