cycling - level of "safety"

[gds]

There have been lots of threads that have discussed cycling as a safe
or non safe activity.

This weekend a local paper here in Tucson pulished some interesting
data. Folks can form their own opinions as to what it means.

Tucson has a population of ~400,000.

The numbers are year to date.

Number of cyclist killed in cycle / vehicle collisons------------ 5

Number of REPORTED cyclist / vehicle incidents---------- ~500

Police assigned blame about equally beteen cyclists and motorists.

#1 fault for cyclists was riding in traffic in the wrong direction.

#1 fault for motorists was "hooking" (rt turn into a cyclist)

BTW Tucson consistently wins awards as being a bicycle friendly
community. And as a resident cyclist I find it a very pleasant place to
ride. But these numbers strike me as indicative that cycling has more
than minimal risk.

[Roger Zoul]

gds > wrote:
:> There have been lots of threads that have discussed cycling as a
:> safe or non safe activity.
:>
:> This weekend a local paper here in Tucson pulished some interesting
:> data. Folks can form their own opinions as to what it means.
:>
:> Tucson has a population of ~400,000.
:>
:> The numbers are year to date.
:>
:> Number of cyclist killed in cycle / vehicle collisons------------ 5

0.00125%

:>
:> Number of REPORTED cyclist / vehicle incidents---------- ~500

0.125%

:>
:> Police assigned blame about equally beteen cyclists and motorists.
:>
:> #1 fault for cyclists was riding in traffic in the wrong direction.
:>
:> #1 fault for motorists was "hooking" (rt turn into a cyclist)
:>
:> BTW Tucson consistently wins awards as being a bicycle friendly
:> community. And as a resident cyclist I find it a very pleasant place
:> to ride. But these numbers strike me as indicative that cycling has
:> more than minimal risk.

What is the heck is your idea of minimal risk? You're just scary, dude.
Come ride in SC!!!!!

[gds]

Sorry, do I understand you correctly? Are you saying that 5 cyclist
deaths in a year in a town of 400,000 is insignificant?

[Ken M]

gds wrote:
> There have been lots of threads that have discussed cycling as a safe
> or non safe activity.
>
> This weekend a local paper here in Tucson pulished some interesting
> data. Folks can form their own opinions as to what it means.
>
> Tucson has a population of ~400,000.
>
> The numbers are year to date.
>
> Number of cyclist killed in cycle / vehicle collisons------------ 5
>
This is not a bad number. I can seem to remember just about as many in
the Sarasota county here in Florida, with about the same population.

> Number of REPORTED cyclist / vehicle incidents---------- ~500
>
> Police assigned blame about equally beteen cyclists and motorists.
>
> #1 fault for cyclists was riding in traffic in the wrong direction.
>
That is a common casual cyclist mistake.

> #1 fault for motorists was "hooking" (rt turn into a cyclist)
>
> BTW Tucson consistently wins awards as being a bicycle friendly
> community. And as a resident cyclist I find it a very pleasant place to
> ride. But these numbers strike me as indicative that cycling has more
> than minimal risk.
>

Ken
--
Nothing compares to the simple pleasure of a bike ride. ~John F. Kennedy

[gds]

Ken M wrote:
..
> >
> > Number of cyclist killed in cycle / vehicle collisons------------ 5
> >
> This is not a bad number. I can seem to remember just about as many in
> the Sarasota county here in Florida, with about the same population.
>

I think any positive integer is "bad" in the sense that we should be
motivated to reduce it. But if you are saying that 5 per year/400,000
is not a large number then I would agree.

I guess that my point would be more that if the major offenses are
riding against traffic and hooking are the major causes of deaths and
of other incidents it is indicative of the need for better training and
enforcement of rules for both cyclists and motorists.
I don't believe that cycling is a high risk activity, but I also am not
satisfied that enough is being done to improve safety. The most common
infractions are really a matter of poor cycling and and driving
knowledge and behavior and thus can be improved.

And while the definition of the denominators is problematic for
determining rates 5 cyclist deaths in Tucson this year exceeds the
absolute number for such other activiites as: rock climbing,
running/jogging, basketball, football, tennis, hot air balloning,
flying, golf, baseball, etc. And since it is the absolute number that
grabs many folks attention it is that number that sometimes results in
the impression that cycling is not very safe; even if the rate per
miles cycled is extremely low.

[Roger Zoul]

gds > wrote:
:> Sorry, do I understand you correctly? Are you saying that 5 cyclist
:> deaths in a year in a town of 400,000 is insignificant?

No, I'm saying that if that small risk is too much for you that you should
hang up your pedals. Stay off the roads if you can't accept some risk.

IMO, no death is insignificant.

[Roger Zoul]

gds > wrote:
:> Ken M wrote:
:> .
:>> >
:>> > Number of cyclist killed in cycle / vehicle collisons------------
:>> > 5
:>> >
:>> This is not a bad number. I can seem to remember just about as many
:>> in the Sarasota county here in Florida, with about the same
:>> population.
:>>
:>
:> I think any positive integer is "bad" in the sense that we should be
:> motivated to reduce it. But if you are saying that 5 per year/400,000
:> is not a large number then I would agree.
:>
:> I guess that my point would be more that if the major offenses are
:> riding against traffic and hooking are the major causes of deaths and
:> of other incidents it is indicative of the need for better training
:> and enforcement of rules for both cyclists and motorists.
:> I don't believe that cycling is a high risk activity, but I also am
:> not satisfied that enough is being done to improve safety. The most
:> common infractions are really a matter of poor cycling and and
:> driving knowledge and behavior and thus can be improved.
:>
:> And while the definition of the denominators is problematic for
:> determining rates 5 cyclist deaths in Tucson this year exceeds the
:> absolute number for such other activiites as: rock climbing,
:> running/jogging, basketball, football, tennis, hot air balloning,
:> flying, golf, baseball, etc. And since it is the absolute number that
:> grabs many folks attention it is that number that sometimes results
:> in the impression that cycling is not very safe; even if the rate per
:> miles cycled is extremely low.

Just for info, what are the numbers for motorist in Tucson? How many deaths
and how many reported injuries?

[gds]

Roger Zoul wrote:
> gds > wrote:
> :> Sorry, do I understand you correctly? Are you saying that 5 cyclist
> :> deaths in a year in a town of 400,000 is insignificant?
>
> No, I'm saying that if that small risk is too much for you that you should
> hang up your pedals. Stay off the roads if you can't accept some risk.
>
> IMO, no death is insignificant.

Well I certainly agree with your last comment.

As to hanging up my pedals and my acceptance of risk. Don't confuse a
concern for safety with being "afraid." You seem to have a need to
attack folks for raising points for discussion rather than contributing
to the discussion.
FYI I have cycled well over 100,000 miles, have rock climbed for years
and am a certified instructor, and am a licensed pilot. I have a very
good understanding of risk. I also have a very good understanding of
the need to mitigate risk and a very low tolerance for needless
accidents.

[gds]

Roger Zoul wrote:

>
> Just for info, what are the numbers for motorist in Tucson? How many deaths
> and how many reported injuries?

Don't know! That wasn't part of the article.

But the issue is not comparing cycling to motoring. The issue is
making cycling as safe as practical.

[Roger Zoul]

gds > wrote:
:> Roger Zoul wrote:
:>> gds > wrote:
:>> :> Sorry, do I understand you correctly? Are you saying that 5
:>> :> cyclist deaths in a year in a town of 400,000 is insignificant?
:>>
:>> No, I'm saying that if that small risk is too much for you that you
:>> should hang up your pedals. Stay off the roads if you can't accept
:>> some risk.
:>>
:>> IMO, no death is insignificant.
:>
:> Well I certainly agree with your last comment.
:>
:> As to hanging up my pedals and my acceptance of risk. Don't confuse a
:> concern for safety with being "afraid." You seem to have a need to
:> attack folks for raising points for discussion rather than
:> contributing
:> to the discussion.
:> FYI I have cycled well over 100,000 miles, have rock climbed for
:> years
:> and am a certified instructor, and am a licensed pilot. I have a very
:> good understanding of risk. I also have a very good understanding of
:> the need to mitigate risk and a very low tolerance for needless
:> accidents.

Do you really expect to drive the number of accidents that happen to cyclist
to zero? I'm sure you'd consider that minimal risk, right? And how do the
numbers for cyclist compare to those of motorist in Tucson?

Finally, it seems you are the one doing the attacking by asking me if I
consider a death as insignficant, instead of just dealing with the fact that
only relatively small numbers of cyclist are killed in Tucson. Why don't
you come ride over here if you don't like those numbers?

[Roger Zoul]

gds > wrote:
:> Roger Zoul wrote:
:>
:>>
:>> Just for info, what are the numbers for motorist in Tucson? How
:>> many deaths and how many reported injuries?
:>
:> Don't know! That wasn't part of the article.
:>
:> But the issue is not comparing cycling to motoring. The issue is
:> making cycling as safe as practical.

That's fine. How do you define practical? Should it be zero deaths in a
year out of 400,000, or what? How do you propose to get cyclist to stop
riding the wrong way and drivers to stop right-hooking cyclist. If you
could figure those out and make them happen, I'd be very much a fan-boy of
yours, Gary! :)

IMO, I'd rather be riding in Tucson than in SC (though I think I'd rather
live here than in Tucson).

[Wayne Pein]

gds wrote:
> There have been lots of threads that have discussed cycling as a safe
> or non safe activity.
>
> This weekend a local paper here in Tucson pulished some interesting
> data. Folks can form their own opinions as to what it means.
>
> Tucson has a population of ~400,000.
>
> The numbers are year to date.
>
> Number of cyclist killed in cycle / vehicle collisons------------ 5
>
> Number of REPORTED cyclist / vehicle incidents---------- ~500
>
> Police assigned blame about equally beteen cyclists and motorists.
>
> #1 fault for cyclists was riding in traffic in the wrong direction.
>
> #1 fault for motorists was "hooking" (rt turn into a cyclist)
>
> BTW Tucson consistently wins awards as being a bicycle friendly
> community. And as a resident cyclist I find it a very pleasant place to
> ride. But these numbers strike me as indicative that cycling has more
> than minimal risk.
>

The mechanism of collisions/circumstances in the deaths is more
illustrative than the absolute number. If they were all run down from
behind by hit and run drivers that would be quite different than if they
were killed doing something blatently stupid like wrong way riding or
riding at night unlit.

Right Hooking is more likely on bike lane roads, those bicyclist
containment areas that some people think are "bicycle friendly."
Wouldn't it be better if motorists were friendly to actual bicyclists
irrespective of the infrastructure rather than the inanimate
infrastructure claimed as being friendly to inanimate bicycles?

Wayne

[Matt O'Toole]

On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 11:50:11 -0800, gds wrote:

> BTW Tucson consistently wins awards as being a bicycle friendly community.
> And as a resident cyclist I find it a very pleasant place to ride. But
> these numbers strike me as indicative that cycling has more than minimal
> risk.

Before you jump to such conclusions, consider the corresponding statistics
for driving. You might be surprised.

