Vehicle-bicycle accident backs up tra...

Vehicle-bicycle accident backs up traffic on 41st

There are 38 comments on the Santa Cruz Sentinel story from Dec 22, 2009, titled Vehicle-bicycle accident backs up traffic on 41st. In it, Santa Cruz Sentinel reports that:

A vehicle and bicyclist collided on 41st Avenue and Gross Road at about 3:40 p.m. Tuesday, backing traffic up in several direction in the busy shopping area near Capitola Mall, authorities said.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Santa Cruz Sentinel.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
bikeunit

Santa Cruz, CA

#22 Jan 26, 2010
slowpoke wrote:
<quoted text>
Your grasp of basic physics is entertaining, but irrelevant. Of course cars kill more people...they're bigger, heavier, go faster and cause more damage than a toy. But your argument does nothing to say which has a higher percentage of irresponsible drivers/riders....that's just classic bike-supremist obfuscation.
No doubt there is a much higher percentage of bikes who do not obey traffic laws than cars....no question. To even suggest otherwise strips you of any credibility.
Speaking of credibility...156,00 miles a year on your bike?
and you have facts? Thanks for pointing out the obvious.It must give you a lot of satisfaction to say something is true with no facts. Would you be counting the use of cell phones, texting,no seat belt,no license,speeding, and not signaling? How about not coming to a complete stop, passing when it's not safe,tail gating, and passing over the double yellow? How many people are killed or arrested because of drunk driving. How many people that you know always follow the speed limit? It is somewhat of a mute point what the percentage is anyway because cars are far more dangerous to drive unsafely. there are facts about that!
bikeunit

Santa Cruz, CA

#23 Jan 26, 2010
slowpoke wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmmm. I just looked at those local statistics and it seems to confirm exactly what I wrote....that bikes are unquestionably more at fault than cars in Santa Cruz.
Here's the data you provided:
=======
Bicycle vs. vehicle injuries, 2004
Capitola: 18 injuries. Cyclist's fault for 12, driver for 3, and unknown for 3.
Santa Cruz: 57 injuries. Cyclist's fault for 24, driver for 19, and unknown for 13.
Watsonville: 16 injuries. Cyclist's fault for 10, driver for 6.
Scotts Valley: 3 injuries. Cyclist's fault for 2, driver for 2.
Unincorporated county: 46 injuries. Fault was on biker for 19, driver for 24, and unknown for 2.
========
To summarize:
Total car vs. bike injuries for 2004 - 140
Total Bicycle at fault - 67
Total car at fault - 54
Undetermined - 18
(I know the numbers add up to one short of the total...but these are the figures provided)
67 found to be the fault of the bike, while 54 found to be the fault of the car. I'll dismiss the undetermined, which is fair to both sides.
Clearly, bikes are more likely to be at fault in Santa Cruz county than cars in bike vs. car accidents.
There is one huge hole in all of your statistics. plenty of car against bike accidents there is no report because the car drivers don't stop, or the riders say I'm o.k. Your statistics prove nothing, Another note is how did they arrive at these so called statistics. ie. how was this reported, and and what are the laws for those reports?
slowpoke

Sumner, WA

#24 Jan 26, 2010
bikeunit wrote:
<quoted text> There is one huge hole in all of your statistics. plenty of car against bike accidents there is no report because the car drivers don't stop, or the riders say I'm o.k. Your statistics prove nothing, Another note is how did they arrive at these so called statistics. ie. how was this reported, and and what are the laws for those reports?
LOL! Priceless! You fabricate a non-verifiable fourth scenario with no facts to debate the facts you demand and were provided to you....for the sole purpose of being right in lieu of being safe. I'm not surprised.

Shouldn't you be clicking-off some of those 156,000 miles a year you claim to ride on your toy?
slowpoke

Sumner, WA

#25 Jan 26, 2010
bikeunit wrote:
<quoted text> There is one huge hole in...
....your head from illegally cutting off a car on your bike.
bikeunit

Santa Cruz, CA

#26 Jan 26, 2010
slowpoke wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL! Priceless! You fabricate a non-verifiable fourth scenario with no facts to debate the facts you demand and were provided to you....for the sole purpose of being right in lieu of being safe. I'm not surprised.
Shouldn't you be clicking-off some of those 156,000 miles a year you claim to ride on your toy?
that was just a typo fool, oh and now you call it a toy.I don't need to have facts to point out how weak your supposed facts are.
bikeunit

