Handlebar rotation

On Mon, 17 Jul 2017 13:57:57 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 7/15/17 3:19 PM, Joerg wrote:

snip

Can we move to chain lube now?

This morning I was talking to an older bike mechanic, and cycling
instructor, who moonlights over at a major bicycle company in my area,
about chain lubrication. I told him I had just worked on three bikes and
run the chains through a chain cleaning device. He poo-pooed this saying
it's cheaper just to put on a new chain and that while the chain
cleaners were the best way to clean a chain, they were too messy and
solvent spewed everywhere. But he was thinking of it being cheaper in
terms of a bicycle shop charging $50 an hour labor versus the cost of a
6/7/8 speed chain. And some shops have commercial grade chain cleaning
tools hooked up to a solvent tank with hoses, so you don't have to keep
manually changing the solvent.

I don't find those devices messy. I have a big cement mixing tub that is
long enough to stretch from the chainwheels to the jockey wheels, and
all the solvent that is thrown out of the device goes into the tub. It
can take five or six solvent changes before the chain is clean, but both
the inside and outside are clean. I dump the dirty solvent in the tub as
well and then put it into a bottle for recycling. It's about five
minutes of work per chain, plus the time cleaning the gears with pipe
cleaners and shop rags.

The mechanic was recalling a conversation with John Forester regarding
chain waxing. Forester has a formula in his book for chain lubrication
consisting of white gas and 90W gear oil and he says to put in a chunk
of paraffin and not to worry if it doesn't dissolve. The mechanic asked
Forester why it doesn't matter if the paraffin doesn't dissolve, and he
said that the paraffin doesn't help at all with lubrication, it actually
makes things worse if it ends up on the chain, but that so many
old-school cyclists believe in paraffin that he put it into the formula
to placate them, knowing that as long as it just sat there in a chunk,
and most of it didn't dissolve, that it wouldn't hurt anything.

Or global warming? :-)

Yesterday I went on a Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition sponsored ice
cream ride. It was very hot. The ride was only about 6 miles but we rode
from Cupertino to San Jose, another 10 miles each way. Coming home I was
getting overheated, and my water was really warm. This proves that
global warming is real.


Lets stick with the chain lube controversy as everyone "knows" that
global warming is a gigantic fraud foisted on us by NASA. Or was that
the ISIS. No? Maybe the Trump regime. Nope, I've got it, illegal
immigrants done did it.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 6:01:25 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jul 2017 13:57:57 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 7/15/17 3:19 PM, Joerg wrote:

snip

Can we move to chain lube now?

This morning I was talking to an older bike mechanic, and cycling
instructor, who moonlights over at a major bicycle company in my area,
about chain lubrication. I told him I had just worked on three bikes and
run the chains through a chain cleaning device. He poo-pooed this saying
it's cheaper just to put on a new chain and that while the chain
cleaners were the best way to clean a chain, they were too messy and
solvent spewed everywhere. But he was thinking of it being cheaper in
terms of a bicycle shop charging $50 an hour labor versus the cost of a
6/7/8 speed chain. And some shops have commercial grade chain cleaning
tools hooked up to a solvent tank with hoses, so you don't have to keep
manually changing the solvent.

I don't find those devices messy. I have a big cement mixing tub that is
long enough to stretch from the chainwheels to the jockey wheels, and
all the solvent that is thrown out of the device goes into the tub. It
can take five or six solvent changes before the chain is clean, but both
the inside and outside are clean. I dump the dirty solvent in the tub as
well and then put it into a bottle for recycling. It's about five
minutes of work per chain, plus the time cleaning the gears with pipe
cleaners and shop rags.

The mechanic was recalling a conversation with John Forester regarding
chain waxing. Forester has a formula in his book for chain lubrication
consisting of white gas and 90W gear oil and he says to put in a chunk
of paraffin and not to worry if it doesn't dissolve. The mechanic asked
Forester why it doesn't matter if the paraffin doesn't dissolve, and he
said that the paraffin doesn't help at all with lubrication, it actually
makes things worse if it ends up on the chain, but that so many
old-school cyclists believe in paraffin that he put it into the formula
to placate them, knowing that as long as it just sat there in a chunk,
and most of it didn't dissolve, that it wouldn't hurt anything.

Or global warming? :-)

Yesterday I went on a Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition sponsored ice
cream ride. It was very hot. The ride was only about 6 miles but we rode
from Cupertino to San Jose, another 10 miles each way. Coming home I was
getting overheated, and my water was really warm. This proves that
global warming is real.


