Cross and Fisher 1977 @ Arizona Bike Law Blog

Cross and Fisher 1977

Posted on October 16th, 2007 azbikelaw 5 comments

Cross and Fisher 1977 is a landmark and oft referenced study. It is in multiple volumes: e.g. here is vol III.

The site truewheelers.org has this listed as the 1978 AAA Report: “This report describes the methods and results of the classic 1977 Cross/Fisher car/bike collision study”. Here is the complete volume I, DOT-HS-803-315 300 page .pdf file from the national Transp Library, which lists the problem types, and results. The numbers/results seem to agree between the truewheelers html version and the HS803315 document. Note that for whatever reason, vol 2 and vol 3 (DOT-HS-803-316 and 317) .pdf’s are not at the NTL website.

In the study, the authors categorized the 36 types of crashes (Type 1 through 36) into 7 groups (Group A through Group G.).

The Cross/Fisher Class – Types, Percentage injuries/fatalities

Accident type	Cross/Fisher Study: (injuries/fatalities)
Class A: Bicycle ride-out from driveway, alley and other midblock locations
Type 1: residential driveway ride-out	5.7%/6.7%
Type 2: commercial driveway ride-out	3.2/2.4
Type 3: parallel direction driveway ride-out	2.5/2.4
Type 4: ride-out over shoulder or curb	2.5/3.6
Total Class A:	13.9%/15.1%
Class B: Bicycle ride-out at controlled intersection
Type 5: stop sign or yield sign	10.2%/7.8%
Type 6: signal phase change; cyclist caught in intersection	3.1/0.6
Type 7: ride-out at signal: multiple threat	2.0/2.4
Total Class B:	17.0%/12.0%
Class C: Motorist turn/merge/drivethrough/driveout
Type 8: Motorist driveout from commercial driveway/alley	5.3%/0%
Type 9: Motorist failure to yield at stop or yield sign	10.2/1.2
Type 10: Motorist failure to yield at signal	1.9/0
Type 11: Motorist backing from driveway	0.8/0
Type 12: Motorist didn’t even slow for sign or signal	0.5/1.2
Total Class C:	18.7%/2.4%
Class D: Motorist overtaking/overtaking threat
Type 13: Motorist overtaking, cyclist not seen	4.0%/24.6%
Type 14: Motorist overtaking/out of control	0.7/4.2
Type 15: Motorist overtaking/counter active evasive action	1.7/2.4
Type 16: Motorist overtaking/misjudged space required to pass	2.0/1.8
Type 17: Motorist overtaking/cyclist’s path obstructed	2.0/0.6
Motorist Overtaking: Type unknown	0.1/4.2
Total class D:	10.5%/37.8%
Class E: Bicyclist unexpected turn/swerve
Type 18: Bicyclist unexpected left turn; parallel paths; same direction	8.4%/8.4%
Type 19: Bicyclist unexpected left turn; parallel paths; opposite direction	3.2/3.0
Type 20: Bicyclist unexpected swerve left; parallel paths; same direction	1.5/3.6
Type 21: Wrong-way bicyclist turns right; parallel paths	1.1/1.2
Total Class E:	14.2%/16.2
Class F: Motorist unexpected turn
Type 22: Motorist unexpected left turn; parallel paths; same direction	1.3%/0.6%
Type 23: Motorist unexpected left turn; parallel paths; opposite direction	7.6/0.0
Type 24: Motorist unexpected right turn; parallel paths	5.6/1.8
Total Class F:	14.5%/2.4%
Class G: Other
Type 25: Vehicles collide at uncontrolled intersection; orthogonal paths	2.8%/0.6
Type 26: Vehicles collide head on, wrong way bicyclist	3.6/2.4
Type 27: Bicyclist overtaking	0.9/0.6
Type 28: Head-on; wrong way motorist	0.8/1.8
Type 29: Parking lot	0.8/0.8
Type 30: Head-on; counteractive evasive action	0.1/0
Type 31: Bicyclist cuts corner when turning left	0/0.6
Type 32: Bicyclist swings wide when turning right	0.3/0
Type 33: Motorist cuts corner when turning left	0.4/0
Type 34: Motorist swings wide when turning right	0.1/0
Type 35: Motorist driveout from on-street parking	0.3/0
Type 36: Weird	0/7.2
Total Class G:	11.2%/13.8%