Santa Cruz, CA

#27 Jan 26, 2010
slowpoke wrote:
<quoted text>
....your head from illegally cutting off a car on your bike.
I typical response by a person with a preconceived notion of truth who even states that they had already written it and then went looking for facts, albeit weak ones that don't hold up under closer examination. Your facts don't hold up to any kind of scientific approach and you are obviously biased. Please drive more carefully than you talk. I wouldn't want anyone to get hurt.
slowpoke

Sumner, WA

#28 Jan 26, 2010
bikeunit wrote:
I wouldn't want anyone to get hurt.
Then stay away from bicyclists...I hear they cause a lot of accidents!
Beckys Johnson

United States

#29 Jan 26, 2010
slowpoke wrote:
<quoted text>
Then stay away from bicyclists...I hear they cause a lot of accidents!
It's always the bicyclists fault. Never fails. They ride like they are above the laws of traffic.

Since: Sep 08

Rohnert Park, CA

#30 Jan 26, 2010
It is a small sample size... it's only 147 data points (including the data points you threw out). A ballpark estimate on the statistical error (1 over root of the sample size) is 12, which is about the same as the difference between cyclists-at-fault and driver-at-fault (13).... and in any case the number of cases where at-fault is unknown or indeterminate is 3 times the difference between cyclists-at-fault and driver-at-fault.

So now you know why I used qualifying language "about half" as the sample size supports "about half" instead of "No doubt there is a much higher percentage of bikes who do not obey traffic laws than cars....no question. To even suggest otherwise strips you of any credibility." Even if you take the data as being exact estimate of the entire population of car-bike collisions, I'm not sure if 9% difference qualifies as "much higher percentage." In any case, that's the percentage, 9%=(67-54)/147.
slowpoke wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmmm. I just looked at those local statistics and it seems to confirm exactly what I wrote....that bikes are unquestionably more at fault than cars in Santa Cruz.
Here's the data you provided:
=======
Bicycle vs. vehicle injuries, 2004
Capitola: 18 injuries. Cyclist's fault for 12, driver for 3, and unknown for 3.
Santa Cruz: 57 injuries. Cyclist's fault for 24, driver for 19, and unknown for 13.
Watsonville: 16 injuries. Cyclist's fault for 10, driver for 6.
Scotts Valley: 3 injuries. Cyclist's fault for 2, driver for 2.
Unincorporated county: 46 injuries. Fault was on biker for 19, driver for 24, and unknown for 2.
========
To summarize:
Total car vs. bike injuries for 2004 - 140
Total Bicycle at fault - 67
Total car at fault - 54
Undetermined - 18
(I know the numbers add up to one short of the total...but these are the figures provided)
67 found to be the fault of the bike, while 54 found to be the fault of the car. I'll dismiss the undetermined, which is fair to both sides.
Clearly, bikes are more likely to be at fault in Santa Cruz county than cars in bike vs. car accidents.

Since: Sep 08

Rohnert Park, CA

#31 Jan 26, 2010
I take it Beckys Johnson is different than Becky Johnson ( http://www.topix.com/member/profile/beckyjohn... )
Beckys Johnson wrote:
<quoted text>
It's always the bicyclists fault. Never fails. They ride like they are above the laws of traffic.

Since: Sep 08

Rohnert Park, CA

#32 Jan 26, 2010
oops, that's not quite right. 18, the number of unknown-at-faults is about the same as the difference between cyclist-at-faults and driver-at-faults (13).
nocklebeast wrote:
number of cases where at-fault is unknown or indeterminate is 3 times the difference between cyclists-at-fault and driver-at-fault.
<quoted text>
slowpoke

Sumner, WA

#33 Jan 26, 2010
nocklebeast wrote:
It is a small sample size... it's only 147 data points (including the data points you threw out). A ballpark estimate on the statistical error (1 over root of the sample size) is 12, which is about the same as the difference between cyclists-at-fault and driver-at-fault (13).... and in any case the number of cases where at-fault is unknown or indeterminate is 3 times the difference between cyclists-at-fault and driver-at-fault.
So now you know why I used qualifying language "about half" as the sample size supports "about half" instead of "No doubt there is a much higher percentage of bikes who do not obey traffic laws than cars....no question. To even suggest otherwise strips you of any credibility." Even if you take the data as being exact estimate of the entire population of car-bike collisions, I'm not sure if 9% difference qualifies as "much higher percentage." In any case, that's the percentage, 9%=(67-54)/147.
<quoted text>
You're right, that's why following the link you provided, I toned down my rhetoric to just acknowledging that bicyclists cause most accidents between cars and bikes...and not a "much higher percentage" as I incorrectly stated.

