I don’t have a huge amount to say that hasn’t already been said about the tragic deaths of the two cyclists that’ve been splashed across the front page of the Chronicle the last couple days. I didn’t know either of them (although I do know some of their teammates) and I haven’t ridden the road where they were killed.
An event that’s been overshadowed by this accident, however, has been the hit-and-run collision at urban planning’s low point, Octavia and Market. This one doesn’t appear to be a result of the no-right-turn-onto-the-freeway design, but it makes the “that intersection’s not so dangerous” claims seem even more flimsy.
The Chron also reports today that there has been a sharp increase in cycling deaths over the last two years, even as the number of bike accidents and injuries overall have decreased. I don’t really have a solid idea of why this is. I would have expected the number of accidents to increase over the last couple years, since there’s been an increase in people bicycling, but that does not seem to have been the case.
The large number of cycling fatalities that have occurred in Santa Clara County make me think it’s possible that the combination of increased cycling in San Jose, possibly unaccompanied by an aggressive bike awareness campaign, might be a contributing factor. But that’s speculation, at best.
UPDATE: Activist Fran Taylor points me to this article in Transportation Alternatives, which might explain the decrease in overall bike accidents:
A perennial obstacle to bike advocacy is the view that more people cycling means more crashes, injuries and fatalities.Anyone who’s ridden in a group of three or four down (say) Market Street is familiar with the increased safety of having more people riding around you, so this makes sense to me. It does not explain, however, the increase in cycling deaths.Now, a mounting body of research, conducted in a wide range of cities, intersections, and time periods, proves just the opposite: as cycling and walking increase, the chance that a given cyclist will be struck by a motor vehicle actually decreases.
March 12th, 2008 at 10:11 am
The increase in cycling deaths (as a proportion of accidents) might be due to the increase in SUVs on the road. Everybody by now knows the usual complaints about SUVs — larger mass, reduced maneuverability, reduced visibility for SUV driver and those behind, increased stopping distance, etc. etc. But there is one more *huge* factor in relatively low-speed urban collisions with cyclists/pedestrians that is rarely mentioned: SUVs will almost always knock pedestrians and cyclists to the ground, even at low speeds, often resulting in a powerful impact to the head from the pavement. Passenger cars, on the other hand, are designed (by law?) to scoop up pedestrians/cyclists onto the hood, greatly reducing the chances of head injury or being completely run over.
March 12th, 2008 at 10:29 am
I have biked to work for the last year because it can’t afford a car at the moment. I urge all bikers (in sf and east bay) to buy a blinking tail light and ride predictably which means riding with and in traffic and signaling. Make better choices, you are not easily seen out there. And pass these basics on to others and get talking with other bicyclists about different paths and safer routes which might add more minutes to your commute, yes.
March 12th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Sarang, I thought of that, but the spike in cycling deaths has been in the last two years, while the SUV plague has been going on for significantly longer than that.
Nikola, I’d agree with you, except for the fine citizens who seem to resent cyclists in traffic, and show their resentment in, um, vehicularly graphic ways. That said, I am a strong believer in lights, although I think a front light is actually more important than a rear one, especially in lit city streets.
March 12th, 2008 at 11:58 am
I can’t help but wonder if the increase in cyclist fatalities is due to a decrease in cyclist’s obeying traffic laws. I’m a pedestrian and almost daily I have to dodge a cyclist riding on the sidewalk or ignoring traffic lights or stop signs. Cyclists are almost universally arrogant in their dismissal of traffic regulations and religious in their belief that it’s “the other guy’s fault”. Even when the other guy is a pedestrian.
March 13th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Decrease in accidents is probably due to more cyclists, as you note in your update, and more deaths from those fewer accidents is likely from larger vehicle sizes *and* higher speeds — people drive faster on local roads because they feel invincible in their safer, larger vehicles.
I’ve wondered about the factor of many more cyclists contributing to those deaths like Jojo alludes to — in the past, we’ve had a lot of experienced and more-or-less lawful cyclists, but lately we’re getting a lot of newbies who don’t follow the rules of the road. I don’t resent them — I’m glad for the many new cyclists getting on their bikes — but they do need to ride more safely and courteously, IMO.
Sasha, you’re CAPTCHA thing had some nonsense characters in there when I first tried to post this. It has good info now (obviously, since my post is successful).