On Tue, 4 Jun 2019 06:11:59 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 6/3/2019 9:13 PM, John B. wrote:

snip

Tell me, what sort of primitive area do you reside in that doesn't
have pedestrian controls at intersections? I ask as even in this
benighted little country we have them and I find it amazing that they
don't (apparently) exist in the U.S.

The difference is that pedestrians routinely ignore the pedestrian
controls and motorists routinely speed through crosswalks where they are
required to yield but don't.

I see.
That portion of the population that moves around on their own two
feet are scofflaws that ignore pedestrian controls but the cyclists
are all perfect little citizens that obey all laws and regulations.

So tell us what happens when a cyclist, instead of taking the bike,
decides to walk? Does he remain a meek little chap who obeys all rules
and regulations without fail? Or is he suddenly become some sort of
fiend that ignores any and all controls, urinates on people's lawns,
and generally acts in an uncivilized manner?

Cyclists are riding with traffic (unless they are turning themselves
into a pedestrian to use a crosswalk). Some cyclists run red lights but
generally only under certain circumstances like when they don't trigger
a sensor in the road, or when they are going through the top of a tee
intersection in a bike lane or on the shoulder. Cyclists are much less
likely to suddenly leave the sidewalk and dart across the road unexpectedly.

"In a recent study of 7,000 pedestrian-vehicle crashes in Florida,
researchers discovered that pedestrians were at fault in 80 percent of
these incidents. Similarly, in a U.K. study, pedestrian behavior
accounted for 90 percent of crashes where a vehicle struck a pedestrian."

Studies of bicycle crashes, in the U.S., vary, but the percentage of
at-fault cyclists is much lower than at-fauld pedestrians
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2011/05/20/136462246/when-bikes-and-cars-collide-whos-more-likely-to-be-at-fault

Interesting that your reference reports bicycle deaths in 2006. Have
there been no deaths in the past 13 years? Or is it just an out dated
report?

But since you brought the subject up (hopefully you will have actually
read the report) you must have noticed that it reported that in 2009
44 percent of fatalities from bike-car crashes were determined to be
the fault of the cyclist. In corroboration, the CHP study in 2012
reported that 59% of bike-car crashes were the fault of the cyclist.

In short, your comments (above) about how cyclists are all law abiding
citizens and obey the traffic controls doesn't seem to correspond
with information contained in the report that you reference.

Rather than your vaunted "segregated bicycle lanes" perhaps just
insisting that cyclists obeyed the traffic laws might turn bicycling
into a safe pastime rather then the current horribly dangerous ordeal
that you portray it as.

Based on the latest figures (that I can find easily) if you could get
the cyclists to ride in a safe and sane fashion and obey the traffic
code some 388 cyclists lives might have been saved.

Tell us. Is there more glory in being known as the bloke that built
the segregated bicycle lanes? Or saving 388 people from death?
--
cheers,

John B.