On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 5:03:50 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/11/2018 7:00 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 08:48:53 -0400, Duane
wrote:

On 10/09/2018 7:15 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 08:55:00 -0400, Duane
wrote:

On 09/09/2018 2:31 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 09 Sep 2018 00:02:17 -0500, Tim McNamara
wrote:

On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 16:24:45 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

I take that to indicate that a large number of bicyclists deaths are
the homeless or nearly homeless, drunk or nearly so, and riding
probably at night with no lights.

Or the driver of the motor vehicle was drunk or nearly so.

As for homeless/nearly homeless and/or riding at night without lights,
you are reading into the small amount of information Jute provided..
Perhaps there is more detail in the NHTSA link he provided, which I have
not yet looked at.

A number of surveys of bicycle accidents indicate that as many as
half, or more, involve the cyclist disobeying one traffic regulation,
or another and reports from autopsies of cyclists killed in accidents
showed that (in New York) as many as 21% had been drinking (6% of auto
drivers who were involved in a auto - bicycle accident had been
drinking).

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/...v22-story.html
https://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2...d-bike-deaths/

It might be noted that these reports are not of the "Well, it is
estimated..." or "It seems as though...", but are statistics, for
example:

"in 2011, officers determined fault in 701 crashes between a bicyclist
and a motorist in which a cyclist was hurt or killed, according to the
reports, submitted to California's Statewide Integrated Traffic
Records System. Cyclists were found to be the party most at fault in
390 of those crashes, or 56 percent of the time, the records show."

It seems odd, to say the least, that these facts, and facts they are,
are never mentioned by bicycle safety advocates.

As Pogo said, "we have met the enemy... and he is us."
(at least 56% of the time)


Why are you surprised that with auto/bicycle accidents in one study it
indicates that the fault is mostly evenly distributed? I don't get your
point.

Accidents happen. Painting cyclists that are victims of accidents as
incompetent drunks serves what purpose?


You seem to have missed the point completely.

In the California study more then 56% of the accidents were found to
be the fault of the cyclist not complying with the traffic laws. In
the New York study some 21% of the cyclists who died in accidents were
found to have been drinking.

Had all cyclists obeyed traffic laws and not ingested alcohol the
number of bicycle deaths would have decreased by a considerable
number. Perhaps as many as half or more.


You seemed to miss my point. If all road users obeyed traffic laws and
didn't ingest alcohol the number of road deaths would be decreased by a
considerable number. Why single out cyclists?

Well, we are on a bicycle site and there is considerable fear and
loathing expressed about all the close calls and dangers of riding a
bicycle, thus my discussing things that appear to concern cyclists.


The other point was that only 6% of drivers in auto-bicycle accidents
had been drinking, or in other words nearly three times the number of
bicyclists were boozed up as the drivers. Blaming the auto for any and
all bicycle accidents, as seems to be the norm, just doesn't represent
reality.


What universe do you inhabit where motorists are blamed for all cycling
accidents? Here it is actually the exact opposite. Motorists are
rarely even charged. The usual "cause" is the motorist didn't see the
cyclist. The usual result is the cyclist is killed and the driver is
taken to the hospital for shock.

Where have you been? This site has, since I've been reading it never
mentioned that there just might have been some reason that a motorist
is not at blame any time that a bicycle/auto crash is mentioned.

Even the idiot that fell asleep with his cruise control on and hit 6
women, killing 3 or them was not prosecuted.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/quebec-police...lists-1.512664

Why, it might even be found that obeying traffic laws and not drinking
would save more lives then wearing a Styrofoam hat.


Isn't one straw man per thread enough?

You don't seem to get the point at all, or deliberately avoid it. I
read here innumerable arguments that a Styrofoam bicycle helmet will
protect you. I am simply pointing out that if all cyclists were to
obey traffic regulations and not consume alcohol before riding that
their might not even require a helmet to feel safe.

OTOH, the guys with sufficient alcohol in their system probably feel
VERY safe!

"Hold my beer and watch this!"

Working ambulance, the drunk drivers usually lived. The other guy(s) died except in occasional one-car accidents. I remember seeing some dead drunk who got cooked in a multi-car accident and thinking finally the drunk got it. BTW, burned people stink -- and yet you can still smell the alcohol. I transported a lot of drunk drivers from one hospital to another in handcuffs. The cops would cuff them to the stretcher and then the bed at the hospital..

-- Jay Beattie.