From the San Francisco Chronicle:

The number of bicyclists killed in collisions with motor vehicles has increased 28 percent over the past decade – from 18 to 23 deaths per year, according to a Chronicle analysis of data collected by the California Highway Patrol.

That increase is despite a 22 percent drop in the number of regional bicycle accidents between 1997 and 2006 in the nine San Francisco Bay Area counties. The number of bicyclists injured in accidents over that period declined by a similar amount.

“That means more of the bicyclists who are being hit are being killed,” said Sean Co, bicycling coordinator for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.

Accidents in urban areas are most common but occur at lower speeds where injuries are more likely to be less serious. But accidents on rural roads or open highways are likely to involve higher speeds.

“Speed,” Co said, “is probably the highest contributing factor in any bicycle collision that results in a fatality.”

According to the CHP statistics, 179 Bay Area bicyclists have been killed and 25,715 injured in bicycle collisions with cars between 1997 and 2006. But the number of accidents and the number of injuries have each steadily decreased while the number of fatalities remained steady for years before jumping to 23 in 2006. And, based on an analysis of incomplete 2007 data, the increase in fatalities is likely to continue.

Read more in the Chronicle: Bicycle fatalities on the rise in Bay Area.

In Santa Clara County, where I do much of my cycling, there are about 100 automobile fatalities per year, of which about 4% are cyclist deaths.

Photo credit: “Car vs Bicyclist” by Allen in Nevada.

The Seattle Times published this decent article on the danger of “right hooks” from motorists. This is the hazard of a motorist who passes the cyclist then turns right directly in front of the cyclist, which often results in the cyclist hitting the side of the car. It’s probably the most common type of accident for cyclists and is sometimes fatal to the cyclist, especially when it’s a truck that hooks the cyclist.

The Times article notes that bike lanes can increase the hazard to cyclists by creating a false sense of security for the cyclist.

I can’t agree with the suggestion in the article that urban cyclists stay alive by assuming we’re “invisible to all drivers” and to “ride paranoid.” If I want to be invisible, I’ll ride in the bike lane — I ride to be visible by positioning myself in the traffic when necessary and by signaling my intentions. My last collision (and my first in over a decade) occurred when I was hooked last fall while I was invisible in the bike lane. I ride defensively, but I believe that’s different from riding as if I’m invisible or paranoid. For the most part, motorists are not out to get me, if only to avoid the inconvenience of a police report and insurance claim on their part. (Incidentally, for the snarky straw man idiots in the A&S forum over at BikeForums.net, positioning myself to be seen and for destination does not mean blocking whole lines of traffic behind me also).

Cyclists in California are taught to leave the bike lane or the right turn lane and position themselves for their direction of travel. The California Driver Handbook says this regarding bike lanes:

When you are making a right turn and are within 200 feet of the corner or other driveway entrance, you must enter the bike lane for the turn. Do not drive in the bike lane at any other time.

I should note that motorists are required to merge into the bike lane only if the lane is clear, the same as if they’re merging right into a regular traffic lane. If everybody actually followed this rule, we’d cut down substantially on the number of right hooks.

Before anybody complains that “this is too hard”, let me direct you to the photo below showing a ten year old boy to the left of a right turn lane on busy Saratoga Avenue at I-280 in San Jose, California. The photo doesn’t show it (I wouldn’t have snapped the photo when the traffic was heavy), but moments after the photo was snapped traffic caught up from the intersection behind us and passed us on the right and the left. The right turn lane in the photo is access to an Interstate Highway on ramp. The Santa Clara County bike map labels this intersection “extreme caution” because of the heavy and fast traffic.

Of course, the California “solution” is not a panacea — there are still idiot drivers and even (dare I write it?) idiot cyclists. Here’s a dramatic video from the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition showing a cyclist getting hooked at speed by a driver making an illegal right turn from Market onto Octavia up in San Francisco.

The solution? I believe increased education for both motorists and cyclists on the hazard of right hook can help. Awareness through general media outlets like the Seattle Times article is good. Oh, and it’s a “left cross,” not a left hook. See Bicycle Safe for other types of common bike collisions and how to avoid them.

