Hello AlanShearer and All, I agree ................. however is is not always a conscious decision by the motorist to not be vigilant (because the motorist may not have the ability to perceive the objects in front of the motor car) ...... and this human problem is occupation independent ................ we are all subject to not perceiving objects in front of the windscreen when driving on occasion.
I think motorists get off easy when crashing a cyclist and I agree more responsibility should be assigned to motorists along with much stiffer penalties.
The human condition (disabilities, brain wiring, vision blind spots, fatigue, etc.) and traffic engineering conspire to produce motorist crashes. About 30,000 humans killed each year in US car crashes [NHTSA] and thousands more injured and crippled. There are over 5,000,000 motorist crashes each year in the US [NHTSA] or 10,000,000 [Insurance industry data].
The data supports the statement that many motorists are horseshit drivers.
Newly available automated motorcar systems that provide lane departure notification and correction along with auto braking should help prevent some of these crashes.
The NHTSA studies indicate that motor car drivers are dangerous to cyclists’ and pedestrians’ health ……. and that there is value in separated facilities for cyclists and pedestrians …. and scientific justification for funding such separated facilities for greater pedestrian and cyclist safety.
This US NHTSA study appears to lend credence to the Australian study with a similar name … 100 Car Naturalistic Driving Study:
http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/NRD/Multimedia/PDFs/Crash%20Avoidance/Driver%20Distraction/100CarMain.pdf The 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study database contains many extreme cases of driving behavior and performance, including severe fatigue, impairment, judgment error, risk taking, willingness to engage in secondary tasks, aggressive driving, and traffic violations.
The data set includes approximately 2,000,000 vehicle miles, almost 43,000 hours of data, 241 primary and secondary drivers, 12 to 13 months of data collection for each vehicle, and data from a highly capable instrumentation system including five channels of video and vehicle kinematics. From the data, an “event” database was created, similar in classification structure to an epidemiological crash database, but with video and electronic driver and vehicle performance data.
The events are crashes, near crashes and other “incidents.” Data was classified by pre-event maneuver, precipitating factor, event type, contributing factors, and the avoidance maneuver exhibited. Parameters such as vehicle speed, vehicle headway, time-to-collision, and driver reaction time are also recorded.
Of particular interest in the analyses of rear-end conflict contributing factors was the prevalence of distraction.
An important aspect in rear-end crash countermeasure development is the degree to which an un-alerted driver can be warned and make a proper response. Of course, the 100-Car data can provide great insight into the degree to which distraction is an issue in such conflicts.
The important finding in this regard is that 93 percent of all lead vehicle crashes (13 out of 14) involved inattention to the forward roadway as a contributing factor (Figure 8). Note also that a majority (68 percent) of the near crashes have inattention identified as a contributing factor. ======================= The published data I have seen point to the value of more and better infrastructure in cities like New York, Portland, Minneapolis for improving cycling safety and increasing cycling transportation share.
This TED talk a couple of days ago was on point for city infrastructure (including separated bike lanes):
http://www.ted.com/...t=button__2013-12-06 And this one from a couple of months ago:
http://www.ted.com/talks/janette_sadik_khan_new_york_s_streets_not_so_mean_any_more.html Cheers,
Neal
+1 mph Faster