Matt O.

[Matt O'Toole]

On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 12:23:08 -0800, gds wrote:

> Sorry, do I understand you correctly? Are you saying that 5 cyclist deaths
> in a year in a town of 400,000 is insignificant?

It seems pretty small to me. Again, check the motoring deaths.

Matt O.

[Matt O'Toole]

On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 22:30:15 +0000, Wayne Pein wrote:

> Right Hooking is more likely on bike lane roads, those bicyclist
> containment areas that some people think are "bicycle friendly." Wouldn't
> it be better if motorists were friendly to actual bicyclists irrespective
> of the infrastructure rather than the inanimate infrastructure claimed as
> being friendly to inanimate bicycles?

Wayne, IME right-hooking is easily avoided by riding defensively, and
learning to anticipate drivers' actions.

Matt O.

[Matt O'Toole]

On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 13:29:49 -0800, gds wrote:

> Roger Zoul wrote:
>> gds > wrote:

>> :> Sorry, do I understand you correctly? Are you saying that 5 cyclist
>> :> deaths in a year in a town of 400,000 is insignificant?
>>
>> No, I'm saying that if that small risk is too much for you that you
>> should hang up your pedals. Stay off the roads if you can't accept some
>> risk.
>>
>> IMO, no death is insignificant.
>
> Well I certainly agree with your last comment.

Well who wouldn't?

> As to hanging up my pedals and my acceptance of risk. Don't confuse a
> concern for safety with being "afraid." You seem to have a need to attack
> folks for raising points for discussion rather than contributing
> to the discussion.
> FYI I have cycled well over 100,000 miles, have rock climbed for years and
> am a certified instructor, and am a licensed pilot. I have a very good
> understanding of risk. I also have a very good understanding of the need
> to mitigate risk and a very low tolerance for needless accidents.

OK, we can see you're not a wuss. But you either don't understand
the significance of these statistics, or you're taking things
out of context for dramatic effect, and/or to provoke a response. If
you got this info from a newspaper article, there's a good chance the
writer was doing just that.

Matt O.

[[email protected]]

Matt O'Toole wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 12:23:08 -0800, gds wrote:
>
> > Sorry, do I understand you correctly? Are you saying that 5 cyclist deaths
> > in a year in a town of 400,000 is insignificant?
>
> It seems pretty small to me. Again, check the motoring deaths.
>
> Matt O.

I could not find motoring deaths but I did find the Tuscon Police site
that reported 54 homicides in 2004.

Somehow cycling does not look so dangerous though it seems to me that
Ottawa ON with a population in the 700k range had several years with no
cycling fatalities at all.

The site says that the Tucson population in 2004 was a bit over
526,000. so the proportion of the population killed while cycling is
reduced to 9.491124e-06

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

[Jeff Williams]

gds wrote:
> Roger Zoul wrote:
>
>
>>Just for info, what are the numbers for motorist in Tucson? How many deaths
>>and how many reported injuries?
>
>
> Don't know! That wasn't part of the article.
>
> But the issue is not comparing cycling to motoring. The issue is
> making cycling as safe as practical.
>
Per, http://www.hwysafety.org/research/fatality_facts/default.html,
42,636 people died in motor vehicle crashes in 2004 in the US.

I make that as being about 56 deaths per 400,000 people (give or take).
That's about 11 times worse than the cyclist stats for Tucson. Of
course, the number of average miles/fatality bike v car will likely be
vastly different.

We're comparing apples to oranges.

Jeff

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

> #1 fault for cyclists was riding in traffic in the wrong direction.
>
> #1 fault for motorists was "hooking" (rt turn into a cyclist)

While I don't think 5 cycling deaths in a city of 400,000 is anything to be
proud of, I feel better about the most-common reasons for death/injury. In
each case, the cyclist has some degree of control over what might occur.
Obviously, riding in the wrong direction is avoidable behavior, and the cars
making right turns in front of you? I just about assume that's going to
happen, and ride accordingly. Always looking for the escape route.

What concerns me most is being run down from behind. That's something I
can't do a whole lot about, and even a rear-view mirror isn't going to help
in all cases, probably not most (since being run down from behind typically
seems to be caused by carelessness, typically a fairly-sudden swerving as
someone reaches to change their CD or apply makeup or read a map or
whatever, as opposed to something that can be seen a fair distance away and
dealt with accordingly).

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

> Wayne, IME right-hooking is easily avoided by riding defensively, and
> learning to anticipate drivers' actions.
>
> Matt O.

Agree completely. Cyclists need to understand that they seem to wear an
invisibility cloak and cars just don't see them. This also means it's a good
idea, where practical, to move out into the lane prior to an intersection,
so that you're both more likely to be seen and not in an area that someone's
going to turn in front of you.

In my opinion, if everyone was forced to ride a motorcycle for a while,
they'd become far more defensive in their driving skills. Motorcycles are
bigger than bicycles, louder than bicycles, and travel at the same speeds as
cars, so they *should* be relatively easily seen and anticipated. And yet,
as a motorcyclist, you end up in far more situations of people merging into
you than as a bicyclist. As a result, you want clear space on either side of
you at all times, or at least an escape route on one side.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

[TC]

Matt O'Toole wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 11:50:11 -0800, gds wrote:
>
> > BTW Tucson consistently wins awards as being a bicycle friendly community.
> > And as a resident cyclist I find it a very pleasant place to ride. But
> > these numbers strike me as indicative that cycling has more than minimal
> > risk.
>
> Before you jump to such conclusions, consider the corresponding statistics
> for driving. You might be surprised.
>
> Matt O.

Greetings all from Down Under

I had a quick look on the all-informative internet and found this:

http://www.azdot.gov/mvd/Statistics/crash/01crashfacts.pdf

Which is 2001 data for Arizona (my US geography a a bit shabby - is
Tucson in Arizona?)

It is an interesting comparison to the cycling data from the article
originally quoted.

Cheers
TC

[andy gee]

"gds" > wrote in news:1134417011.196485.49960
@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> There have been lots of threads that have discussed cycling as a safe
> or non safe activity.
>
> This weekend a local paper here in Tucson pulished some interesting
> data. Folks can form their own opinions as to what it means.
>
> Tucson has a population of ~400,000.
>
> The numbers are year to date.
>
> Number of cyclist killed in cycle / vehicle collisons------------ 5
>
> Number of REPORTED cyclist / vehicle incidents---------- ~500
>

How many Tucson cyclists didn't get heart attacks, strokes, or diabetes
because they were in good shape relative to drivers who weren't?

--ag

[[email protected]]

TC wrote:
>
>
> Greetings all from Down Under
>
> I had a quick look on the all-informative internet and found this:
>
> http://www.azdot.gov/mvd/Statistics/crash/01crashfacts.pdf
>
> Which is 2001 data for Arizona (my US geography a a bit shabby - is
> Tucson in Arizona?)
>
> It is an interesting comparison to the cycling data from the article
> originally quoted.

Good find.

>From page 5 of that source, there were 1047 traffic fatalities in
Arizona in 2001. Only 29 were cyclists. 166 were pedestrians!

I don't have the numbers at hand, but I'd be willing to bet there were
more drownings than cycling fatalities in Arizona. And it's a pretty
dry state!

Cycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is!

- Frank Krygowski

[TC]

Section 7 of that report discusses pedestrian and "pedalcyclist"
accidents.

No description of the kinds of accidents for cyclists though.

Also, throughout the 90's there were 20-30 cyclist deaths per year in
Arizona.

Cheers
TC

[Mike Kruger]

Arizona is evidently almost always near the top in bicyclist and pedestrian
fatalities. This article from the Maricopa County Department of
Transportation (Phoenix)
http://www.mcdot.maricopa.gov/bicycle/issues/IPfatality.pdf
contends this is because there is a lot more outdoor activity in Arizona.

5 cyclists in 400,000 people is considerably higher rate than the national
average. There are about 300,000,000 people in the U.S., at this rate would
be equivalent to 3,750 cyclists being killed in a year. The actual number
last year was 622.

One question to ask, though, is whether 5 is typical, or whether this was an
unusually high year due to random fluctuation. I can't find the relevant
numbers, but in 2002 there were 16 cyclists deaths in all of Arizona, and
the states bicycle fatality rate (2.93 per 1,000,000 people) wasn't too far
above the total country's (2.30), considering there are lots of visitors.
This makes me suspect 5 is just an statistical fluctuation.

[The Wogster]

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>Wayne, IME right-hooking is easily avoided by riding defensively, and
>>learning to anticipate drivers' actions.
>>
>>Matt O.
>
>
> Agree completely. Cyclists need to understand that they seem to wear an
> invisibility cloak and cars just don't see them. This also means it's a good
> idea, where practical, to move out into the lane prior to an intersection,
> so that you're both more likely to be seen and not in an area that someone's
> going to turn in front of you.

Most people on bikes, ride in the right hand gutter, car drivers don't
expect anything to be there, so they become invisible. If you ride out
at least where there right wheel would normally be, then you are in the
visibility zone. When stopped at an intersection, move slightly LEFT, a
right turner then has you to their left, not to their right, and you
don't get hooked. I often end up in the middle of the lane, when
stopped at a traffic signal, when the light changes, a bikes initial
acceleration is faster then a car, I have beaten the car ahead of me
through an intersection.

> In my opinion, if everyone was forced to ride a motorcycle for a while,
> they'd become far more defensive in their driving skills. Motorcycles are
> bigger than bicycles, louder than bicycles, and travel at the same speeds as
> cars, so they *should* be relatively easily seen and anticipated. And yet,
> as a motorcyclist, you end up in far more situations of people merging into
> you than as a bicyclist. As a result, you want clear space on either side of
> you at all times, or at least an escape route on one side.

That and a tractor trailer, people seem to think big rigs can stop and
turn on a dime. This could be done using a simulator. There is a reason
why most trailers now have "This vehicle makes wide right turns" stuck
on them.

What should be part of driver training, in colder climates is a day on a
skid pan. A skid pan is a surface that is set up so that a car can skid
very easily, often in winter wet ice is good, in summer they usually use
oil and water, the pan is large enough that a skidding car that loses
control can be brought back under control without damage. What a skid
pan instructor does, is put you into a skid, and talk you out of it,
then they do it again, and again, until you repeatedly just recover from
the skid. Years later when an actual skid occurs, you do what is needed
to recover, without needing to actually think about it.

W

[Wayne Pein]

Mike Kruger wrote:

> Arizona is evidently almost always near the top in bicyclist and pedestrian
> fatalities. This article from the Maricopa County Department of
> Transportation (Phoenix)
> http://www.mcdot.maricopa.gov/bicycle/issues/IPfatality.pdf
> contends this is because there is a lot more outdoor activity in Arizona.
>
> 5 cyclists in 400,000 people is considerably higher rate than the national
> average. There are about 300,000,000 people in the U.S., at this rate would
> be equivalent to 3,750 cyclists being killed in a year. The actual number
> last year was 622.
>

You can't extrapolate from a dense urban area to the population of the
US as a whole. More fatalaties would be expected where there are more
interactions with turning motor vehicles, ie urban areas.

Since there were only 5, it would be very easy to examine them all. Let
me offer a guess: 3 were at night with unlit bicyclists, 2 of which were
drunk. 1 occurred with a wrong way bicyclist and 1 was a result of a kid
riding out into traffic prior to yielding. Or something similar.

Wayne
Ride Big

[Wayne Pein]

Matt O'Toole wrote:

> On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 22:30:15 +0000, Wayne Pein wrote:
>
>
>>Right Hooking is more likely on bike lane roads, those bicyclist
>>containment areas that some people think are "bicycle friendly." Wouldn't
>>it be better if motorists were friendly to actual bicyclists irrespective
>>of the infrastructure rather than the inanimate infrastructure claimed as
>>being friendly to inanimate bicycles?
>
>
> Wayne, IME right-hooking is easily avoided by riding defensively, and
> learning to anticipate drivers' actions.
>
> Matt O.
>
>
Matt,

Absolutely. It takes 2 to tango. The motorist makes the mistake or overt
aggressive maneuver, and the bicyclist enabled it and was unable to deal
with it. Bicyclists also cause it by passing on the right.

Wayne

[Mark Hickey]

" >
wrote:

>Somehow cycling does not look so dangerous though it seems to me that
>Ottawa ON with a population in the 700k range had several years with no
>cycling fatalities at all.

That's probably because the riding season is two weeks long... ;-)

Mark "did I mention it was 70 degrees F here today?" Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

[Mark Hickey]

"Mike Kruger" > wrote:

>Arizona is evidently almost always near the top in bicyclist and pedestrian
>fatalities. This article from the Maricopa County Department of
>Transportation (Phoenix)
>http://www.mcdot.maricopa.gov/bicycle/issues/IPfatality.pdf
>contends this is because there is a lot more outdoor activity in Arizona.
>
>5 cyclists in 400,000 people is considerably higher rate than the national
>average. There are about 300,000,000 people in the U.S., at this rate would
>be equivalent to 3,750 cyclists being killed in a year. The actual number
>last year was 622.
>
>One question to ask, though, is whether 5 is typical, or whether this was an
>unusually high year due to random fluctuation. I can't find the relevant
>numbers, but in 2002 there were 16 cyclists deaths in all of Arizona, and
>the states bicycle fatality rate (2.93 per 1,000,000 people) wasn't too far
>above the total country's (2.30), considering there are lots of visitors.
>This makes me suspect 5 is just an statistical fluctuation.

There are probably a lot more cyclists in Tucson on a per capita basis
(in fact, I know that's true). There are also some really, really
nice roads there that are tempting as a cyclist, but that are also
narrow, curvy and frequented by sightseers, motor homes and retirees.
Still, I've seen a lot of bikes on the roads (and have ridden some
worse than that myownself).

That said, when one is looking at statistics of cyclist/automobile
accidents, remember that a five-year old falling off the sidewalk into
traffic counts, as does those who may have lost their driver's license
due to DUI violations (and who may ride a bike to - and from - the
bar). That's not to invoke a "bike snob thread", but to point out
that a whole lot of the accidents that make up the statistics are due
to people doing things the vast majority of us would never do.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

[Mark Hickey]

wrote:

>I don't have the numbers at hand, but I'd be willing to bet there were
>more drownings than cycling fatalities in Arizona. And it's a pretty
>dry state!

Heck Frank - there are that many (5) drownings WHILE driving in
Arizona every year. In the middle of a desert, no less.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

[Matt O'Toole]

On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 00:35:58 +0000, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

>> Wayne, IME right-hooking is easily avoided by riding defensively, and
>> learning to anticipate drivers' actions.

> Agree completely. Cyclists need to understand that they seem to wear an
> invisibility cloak and cars just don't see them. This also means it's a
> good idea, where practical, to move out into the lane prior to an
> intersection, so that you're both more likely to be seen and not in an
> area that someone's going to turn in front of you.
>
> In my opinion, if everyone was forced to ride a motorcycle for a while,
> they'd become far more defensive in their driving skills. Motorcycles
> are bigger than bicycles, louder than bicycles, and travel at the same
> speeds as cars, so they *should* be relatively easily seen and
> anticipated. And yet, as a motorcyclist, you end up in far more
> situations of people merging into you than as a bicyclist. As a result,
> you want clear space on either side of you at all times, or at least an
> escape route on one side.

I agree.

It's interesting living in a college town, where there are so many young
drivers and cyclists. The stuff they do is as predictable as the tides.
Of course they don't see it that way.

Matt O.

[Matt O'Toole]

On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 00:31:32 +0000, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

> What concerns me most is being run down from behind. That's something I
> can't do a whole lot about, and even a rear-view mirror isn't going to
> help in all cases, probably not most (since being run down from behind
> typically seems to be caused by carelessness, typically a fairly-sudden
> swerving as someone reaches to change their CD or apply makeup or read a
> map or whatever, as opposed to something that can be seen a fair
> distance away and dealt with accordingly).

This is probably what worries most people, but they can take solace in the
fact that it's vanishingly rare. It's possibly increasing because of the
things you mention, but still vanishingly rare. I'm most wary of it when
I know there will be drunks on the road.

Matt O.

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

> It's interesting living in a college town, where there are so many young
> drivers and cyclists. The stuff they do is as predictable as the tides.
> Of course they don't see it that way.
>
> Matt O.

Matt: If they are truly predictable, then all is well. Systems only work
when things happen in an expected fashion. In all seriousness, the only
thing that keeps any of us alive out on the roads is predictability. We
predict that someone will act in a certain manner in a certain circumstance.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

[Bob]

gds wrote:

> I guess that my point would be more that if the major offenses are
> riding against traffic and hooking are the major causes of deaths and
> of other incidents it is indicative of the need for better training and
> enforcement of rules for both cyclists and motorists.
> I don't believe that cycling is a high risk activity, but I also am not
> satisfied that enough is being done to improve safety. The most common
> infractions are really a matter of poor cycling and and driving
> knowledge and behavior and thus can be improved.

Since training and enforcement haven't eliminated the deaths in crashes
of tens of thousands of motor vehicles occupants that occur every year,
what training and enforcement programs do you think are going to
eliminate the statistically insignificant number of deaths you quote?

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

>> What concerns me most is being run down from behind. That's something I
>> can't do a whole lot about, and even a rear-view mirror isn't going to
>> help in all cases, probably not most (since being run down from behind
>> typically seems to be caused by carelessness, typically a fairly-sudden
>> swerving as someone reaches to change their CD or apply makeup or read a
>> map or whatever, as opposed to something that can be seen a fair
>> distance away and dealt with accordingly).
>
> This is probably what worries most people, but they can take solace in the
> fact that it's vanishingly rare. It's possibly increasing because of the
> things you mention, but still vanishingly rare. I'm most wary of it when
> I know there will be drunks on the road.
>
> Matt O.

What about those times when you make a turn and suddenly the sun's in your
eyes and it's hard to see? With the sun pretty low in the sky these days, I
find that situation some mornings and am quite thankful I'm on a pretty
quiet road, since in all likelihood if *I* am having trouble seeing things,
I can only imagine the effect on someone in a car with a windshield in front
of them. On the other hand, the very fact that it *is* a quiet road makes it
all the more likely that someone in a car is going to assume there's nothing
on the road ahead of them.

And then there's heavy fog. That's a tough one. You want to be visible, yet
you don't want to be anywhere near where the car is. Max visibility normally
requires moving out into the lane a bit, well ahead of the car. But in a
heavy fog, things happen pretty darned quickly.

The scariest experiences I had when motorcycling happened heading over
Highway 17 between San Jose & Santa Cruz in heavy fog. Drivers are literally
following tail lights in front of them, so you couldn't even pull off the
road, because they'd just keep following and run over you when you stopped.
Very nerve-wracking.

And how about riding on icy roads? Generally I'm not so worried about me
crashing as I am some car taking me out as they fail to negotiate a curve.
The odds, of course, are exceptionally low that a car would pick that exact
instant to lose traction.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

[Zoot Katz]

On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 23:03:37 -0500, Matt O'Toole
> wrote:

>> What concerns me most is being run down from behind. That's something I
>> can't do a whole lot about, and even a rear-view mirror isn't going to
>> help in all cases, probably not most (since being run down from behind
>> typically seems to be caused by carelessness, typically a fairly-sudden
>> swerving as someone reaches to change their CD or apply makeup or read a
>> map or whatever, as opposed to something that can be seen a fair
>> distance away and dealt with accordingly).
>
>This is probably what worries most people, but they can take solace in the
>fact that it's vanishingly rare. It's possibly increasing because of the
>things you mention, but still vanishingly rare. I'm most wary of it when
>I know there will be drunks on the road.

It's easier being run down by a driver micro-sleeping than one would
want to contemplate. Most drivers will admit driving while they're
tired, ie: sleep deprived.
--
zk

[[email protected]]

wrote:

> Cycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is!

http://tinyurl.com/b925z

Frank used to just say "Cycling is NOT dangerous."
Somewhere around Spring 1999 he added the
'very.'

'Cycling is NOT very dangerous' is a crazy
endless loop of a grandiose statement
that could never be satisfactorily qualified and
will turn your brain to polystyrene foam if you
attempt to think about it too hard. It's a
puzzle without a solution, a maze with no
cheese at the end. Frank, your search for an
advertising catch-phrase does not end here.

What I think you mean with your confusing
statement is that cycling is not as deadly as
driving. If that is what you mean then you should
say that: 'Cycling is NOT as deadly as driving.'
I think you must know (by now) that cyclists
are many times more likely to be injured than
drivers of motor vehicles (Moritz), and that bicyclists
face a considerable rate of injury that does not
correspond even remotely with the rate of fatality,
which is low by any estimate.

Robert

[gds]

wrote:
> Good find.
>
> >From page 5 of that source, there were 1047 traffic fatalities in
> Arizona in 2001. Only 29 were cyclists. 166 were pedestrians!
>
> I don't have the numbers at hand, but I'd be willing to bet there were
> more drownings than cycling fatalities in Arizona. And it's a pretty
> dry state!
>
> Cycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is!
>

The responses are pretty much what I expected.
Here is my take on this. I don't think cycling is unsafe either. And
as to comments about cycling saving lives in terms of health
benefits--I also agree. I'm a big fan of cycling.

But I found 5 deaths in this relatively small city a large number. Yes,
they copuld have been drunk and riding the wrong way at night. But
still it just surprised me. I find the comparison with motoring deaths
to be non convincing of anything because the activites are so
dissimlar-other than using the roads.

As to drownings, Frank you absolutely correct. Tucons had more than 5
drownings. Even in the middle of the desert this is a real risk
although the order of magnitude is about the same. Most of the
drownings are of children left unattended in back yard pools. The
second largest cause is stuip motorists entering washes during flood
conditions and having the vehicle strnaded or swept away. Sadly, in
those cases the deats are mainly children as the stupid drivers seem to
be able to escape.

But those are the perfect examples of why I started this thread. Both
of those cases - pool drownings and entering flooded washes- are the
recipients of rather large goverenmental and voluntary org efforts at
both public education and law enforcement.

Yet, at least in Tucson I see no where near the effort at public
education or enforcement regarding cycling and cyclist/motor vehicle
incidents. So, I guess my feeling is that there should be.

BTW having cycled in many areas of the US I find cycling in the SW to
be the most enjoyable in terms of dealing with traffic and road
conditions. So, please don't confuse my concern with safety as any sort
of ding on cycling in general or in the SW. My concern i simply to make
cycling as "good" as it can be.

[rdclark]

Matt O'Toole wrote:

> This is probably what worries most people, but they can take solace in the
> fact that it's vanishingly rare. It's possibly increasing because of the
> things you mention, but still vanishingly rare. I'm most wary of it when
> I know there will be drunks on the road.

Ironically, it's probably the fear of being run down from behind that
inspires many uninformed riders to ride facing traffic -- thus moving
them from the low- to the high-probability column.

RichC

[gds]

Roger Zoul wrote:
>
> Do you really expect to drive the number of accidents that happen to cyclist
> to zero?


I think it is a nice goal. If you don't have aggressive goals you don't
accomplish much.


>
> Finally, it seems you are the one doing the attacking by asking me if I
> consider a death as insignficant, instead of just dealing with the fact that
> only relatively small numbers of cyclist are killed in Tucson.

I don't find the 5 deaths to be relatively small. As I have said in a
number of other threads I have lots of recent experience with cyclist
being hit by cars. In my club of ~150 cyclists three of the members
have been hit by cars within the last 12 mos. They are all experienced
cyclists and each was hit by a vehicle veering into them while they
rode along in a line of cyclists. In each case they were clearly
visible as individuals and even more so due to being in a line of
cyclists. So, perhaps I am (overly) sensitive to the issue but in my 50
years of cycling I haven't witnessed that manyserious incidents in so
short a period until now.

Why don't
> you come ride over here if you don't like those numbers?

I'm particularly lucky at this point in my life. I live in Tucson
becasue I want to live here. No issues of school, work or family are
involved. So, thanks for the offer but I'll stay here. But you are
certainly welcome to come out and visit and ride. Many pros do their
winter base training here. Tucson is a fantastic place to live and
ride. I wouldn't trade it for anywhere. That said I'm still disturbed
by what I'm seeing happen vis-a-vis cyclists and motorists.

[[email protected]]

Hola!
Here in San Diego the local branch of the League of American
Bicyclists (San Diego County Bicycle Coalition or something like that)
has a grant from either the City of SD or the local Association of
Governments to conduct adult bicycle training classes for free (to the
students). I took an eight hour long one -- most of which I knew
already, if only at the level of habit, but it WAS nice to find my
intuitions confirmed, made explicit and systematized. And the chance to
ride along El Cajon Blvd and practice left turns across two lanes of
traffic with a riding group that was NOT composed entirely of habitual
or experienced riders was a lot of fun.

If I had to guess, I'd say the local government figures its
easier/cheaper/more effective per dollar to reach cyclists to train
them about the mistakes both cyclists and motorists make, and how to
avoid them, then to try to reach the masses of motorists. Given the
prevalence of off-kilter lifted trucks and SUVs around here, I'd
probably imagine the folks on bikes are an easier sell, too.

Mind you, getting ADULT cyclists into a class is a tough sell -- "I
already know how to ride a bike!" I wouldn't have gone either if I
hadn't started riding with a (rather informal) group -- and decided a
street skills brush up was in order!

As for the "is it SAFE?" question, nothing is absolutely safe. For
example, I once saw someone break a leg at a chess tournament (do not
do victory dances near stairs!).

On the other hand, I've also seen a nocturnal no-lights sidewalk-rider
get clobbered by a high-speed rolling-stop right-turning pickup truck
(that had come a bit too close for comfort to me when the driver ran a
red light at the merge just before the intersection). How do you assign
blame for that mishap?

Robert Leone

gds wrote:
> wrote:
snip
> Yet, at least in Tucson I see no where near the effort at public
> education or enforcement regarding cycling and cyclist/motor vehicle
> incidents. So, I guess my feeling is that there should be.
SNIP

[Roger Zoul]

gds > wrote:
:> Roger Zoul wrote:
:>>
:>> Do you really expect to drive the number of accidents that happen
:>> to cyclist to zero?
:>
:>
:> I think it is a nice goal. If you don't have aggressive goals you
:> don't accomplish much.

I agree with you here. I just hope there is something that actually can be
done that will have an impact. Honestly, I'm very doubtful, but I won't
stand in the way of someone willing to try, and I'd even pitch in.

:>
:>
:>>
:>> Finally, it seems you are the one doing the attacking by asking me
:>> if I consider a death as insignficant, instead of just dealing with
:>> the fact that only relatively small numbers of cyclist are killed
:>> in Tucson.
:>
:> I don't find the 5 deaths to be relatively small. As I have said in a
:> number of other threads I have lots of recent experience with cyclist
:> being hit by cars. In my club of ~150 cyclists three of the members
:> have been hit by cars within the last 12 mos. They are all
:> experienced cyclists and each was hit by a vehicle veering into them
:> while they
:> rode along in a line of cyclists. In each case they were clearly
:> visible as individuals and even more so due to being in a line of
:> cyclists. So, perhaps I am (overly) sensitive to the issue but in my
:> 50 years of cycling I haven't witnessed that manyserious incidents
:> in so
:> short a period until now.
:>

Well, that explains your concern. It's always more real when it happens
within your own sphere of influence.


:> Why don't
:>> you come ride over here if you don't like those numbers?
:>
:> I'm particularly lucky at this point in my life. I live in Tucson
:> becasue I want to live here. No issues of school, work or family are
:> involved. So, thanks for the offer but I'll stay here. But you are
:> certainly welcome to come out and visit and ride. Many pros do their
:> winter base training here. Tucson is a fantastic place to live and
:> ride. I wouldn't trade it for anywhere. That said I'm still disturbed
:> by what I'm seeing happen vis-a-vis cyclists and motorists.

Sounds nice, really. I'd like to do just that (ride there, that is).

[Paul Turner]

Wayne Pein wrote:

> Matt O'Toole wrote:

>> Wayne, IME right-hooking is easily avoided by riding defensively, and
>> learning to anticipate drivers' actions.

> Absolutely. It takes 2 to tango. The motorist makes the mistake or overt
> aggressive maneuver, and the bicyclist enabled it and was unable to deal
> with it. Bicyclists also cause it by passing on the right.

I frequently see this scenario here in Chicago: a car is waiting at a red
light and signaling a right turn. A cyclist passes the car on the right in
order to cross the intersection against the red. The cyclist has to slow and
look for cars coming at him left and right, leaving less than his full
attention for whether the light is changing and what the car next to him is
doing. It's a receipe for a right hook. The cyclist is putting waaaay more
faith in drivers than I have. So whenever I see statistics like gds's from
Tucson, I figure the odds are better for people who exercise a few
precautions.

--
Paul Turner

[gds]

Bob wrote:
>
>
> Since training and enforcement haven't eliminated the deaths in crashes
> of tens of thousands of motor vehicles occupants that occur every year,
> what training and enforcement programs do you think are going to
> eliminate the statistically insignificant number of deaths you quote?

You raise a couple of issues here I disagree with both.

First, while training & enforcement have not eliminated motoring deaths
it is not correct to assume that they have not reduced them. For
example there is a lot of evidence that high school driver's ed
significantly reduces accident rates among teen drivers. There is also
ample evidence that lowering speed limits (and enforcing them) reduces
highway fatalities. While I will support a goal of making the accident
rate a low as possible it is not correct to say that just because it is
not zero that nothing is working.

As to the statistical insignifigance of the 5 deaths. How can you say
that? Your idea is fundamentlay flawed. There is no issue of
statistical signifigance. That concept applies when extrapolating from
a sample to a population. Here we have population data. There is no
extrapolation. 5 deaths during the year is 5 deaths. It is a real
number and not an estimate. And it is a very real number if you know
one (or more) of the 5.

[Wayne Pein]

gds wrote:

> I don't find the 5 deaths to be relatively small. As I have said in a
> number of other threads I have lots of recent experience with cyclist
> being hit by cars. In my club of ~150 cyclists three of the members
> have been hit by cars within the last 12 mos. They are all experienced
> cyclists and each was hit by a vehicle veering into them while they
> rode along in a line of cyclists. In each case they were clearly
> visible as individuals and even more so due to being in a line of
> cyclists. So, perhaps I am (overly) sensitive to the issue but in my 50
> years of cycling I haven't witnessed that manyserious incidents in so
> short a period until now.
>

It seems these incidents were purposeful assaults. Is this a predictable
consequence of "Bicycle Friendly?" The bicyclists were not in a bike
lane (or were they?) where they are "supposed" to be (given that the
good citizens/government has generously provided space of their own), so
the puddin headed criminal motorist thinks it is open season on them.
Trading Paint!

Recently a paved shoulder was added to a 2 lane rural road my wife and I
have regularly ridden on for 12 years. Previously the fog line was
directly on the edge of pavement. The shoulder was installed by the MPO
"for bicyclists." It varies in width from 4 inches to 2.5 feet. We don't
ride on it, but many bicyclists do, teetering on the edge of pavement.
Since it was installed, motorist harassment of us has increased because
of our perceived audacity to ride to the left of the line, and not where
we are "supposed" to be (even though it is not marked as a bike lane).

Wayne

[The Wogster]

Roger Zoul wrote:
> gds > wrote:
> :> Roger Zoul wrote:
> :>> gds > wrote:
> :>> :> Sorry, do I understand you correctly? Are you saying that 5
> :>> :> cyclist deaths in a year in a town of 400,000 is insignificant?
> :>>
> :>> No, I'm saying that if that small risk is too much for you that you
> :>> should hang up your pedals. Stay off the roads if you can't accept
> :>> some risk.
> :>>
> :>> IMO, no death is insignificant.
> :>
> :> Well I certainly agree with your last comment.
> :>
> :> As to hanging up my pedals and my acceptance of risk. Don't confuse a
> :> concern for safety with being "afraid." You seem to have a need to
> :> attack folks for raising points for discussion rather than
> :> contributing
> :> to the discussion.
> :> FYI I have cycled well over 100,000 miles, have rock climbed for
> :> years
> :> and am a certified instructor, and am a licensed pilot. I have a very
> :> good understanding of risk. I also have a very good understanding of
> :> the need to mitigate risk and a very low tolerance for needless
> :> accidents.
>
> Do you really expect to drive the number of accidents that happen to cyclist
> to zero? I'm sure you'd consider that minimal risk, right? And how do the
> numbers for cyclist compare to those of motorist in Tucson?

Anything is possible, start by banning the automobile, that will
eliminate all automobile versus bicycle collisions. The chances of a
colision with an automobile will be reduced to zero, however, after
doing that, you may have 10 times the cyclists, and get 10 deaths from
bicycle versus bicycle collisions, you can't always win.

> Finally, it seems you are the one doing the attacking by asking me if I
> consider a death as insignficant, instead of just dealing with the fact that
> only relatively small numbers of cyclist are killed in Tucson. Why don't
> you come ride over here if you don't like those numbers?

There is always the possibility that it's just a bad year, try looking
at the average over the last 10 years, there are some numbers missing,
that could make the percentages work or not work. Out of a population
of 400,000 how many are cyclists, and what is the average annual mileage
of those cyclists.

For example if .01% of the population are cyclists and they ride an
average of 50 miles per year, then your risk of death is 1 in every 400
miles, and your risk of an accident is 1 in every 4 miles, those suck.

However if the percentage of cyclists is 75% and they go an average of
5000 miles your risk of death is 1 in 1,500,000,000 miles, and your
chance of a collision is 1 in 15,000,000 miles; much better odds.

Without specific knowledge of cycling in Tucson, and knowing where it
fits in the equasions (likely between the two examples), it doesn't take
many cyclists going very far, to make the odds staggering against.

There are other things to consider, you really need a detailed study,
like the one the City of Toronto, Ontario, Canada did in 1999 (link
http://tinyurl.com/6ywuj ), the value of a number of collisions based on
population, doesn't provide enough information.

W

[The Wogster]

Mark Hickey wrote:
> " >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Somehow cycling does not look so dangerous though it seems to me that
>>Ottawa ON with a population in the 700k range had several years with no
>>cycling fatalities at all.
>
>
> That's probably because the riding season is two weeks long... ;-)
>

Well here in Toronto, ON not far from Ottawa or Kingston, we had the
hottest summer ever, and I was still riding in late November. I saw 3
guys on bikes yesterday, with a balmy high of -9C (15F).

> Mark "did I mention it was 70 degrees F here today?" Hickey

Yeah, well, at least we don't get hurricanes.....

W

[Fred]

"Wayne Pein" > wrote in message
...

> Recently a paved shoulder was added to a 2 lane rural road my wife and I
> have regularly ridden on for 12 years. Previously the fog line was
> directly on the edge of pavement. The shoulder was installed by the MPO
> "for bicyclists." It varies in width from 4 inches to 2.5 feet. We don't
> ride on it, but many bicyclists do, teetering on the edge of pavement.
> Since it was installed, motorist harassment of us has increased because of
> our perceived audacity to ride to the left of the line, and not where we
> are "supposed" to be (even though it is not marked as a bike lane).
>
> Wayne
>

I've found the less lines the better. Two years ago many of my favorite
rides in the hills were all freshly paved. There was a remarkable
difference in the tolerance and the passing room given to me when there were
no lines on the road. With the center line gone and no fog lines, cars were
moving way over. In general whenever I ride on a road with a bike lane
Cars will buzz right next to me without offering any space whatsoever.

[Mark Hickey]

"rdclark" > wrote:

>Matt O'Toole wrote:
>
>> This is probably what worries most people, but they can take solace in the
>> fact that it's vanishingly rare. It's possibly increasing because of the
>> things you mention, but still vanishingly rare. I'm most wary of it when
>> I know there will be drunks on the road.
>
>Ironically, it's probably the fear of being run down from behind that
>inspires many uninformed riders to ride facing traffic -- thus moving
>them from the low- to the high-probability column.

Or worse yet, onto the sidewalk.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

[Wayne Pein]

Fred wrote:

>
> I've found the less lines the better. Two years ago many of my favorite
> rides in the hills were all freshly paved. There was a remarkable
> difference in the tolerance and the passing room given to me when there were
> no lines on the road. With the center line gone and no fog lines, cars were
> moving way over.

I've experienced the same thing on several different roads. I surmise
that it is "taboo" for some motorists to move fully into the opposing
lane when there is a centerline, but the lack of a line imposes no
restrictions and makes the pass more ambiguous.



In general whenever I ride on a road with a bike lane
> Cars will buzz right next to me without offering any space whatsoever.

Yes. There is no perceived need to adjust their trajectory. If the bike
lane is relatively narrow, or the combo bike lane/"car" lane total is
narrow, this leads to close passes. Of course, some malicious motorists
purposefully drive close to the bike lane to torment bicyclists (they
also drive close to bicyclists when there is no bike lane).

Wayne

[Bob]

gds wrote:
> Bob wrote:
> >
> >
> > Since training and enforcement haven't eliminated the deaths in crashes
> > of tens of thousands of motor vehicles occupants that occur every year,
> > what training and enforcement programs do you think are going to
> > eliminate the statistically insignificant number of deaths you quote?
>
> You raise a couple of issues here I disagree with both.
>
> First, while training & enforcement have not eliminated motoring deaths
> it is not correct to assume that they have not reduced them. For
> example there is a lot of evidence that high school driver's ed
> significantly reduces accident rates among teen drivers. There is also
> ample evidence that lowering speed limits (and enforcing them) reduces
> highway fatalities. While I will support a goal of making the accident
> rate a low as possible it is not correct to say that just because it is
> not zero that nothing is working.

My question was not rhetorical. What training and enforcement do you
think would have eliminated even one of the five deaths?

>
> As to the statistical insignifigance of the 5 deaths. How can you say
> that?

Easily. According to US Census Bureau statistics the median age of
Arizonans in 2000 was 34.2. In that same year the death rate of all
Americans aged 25-35 years was 177.8 deaths per 100,000. 5 out of an
expected roughly 711 deaths is statistically insignificant.

< Your idea is fundamentlay flawed. There is no issue of
> statistical signifigance. That concept applies when extrapolating from
> a sample to a population. Here we have population data. There is no
> extrapolation. 5 deaths during the year is 5 deaths. It is a real
> number and not an estimate. And it is a very real number if you know
> one (or more) of the 5.

See above. I don't mean to sound heartless but if I do, I can live with
it.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Bob]

gds wrote:
> Bob wrote:
> >
> >
> > Since training and enforcement haven't eliminated the deaths in crashes
> > of tens of thousands of motor vehicles occupants that occur every year,
> > what training and enforcement programs do you think are going to
> > eliminate the statistically insignificant number of deaths you quote?
>
> You raise a couple of issues here I disagree with both.
>
> First, while training & enforcement have not eliminated motoring deaths
> it is not correct to assume that they have not reduced them. For
> example there is a lot of evidence that high school driver's ed
> significantly reduces accident rates among teen drivers. There is also
> ample evidence that lowering speed limits (and enforcing them) reduces
> highway fatalities. While I will support a goal of making the accident
> rate a low as possible it is not correct to say that just because it is
> not zero that nothing is working.

My question was not rhetorical. What training and enforcement do you
think would have eliminated even one of the five deaths?

>
> As to the statistical insignifigance of the 5 deaths. How can you say
> that?

Easily. According to US Census Bureau statistics the median age of
Arizonans in 2000 was 34.2. In that same year the death rate of all
Americans aged 25-35 years was 177.8 deaths per 100,000. 5 out of an
expected roughly 711 deaths is statistically insignificant.

< Your idea is fundamentlay flawed. There is no issue of
> statistical signifigance. That concept applies when extrapolating from
> a sample to a population. Here we have population data. There is no
> extrapolation. 5 deaths during the year is 5 deaths. It is a real
> number and not an estimate. And it is a very real number if you know
> one (or more) of the 5.

See above. I don't mean to sound heartless but if I do, I can live with
it.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Mike Kruger]

"Mark Hickey" > wrote in message

> Heck Frank - there are that many (5) drownings WHILE driving in
> Arizona every year. In the middle of a desert, no less.
>
I think I've seen more warning signs about not driving through water in
Arizona than I've seen anywhere else. The presence of signs like this is,
oddly, inversely proportional to the presence of water.

[[email protected]]

Mike Kruger wrote:
> "Mark Hickey" > wrote in message
>
> > Heck Frank - there are that many (5) drownings WHILE driving in
> > Arizona every year. In the middle of a desert, no less.
> >
> I think I've seen more warning signs about not driving through water in
> Arizona than I've seen anywhere else. The presence of signs like this is,
> oddly, inversely proportional to the presence of water.

That can be explained. I imagine lots of Arizonans, when looking at
water, say "Hey - I wonder what that stuff is??" ;-)

- Frank Krygowski

[gds]

Bob wrote:
> >
> > As to the statistical insignifigance of the 5 deaths. How can you say
> > that?
>
> Easily. According to US Census Bureau statistics the median age of
> Arizonans in 2000 was 34.2. In that same year the death rate of all
> Americans aged 25-35 years was 177.8 deaths per 100,000. 5 out of an
> expected roughly 711 deaths is statistically insignificant.
>

As my 4th grade teacher always asked--"Please show your work!" I see
no tests of statistical signifigance in what you write. What
statistical tests are using to come your conclusion of no statistical
signifigance?
You have no data on the age of the dead cyclists. Assuming them to be
at the median is probably a bit risky.


BTW, this morning a pedestrian (school child) was killed in Tucson. So,
now we have the comparable pedestrain death number--11 so far this
year.

So, ignore for a moment statiscal signifigance. So far this year we
have 11 pedestrian deaths and 5 cyclist deaths in Tucson. So, there
have been 2.2 pedestrians killed by motor vehicles for every cyclist.
Anyone care to estimate the number of pedestrinas in the population vs.
the numer of cyclist. Since virtually everyone is a pedestrian at some
point I'd guess it is much more than 2.2.

There is a problem. I love cycling but there is a problem. If pro
cycling folks don't recognize and try to solve the problem who will? My
fear is that it is numbers like these that lead to non cyclist
legislators introducing cyclist licensing and other types of
restrictive ideas.

[[email protected]]

gds wrote:

> BTW, this morning a pedestrian (school child) was killed in Tucson. So,
> now we have the comparable pedestrain death number--11 so far this
> year.
>
> So, ignore for a moment statiscal signifigance. So far this year we
> have 11 pedestrian deaths and 5 cyclist deaths in Tucson. So, there
> have been 2.2 pedestrians killed by motor vehicles for every cyclist.
> Anyone care to estimate the number of pedestrinas in the population vs.
> the numer of cyclist. Since virtually everyone is a pedestrian at some
> point I'd guess it is much more than 2.2.

Regarding statistical significance: The fewer the data points, the
greater the difficulty in assessing significance. Five cycling deaths
(or 11 pedestrian deaths) are a small number, for any statistical
purpose. Numbers that low are guaranteed to show high percentages of
random variation from year to year. (Do you have annual data for,
say, the past ten years, for comparison?)

In fact, five cycling deaths are so few that you should be able to
determine the reason for each and discuss them here in detail. That
would allow us to judge whether Tuscon has a specific problem, far
better than the raw number itself.

As an example: a city could have five cyclist deaths when a landslide
washes away a road during an invitational century. That wouldn't
justify handwringing about the danger of cycling!

So what did cause those five deaths? And again, what have the counts
been in the past ten years?

> My fear is that it is numbers like these that lead to non cyclist
> legislators introducing cyclist licensing and other types of
> restrictive ideas.

