More Bicyclists = Fewer Bike Accidents

[Jayfar]

More bicyclists means fewer accidents, Phila. finds

Excerpt:

This "safety in numbers" phenomenon has been documented elsewhere, and safety experts believe it is because motorists become more alert to cyclists when there are more of them.

Since 2002, the number of cyclists on many Center City streets has more than doubled, according to tallies at key intersections, and the percentage of bike commuters has also doubled. In 2002, there were six bicyclists killed in accidents with motor vehicles; last year, there were two such deaths.

Traffic crashes involving bikes in Philadelphia have fallen from a high of 1,040 in 1998 to 553 in 2010.

"Where cars expect to find bicyclists and pedestrians, drivers are more cognizant of cyclists and pedestrians," said Alex Doty, executive director of the Bicycle Coalition of Greater Philadelphia. He cited a study in Portland, Ore., that found a doubling of the number of bicycles reduced the crash risk by one-third.



Read more: More bicyclists means fewer accidents, Phila. finds

Paging zursolate...

[MarketStEl]

More bicyclists means fewer accidents, Phila. finds

Paging zursolate...

Or, put another way:

Design the environment solely around the car, and the only people who can negotiate it safely are those in cars.

Design it for everyone else as well, and even the motorists can get around. They just won't do it as fast as they would otherwise. In a city, that's not a bad thing.

[supersupper]

There are far more streets without real bike lanes than those with, those with can't be counted on all the time (liked Pine street), and often those with carry their own set of dangers (why I won't ride on SpringGarden- i consider it far too dangerous, but its possible i'm unreasonable about that as many have suggested to me) and the network is only barely interconnected. Desolate had some good points about bike lanes, but they were always tainted by his unreasonable attitude in general regarding bikes (for me at least).

The efforts at bike lanes more importantly than the infrastructure issue sends a message to motorists by the powers that be that bicyclist on the road are acceptable, and everyone must deal with it. Bike lanes are a very visible emblems of that, so I think motorists are adjusting and more accepting that they must share the road. I personally feel that fewer and fewer motorists are being aggressive towards me, and more motorists looking at me in the eye to wave me on or the other way around, etc. Purely Anecdotal of course.

As more and more people bike, motorists are more likely to know someone who does so they may be a little more empathetic. There also seems to be a lot more ordinary looking folks on bikes, and bike messengers seem to be a thing of the past- they really were the worse giving bikers in general a bad name. I also think bikers in general are becoming more aware of safe biking practices, but in all honesty they still a little lag behind in this regard.

[2happy4u]

The only danger is the air heads on the bikes.I have yet to see any obey the laws of the road. Caution to the wind, I have a right....

[PhilaCap]

does this study include the douches who ride their bikes on the sidewalk?

[PicklePaul]

To the previous writer, you have seen ZERO bicyclists obey the law? Really?

More seriously, I think there will need to be a period of adjustment, but most major cities are going in this direction. Some are way ahead of us, actually, with city provide bikes in stations throughout the city.

Sent from my AT1S0 using Tapatalk 2

[thoth]

The only danger is the air heads on the bikes.I have yet to see any obey the laws of the road. Caution to the wind, I have a right....

Did you try to write part of this as a haiku?

[bradley]

Or, put another way:

Design the environment solely around the car, and the only people who can negotiate it safely are those in cars.

Design it for everyone else as well, and even the motorists can get around. They just won't do it as fast as they would otherwise. In a city, that's not a bad thing.

This is true. The interesting thing is that this is not a zero sum game. Oftentimes, it's possible to yield to cyclists and get to your destination in the same amount of time. Upon moving to Philadelphia, I was struck by the extent to which lights are timed. This means that most cars are getting to their destination at the same time, even if they have to share Spruce or Pine with a cyclist (... and a double parked car ... and some jaywalking pedestrians). Unless you drive 60 on Washington, you can't drive more than 2 blocks without hitting a red light. As a cyclist who happens to own a car, I doubt I could live with myself if I (1) hurt a cyclist while (2) trying to get to my destination 30 seconds earlier. I think people underestimate the inflexibility of a traffic system that's running at capacity. Traffic is limited not by capacity, but by bottlenecks, which are highly rigid in a city like this one.

In any case, I'm happy to see that accidents are down, though this statistic isn't palpable to the average rider, who is still under threat of being pancaked on every block by both drivers and ignorant cyclists.

[MarketStEl]

This is true. The interesting thing is that this is not a zero sum game. Oftentimes, it's possible to yield to cyclists and get to your destination in the same amount of time. Upon moving to Philadelphia, I was struck by the extent to which lights are timed. This means that most cars are getting to their destination at the same time, even if they have to share Spruce or Pine with a cyclist (... and a double parked car ... and some jaywalking pedestrians). Unless you drive 60 on Washington, you can't drive more than 2 blocks without hitting a red light. As a cyclist who happens to own a car, I doubt I could live with myself if I (1) hurt a cyclist while (2) trying to get to my destination 30 seconds earlier. I think people underestimate the inflexibility of a traffic system that's running at capacity. Traffic is limited not by capacity, but by bottlenecks, which are highly rigid in a city like this one.

In any case, I'm happy to see that accidents are down, though this statistic isn't palpable to the average rider, who is still under threat of being pancaked on every block by both drivers and ignorant cyclists.

Large signs at selected intersections on Spruce and Pine streets inform drivers that the signals are timed for 20 mph. If you drive at that speed and the traffic cooperates, you can drive from river to river without hitting a red light. (Naturally, turning motorists will gum up the works.)

And these two streets are the exception rather than the rule. What amazes me more is how atrociously timed the signals are on many local thoroughfares. Of couse, signal timing is well nigh impossible on some streets: how do you sync signals on Roosevelt Boulevard, for instance, so drivers in both directions get optimal flow? The best you can do here is to time the signals so that drivers headed in the peak direction get as few red lights as possible. At other times, you can sync closely spaced signals like those along the Boulevard's southern end, but that's about it.

That said, I'm sure that the signals along Broad Street and Washington Avenue could be far better synchronized than they are now.

does this study include the douches who ride their bikes on the sidewalk?

Of course it doesn't. Those cyclists are breaking the law; no vehicles are supposed to use the sidewalk, or any other pedestrian path, for travel unless such path is marked for bicycles as well.

[jbk]

Large signs at selected intersections on Spruce and Pine streets inform drivers that the signals are timed for 20 mph. If you drive at that speed and the traffic cooperates, you can drive from river to river without hitting a red light. (Naturally, turning motorists will gum up the works.)

Those signs on Spruce and Pine are only east of Broad Street, and only apply to east of Broad.

Currently west of Broad St the lights are not well timed (especially Pine).