...good luck getting though to bikenut, however. He's got a head full of imaginary facts and fantasy stats he's more than willing to use to debate the issue.
bikeunit

Santa Cruz, CA

#34 Jan 29, 2010
slowpoke wrote:
<quoted text>
Then stay away from bicyclists...I hear they cause a lot of accidents!
Is that why you hear about so many cyclist killing people like cars?
bikeunit

Santa Cruz, CA

#35 Jan 29, 2010
slowpoke wrote:
<quoted text>
You're right, that's why following the link you provided, I toned down my rhetoric to just acknowledging that bicyclists cause most accidents between cars and bikes...and not a "much higher percentage" as I incorrectly stated.
...good luck getting though to bikenut, however. He's got a head full of imaginary facts and fantasy stats he's more than willing to use to debate the issue.
such bull!
bikeunit

Santa Cruz, CA

#36 Jan 29, 2010
nocklebeast wrote:
I take it Beckys Johnson is different than Becky Johnson ( http://www.topix.com/member/profile/beckyjohn... )
<quoted text>
This one is very biased and not very bright!
bikeunit

Santa Cruz, CA

#37 Jan 29, 2010
slowpoke wrote:
<quoted text>
You're right, that's why following the link you provided, I toned down my rhetoric to just acknowledging that bicyclists cause most accidents between cars and bikes...and not a "much higher percentage" as I incorrectly stated.
...good luck getting though to bikenut, however. He's got a head full of imaginary facts and fantasy stats he's more than willing to use to debate the issue.
talk about fantasy world,just look at your post. A third grader could tell you were drawing conclusions that were not based on any kind of legitimate information analysis.Do some real homework and take out all your bias , and you might have something.
nocklebeast

Santa Cruz, CA

#40 Apr 21, 2014
ABOUT HALF
slowpoke wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmmm. I just looked at those local statistics and it seems to confirm exactly what I wrote....that bikes are unquestionably more at fault than cars in Santa Cruz.
Here's the data you provided:
=======
Bicycle vs. vehicle injuries, 2004
Capitola: 18 injuries. Cyclist's fault for 12, driver for 3, and unknown for 3.
Santa Cruz: 57 injuries. Cyclist's fault for 24, driver for 19, and unknown for 13.
Watsonville: 16 injuries. Cyclist's fault for 10, driver for 6.
Scotts Valley: 3 injuries. Cyclist's fault for 2, driver for 2.
Unincorporated county: 46 injuries. Fault was on biker for 19, driver for 24, and unknown for 2.
========
To summarize:
Total car vs. bike injuries for 2004 - 140
Total Bicycle at fault - 67
Total car at fault - 54
Undetermined - 18
(I know the numbers add up to one short of the total...but these are the figures provided)
67 found to be the fault of the bike, while 54 found to be the fault of the car. I'll dismiss the undetermined, which is fair to both sides.
Clearly, bikes are more likely to be at fault in Santa Cruz county than cars in bike vs. car accidents.
necro

Santa Cruz, CA

#41 Apr 21, 2014
nocklebeast wrote:
ABOUT HALF
<quoted text>
how many videos have you made to prove that you can ride a bicycle down mission street?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Santa Cruz Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Holy Shlicht! Santa Merrida "Bend Over" Troll O... 30 min Pray tell 107
Review: Highland Meadows Apartments (Apr '11) Fri John ColbyLoon 1,230
News Randall Philip Kane, founder of Catalyst Club, ... (Jul '09) Jan 16 ella seneres 93
specialized bicycle company Problem Jan 14 JammedTrailBike 1
News Aptos man arrested for being 'prolific graffiti... (May '09) Jan 12 username 25
News To Fight Climate Change, New York City Takes on... Jan 11 Nice start 1
News PVUSD cuts $5.5 million (Feb '10) Jan 7 quien sabe 80

Santa Cruz Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Santa Cruz Mortgages