Notes: The study covered 166 fatalities, and 753 non-fatal injuries.
71% of the type 13 were in the dark, vs. only 30% of fatalities in general.
Tan study, type 13: Rural roads were overrepresented almost 2:1 (62 to 38%), Darkness overrepresented, High (60-70kph) and Very high speed (80+kph) roads overrepresented, 2 lane roads overrepresented.

Other Studies

The city of Toronto has a comprehensive 2003 study, and here is a comparative report from 1982 and Misoula, MT.

Listening to Bike Lanes, Hiles delves into the overtaking (Group D, especially type 13) crash types.

The Crash-Type Manual for Bicyclists (FHWA-RD-96-104, “by Carol Tan Esse”) is newer and follows the general Cross & Fisher types, then adds a few others ( here is a handy page that took the dozens of individual pdfs and collated them into one table). This same pub number is apparently synonymous with “Hunter, W.W., J.C. Stutts, and W.E. Pein,Bicycle Crash Types: A 1990’s[sic]Informational Guide, Publication No. FHWA-RD-96-104, FHWA, Washington, DC, April 1997.” in the Federal Highway Administration University Course on Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation, lesson 3.

Also see PBCAT; I think they use same graphics for crash types.

Wachel and Lewiston, Risk Factors for Bicycle-Motor Vehicle Collisions at Intersections is one of the few studies that includes exposure data.

Lists of links to many other studies: industrializedcyclist.com, bikexprt.com, bicyclinglife.com/Library,

safety statistics

1 responses to “Cross and Fisher 1977”

azbikelaw September 24th, 2011 at 13:38

I recently became the proud owner of a copy of Forester’s classic Bicycle Transportation, 2nd edition, 1994. In it he discusses the Cross and Fisher data at great length and detail.
In table 5-8 and 5-10; he re-splits the crash types into sub-types which illuminate fault basis to a great extent. The splits are c/s/w/t for: correct road position, sidewalk, wrong side of road, and cyclist swerve (why is that one t? t=turn?)
He states, without any furthere explanation as to how these seeminly precise (down to the ten-thousandths!):
“The statistical error in sample stratification is that ruarl and urban car-bike collisions were sampled by diffreent plans but are grouped as if they had been sampled by one plan. As a result rural collisions are overstated by a factor of 1.454 while urban collisions are understated by a factor of 0.9663″

I can’t quite see how the numbers to jive up, so to take an example of crash type 5 which according to the web-version of Cross and Fisher equals 10.2% of the 761 non-fatals, with the text elaboration saying that only 4% of this type were at rural intersections.
So, in table 5-8 & 10 of Bicycle Transportation, Type 5 appears broken into three incarnations: 5c/urban = 9.3%, 5w/urban = 2.6%, and 5c/rural = 2.0%

4 Trackbacks / Pingbacks

Arizona Bike Law Blog » Blog Archive » Understanding Collision Summaries October 21st, 2007 at 16:52

[...] Arizona Bike Law Blog « Cross and Fisher 1977 [...]
Arizona Bike Law Blog » Blog Archive » Ahwatukee cyclist is killed in collision with parked truck February 2nd, 2009 at 22:41

[...] Cross and Fisher for more discussion of that and the Tan [...]
Pre-preliminary 2009 Fatality Report @ Arizona Bike Law Blog November 18th, 2009 at 15:55

[...] summary described on cyclicious (and on treehugger), these diagrams look familiar(? maybe the Carol Tan paper?) safety cyclist fatality, [...]
2009 Arizona Bicyclist Fatality Report @ Arizona Bike Law Blog October 8th, 2010 at 15:11

[...] Carol Tan paper crash-type [...]