CycleBanter.com - View Single Post

**Tom Keats**

In article ,
writes:
On Nov 14, 8:00 pm, (Tom Keats) wrote:

But my concern is about incipient new ridership who
may be affected to any degree. The very subject
line of this thread was obviously designed to
dissuade people who may be considering bicycling.
Then he throws in unsubstantiated, unqualified,
unquantified, ostensibly hearsay statements like:
"Accident statistics on bicycling are horrific per
mile traveled."

Great way to promote bicycling, eh?
...

Well horrific is a subjective term but it is true that bicycling has
per-mile injury rates far higher than driving.

Some would suggest per-hour injury rates are more telling than
per-mile rates. I tend to agree.

We shouldn't be too
surprised by that. Most of the injuries to bicyclists (80%) are
caused by falling off, wiping out, things motorists don't have to
worry about. And then, when a car and bike smash together, only the
bicyclist gets hurt. Bicycling may be a little more deadly than
driving but neither is remotely likely to result in fatality.

It's up to us individuals to mitigate potential traffic
dangers around us; to put it in simplistic terms: to
manufacture our own safety. We are well armed to do so,
by the contributions of so many riders (like yourself) who
have been there & done that, learned from their experiences,
and passed along what they've learned to any fellow riders
who might be interested in learning stuff the easier way
instead of the hard way.

Unfortunately, it seems a lot of people don't want to learn
anything from anybody. Everybody's a f***in' expert.

A lot of people want things dumbed down for them so they don't
have to think about stuff, and that's what they expect bike
lanes to do for them. Play bumper-cars in real traffic, and
feel oh-so-safe.

And y'know what? I /like/ bike lanes when they're properly
implemented. I have nothing against bike lanes per se at all.

But I /do/ take issue with the notion that bike lanes are some
sort of sanctuary in which riders can ignorantly squirrel
around, without having to understand the social ramifications
of being part of traffic, and relating to/with our mobile,
vehicular neighbours. 'Cuz when you think about it, traffic
is a dynamic, mobile neighbourhood.

I think you'll agree with me when I suggest that being
among traffic (and surviving it) is more a matter of
smartening up than dumbing down.

It's not about bike lanes, it's about attitude.

A while back, Jobst Brandt took me to task because, like
you, I dared suggest bicycles are a superior mode of
transportation. The word "elitist" was evoked. I guess
he misinterpreted my statements as being anti-motorist or
driver-hating. Truth is, I get along with my neighbours
quite well.

Yeah. Traffic is a neighbourhood. And not just
metaphorically -- it really /is/ a neighbourhood.

You can't dumb down a neighbourhood -- too much
soap opera drama goin' on.

cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca