The best way to improve safety for cyclists in a city...

[Paul R]

What do you think is the best way to improve safety for cyclists in a city?
Why?

1) Mandatory helmet laws for all cyclists with strict enforcement.

2) Enforce existing laws against drivers. Significant charges for those who
kill or injure cyclists (guy got doored on University Ave (in Toronto), was
thrown into traffic and killed. Driver got 3 points (out of 15) and $105
fine). Take away the driving priviliges for repeat dangerous driving
offenders. Personally, I believe that in ANY altercation between a cyclist
and motorized vehicle, the motorized vehicle should be held 100% at fault.
Likewise, in any altercation between a cyclist and pedestrian the cyclist
should be held 100% responsible. This is unfair, but I think the benefits to
society outweigh the few cases where someone gets burned. Before people
start screaming, be aware that this is how the law is in Holland, a cyclists
utopia.

3) Education for drivers on handling cyclists safely

4) Better traffic planning. Extensive changes to existing infrastructure.
Widen streets or remove extra lane.

5) Extensive system of bike paths

6) Provide significant tax breaks for cyclists who commute to work (like
drivers get tax breaks on the highways, parking lots etc.). These breaks
should reflect the improvements to society gained by having more cyclists on
the road (improved safety for cyclists, improved air, reduced congestion,
reduced noise, reduced use of materials and energy, improved health of
cyclist (more important in Canada than US with public health system) etc.).

7) Licensing for cyclists - they must prove they know how to ride safely in
traffic

I believe that no's 2, and 6 are the best. I think that helmet laws won't
change anything - it will still be open season on cyclists, as it is now.
The more cyclists on the streets, the safer we are.

That's what I think,

Paul

[Dragan Cvetkovic]

"Paul R" > writes:

> Widen streets or remove extra lane.

What do you mean here? I am not sure I understand what you propose.

Dragan

--
Dragan Cvetkovic,

To be or not to be is true. G. Boole No it isn't. L. E. J. Brouwer

!!! Sender/From address is bogus. Use reply-to one !!!

[Paul R]

"Dragan Cvetkovic" > wrote in message
...
> "Paul R" > writes:
>
> > Widen streets or remove extra lane.
>
> What do you mean here? I am not sure I understand what you propose.
>
> Dragan
>

Some people believe that bike lanes are inherently unsafe. They believe that
the best way to ensure drivers treat cyclists with respect is to have
cyclists part of traffic.

Personally, I feel safest on streets with extra wide curb lanes.

If a street has two lanes travelling the same direction, one lane could be
removed and dedicated to cyclists.

During rush hour here in downtown Toronto (at least in summer), there are
often upwards of 5-10 or even more bikes waiting at a stop light. they could
almost fill up a car lane.

Cheers,
Paul

[Dan]

"Paul R" > wrote in :

> What do you think is the best way to improve safety for cyclists in a
> city? Why?
>
> 1) Mandatory helmet laws for all cyclists with strict enforcement.
>
> 2) Enforce existing laws against drivers. Significant charges for
> those who kill or injure cyclists (guy got doored on University Ave
> (in Toronto), was thrown into traffic and killed. Driver got 3 points
> (out of 15) and $105 fine). Take away the driving priviliges for
> repeat dangerous driving offenders. Personally, I believe that in ANY
> altercation between a cyclist and motorized vehicle, the motorized
> vehicle should be held 100% at fault. Likewise, in any altercation
> between a cyclist and pedestrian the cyclist should be held 100%
> responsible. This is unfair, but I think the benefits to society
> outweigh the few cases where someone gets burned. Before people start
> screaming, be aware that this is how the law is in Holland, a cyclists
> utopia.
>
> 3) Education for drivers on handling cyclists safely
>
> 4) Better traffic planning. Extensive changes to existing
> infrastructure. Widen streets or remove extra lane.
>
> 5) Extensive system of bike paths
>
> 6) Provide significant tax breaks for cyclists who commute to work
> (like drivers get tax breaks on the highways, parking lots etc.).
> These breaks should reflect the improvements to society gained by
> having more cyclists on the road (improved safety for cyclists,
> improved air, reduced congestion, reduced noise, reduced use of
> materials and energy, improved health of cyclist (more important in
> Canada than US with public health system) etc.).
>
> 7) Licensing for cyclists - they must prove they know how to ride
> safely in traffic
>
> I believe that no's 2, and 6 are the best. I think that helmet laws
> won't change anything - it will still be open season on cyclists, as
> it is now. The more cyclists on the streets, the safer we are.
>
> That's what I think,
>
> Paul
>
>
>

2,3,4 and 6. Europeans make it work, USA can too!

Dan

Cell phones and drunk drivers are a bikers worst nightmare!

[Micheal Artindale]

"Paul R" > wrote in message ...
> What do you think is the best way to improve safety for cyclists in a
city?
> Why?
>
> 1) Mandatory helmet laws for all cyclists with strict enforcement.

YES

>
> 2) Enforce existing laws against drivers. Significant charges for those
who
> kill or injure cyclists (guy got doored on University Ave (in Toronto),
was
> thrown into traffic and killed. Driver got 3 points (out of 15) and $105
> fine). Take away the driving priviliges for repeat dangerous driving
> offenders. Personally, I believe that in ANY altercation between a cyclist
> and motorized vehicle, the motorized vehicle should be held 100% at fault.
> Likewise, in any altercation between a cyclist and pedestrian the cyclist
> should be held 100% responsible. This is unfair, but I think the benefits
to
> society outweigh the few cases where someone gets burned. Before people
> start screaming, be aware that this is how the law is in Holland, a
cyclists
> utopia.

YES

>
> 3) Education for drivers on handling cyclists safely

YES

>
> 4) Better traffic planning. Extensive changes to existing infrastructure.
> Widen streets or remove extra lane.

YES

>
> 5) Extensive system of bike paths

YES

>
> 6) Provide significant tax breaks for cyclists who commute to work (like
> drivers get tax breaks on the highways, parking lots etc.). These breaks
> should reflect the improvements to society gained by having more cyclists
on
> the road (improved safety for cyclists, improved air, reduced congestion,
> reduced noise, reduced use of materials and energy, improved health of
> cyclist (more important in Canada than US with public health system)
etc.).

YES

>
> 7) Licensing for cyclists - they must prove they know how to ride safely
in
> traffic

YES

>
> I believe that no's 2, and 6 are the best. I think that helmet laws won't
> change anything - it will still be open season on cyclists, as it is now.
> The more cyclists on the streets, the safer we are.
>
> That's what I think,
>
> Paul
>
>

One change wont solve the problem, byt make significant changes to
everything, and the problem is less than a problem


Micheal

[Terry Morse]

Paul R wrote:

> What do you think is the best way to improve safety for cyclists in a city?
> Why?
>
> 4) Better traffic planning. Extensive changes to existing infrastructure.
> Widen streets or remove extra lane.

#4, definitely. Why? Because wider lanes work. As does traffic
calming.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

[Claire Petersky]

"Dragan Cvetkovic" > wrote in message
...
> "Paul R" > writes:
>
> > Widen streets or remove extra lane.
>
> What do you mean here? I am not sure I understand what you propose.

My assumption is that what is proposed here is the reduction of a four-lane
street to three. This has several benefits:
a. central two-way turn lane means that through-traffic is not delayed by
left-turning traffic
b. room is created for shoulder or bike lane
c. the traffic lanes look narrower to the motorists and thus vehicle speeds
are diminished, as demonstrated in Portland, Oregon (USA).
(http://www.lakesammfriends.org/BikeLanesCalmTraffic.html)


--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
please substitute yahoo for mousepotato to reply
Home of the meditative cyclist:
http://home.earthlink.net/~cpetersky/Welcome.htm
Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky

[Robert Haston]

1. Seeing that the protective Styrofoam hat is the last (and pretty much
least important) factor in a mishap, I would leave it there. I hate to
think of all the kids who have died after their parents filled their heads
with little more information than how magically powerful their fancy helmet
was.

2. I agree, but more precisely, our first problem is we treat traffic laws
like etiquette. People who speed everywhere (like everyone else) and think
it is A-OK despite the death toll, are inflamed by a cyclist running a stop
sign - a cyclist who could do little more to them than scratch their paint.

3. Drivers will just ignore whatever training they feel isn't important to
them. You have to change the whole situation. In the US (and third world)
cyclists are seen as reckless suicidal road-kill. It is more than just
traffic safety.

4. Instead of attempting to re-route present spending to change how we build
roads, stop the nearly 1 trillion a year subsidizing drivers that keeps
people from cycling. The #1 factor in making cycling safe is more cyclists
on the roads. Property taxes pay for roads, fire and police services for
accidents, runoff, etc. Income taxes pay to defend oil. And let's not
forget "free" parking. If driving suddenly became a dime or three more
expensive per mile, you would see more cycling.

5. NO NO NO. The reason we made bike paths is because we disconnected all
our side streets. I never needed a bike path where I grew up, and I never
bicycled more than a few blocks on a major road. Mandate that any new
subdivision be connected at least via bike path, and any isolated
subdivisions be connected where feasible. If we would never have provided
free urban school bussing (saving all the money for education, not
transportation) people would have chosen to save the few bucks per day per
kid; and live in closer, connected suburbs.

6. NO NO again. Don't subsidize cyclists - de-subsidize drivers. Give
every employee the cash it costs to provide his free parking, then charge
them only if they use it. The tax laws are changing towards this.

7. Rather than giving cyclists licenses, I would rather see a really good
safety education program, geared towards the local area, then give people
licenses which prove they have taken the course. A $10 fee or so would be
enough to pay the instructor. It would be worth far more just as insurance
in case you (our your surviving spouse) find yourself in court. That's also
the main reason I wear a helmet. I would rather hear my lawyer say "Mr.
Haston was a very experienced road cyclist. Aside from reading a whole book
on cycling safety, he attended the certified safety training for his
district, and always wore his helmet. Better this than the opposition's
lawyer saying "Mr. Haston was clearly reckless - he wasn't even wearing a
helmet".

Best Solutions? I think eliminating all subsidies for driving or using oil
is the first real solution. When the high gas taxes, tolls, and parking
costs drive millions of more people to bicycle, these problems will be
reduced. Look at European cities where anywhere from one out of ten to one
out of three trips are by bike.


"Paul R" > wrote in message ...
> What do you think is the best way to improve safety for cyclists in a
> city?
> Why?
>
> 1) Mandatory helmet laws for all cyclists with strict enforcement.
>
> 2) Enforce existing laws against drivers. Significant charges for those
> who
> kill or injure cyclists (guy got doored on University Ave (in Toronto),
> was
> thrown into traffic and killed. Driver got 3 points (out of 15) and $105
> fine). Take away the driving priviliges for repeat dangerous driving
> offenders. Personally, I believe that in ANY altercation between a cyclist
> and motorized vehicle, the motorized vehicle should be held 100% at fault.
> Likewise, in any altercation between a cyclist and pedestrian the cyclist
> should be held 100% responsible. This is unfair, but I think the benefits
> to
> society outweigh the few cases where someone gets burned. Before people
> start screaming, be aware that this is how the law is in Holland, a
> cyclists
> utopia.
>
> 3) Education for drivers on handling cyclists safely
>
> 4) Better traffic planning. Extensive changes to existing infrastructure.
> Widen streets or remove extra lane.
>
> 5) Extensive system of bike paths
>
> 6) Provide significant tax breaks for cyclists who commute to work (like
> drivers get tax breaks on the highways, parking lots etc.). These breaks
> should reflect the improvements to society gained by having more cyclists
> on
> the road (improved safety for cyclists, improved air, reduced congestion,
> reduced noise, reduced use of materials and energy, improved health of
> cyclist (more important in Canada than US with public health system)
> etc.).
>
> 7) Licensing for cyclists - they must prove they know how to ride safely
> in
> traffic
>
> I believe that no's 2, and 6 are the best. I think that helmet laws won't
> change anything - it will still be open season on cyclists, as it is now.
> The more cyclists on the streets, the safer we are.
>
> That's what I think,
>
> Paul
>
>

[Mitch Haley]

Robert Haston wrote:
> 6. NO NO again. Don't subsidize cyclists - de-subsidize drivers. Give
> every employee the cash it costs to provide his free parking, then charge
> them only if they use it. The tax laws are changing towards this.
>

The European model "subsidizes" cyclists by not making them pay motor fuel tax,
same as in USA. The difference is that the motor fuel taxes over there are
a notable fraction of the total cost of owning/operating a car. A 20mpg car
averaging a thousand miles a month in the USA might cost $25 a month in tax
on the fuel, as compared to $100 - $200 a month in Europe. Increasing the
USA fuel taxes would be the simplest way to de-subsidize driving.

Mitch.

[Hugh Jass]

"Paul R" > wrote
> 7) Licensing for cyclists - they must prove they know how to ride safely in
> traffic


Great points Paul. I think #7 is best in theory but how can it be put into practice?
Like car exams? I guess.

When I was about 11 years old, my school had a bike safety course for an hour
a week for six weeks, after school hours. My mother signed me up coz I was
spending a lot of time on streets riding my BMX ( the 1st time it was around -
circa 1982). I was downright embarrassed in front of my friends just for being
one of the 'geeks' that was taking part, ye know what kids are like.

Anyway, my point is that more than 20 years later I still remember little things
from that course ( safe turns/signals/observation etc) and I still signal automatically,
the exact way that we were thought.

Maybe it could be introduced at a young age?

[Hugh Jass]

....outlaw taxis

:-)

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
"Hugh Jass" > writes:
>
> "Paul R" > wrote
>> 7) Licensing for cyclists - they must prove they know how to ride safely in
>> traffic
>
>
> Great points Paul. I think #7 is best in theory

NNNNnnnooooooo!!!!

There has never been a need for formal testing & licensing
of bicyclists -- no more than for pedestrians. To inflict
such formality on just plain gettin' around is just too
majestically overblown.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[Hugh Jass]

"Tom Keats" > wrote
> "Hugh Jass" > writes:

> > Great points Paul. I think #7 is best in theory


OK. I meant training as opposed to licensing.

>
> NNNNnnnooooooo!!!!
>
> There has never been a need for formal testing & licensing
> of bicyclists -- no more than for pedestrians. To inflict
> such formality on just plain gettin' around is just too
> majestically overblown.


I disagree. I'm on the road most of the day and see so many
people that cannot ride a bike properly. While educating drivers
is paramount, it would be nice as a cyclist if he/she had an instinct
to control a dodgy situation.

[Matt O'Toole]

Hugh Jass wrote:

> When I was about 11 years old, my school had a bike safety course for
> an hour
> a week for six weeks, after school hours. My mother signed me up coz
> I was
> spending a lot of time on streets riding my BMX ( the 1st time it was
> around -
> circa 1982). I was downright embarrassed in front of my friends just
> for being
> one of the 'geeks' that was taking part, ye know what kids are like.

They did this when I was a kid too. But we all did it, and no one thought it
was geeky. *Most* kids rode bikes to school. Sadly, in the same neighborhood,
almost no kids ride bikes anymore. And nothing has changed to explain this,
except the culture.

> Anyway, my point is that more than 20 years later I still remember
> little things
> from that course ( safe turns/signals/observation etc) and I still
> signal automatically, the exact way that we were thought.

> Maybe it could be introduced at a young age?

I think this kind of training early on makes kids better drivers later in life.

Matt O.

[Zoot Katz]

Wed, 10 Nov 2004 00:16:37 -0500, >,
"Matt O'Toole" > wrote:

>
>> Anyway, my point is that more than 20 years later I still remember
>> little things
>> from that course ( safe turns/signals/observation etc) and I still
>> signal automatically, the exact way that we were thought.
>
>> Maybe it could be introduced at a young age?
>
>I think this kind of training early on makes kids better drivers later in life.

Yep, in 2nd year high school driver training, at fifteen and a half
years old, it was like, 'What are you going through all this stuff
for? We learned this on our bikes in third through sixth grade.'

A motorcycle safety course taught me more about driving and riding a
bicycle.
--
zk

[Michael J. Klein]

On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 22:42:03 -0500, "Hugh Jass"
> wrote:

>
>"Tom Keats" > wrote
>> "Hugh Jass" > writes:
>
>> > Great points Paul. I think #7 is best in theory
>
>
>OK. I meant training as opposed to licensing.
>
>>
>> NNNNnnnooooooo!!!!
>>
>> There has never been a need for formal testing & licensing
>> of bicyclists -- no more than for pedestrians. To inflict
>> such formality on just plain gettin' around is just too
>> majestically overblown.
>
>
>I disagree. I'm on the road most of the day and see so many
>people that cannot ride a bike properly. While educating drivers
>is paramount, it would be nice as a cyclist if he/she had an instinct
>to control a dodgy situation.

Oh yeah, licensing will solve that problem. Just as licensing makes
drivers obey the laws and the roads safer.

Michael J. Klein
Dasi Jen, Taoyuan Hsien, Taiwan, ROC
Please replace mousepotato with asiancastings
---------------------------------------------

[Peter Cole]

"Paul R" > wrote in message
...
> What do you think is the best way to improve safety for cyclists in a
city?
> Why?
>
> 1) Mandatory helmet laws for all cyclists with strict enforcement.
> 2) Enforce existing laws against drivers.
> 3) Education for drivers on handling cyclists safely
> 4) Better traffic planning. Extensive changes to existing infrastructure.
> Widen streets or remove extra lane.
> 5) Extensive system of bike paths
> 6) Provide significant tax breaks for cyclists
> 7) Licensing for cyclists -

2, 3, and 4. 6 would be nice.

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 22:42:03 -0500, "Hugh Jass"
> wrote:

>I'm on the road most of the day and see so many
>people that cannot ride a bike properly.

One large study in Oxford showed that about one in four cyclists are
responsible for crashes in which they are injured, but over half of
pedestrians. Pedestrian license anyone?

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

[Brian Huntley]

"Hugh Jass" > wrote in message >...
> ...outlaw taxis
>
> :-)

These might be somewhat Toronto specific:

Fix the part of the Canadian federal tax code that allows companies
like UPS to deduct their parking fines from their taxes.

Raise fines and enforce no-parking on major routes during rush hours,
and on bike lanes at all times.

Require Canada Post to stop emptying their mailboxes between 5 and 6
PM (and blocking the streets with their trucks.)

Require the city parking authourity to stop servicing their "Smart
meters" during rush hour (and blocking the streets with their trucks.)

Ban "Sign Trucks."

[Maggie]

"Matt O'Toole" > wrote in message >...
> Hugh Jass wrote:
>
> > Anyway, my point is that more than 20 years later I still remember
> > little things
> > from that course ( safe turns/signals/observation etc) and I still
> > signal automatically, the exact way that we were thought.
>
> > Maybe it could be introduced at a young age?
>
> I think this kind of training early on makes kids better drivers later in life.
>
> Matt O.

Both my sons took bicycle safety when they were boys. Both of them
took the motorcycle safety training course as young men. Ask me what
kind of drivers they are.
My daughter never took a single safety class for riding her bike. She
does not ride a motorcycle...so no safety lessons there.....ask me
what kind of driver she is?
It will definately shoot down your theory.
You can put a person in a safety class, tie him to the chair, force
him to listen......but it beats me what the heck it accomplishes.
Maybe in a perfect world it works for everyone.
Considering both sons skydive and love extreme sports...maybe
personality has something to do with how safely a person drives. If
having fun is jumping out of an airplane, snowboarding, flying down
ramps while skateboarding, and flying through the mud on a dirtbike in
the woods, I don't know how focused you are on staying safe. When they
were boys, a bicycle was not fun unless you built three ramps in the
driveway and tried to jump them on your brand new Mongoose....No
matter how many safety classes you take I do believe personality is a
factor here.
http://hometown.aol.com/lbuset/

[Jeremy Parker]

"Paul R" > wrote in message
...
> What do you think is the best way to improve safety for cyclists in
a city?

get them to read either

"Street Smarts" by John Allen

"Cyclecraft" by John Franklin

"Effective Cycling" by John Forester

and ban anyone from riding who hasn't read one of these books.

Reasons

It has been estimated, from surveys of experienced cyclists, that
experience reduces the accident rate by 80%. However it has also
been estimated that acquiring this experience takes either 50 000
miles of riding alone, or 5000 miles riding with a club - and not all
bike clubs are filled with people who will pass on good advice rather
than bad.

It's better to learn from other people's mistakes, rather than your
own, and it's best to do that quickly.

The advantage of this method is that it equips you to ride on the
roads of today. It will work for you even if every other cyclist in
town remains a total plonker. Even in the unlikely event that it's
your city that gets chosen to become utopia, and that it happens in
your lifetime, you still might want to ride outside the border of the
utopian zone.

Thus I've implictly supported a varient of Paul's no 7. Here in
London UK bike education, for both adults and children, is widely
available, and at last, this year, only 80 years or so after large
numbers of cyclists and motorists began sharing the roads with each
other, there is a standardised nationwide list of what cyclists ought
to know. it's probably not a perfect list, but having a list at all
is a start

Regarding Paul's no 6, tax breaks, there was a study here that found
that, to fulfill the then British national target of doubling
cycling, building door to door bike paths for everybody would not
work. On the other hand paying everybody 3 GBP (about $5 US) per
trip would, instantly. Maybe you could build that into the tax
system. Furthermore just getting more bikes on the road system seems
to make cycling safer for everyone, even if every cyclist retains
their previous rate of cluelessness.

This points out that Paul's no 1, helmets, would likely make cycling
more dangerous rather than less. Helmets never prevent an accident,
of course, and are pretty useless at mitigating the accidents that
continue to occur. Helmet laws are a proven deterrent to cycling,
and the resultant decrease in cycling will therefore make accidents
more likely for those cyclists who remain. That's even without any
additional effects that might occur from risk compensation by cyclist
or motorist.

Jeremy Parker
London UK

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 19:43:17 -0000, "Jeremy Parker"
> wrote in message
>:

>get them to read either
>"Street Smarts" by John Allen
>"Cyclecraft" by John Franklin
>"Effective Cycling" by John Forester
>and ban anyone from riding who hasn't read one of these books.

Amen to that.

John can buy me a pint next time I see him from all the extra
royalties :-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

[Jym Dyer]

=v= The best way to improve safety for cyclists in a city is
to have more cyclists in the city:

http://ip.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/9/3/205

http://ip.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/9/3/205

Unfortunately, some of your recommendations would have the
opposite effect.

> 1) Mandatory helmet laws for all cyclists with strict
> enforcement.

=v= I'm not going to get into the Neverending Usenet Helmet
Flamewar, but I will note that cities that have succeeded in
getting lots of people on bikes don't have such a requirement.

> 4) ... Widen streets ...

=v= A widened street is a street that motorists speed up on (in
the short term), which is dangerous to cyclists. Once motorists
find out that the street is faster, they come and saturate it,
leading to more congestion and pollution (in the long run).

> 7) Licensing for cyclists ...

=v= Again, not a requirement in cities that have succesfully
gotten lots of people on bikes.
<_Jym_>

[Jym Dyer]

> One large study in Oxford showed that about one in four
> cyclists are responsible for crashes in which they are
> injured, but over half of pedestrians. Pedestrian license
> anyone?

=v= What data was this study based on?

=v= In the U.S., this data comes from police reports. Studies
conducted by the organization Right Of Way revealed a consistent
flaw in police reports for fatalities of pedestrians and
bicyclists: if there weren't any eyewitnesses, police accepted
the testimony of the motorist, and didn't investigate further.
This meant the deceased was declared "at fault," to an extent
that messes up the official statistics.
<_Jym_>

[Robert Haston]

Wrong. You aren't subsidizing one thing by removing the subsidy for
something it competes with. De-subsidizing cars is not "subsidizing" bikes.
As a matter of fact, you could drop the pittance of true subsidies cyclists
get from motor fuel taxes.

This just reflects the almost genetic American myth that drivers pay their
own way. The truth is for urban drivers driving cheaper cars, they get more
in subsidies (often well over a quarter a mile) than they pay to drive.


"Mitch Haley" > wrote in message
...
> Robert Haston wrote:
>> 6. NO NO again. Don't subsidize cyclists - de-subsidize drivers. Give
>> every employee the cash it costs to provide his free parking, then charge
>> them only if they use it. The tax laws are changing towards this.
>>
>
> The European model "subsidizes" cyclists by not making them pay motor fuel
> tax,
> same as in USA. The difference is that the motor fuel taxes over there are
> a notable fraction of the total cost of owning/operating a car. A 20mpg
> car
> averaging a thousand miles a month in the USA might cost $25 a month in
> tax
> on the fuel, as compared to $100 - $200 a month in Europe. Increasing the
> USA fuel taxes would be the simplest way to de-subsidize driving.
>
> Mitch.

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On 10 Nov 2004 15:45:28 -0800, Jym Dyer > wrote:

>> One large study in Oxford showed that about one in four
>> cyclists are responsible for crashes in which they are
>> injured, but over half of pedestrians. Pedestrian license
>> anyone?

>=v= What data was this study based on?

STATS19 returns and interviews, IIRC - police reports with subsequent
checks.

>=v= In the U.S., this data comes from police reports. Studies
>conducted by the organization Right Of Way revealed a consistent
>flaw in police reports for fatalities of pedestrians and
>bicyclists: if there weren't any eyewitnesses, police accepted
>the testimony of the motorist, and didn't investigate further.
>This meant the deceased was declared "at fault," to an extent
>that messes up the official statistics.

Also an issue here. The figure of 25% cyclist blame is often regarded
as an upper limit.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

[Michael J. Klein]

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 21:52:07 -0800, Zoot Katz >
wrote:

>Wed, 10 Nov 2004 00:16:37 -0500, >,
>"Matt O'Toole" > wrote:
>
>>
>>> Anyway, my point is that more than 20 years later I still remember
>>> little things
>>> from that course ( safe turns/signals/observation etc) and I still
>>> signal automatically, the exact way that we were thought.
>>
>>> Maybe it could be introduced at a young age?
>>
>>I think this kind of training early on makes kids better drivers later in life.
>
>Yep, in 2nd year high school driver training, at fifteen and a half
>years old, it was like, 'What are you going through all this stuff
>for? We learned this on our bikes in third through sixth grade.'
>
>A motorcycle safety course taught me more about driving and riding a
>bicycle.

That was back in the days when children actually had fathers _and_
mothers at home who took time to teach them things.

Michael J. Klein
Dasi Jen, Taoyuan Hsien, Taiwan, ROC
Please replace mousepotato with asiancastings
---------------------------------------------

[Zoot Katz]

Wed, 10 Nov 2004 19:43:17 -0000,
>,
"Jeremy Parker" > wrote:

>
>and ban anyone from riding who hasn't read one of these books.
>
>Reasons

Accept applications for driving licenses only after those applicants
can demonstrate having survived two years in traffic on a bicycle. Or
persons with limited physical abilities that prevents their riding.
--
zk

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
"Paul R" > writes:

> What do you think is the best way to improve safety for cyclists in a city?

Advise 'em to move over as close to the centre of the road as
practicable (within their lane) while traversing intersections --
bearing in mind John Forester's advice on lane/direction
positioning.

> Why?

Because intersections are where most collisions happen, and
a curb-hugging rider is most likely to get clobbered.


cheers,
Tom
--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[Maggie]

"Hugh Jass" > wrote in message >...>
>
> I disagree. I'm on the road most of the day and see so many
> people that cannot ride a bike properly.

Do you live in Jersey....was it a middle aged woman with reddish brown
hair and a hysterical look on her face? ;-)

http://hometown.aol.com/lbuset/

[Matt O'Toole]

Michael J. Klein wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 21:52:07 -0800, Zoot Katz >
> wrote:
>
>> Wed, 10 Nov 2004 00:16:37 -0500, >,
>> "Matt O'Toole" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> Anyway, my point is that more than 20 years later I still remember
>>>> little things
>>>> from that course ( safe turns/signals/observation etc) and I still
>>>> signal automatically, the exact way that we were thought.
>>>
>>>> Maybe it could be introduced at a young age?
>>>
>>> I think this kind of training early on makes kids better drivers
>>> later in life.
>>
>> Yep, in 2nd year high school driver training, at fifteen and a half
>> years old, it was like, 'What are you going through all this stuff
>> for? We learned this on our bikes in third through sixth grade.'
>>
>> A motorcycle safety course taught me more about driving and riding a
>> bicycle.
>
> That was back in the days when children actually had fathers _and_
> mothers at home who took time to teach them things.

In the 70s, the divorce rate in the US was slightly worse than now. The crime
rate was actually much worse. So the broken home or increased danger excuses
don't work.

It's just a change in culture. People have become both lazy and paranoid.
Unfortunately they're teaching this to their kids.

Matt O.

[Matt O'Toole]

Zoot Katz wrote:

> Wed, 10 Nov 2004 19:43:17 -0000,
> >,
> "Jeremy Parker" > wrote:
>
>>
>> and ban anyone from riding who hasn't read one of these books.
>>
>> Reasons
>
> Accept applications for driving licenses only after those applicants
> can demonstrate having survived two years in traffic on a bicycle. Or
> persons with limited physical abilities that prevents their riding.

I say keep kids from driving until they're 18. Cars are a dangerous, expensive,
pointless distraction for teenagers.

The brightest, most productive, most successful people I know didn't even think
about cars until they graduated college. Even then, they usually moved to a
city where a car is impractical for a young fast-tracker on a budget.

Matt O.

[RobertH]

"Jeremy Parker" > wrote in message >...
> "Paul R" > wrote in message
> ...
> > What do you think is the best way to improve safety for cyclists in
> a city?
>
> get them to read either
>
> "Street Smarts" by John Allen
>
> "Cyclecraft" by John Franklin
>
> "Effective Cycling" by John Forester
>
> and ban anyone from riding who hasn't read one of these books.
<snip>


Not surprisingly, these decades old books have been
eclipsed in recent years by more nuanced resources
on the web and in print.

http://www.urbancycling.com/essays/methodindex.html

Robert

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On 17 Nov 2004 01:43:05 -0800, (RobertH) wrote:

>Not surprisingly, these decades old books have been
>eclipsed in recent years by more nuanced resources
>on the web and in print.

Cyclecraft has just been reprinted and is still the standard text for
cycling courses and tutors in the UK. The author is still an active
cycle safety researcher and campaigner.

The nature of your statement gives rise to the suspicion that you
disagree with some fundamental advice within those volumes. I wonder
what that might be?

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

[john turner uk]

my tips for safe bicycling:
1. wear a brightly coloured helmet - vehicles come from the front as
well as the back sometimes.
2. contining the theme of visibility,have something bright at the back
too, which brings me on to :
3.fix a rack to the back wheel and always use it if carrying stuff -
DON'T put your rucsac on your back - your skeleton is already doing a
lot of work so make it easy on yourself, and use the rack to display
something bright - i have an elasticated bungy strap with a white
plastic bag flapping at the back.
4. make sure your brakes are damned good.
5. be confident and 'compete' with motorists on equal terms. don't act
like an inferior and maybe you won't be treated like one.
6. eerrr, can't think of any more at the moment.
cheers, john t.

[Adelantado]

I disagree that making motorists responsible for all accidents with
bicyclists would improve safety, particularly where bicyclists are
often the cause of the accident. All it would do is cause more
resentment among motorists who sometims go out of their way to
endanger bicylists, perhaps due to envy or frustration.

Many of your other recommendations are well taken, particularly
education of bicyclists, many who do not realize how imporant it is to
be predictable to motorists when sharing the road/streets.

Adel




"Paul R" > wrote in message >...
> What do you think is the best way to improve safety for cyclists in a city?
> Why?
>
> 1) Mandatory helmet laws for all cyclists with strict enforcement.
>
> 2) Enforce existing laws against drivers. Significant charges for those who
> kill or injure cyclists (guy got doored on University Ave (in Toronto), was
> thrown into traffic and killed. Driver got 3 points (out of 15) and $105
> fine). Take away the driving priviliges for repeat dangerous driving
> offenders. Personally, I believe that in ANY altercation between a cyclist
> and motorized vehicle, the motorized vehicle should be held 100% at fault.
> Likewise, in any altercation between a cyclist and pedestrian the cyclist
> should be held 100% responsible. This is unfair, but I think the benefits to
> society outweigh the few cases where someone gets burned. Before people
> start screaming, be aware that this is how the law is in Holland, a cyclists
> utopia.
>
> 3) Education for drivers on handling cyclists safely
>
> 4) Better traffic planning. Extensive changes to existing infrastructure.
> Widen streets or remove extra lane.
>
> 5) Extensive system of bike paths
>
> 6) Provide significant tax breaks for cyclists who commute to work (like
> drivers get tax breaks on the highways, parking lots etc.). These breaks
> should reflect the improvements to society gained by having more cyclists on
> the road (improved safety for cyclists, improved air, reduced congestion,
> reduced noise, reduced use of materials and energy, improved health of
> cyclist (more important in Canada than US with public health system) etc.).
>
> 7) Licensing for cyclists - they must prove they know how to ride safely in
> traffic
>
> I believe that no's 2, and 6 are the best. I think that helmet laws won't
> change anything - it will still be open season on cyclists, as it is now.
> The more cyclists on the streets, the safer we are.
>
> That's what I think,
>
> Paul

[Matt O'Toole]

Adelantado wrote:

> I disagree that making motorists responsible for all accidents with
> bicyclists would improve safety, particularly where bicyclists are
> often the cause of the accident.

No one has suggested that -- only enforcing laws that already exist. These laws
make it pretty clear who's at fault for any given accident. If the laws were
actually enforced, we'd have a fairer and safer situation for everyone.

Matt O.

[Darin McGrew]

Adelantado wrote:
>> I disagree that making motorists responsible for all accidents with
>> bicyclists would improve safety, particularly where bicyclists are
>> often the cause of the accident.

Matt O'Toole > wrote:
> No one has suggested that -- only enforcing laws that already exist.

Actually, the OP did suggest that:

>>> Personally, I believe that in ANY altercation between a cyclist and
>>> motorized vehicle, the motorized vehicle should be held 100% at fault.
>>> Likewise, in any altercation between a cyclist and pedestrian the
>>> cyclist should be held 100% responsible. This is unfair, but I think
>>> the benefits to society outweigh the few cases where someone gets
>>> burned. Before people start screaming, be aware that this is how the
>>> law is in Holland, a cyclists utopia.
--
Darin McGrew, , http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, , http://www.HTMLHelp.com/

"FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION. It comes bundled with the software."

[Paul R]

"Darin McGrew" > wrote in message
...
> Adelantado wrote:
> >> I disagree that making motorists responsible for all accidents with
> >> bicyclists would improve safety, particularly where bicyclists are
> >> often the cause of the accident.
>
> Matt O'Toole > wrote:
> > No one has suggested that -- only enforcing laws that already exist.
>
> Actually, the OP did suggest that:
>
> >>> Personally, I believe that in ANY altercation between a cyclist and
> >>> motorized vehicle, the motorized vehicle should be held 100% at fault.
> >>> Likewise, in any altercation between a cyclist and pedestrian the
> >>> cyclist should be held 100% responsible. This is unfair, but I think
> >>> the benefits to society outweigh the few cases where someone gets
> >>> burned. Before people start screaming, be aware that this is how the
> >>> law is in Holland, a cyclists utopia.
> --

Yep, that was me.

Bicyclists are rarely the cause of accidents, but often make mistakes that
lead to them being hurt. For example, you can't blame a cyclist for getting
doored, even though the cyclist may have been driving within range of the
door.

However there will be times when the cyclist is at fault. But my point is
that life's not fair anyway, so why not try to make things better for
everybody?

If drivers knew they were going to be held responsible for injuring that
reckless cyclist, they might slow down, take a little more time, instead of
running them off the road. Eventually people will get used to it.

Right now, it's basically open season on cyclists. If a driver hits a
cyclist, they just say it was an accident, or they didn't see the cyclist.
At most, they get a $105 fine and maybe 2 or 3 points (3 for dooring, i
think?). So, now, a driver can kill a cyclist and get away with it. How's
that fair? How does that serve society?

That's what i think,
Paul

[Peter]

Paul R wrote:
>>>>>Personally, I believe that in ANY altercation between a cyclist and
>>>>>motorized vehicle, the motorized vehicle should be held 100% at fault.
>>>>>Likewise, in any altercation between a cyclist and pedestrian the
>>>>>cyclist should be held 100% responsible. This is unfair, but I think
>>>>>the benefits to society outweigh the few cases where someone gets
>>>>>burned. Before people start screaming, be aware that this is how the
>>>>>law is in Holland, a cyclists utopia.

> Yep, that was me.
>
> Bicyclists are rarely the cause of accidents, but often make mistakes that
> lead to them being hurt. For example, you can't blame a cyclist for getting
> doored, even though the cyclist may have been driving within range of the
> door.
>
> However there will be times when the cyclist is at fault. But my point is
> that life's not fair anyway, so why not try to make things better for
> everybody?

I believe you've slightly overstated the current state of the law
in the Netherlands. According to
http://www.fevr.org/anwbfevr%20E%20netherlands.htm
"However, if an accident involves a motor vehicle (car or motor bike)
and a non-motorised road user (pedestrian or cyclist) risk liability
applies. This means that the driver is liable unless he can prove force
majeure. If the pedestrian or cyclist is younger than 14 years of age,
the driver is 100% liable. If the pedestrian or cyclists is over 14
years of age, the driver is 50% liable. The amount of the compensation
for the remaining 50% is dependent on the degree of fault of all the
parties involved."

So in an accident between an adult cyclist and a motorist where the
cyclist was primarily at fault the motorist would still have to pay
50% of the damages - but he wouldn't be held 100% responsible as you
stated above.

[Paul R]

"Peter" > wrote in message
...
> Paul R wrote:
> >>>>>Personally, I believe that in ANY altercation between a cyclist and
> >>>>>motorized vehicle, the motorized vehicle should be held 100% at
fault.
> >>>>>Likewise, in any altercation between a cyclist and pedestrian the
> >>>>>cyclist should be held 100% responsible. This is unfair, but I think
> >>>>>the benefits to society outweigh the few cases where someone gets
> >>>>>burned. Before people start screaming, be aware that this is how the
> >>>>>law is in Holland, a cyclists utopia.
>
> > Yep, that was me.
> >
> > Bicyclists are rarely the cause of accidents, but often make mistakes
that
> > lead to them being hurt. For example, you can't blame a cyclist for
getting
> > doored, even though the cyclist may have been driving within range of
the
> > door.
> >
> > However there will be times when the cyclist is at fault. But my point
is
> > that life's not fair anyway, so why not try to make things better for
> > everybody?
>
> I believe you've slightly overstated the current state of the law
> in the Netherlands. According to
> http://www.fevr.org/anwbfevr%20E%20netherlands.htm
> "However, if an accident involves a motor vehicle (car or motor bike)
> and a non-motorised road user (pedestrian or cyclist) risk liability
> applies. This means that the driver is liable unless he can prove force
> majeure. If the pedestrian or cyclist is younger than 14 years of age,
> the driver is 100% liable. If the pedestrian or cyclists is over 14
> years of age, the driver is 50% liable. The amount of the compensation
> for the remaining 50% is dependent on the degree of fault of all the
> parties involved."
>
> So in an accident between an adult cyclist and a motorist where the
> cyclist was primarily at fault the motorist would still have to pay
> 50% of the damages - but he wouldn't be held 100% responsible as you
> stated above.

Thanks for correcting me. It's good to be better informed.

Regardless, I'd love to see something like that here, especially for
altercations involving children. Might even slow down drivers in residential
areas. I live on a 1 lane (+ parking) residential section of Adelaide St.,
in Toronto (west of Bathurst) where the speed limit is 40km/h (there is a
primary school on the corner). People driver over 80 on this section all the
time because they think it's the same as the other side of Bathurst, where
it's a 4 lane street.

Cheers,
Paul

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 11:23:06 -0500, "Paul R" > wrote:

>For example, you can't blame a cyclist for getting
>doored, even though the cyclist may have been driving within range of the
>door.

Up to a point, Lord Copper. In law the responsibility lies with the
doorer, but the event is sufficiently predictable that the dooree must
carry at least some of the blame. Luckily the courts have thus far
(in the UK) held that the doorer is wholly liable, since they were
committing an offence (cause or permit the door to be opened
endangering someone, or some such) at the time. On the whole, though,
it's better not to run the risk of giving the weasels^W lawyers
something to play with :-)

If you were doored, wouldn't you feel even the tiniest suggestion of
"silly me?"

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

[Paul R]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 11:23:06 -0500, "Paul R" > wrote:
>
> >For example, you can't blame a cyclist for getting
> >doored, even though the cyclist may have been driving within range of the
> >door.
>
> Up to a point, Lord Copper. In law the responsibility lies with the
> doorer, but the event is sufficiently predictable that the dooree must
> carry at least some of the blame. Luckily the courts have thus far
> (in the UK) held that the doorer is wholly liable, since they were
> committing an offence (cause or permit the door to be opened
> endangering someone, or some such) at the time. On the whole, though,
> it's better not to run the risk of giving the weasels^W lawyers
> something to play with :-)
>
> If you were doored, wouldn't you feel even the tiniest suggestion of
> "silly me?"

Sure I would (right after I checked that my bike was ok!) - but I'm a very
experienced urban cyclist who's seen my fair share of doors miss me by
inches (classic story - I'm sure we've all experienced something like this -
travelling north on yonge street, about a metre from the parked cars. One
lane of traffic can safely pass me. cars in the inside lane (shared with the
parked cars and me) must wait to safely pass me. Fur coat wearing women
driving jag behind me is waving her hands around and honking at me for being
in her way. this carries on for a couple of hundred metres when a driver
opens door right beside me - missing by inches. All I have to do is point
out the door to driver behind me and she immedietly stops honking.).

Regardless, would you blame someone who was mugged in a rough side of town
for being in the bad area of town? would you blame a woman wearing a short
skirt for being raped?

the fact of the matter is, someone opening a vehicle door in another
vehicles path is illegal and very dangerous to cyclists. That person should
take 100% of legal blame.

Paul

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 14:55:57 -0500, "Paul R" > wrote in
message >:

>the fact of the matter is, someone opening a vehicle door in another
>vehicles path is illegal and very dangerous to cyclists. That person should
>take 100% of legal blame.

Which is what I said. Legally, the doorer gets 100% of the blame.
But my sympathy for the cyclist is tempered by the certain knowledge
that it really isn't that hard to predict the consequences of riding
too close to parked cars.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University