Please be sure to hit the Digg, del.icio.us and CycleCluster buttons below if you think this article is worth sharing. Thanks!

Andrew Bamberg ran a stop sign, presented photos of a different intersection to “prove” the absence of a stop sign and then — when a traffic engineer offered to take a look at the intersection — switched street signs around to confuse the court.

The 42-year-old former car salesman was sentenced in San Mateo County Superior Court to a year in the county jail after he was convicted of three felonies – two counts of perjury and one of preparing false evidence – for trying to dodge a traffic ticket by taking photos of another intersection and then lying about it in court.

Bamberg was driving on Whipple Avenue in Redwood City when he allegedly ran a stop sign at King Street. Bamberg argued he had stopped at the sign at the intersection of Whipple and Copley avenues, but had not stopped at the intersection of Whipple and King because there was no stop sign.

In fact, King Street and Copley Avenue are the same street, but the name changes at Whipple Avenue – something prosecutors believe Bamberg tried to obscure when he was making his argument. The intersection is a four-way stop.

Bamberg, who was then representing himself, offered five black-and-white photos in his defense at a May 10, 2005, trial in traffic court, two of which he said showed no stop sign at King Street, according to court documents. Traffic Commissioner Susan Greenberg suspected those two photos were not of the relevant intersection but from one block away.

When Greenberg said she would go to the scene herself to investigate, prosecutors suspect Bamberg replaced the King Street sign at the Whipple Avenue intersection with one from Copley – essentially erasing any trace of the intersection of King and Whipple – in an attempt to confuse her.

I’m not familiar with this intersection in Redwood City, but Google Maps shows me a residential thoroughfare. I’d guess the four way stop is in place to slow traffic, and this abuse of stop signs leads poor stop compliance at these intersections. Bamberg probably got what he deserved when he tried to fool the court, but there are plenty of reasons to fight failure to stop tickets at these kinds of intersections. Multiway stops are appropriate for high volume streets, where there are a high number of accidents, where there are problems with visibility, or from balanced traffic volume at intersections. In most other cases, 4-way sstops are not appropriate because drivers (and cyclists) don’t stop for “unnecessary” stops, stop signs don’t slow speeds and in fact drivers speed up to make up for the perceived lost time, and the unneeded stops increase noise and pollution in the immediate area of the intersection.

For more about traffic calming and stop signs, see Victoria Transport Policy and the city of Kirkland, WA traffic calming page. Read more about Bamberg in the Chronicle.

Dual Chase Productions creates a number of PowerPoint presentations with video showing how cyclists interact with traffic. These instructional videos are intended for cyclists, motorists, law enforcement, advocates planners and engineers. Instructional videos for cyclists are intended for LCIs and other educators. Cycling advocates can use the PowerPoint slides and videos to show planners, engineers, law enforcement and motorists road use and safety from a cyclist’s perspective.

Samples of slides and videos are available for online viewing at Cyclist View. This lane control video, for example, demonstrates a cyclist “taking the lane” in 45 mph traffic in the motoring mecca of Orange County, California.

Another example is this presentation on “Inclusive Design and Planning”, which is designed to help planners understand and inclusively plan for the diverse spectrum of cyclists by showing on-bike video of cyclists in traffic and combining this with road diagrams.

“No charges were filed.” That’s the postscript of every single one of the cycling deaths that Bob Mionske reports in his latest issue of Legally Speaking. James also makes note of the extremely low rate of prosecutions against dangerously careless drivers in his state of South Carolina, where only 5% of “accidental” traffic deaths results in any charges being filed. Of 101 cyclists killed between 2001 and 2004 on South Carolina roads, only 18 citations were written.

Cycling is safer than many our perceptions lead us to think, but it can be made safer with little effort. The United Kingdom until recently had a cyclist fatality rate similar to the U.S. With a recent emphasis on traffic law enforcement, however, the cyclist and pedestrian fatality rate dropped significantly.

From my own participation in the political process and bicycling advocacy, I know cities and police departments are often reluctant to increase enforcement of unpopular traffic laws. Even after a tragedy occurs, the response from officials is often “blame the victim” for being in the “wrong” place. Bob and James both promise more on traffic safety and enforcement in the United States; I’m looking forward to what they have to write.