That's my fear, too. But I'm not convinced you're helping!

Let's see some more information, to assess whether there really is a
problem.

- Frank Krygowski

[gds]

wrote:
> gds wrote:
>
> > BTW, this morning a pedestrian (school child) was killed in Tucson. So,
> > now we have the comparable pedestrain death number--11 so far this
> > year.
> >
> > So, ignore for a moment statiscal signifigance. So far this year we
> > have 11 pedestrian deaths and 5 cyclist deaths in Tucson. So, there
> > have been 2.2 pedestrians killed by motor vehicles for every cyclist.
> > Anyone care to estimate the number of pedestrinas in the population vs.
> > the numer of cyclist. Since virtually everyone is a pedestrian at some
> > point I'd guess it is much more than 2.2.
>
> Regarding statistical significance: The fewer the data points, the
> greater the difficulty in assessing significance. Five cycling deaths
> (or 11 pedestrian deaths) are a small number, for any statistical
> purpose. Numbers that low are guaranteed to show high percentages of
> random variation from year to year. (Do you have annual data for,
> say, the past ten years, for comparison?)
>
> In fact, five cycling deaths are so few that you should be able to
> determine the reason for each and discuss them here in detail. That
> would allow us to judge whether Tuscon has a specific problem, far
> better than the raw number itself.
>
> As an example: a city could have five cyclist deaths when a landslide
> washes away a road during an invitational century. That wouldn't
> justify handwringing about the danger of cycling!
>
> So what did cause those five deaths? And again, what have the counts
> been in the past ten years?
>
> > My fear is that it is numbers like these that lead to non cyclist
> > legislators introducing cyclist licensing and other types of
> > restrictive ideas.
>
> That's my fear, too. But I'm not convinced you're helping!
>
> Let's see some more information, to assess whether there really is a
> problem.
>
> - Frank Krygowski

According to the same news report the annual numbers for both cyclist
and pedestrian deaths is "about normal."

I agree with you about all the problems of dealing with small absolute
numbers. But it creates headlines. And headlines often lead to poorly
thought out "solutions."

I don't think my posting is doing much good or harm as this group is
not central to what political decision makers care about. But I did
have a point in raising the issue. Cyclist accidents and deaths are
headline issues. So, if cycling proponents want to head off restrictive
rule making I think it a good idea to get ahead of the issue rather
than arguing over how cycling problems are much less than motor vehicle
problems.

I am not talking about absolute right and wrong here but rather the
practical matter of perception and how that drives public policy. If
absolute right & wrong drove policy we would be living in a much
different society with less war, hunger, and disease.

[[email protected]]

gds wrote:

>
> I agree with you about all the problems of dealing with small absolute
> numbers. But it creates headlines. And headlines often lead to poorly
> thought out "solutions."
>
> I don't think my posting is doing much good or harm as this group is
> not central to what political decision makers care about. But I did
> have a point in raising the issue. Cyclist accidents and deaths are
> headline issues. So, if cycling proponents want to head off restrictive
> rule making I think it a good idea to get ahead of the issue rather
> than arguing over how cycling problems are much less than motor vehicle
> problems.
>

If perception is the issue, then cycling advocates who want to "get
ahead of the issue" need to do more to change the common perception
that cycling is dangerous. We need to publicize the fact that cycling
is a relatively safe activity. (There is, after all, no such thing as
an absolutely safe activity.)

My article at http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/SafetyQuiz.htm
was an attempt to do that. I think we need more efforts in that
direction.

FWIW, the League of American Bicyclists have sent out copies of
newspaper headlines like "Cyclist hit by truck on Main Street!!!!",
followed by pleas for money to "stop the tragedies" or some such tripe.
Entirely counterproductive, in my view.

- Frank Krygowski

[gds]

wrote:
>> >
>
> If perception is the issue, then cycling advocates who want to "get
> ahead of the issue" need to do more to change the common perception
> that cycling is dangerous. We need to publicize the fact that cycling
> is a relatively safe activity. (There is, after all, no such thing as
> an absolutely safe activity.)

OK, I agree. But I would categorize those efforts as necessary but not
sufficient.

>
> My article at http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/SafetyQuiz.htm
> was an attempt to do that. I think we need more efforts in that
> direction.

You know years ago I headed up an international trade org. and for that
role received "media training" from one of the top PR firms in the
world. FWIW the #1 axiom that they instilled into me was "you can not
combat an emotional argument simply with facts" Their point was that
emotional arguements have an energy of their own and that to
effectively counter them a strong emotional campaign worked better than
a dry listing of facts trying to dis prove their position.
Intellectually we may not like that this is so, but a huge amount of
research and practical experience indicates that it is. So, while I
have no problem with your little quiz my training and experience
indicates that it will not be highly effective.

So, my conclusion is that we are much better off creating arguments
like life style, health , and environmental benifits to headline pro
cycling efforts. And that while the safety message is important that is
not the lead line.



>
> FWIW, the League of American Bicyclists have sent out copies of
> newspaper headlines like "Cyclist hit by truck on Main Street!!!!",
> followed by pleas for money to "stop the tragedies" or some such tripe.
> Entirely counterproductive, in my view.
>

Yes I agree. That is simply giving more play to the opposition
arguemnt. Wasn't there a politician many years ago who said something
to the effect of " I don't care what you print about me as long as you
spell my name right!" ?

[[email protected]]

gds wrote:
> wrote:
>
> >
> > My article at http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/SafetyQuiz.htm
> > was an attempt to do that. I think we need more efforts in that
> > direction.
>
> You know years ago I headed up an international trade org. and for that
> role received "media training" from one of the top PR firms in the
> world. FWIW the #1 axiom that they instilled into me was "you can not
> combat an emotional argument simply with facts" Their point was that
> emotional arguements have an energy of their own and that to
> effectively counter them a strong emotional campaign worked better than
> a dry listing of facts trying to dis prove their position.
> Intellectually we may not like that this is so, but a huge amount of
> research and practical experience indicates that it is. So, while I
> have no problem with your little quiz my training and experience
> indicates that it will not be highly effective.

It's certainly true that many people are not impressed by facts. But
see below.

> So, my conclusion is that we are much better off creating arguments
> like life style, health , and environmental benifits to headline pro
> cycling efforts. And that while the safety message is important that is
> not the lead line.

Admittedly, I haven't received training in PR. All I've done is look
at the tactics used by the PR and advertising industry.

What I see is a variety of approaches. Whether selling cars, or
candidates, or toothpaste, there seems to be a mix of strategies. I
assume this is because different people respond to different tactics.

The reason I wrote that article (and have delivered a talk based on its
contents) was that there is a cabal of handwringers dispensing "data"
to indicate cycling is horrendously dangerous. They do this by doing
anything they can to inflate numbers. (Annual cyclist fatality count
too low? Just give the number for the past 25 years!)

My numbers are an attempt to do comparisons, to put things in context,
and hopefully reach the people who are scared by _their_ numbers.

But certainly, other approaches are possible! My article at
http://www.bicyclinglife.com/NewsAndViews/philosophy.htm
has been reprinted many times, judging by the requests for permission
I've gotten. If you have other ways of spreading good news about
cycling, I'd welcome your efforts. In fact, that website would be a
fine place to put them.

- Frank Krygowski

[gds]

Nice article Frank!

One comment on its content (another axiom picked up in PR training).
Attacking what many of the readers do (use of motor vehicles) will
cause a large number to tune out the main message. Recognizing that
motor vehicles are the main means of transport in developed countries
means that most of the folks we want to reach are drivers and feel that
cars are central to their lifestyle. Attacking that will turn many
folks away from the message without giving it carefull consideration.
An interesting comparison is if you have ever had a conversation with
Mormon missionaries. They are trained to (and do a very good job of)
not opening up with an attack or any other negative statements on YOUR
religous beliefs but spend a lot of time "explaining" theirs. They
understand very well that if they open with "we have the truth" that
most folks will just tune them out.

The tactics for "preaching to the choir" and for getting recruits for
the choir are quite different.

FWIW my own work on "conversion" to cycling has been mostly among
athletes. I started cycling early in my athletic career as the cardio
component of training for other sports. Not only did I enjoy cycling
for its own value but found that it provided an excellent cardio base
with out the pounding and resultant injuries of running. Over the years
I have converted many folks from a running based fitness program to
cycling based programs. But I never attack running. In fact from an
efficiency point of view (fitness/unit time) running is pretty good. I
wait until they have the inevitable foot, knee, hip, or back injury and
then start talking about my 40 years of injury free cycling. Gets them!

But back to safety. The problem is that "safe"means different things to
different folks. Not only is their individual risk tolerance profiles
but there are differing understandings and interpretations of data. For
example my experienc posted in this thread and above. Most folks would
describe my risk tolerance as extremely high. Over the years I have
played football, wrestled , boxed, competed in karate and judo, sky
dived, rock climbed, and piloted aerobatic aircraft. I don't list these
as any sort of braggin because I wasn't all that good at any of them.
But I am very comnfortable with accepting and managing risk. And with
all that the fact that three of my cycling companions have been hit by
cars in the past year bothers me. So, you can present all the
statistics you want, I'm worried about what this means. I understand
statistics very well ande will agree with those who suggest that htis
is an aberration. Surely it is because I have never had it happen
before.
But, I can tell you that the result has been that several of our club
stopped riding and others have cut back and talk about the risk. So,
the impact is well beyond the "statistical insignifigance' that some
(wrongly) ascribe to it. That needs to be addressed effectively. And
quotes of national figures and poo pooing the aberration won't work.

[Mark Hickey]

wrote:

>Mike Kruger wrote:
>> "Mark Hickey" > wrote in message
>>
>> > Heck Frank - there are that many (5) drownings WHILE driving in
>> > Arizona every year. In the middle of a desert, no less.
>> >
>> I think I've seen more warning signs about not driving through water in
>> Arizona than I've seen anywhere else. The presence of signs like this is,
>> oddly, inversely proportional to the presence of water.
>
>That can be explained. I imagine lots of Arizonans, when looking at
>water, say "Hey - I wonder what that stuff is??" ;-)

Heh... you're probably right. I think most of 'em just can't imagine
that the water could be over hub-deep. Imagine their surprise when
their car starts floating sideways... I pulled up to a wash that was
out (waaaaay out) near a popular tourist trap (Tortilla Flat for those
of you who know the area), in my mildly lifted Jeep Cherokee. Since
4WDs seem to be the most common victim of "attempted crossings", I
noticed several locals looking at me and getting their cameras ready.

Uh uh - not even I have ever been THAT stupid. The water was 3-4 feet
deep (at least) and was probably moving 30mph. And Jeeps don't float.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

[[email protected]]

gds wrote:
> Nice article Frank!

Thanks.

> One comment on its content (another axiom picked up in PR training).
> Attacking what many of the readers do (use of motor vehicles) will
> cause a large number to tune out the main message. Recognizing that
> motor vehicles are the main means of transport in developed countries
> means that most of the folks we want to reach are drivers and feel that
> cars are central to their lifestyle. Attacking that will turn many
> folks away from the message without giving it carefull consideration.
> An interesting comparison is if you have ever had a conversation with
> Mormon missionaries. They are trained to (and do a very good job of)
> not opening up with an attack or any other negative statements on YOUR
> religous beliefs but spend a lot of time "explaining" theirs. They
> understand very well that if they open with "we have the truth" that
> most folks will just tune them out.
>
> The tactics for "preaching to the choir" and for getting recruits for
> the choir are quite different.

Sure. "Know your audience." The original version of that article was
for our bike club newsletter, and that version is on a bicycling
website. I figure I'm writing for people who are already somewhat
committed to cycling. I'd use a different approach if I were writing
for the American Automobile Association newsletter.

And seriously, I invite you to write _your_ own bicycle promotion
article. Each of us can have his own approach.


> FWIW my own work on "conversion" to cycling has been mostly among
> athletes. I started cycling early in my athletic career as the cardio
> component of training for other sports. Not only did I enjoy cycling
> for its own value but found that it provided an excellent cardio base
> with out the pounding and resultant injuries of running. Over the years
> I have converted many folks from a running based fitness program to
> cycling based programs. But I never attack running. In fact from an
> efficiency point of view (fitness/unit time) running is pretty good. I
> wait until they have the inevitable foot, knee, hip, or back injury and
> then start talking about my 40 years of injury free cycling. Gets them!
>
> But back to safety. ... I understand
> statistics very well ande will agree with those who suggest that htis
> is an aberration. ...
> But, I can tell you that the result has been that several of our club
> stopped riding and others have cut back and talk about the risk. So,
> the impact is well beyond the "statistical insignifigance' that some
> (wrongly) ascribe to it. That needs to be addressed effectively. And
> quotes of national figures and poo pooing the aberration won't work.

Again, different approaches will work with different people. I imagine
some people who are very risk-averse (and/or very innumerate) will
cycle less. Others will be aware of the nature of the data and won't
let it affect them at all.

But again, what might do the most good is concrete information on the
causes of those fatalities. There are only five. Why not visit the
police department and get the details? You can say you're working on
an article, if that helps.

And in fact, you probably should be working on an article. You write
well. If, as Wayne guessed, there were cyclists who contributed to
their own deaths, you could warn others not to do the same. If it was
all driver mistakes, that can be a source of improvement too - it can
perhaps goad city officials into a "share the road" campaign, for
instance.

I'd just caution you to stay away from making cycling sound overly
risky. Note that people who promote swimming lessons, even for safety
reasons, never quote the number of drownings per year, nor the number
of cases of permanent brain damage from near drownings. In that way,
they're smarter than some bicyclists.

- Frank Krygowski

[[email protected]]

gds wrote in part:

> But, I can tell you that the result has been that several of our club
> stopped riding and others have cut back and talk about the risk. So,
> the impact is well beyond the "statistical insignifigance' that some
> (wrongly) ascribe to it. That needs to be addressed effectively. And
> quotes of national figures and poo pooing the aberration won't work.

Agreed, that won't work.

That's too bad that some members of your club
stopped riding. But, OTOH, perhaps those who
remain will ride with more awareness and will be
much less likely to suffer gruesome injury after
having processed the incidents with the others.

People can get hit by cars while riding bikes. That's
just the Reality of riding a bike on the streets and roads
of the world. Not just where you live, but everywhere.
That's traffic. It's an unfortunate thing that we must face
and deal with on every ride. While it may seem like a
crapshoot, the good news is that cyclists hold almost
all of the power, by exercising their own awareness,
to stay safe in traffic. Awareness--that means
understanding reality and dealing with it as is.
I don't see how molding some freaky propaganda
campaign is going to help anything if it does not
acknowledge or embrace reality, as hard as it may
be. Some act like adult cyclists are children who
can not process harsh truths and must be shielded
from them. I vote for telling the truth. The truth will set
you free, and in no case is this more true. Once
a bicyclist has come to terms with the danger element
of riding in traffic, and gains a confidence based on
an understanding of that reality, rather than a false
confidence based on more palatable false versions,
it is as if the cyclist has arrived on an island of safety
after crossing over a swamp full of gators on a narrow
rickety bridge.

Don't fight the big picture, the big picture always wins.

Robert

[Al C-F]

gds wrote:

>
> Police assigned blame about equally beteen cyclists and motorists.

Interesting - I doubt that this would be the case in UK. (Unless you
count 'it's your fault for riding a bike')
>
> #1 fault for cyclists was riding in traffic in the wrong direction.

Easy to avoid doing this.
>
> #1 fault for motorists was "hooking" (rt turn into a cyclist)

Claim the lane and it won't happen.

[Dave Larrington]

In article >, Al C-F
m) wrote:
> gds wrote:
>
> >
> > Police assigned blame about equally beteen cyclists and motorists.
>
> Interesting - I doubt that this would be the case in UK. (Unless you
> count 'it's your fault for riding a bike')
> >
> > #1 fault for cyclists was riding in traffic in the wrong direction.
>
> Easy to avoid doing this.
> >
> > #1 fault for motorists was "hooking" (rt turn into a cyclist)
>
> Claim the lane and it won't happen.

Tell that to the gibbon-faced twonk of a bus driver who tried to have me
off this morning...

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
Official: Living in a wardrobe can be injurious to one's health
<URL:http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-1567961,00.html>

[SlowRider]

Roger Zoul wrote:
> :> Number of cyclist killed in cycle / vehicle collisons------------ 5
>
> 0.00125%
>
> :>
> :> Number of REPORTED cyclist / vehicle incidents---------- ~500
>
> 0.125%

Turning the original figures into percentages tells us almost nothing.
What would make them meaningful is if we knew (a) the number of
cyclists in Tucson, and (b) the mean and variance for the annual
figures over a period of, say, 5-10 years. It would be even better if
we could find out how many bicycle trips are made per year in Tucson --
fatalities per million trips is a common metric for comparing
automobile and aircraft safety, for instance (e.g.,
http://www.planecrashinfo.com/cause.htm).


-JR

[[email protected]]

SlowRider wrote:
>
> fatalities per million trips is a common metric for comparing
> automobile and aircraft safety...

.... and fatalities per million hours activity is a metric that applies
to a whole host of activities, including those that are not recreation,
not transportation.

- Frank Krygowski

[Wayne Pein]

Dave Larrington wrote:

> In article >, Al C-F
> m) wrote:

>>>#1 fault for motorists was "hooking" (rt turn into a cyclist)
>>
>>Claim the lane and it won't happen.
>
>
> Tell that to the gibbon-faced twonk of a bus driver who tried to have me
> off this morning...


If he REALLY tried he would have succeeded!

Wayne

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> SlowRider wrote:
> >
> > fatalities per million trips is a common metric for comparing
> > automobile and aircraft safety...
>
> ... and fatalities per million hours activity is a metric that applies
> to a whole host of activities, including those that are not recreation,
> not transportation.

Unfortunately there is no good data available on
fatalities per million trips OR fatalities per million hours.

Robert

[The Wogster]

Dave Larrington wrote:
> In article >, Al C-F
> m) wrote:
>
>>gds wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Police assigned blame about equally beteen cyclists and motorists.
>>
>>Interesting - I doubt that this would be the case in UK. (Unless you
>>count 'it's your fault for riding a bike')
>>
>>>#1 fault for cyclists was riding in traffic in the wrong direction.
>>
>>Easy to avoid doing this.
>>
>>>#1 fault for motorists was "hooking" (rt turn into a cyclist)
>>
>>Claim the lane and it won't happen.
>
>
> Tell that to the gibbon-faced twonk of a bus driver who tried to have me
> off this morning...
>

Just remember the date, time and the bus number, call the bus company
and complain, nicely.

This goes for trucks, buses, taxis and limos, as well. Some companies
will lecture the operator, some will put a letter on their file,
especially if they get complains about certain operators repeatedly, if
that doesn't fix it, an operator can always bem relieved of duty.

W

[Mike Kruger]

"Mark Hickey" > wrote in message
...

> ... I pulled up to a wash that was
> out (waaaaay out) near a popular tourist trap (Tortilla Flat for those
> of you who know the area), in my mildly lifted Jeep Cherokee. Since
> 4WDs seem to be the most common victim of "attempted crossings", I
> noticed several locals looking at me and getting their cameras ready.
>
This reminds me of an article which noted that 4WD were the most likely
vehicles to have problems in the snow in Chicago. Same overconfidence,
different conditions, equivalent result.

[Jeremy Parker]

"Al C-F" > wrote
in message ...
> gds wrote:
>
> >
> > Police assigned blame about equally beteen cyclists and
motorists.
>
> Interesting - I doubt that this would be the case in UK. (Unless
you
> count 'it's your fault for riding a bike')
> >
> > #1 fault for cyclists was riding in traffic in the wrong
direction.
>
> Easy to avoid doing this.
> >
> > #1 fault for motorists was "hooking" (rt turn into a cyclist)
>
> Claim the lane and it won't happen.

But here in London, where it's left turn, of course, because we drive
on the left, about a quarter of all cyclist fatalities arise from
left hooks. The motor vehicle is almost always a truck, not a car.
Trucks often have to pull away from the curb to get round the corner,
and novice cyclists tend to move into the gap.

There are three factors that might be involved, but might not - I
have no information, but would like to get some. Those factors are:

- the railings often placed on the sidewalk to regulate pedestrian
crossing
- bike lanes
- advanced stop lines for bikes (ASLs) at traffic lights.

Jeremy Parker

[Mark Hickey]

"Mike Kruger" > wrote:

>"Mark Hickey" > wrote in message
...
>
>> ... I pulled up to a wash that was
>> out (waaaaay out) near a popular tourist trap (Tortilla Flat for those
>> of you who know the area), in my mildly lifted Jeep Cherokee. Since
>> 4WDs seem to be the most common victim of "attempted crossings", I
>> noticed several locals looking at me and getting their cameras ready.
>>
>This reminds me of an article which noted that 4WD were the most likely
>vehicles to have problems in the snow in Chicago. Same overconfidence,
>different conditions, equivalent result.

Driven correctly, they're the safest thing going in the snow. Driven
by an idiot without respect for the laws of physics, they're a
demolition derby waiting to happen. ;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

[Alex Potter]

Mark Hickey wrote on Saturday 17 December 2005 15:58:

> Driven correctly, they're the safest thing going in the snow.
And great fun!
--
Regards
Alex
The From address above is a spam-trap.
The Reply-To address is valid

[The Wogster]

Mark Hickey wrote:
> "Mike Kruger" > wrote:
>
>
>>"Mark Hickey" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>
>>>... I pulled up to a wash that was
>>>out (waaaaay out) near a popular tourist trap (Tortilla Flat for those
>>>of you who know the area), in my mildly lifted Jeep Cherokee. Since
>>>4WDs seem to be the most common victim of "attempted crossings", I
>>>noticed several locals looking at me and getting their cameras ready.
>>>
>>
>>This reminds me of an article which noted that 4WD were the most likely
>>vehicles to have problems in the snow in Chicago. Same overconfidence,
>>different conditions, equivalent result.
>
>
> Driven correctly, they're the safest thing going in the snow. Driven
> by an idiot without respect for the laws of physics, they're a
> demolition derby waiting to happen. ;-)

Snow isn't the big problem, because snow actually offers fairly good
friction in a fairly thick layer.

The problem is ice, especially wet ice, because ice is slippery, and
water adds lubrication, so a tire has no friction, and that is what
causes problems. It's also why using road salt on snow is stupid, in
temperatures below about -5C, warm tires cause the salty snow to melt
into water, and as soon as the cold hits it, it freezes into salt water
ice, if there is regular traffic, it becomes wet ice, and as I stated
above the friction properties of wet ice are about zero. Much better is
to use sand, sand is gritty, so it adds to the friction properties of
snow......

Of course using sensible driving habits, and knowing your vehicles
limits in the snow, all help.

W

[Mark Hickey]

The Wogster > wrote:

>Snow isn't the big problem, because snow actually offers fairly good
>friction in a fairly thick layer.

Exactly!

>The problem is ice, especially wet ice, because ice is slippery, and
>water adds lubrication, so a tire has no friction, and that is what
>causes problems. It's also why using road salt on snow is stupid, in
>temperatures below about -5C, warm tires cause the salty snow to melt
>into water, and as soon as the cold hits it, it freezes into salt water
>ice, if there is regular traffic, it becomes wet ice, and as I stated
>above the friction properties of wet ice are about zero. Much better is
>to use sand, sand is gritty, so it adds to the friction properties of
>snow......

I remember one "perfect storm" in southern Illinois. Wet slush on the
ground, followed by hail (which froze into the wet slush), then
drizzle (which froze over the icy bumps). By morning, the drizzle
wasn't freezing, so now you had wet icy bumps for traction.

I've never seen anything like it. We watched the few cars on the road
try to get up the VERY slight grade in front of our house. If they
got even slightly off the center crown of the road, they'd simply
slide sideways into the ditch (no forward momentum at all). We'd them
go and push them back into the center of the road - sideways. It was
hard to WALK on the stuff - once you got "up to speed" you could just
stop walking and you'd keep moving the same direction and speed
(though the direction you'd be facing while doing so was random).

>Of course using sensible driving habits, and knowing your vehicles
>limits in the snow, all help.

That's the key. We used to amuse ourselves by piling four people into
a car and trying to see who could drive through the worst conditions.
The results tended to be spectacular. The "losers" usually had
repairs to do - the "winners" got pretty good at driving in snow. One
of the necessary skills was the "bat turn" - if you lost traction
going up a hill, you'd just let the car ROLL (not slide) back down the
hill, crank the wheel, stab the brakes, wait for the front end to come
around, then drive out of the slide. That technique actually came in
handy once on a dry road (don't ask...)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

[The Wogster]

Mark Hickey wrote:
> The Wogster > wrote:
>
>
>>Snow isn't the big problem, because snow actually offers fairly good
>>friction in a fairly thick layer.
>
>
> Exactly!
>
>
>>The problem is ice, especially wet ice, because ice is slippery, and
>>water adds lubrication, so a tire has no friction, and that is what
>>causes problems. It's also why using road salt on snow is stupid, in
>>temperatures below about -5C, warm tires cause the salty snow to melt
>>into water, and as soon as the cold hits it, it freezes into salt water
>>ice, if there is regular traffic, it becomes wet ice, and as I stated
>>above the friction properties of wet ice are about zero. Much better is
>>to use sand, sand is gritty, so it adds to the friction properties of
>>snow......
>
>
> I remember one "perfect storm" in southern Illinois. Wet slush on the
> ground, followed by hail (which froze into the wet slush), then
> drizzle (which froze over the icy bumps). By morning, the drizzle
> wasn't freezing, so now you had wet icy bumps for traction.
>
> I've never seen anything like it. We watched the few cars on the road
> try to get up the VERY slight grade in front of our house. If they
> got even slightly off the center crown of the road, they'd simply
> slide sideways into the ditch (no forward momentum at all). We'd them
> go and push them back into the center of the road - sideways. It was
> hard to WALK on the stuff - once you got "up to speed" you could just
> stop walking and you'd keep moving the same direction and speed
> (though the direction you'd be facing while doing so was random).
>

Every winter, there is at least one day, where the police department
says, if you don't have to drive anywhere, don't. Of course Peter
Paperpusher knows that if he doesn't DRIVE to the office, that the world
will end immediately. Of course he can still get to the office, a walk
and a subway ride away, but that doesn't count. And 47,000 pencil
pushers, end up in 35,000 traffic collisions, and the insurance
companies jack everybodies rates up, yet again.

I grew up in a small town in the snow belt, where on a day with 20cm of
fresh snow overnight, people didn't even bother to stick their noses out
the door until after the plow had been through, and then it was to clear
the drive, so they could go out the next day.

As a teen in those days, I had the process down pat, go out to the shed,
grab the shovels, and clear my own driveway in about 15 minutes. Then
with shovel over shoulder, go for a walk. Lots of neighbours wouldn't
mind parting with some cash (usually about $5), to save them the work of
doing it themselves...... You could do about 4 an hour, so with 5 hours
work, you got $100.00. Hmmm, 4 or 5 storms like that, and you could
have bought a decent road bike. Which I did one year....

W

[willarch]

Mark Hickey wrote:
The Wogster wrote:


Snow isn't the big problem, because snow actually offers fairly good
friction in a fairly thick layer.


Exactly!


The problem is ice, especially wet ice, because ice is slippery, and
water adds lubrication, so a tire has no friction, and that is what
causes problems. It's also why using road salt on snow is stupid, in
temperatures below about -5C, warm tires cause the salty snow to melt
into water, and as soon as the cold hits it, it freezes into salt water
ice, if there is regular traffic, it becomes wet ice, and as I stated
above the friction properties of wet ice are about zero. Much better is
to use sand, sand is gritty, so it adds to the friction properties of
snow......


I remember one "perfect storm" in southern Illinois. Wet slush on the
ground, followed by hail (which froze into the wet slush), then
drizzle (which froze over the icy bumps). By morning, the drizzle
wasn't freezing, so now you had wet icy bumps for traction.

I've never seen anything like it. We watched the few cars on the road
try to get up the VERY slight grade in front of our house. If they
got even slightly off the center crown of the road, they'd simply
slide sideways into the ditch (no forward momentum at all). We'd them
go and push them back into the center of the road - sideways. It was
hard to WALK on the stuff - once you got "up to speed" you could just
stop walking and you'd keep moving the same direction and speed
(though the direction you'd be facing while doing so was random).


Every winter, there is at least one day, where the police department
says, if you don't have to drive anywhere, don't. Of course Peter
Paperpusher knows that if he doesn't DRIVE to the office, that the world
will end immediately. Of course he can still get to the office, a walk
and a subway ride away, but that doesn't count. And 47,000 pencil
pushers, end up in 35,000 traffic collisions, and the insurance
companies jack everybodies rates up, yet again.

I grew up in a small town in the snow belt, where on a day with 20cm of
fresh snow overnight, people didn't even bother to stick their noses out
the door until after the plow had been through, and then it was to clear
the drive, so they could go out the next day.

As a teen in those days, I had the process down pat, go out to the shed,
grab the shovels, and clear my own driveway in about 15 minutes. Then
with shovel over shoulder, go for a walk. Lots of neighbours wouldn't
mind parting with some cash (usually about $5), to save them the work of
doing it themselves...... You could do about 4 an hour, so with 5 hours
work, you got $100.00. Hmmm, 4 or 5 storms like that, and you could
have bought a decent road bike. Which I did one year....

W

To get back to the original subject:-

Is cycling safe? Depends on how you measure safety - likelihood of an incident, or severity of result. And what degree of risk are you prepared to accept before deciding not to ride - this will vary depending how enjoyable you find cycling, and how far you accept that life is inherently risky, or to what degree you think we can be kept in cotton-wooled security all our lives.

Likelihood is fairly low, even by official statistics, but these exaggerate danger by measuring in terms of accidents per mile, where accidents per hour of exposure would give a more equitable measure, since cyclists travel more slowly than cars and are exposed for a longer time per mile travelled.

Since a cycle is travelling relatively slowly, severity of an incident is more likely to be lower, particularly if a motor vehicle is not involved.

Biggest factor is that you are performing a quite skilled balancing act, and most of the risk is from the danger of losing balance.

In my case, I have come off the bike twice in 52 years - once through touched handlebars, once through mud on the road. The first put me in hospital for a day, the second I rode away from. Is that an intolerable degree of risk? Balance that risk with the point that I have type 2 diabetes for which exercise is an essential part of treatment, and my cycling plays a major role (together with diet regime) in keeping the illness under control. Which is the worst risk - a possible accident on the bike, or the certainty of the diabetes worsening if I don't exercise?

Statistically, the riskiest activity is going to bed. Far more people die in bed than anywhere else.

[The Wogster]

willarch wrote:

> To get back to the original subject:-
>
> Is cycling safe? Depends on how you measure safety - likelihood of an
> incident, or severity of result. And what degree of risk are you
> prepared to accept before deciding not to ride - this will vary
> depending how enjoyable you find cycling, and how far you accept that
> life is inherently risky, or to what degree you think we can be kept in
> cotton-wooled security all our lives.

It's not that simple, not only is there a risk of cycling, there is also
a risk of not cycling. Unless you replace that cycling with other
exercise (also risky), you gain lots of weight, and are more likely to
have heart attacks, strokes, diabetes, all of which can be worse then a
cycling collision.

>
> Likelihood is fairly low, even by official statistics, but these
> exaggerate danger by measuring in terms of accidents per mile, where
> accidents per hour of exposure would give a more equitable measure,
> since cyclists travel more slowly than cars and are exposed for a
> longer time per mile travelled.

Usually such stats are accidents per million miles, or per million
hours, just to get the numbers into reasonably large values. Now
although a bicycle travels slower then a car, it also is much more
manuverable, you have much greater potential awareness of what is around
you, and bike brakes are much more effective, and controlable then car
brakes.

>
> Since a cycle is travelling relatively slowly, severity of an incident
> is more likely to be lower, particularly if a motor vehicle is not
> involved.
>
> Biggest factor is that you are performing a quite skilled balancing
> act, and most of the risk is from the danger of losing balance.
>
> In my case, I have come off the bike twice in 52 years - once through
> touched handlebars, once through mud on the road. The first put me in
> hospital for a day, the second I rode away from. Is that an intolerable
> degree of risk? Balance that risk with the point that I have type 2
> diabetes for which exercise is an essential part of treatment, and my
> cycling plays a major role (together with diet regime) in keeping the
> illness under control. Which is the worst risk - a possible accident on
> the bike, or the certainty of the diabetes worsening if I don't
> exercise?

Tis true, you check your sugar, and it's high, darn, shouldn't have had
that slice of pizza. Go for a nice bike ride, and it comes down pretty
quick, which can mean putting off taking the pills for another year, or
not needing as many of them.

W