Lets stick with the chain lube controversy as everyone "knows" that
global warming is a gigantic fraud foisted on us by NASA. Or was that
the ISIS. No? Maybe the Trump regime. Nope, I've got it, illegal
immigrants done did it.

sad but true

On 7/16/2017 2:28 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
OK, first I'll say that I understand the benefits of discs for muddy
mountain biking or lots of rainy commuting.

On 7/16/2017 12:59 PM, Joerg wrote: As for cable discs they are
probably ok on a road bike, not on an MTB. Aside from less brake force
most have the other disadvantage that the inner pad remains staionary
so the disc veers to the side more and more as they wear.
The "less brake force" thing puzzles me. I rode a friend's mountain
bike though our local forest a few months ago. Before I mounted up, he
warned me about the hydraulic disc brakes, telling me to not use more
than one finger. He said it took him a while to get used to them.

The amount of mechanical advantage is a design choice, whether we're
talking about caliper brakes, cable discs or hydraulic discs. I don't
see the benefit of designing brakes that can easily send you over the
bars. I think a bicyclist should expect to squeeze hard every once in a
while.

If I ever need a new road bike it's going to have disc brakes or I
won't buy.

I know they're very fashionable right now, but I would actively avoid
buying a road bike with disc brakes.

Following up on my own post: Last night my wife and I hosted a
round-the-world tourist. He started in France a year ago, heading east.
He should be back in Europe in less than two weeks.

He was riding a heavy rig. A steel frame touring bike (maybe Surly? I
forget) set up Euro-style, which means wide straight bars with bar ends,
front and rear panniers and quite a pile of stuff on top of the rear
rack. He said it totaled about 110 pounds, which is far heavier than
I've ever done.

His brakes were Magura hydraulic rim brakes, something I'd seen only
once. He liked them very well, but said compatible brake shoes are
pretty rare outside Europe. However, he said he'll make it home on the
brake shoes he now has. He had no problem with rim wear so far.

Apparently his only real bike problem (aside from flats and replacing
chains and cassettes) was a broken rear dropout. He had it welded
somewhere out west, by a guy who's usual gig was welding truck frames.

His lighting was a Shimano front dynamo hub powering a very low-end
Busch & Mueller headlight. No super-bright lights, no thoughts of using
daytime running lights.

He did use a stout kickstand, something I've never done since the 1970s.
He rode a Brooks Pro saddle. Full fenders, of course, and wide tires
(probably about 32mm). His Schrader valves surprised me. So did his
flat pedals, no clips of any kind.

He said he was really enjoying riding American roads, and he found
Americans to be almost universally friendly and helpful. He had almost
zero negative experiences of any kind. He did get slightly bumped in the
arm at slow speed one time, when edge-riding to let a pickup with wide
mirrors get by.

He's a very pleasant and interesting guy. Unfortunately, conflicts last
night and this morning meant we didn't get to converse as long as I'd
have liked. We had to shut things down about 1 AM.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 8:19:18 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/16/2017 2:28 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
OK, first I'll say that I understand the benefits of discs for muddy
mountain biking or lots of rainy commuting.

On 7/16/2017 12:59 PM, Joerg wrote: As for cable discs they are
probably ok on a road bike, not on an MTB. Aside from less brake force
most have the other disadvantage that the inner pad remains staionary
so the disc veers to the side more and more as they wear.
The "less brake force" thing puzzles me. I rode a friend's mountain
bike though our local forest a few months ago. Before I mounted up, he
warned me about the hydraulic disc brakes, telling me to not use more
than one finger. He said it took him a while to get used to them.

The amount of mechanical advantage is a design choice, whether we're
talking about caliper brakes, cable discs or hydraulic discs. I don't
see the benefit of designing brakes that can easily send you over the
bars. I think a bicyclist should expect to squeeze hard every once in a
while.

If I ever need a new road bike it's going to have disc brakes or I
won't buy.

I know they're very fashionable right now, but I would actively avoid
buying a road bike with disc brakes.

Following up on my own post: Last night my wife and I hosted a
round-the-world tourist. He started in France a year ago, heading east.
He should be back in Europe in less than two weeks.

He was riding a heavy rig. A steel frame touring bike (maybe Surly? I
forget) set up Euro-style, which means wide straight bars with bar ends,
front and rear panniers and quite a pile of stuff on top of the rear
rack. He said it totaled about 110 pounds, which is far heavier than
I've ever done.

His brakes were Magura hydraulic rim brakes, something I'd seen only
once. He liked them very well, but said compatible brake shoes are
pretty rare outside Europe. However, he said he'll make it home on the
brake shoes he now has. He had no problem with rim wear so far.

Apparently his only real bike problem (aside from flats and replacing
chains and cassettes) was a broken rear dropout. He had it welded
somewhere out west, by a guy who's usual gig was welding truck frames.

His lighting was a Shimano front dynamo hub powering a very low-end
Busch & Mueller headlight. No super-bright lights, no thoughts of using
daytime running lights.

He did use a stout kickstand, something I've never done since the 1970s.
He rode a Brooks Pro saddle. Full fenders, of course, and wide tires
(probably about 32mm). His Schrader valves surprised me. So did his
flat pedals, no clips of any kind.

He said he was really enjoying riding American roads, and he found
Americans to be almost universally friendly and helpful. He had almost
zero negative experiences of any kind. He did get slightly bumped in the
arm at slow speed one time, when edge-riding to let a pickup with wide
mirrors get by.

He's a very pleasant and interesting guy. Unfortunately, conflicts last
night and this morning meant we didn't get to converse as long as I'd
have liked. We had to shut things down about 1 AM.

Since he is still alive, I assume he avoided Cameron Park.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 2017-07-16 11:28, Frank Krygowski wrote:
OK, first I'll say that I understand the benefits of discs for muddy
mountain biking or lots of rainy commuting.

On 7/16/2017 12:59 PM, Joerg wrote: As for cable discs they are
probably ok on a road bike, not on an MTB. Aside from less brake force
most have the other disadvantage that the inner pad remains staionary
so the disc veers to the side more and more as they wear.
The "less brake force" thing puzzles me. I rode a friend's mountain
bike though our local forest a few months ago. Before I mounted up, he
warned me about the hydraulic disc brakes, telling me to not use more
than one finger. He said it took him a while to get used to them.

The amount of mechanical advantage is a design choice, whether we're
talking about caliper brakes, cable discs or hydraulic discs. I don't
see the benefit of designing brakes that can easily send you over the
bars. I think a bicyclist should expect to squeeze hard every once in a
while.


You will understand that when you ride a MTB through a steep rock garden
or down a steep hill with loose boulders. There you need to shift
between full brakes and no brakes all the time. If the brakes need a lot
of force you hands will start to hurt soon.

Also, cable failures can have very nasty consequences on MTB. For me
they even did on road bikes (front brake failure).


If I ever need a new road bike it's going to have disc brakes or I
won't buy.

I know they're very fashionable right now, but I would actively avoid
buying a road bike with disc brakes.


I am the opposite.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 2017-07-16 13:18, wrote:
On Sunday, July 16, 2017 at 11:47:22 AM UTC-7, Duane wrote:
jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, July 16, 2017 at 7:56:31 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-16 05:50, Duane wrote:

[...]


We found a roof to hide under for the few minutes it took for
the rain to stop. The first few tries, the brakes squealed
but stopped me. Then they were fine. Braking dried them.

No MTBs, we were all on road bikes. No ceramic wheels as far
as I know. Maybe MTBs have some magical stopping property
that I don't know about but in a full downpour my brakes
didn't work well. Mine are SRAM Force which are fairly high
end brakes and usually stop on a dime.

https://www.raceviewcycles.com/SRAM-...n&currency=CAD



Yesterday we got caught in the rain for about 25 minutes. Not torrential
rain, just rain. Brakes squealed a bit but stopped ok. I
don't plan to switch to disks any time soon but I can see
someone riding in rain a lot would consider it. As far as
riding through creeks, I would expect my brakes to not work
in the creek but to be fine once I got out of the water.


MTB with good hydraulic brakes have immense stopping power.
Most of all the brake force comes on instantaneously and at
100% performance. Not at 50% or 30%. For us MTB riders it's not
just rain, it is mud puddles, creek crossings and such.
Afterwards the rims are dripping wet. Worst case muddy and then
a rim brake has a similar effect as pressing 25-grit sandpaper
against the rims. That is a horrid sound. You should see the
rims of my old MTB. After less than 1000mi they are almost
shot.

I work with a guy who commutes year-round and says that he was
going through a front rim every one to two years. He just
switched to cable discs, which are plenty good for road bikes and
less fussy than hydraulic. Both of us ride a lot in the rain, and
the grit squeezed against the rim works like a lathe. I've been
riding a commuter with discs for probably 15 years.

I like the hydraulic road disc brakes on my Roubaix but
acknowledge that they are entirely unnecessary during the summer.
I would not bother with the added complexity for a fast bike,
e.g. the modern crop of disc equipped dry weather racing bikes. I
got caught in sunshine yesterday, and my discs were useless!

-- Jay Beattie.





Lol. I have to say when I was riding through that downpour I
thought, "I guess this is what Jay is talking about."

Disks come on just like V-brakes in the wet - they have to scrub the
water off of the disk. Because of this you are VERY likely to put on
too much brake.


Not at all. When I ride my MTB in the rain I cannot discern a difference
in brake behavior versus dry. Just have to be more careful on mud
because the terrain is soggy and thus more slippery. The only difference
is that when I apply the brakes wet and they haven't been applied for
many minutes before that they make a slight "hoooo" sound. Which
occasionally riles dogs even in the distance. Once even coyotes and I
was surprised how many are out there that you rarely see.


... V-brakes take a little longer and they are not as
powerful - but in my opinion that is better.


I want my brakes to always be available, immediately and with the full
force they were designed for.

What many non-MTB riders do not realize is why we want one- or at the
most two-finger brake operation. When the terrain gets gnarly and the
speed is up there we have to hold the handle bar really good. Having to
take all four fingers off the bar and move them over to a brake lever
would seriously compromise the tightness of that grip. This could result
in a hand slipping off during a rock jolt or it could result in unwanted
brief brake activation, resulting in an ugly situation. Riding a MTB on
tough turf is very different from riding a bike on asphalt. You are
always concentrating on what's on the ground.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 2017-07-17 02:43, Duane wrote:
John B. wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2017 12:50:54 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 12:02:18 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 7:42:52 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:

While admittedly finding an accurate of just how many people actually
ride a bicycle is probably impossible the fact is that riding a bike
is probably, statistically, one of the safest thing one can do on the
road.

For example, in 2015 there were 35,092 fatalities while driving or
riding in a motor vehicle and 815 while riding a bicycle. Yet people
argue how dangerious bicycling is and ignore automobiles.

How many times do you hear people say, "Oh! I'd be afraid to drive a
car. It is so dangerious."


John - are you trying to convince the man who drives on busy hill roads alone?

I know what the real chances are and I know that there are people out
there that given a chance would run over a cyclist.

So if anyone wants to exaggerate the dangers in their own minds that's
their business now isn't it? And because YOU feel safe what business is
it of yours or mine to try to convince them otherwise? As I said, some
of the very longest distance riders I know have quit because they
couldn't take the traffic anymore.

The facts of the matter are that, in 2012, according to NHTSA
statistics there were 734 cyclists deaths and 33,561 total traffic
fatalities. Bicycles amounted to only 2.1% of all traffic deaths.

--
Cheers,

John B.



And bikes amounted to what percentage of all traffic?

You will note, I hope, that I prefaced my remarks with the comment
that "While admittedly finding an accurate of just how many people
actually ride a bicycle is probably impossible" but the point is that
the usual news report says something like "Horrors! Bicycle deaths in
California were XYZ in 20xx"

See:
http://www.denverpost.com/2017/06/03...uries-cycling/
http://www.latimes.com/business/auto...027-story.html
http://tinyurl.com/ycl3vtm9

If the nation's news services see fit to announce these astonishing
statistics why should I be different?

But according to the statistics I do find
http://tinyurl.com/ybz2vz69
there were 65.67 million cyclists in 2015 and
http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/data/factsheet_crash.cfm
tells me that in 2015 818 cyclists were killed.

So tell me, what percent of cyclists were killed in 2015?

--
Cheers,

John B.



Your statement was that 2% of traffic fatalities were cyclists. To know
whether or not that is significant you have to know what percentage of
traffic is made up of cyclists. As you stated, I don't think we know
that.


The average mode share for commutes in cities is far below 1% in the US:

https://www.census.gov/prod/2014pubs/acs-25.pdf

Now we can safely assume that most people (except in this NG) generally
consider any trip longer than 5mi "excessive" to cycle and hardly anyone
in rural America uses a bicycle at all. Shopping trips and such are
generally done by car. That means the mileage share for bicycles will be
a small fraction of a percent.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 19/07/2017 1:39 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-17 02:43, Duane wrote:
John B. wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2017 12:50:54 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 12:02:18 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 7:42:52 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:

While admittedly finding an accurate of just how many people
actually
ride a bicycle is probably impossible the fact is that riding a bike
is probably, statistically, one of the safest thing one can do on
the
road.

For example, in 2015 there were 35,092 fatalities while driving or
riding in a motor vehicle and 815 while riding a bicycle. Yet people
argue how dangerious bicycling is and ignore automobiles.

How many times do you hear people say, "Oh! I'd be afraid to drive a
car. It is so dangerious."


John - are you trying to convince the man who drives on busy hill
roads alone?

I know what the real chances are and I know that there are people out
there that given a chance would run over a cyclist.

So if anyone wants to exaggerate the dangers in their own minds
that's
their business now isn't it? And because YOU feel safe what
business is
it of yours or mine to try to convince them otherwise? As I said,
some
of the very longest distance riders I know have quit because they
couldn't take the traffic anymore.

The facts of the matter are that, in 2012, according to NHTSA
statistics there were 734 cyclists deaths and 33,561 total traffic
fatalities. Bicycles amounted to only 2.1% of all traffic deaths.

--
Cheers,

John B.



And bikes amounted to what percentage of all traffic?

You will note, I hope, that I prefaced my remarks with the comment
that "While admittedly finding an accurate of just how many people
actually ride a bicycle is probably impossible" but the point is that
the usual news report says something like "Horrors! Bicycle deaths in
California were XYZ in 20xx"

See:
http://www.denverpost.com/2017/06/03...uries-cycling/
http://www.latimes.com/business/auto...027-story.html

http://tinyurl.com/ycl3vtm9

If the nation's news services see fit to announce these astonishing
statistics why should I be different?

But according to the statistics I do find
http://tinyurl.com/ybz2vz69
there were 65.67 million cyclists in 2015 and
http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/data/factsheet_crash.cfm
tells me that in 2015 818 cyclists were killed.

So tell me, what percent of cyclists were killed in 2015?

--
Cheers,

John B.



Your statement was that 2% of traffic fatalities were cyclists. To know
whether or not that is significant you have to know what percentage of
traffic is made up of cyclists. As you stated, I don't think we know
that.


The average mode share for commutes in cities is far below 1% in the US:

https://www.census.gov/prod/2014pubs/acs-25.pdf

Now we can safely assume that most people (except in this NG) generally
consider any trip longer than 5mi "excessive" to cycle and hardly anyone
in rural America uses a bicycle at all. Shopping trips and such are
generally done by car. That means the mileage share for bicycles will be
a small fraction of a percent.



Everything is conjecture if you don't actually know the numbers.

On 7/19/2017 1:39 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-17 02:43, Duane wrote:
John B. wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2017 12:50:54 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 12:02:18 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 7:42:52 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:

While admittedly finding an accurate of just how many people
actually
ride a bicycle is probably impossible the fact is that riding a bike
is probably, statistically, one of the safest thing one can do on
the
road.

For example, in 2015 there were 35,092 fatalities while driving or
riding in a motor vehicle and 815 while riding a bicycle. Yet people
argue how dangerious bicycling is and ignore automobiles.

How many times do you hear people say, "Oh! I'd be afraid to drive a
car. It is so dangerious."


John - are you trying to convince the man who drives on busy hill
roads alone?

I know what the real chances are and I know that there are people out
there that given a chance would run over a cyclist.

So if anyone wants to exaggerate the dangers in their own minds
that's
their business now isn't it? And because YOU feel safe what
business is
it of yours or mine to try to convince them otherwise? As I said,
some
of the very longest distance riders I know have quit because they
couldn't take the traffic anymore.

The facts of the matter are that, in 2012, according to NHTSA
statistics there were 734 cyclists deaths and 33,561 total traffic
fatalities. Bicycles amounted to only 2.1% of all traffic deaths.

--
Cheers,

John B.



And bikes amounted to what percentage of all traffic?

You will note, I hope, that I prefaced my remarks with the comment
that "While admittedly finding an accurate of just how many people
actually ride a bicycle is probably impossible" but the point is that
the usual news report says something like "Horrors! Bicycle deaths in
California were XYZ in 20xx"

See:
http://www.denverpost.com/2017/06/03...uries-cycling/
http://www.latimes.com/business/auto...027-story.html

http://tinyurl.com/ycl3vtm9

If the nation's news services see fit to announce these astonishing
statistics why should I be different?

But according to the statistics I do find
http://tinyurl.com/ybz2vz69
there were 65.67 million cyclists in 2015 and
http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/data/factsheet_crash.cfm
tells me that in 2015 818 cyclists were killed.

So tell me, what percent of cyclists were killed in 2015?

--
Cheers,

John B.



Your statement was that 2% of traffic fatalities were cyclists. To know
whether or not that is significant you have to know what percentage of
traffic is made up of cyclists. As you stated, I don't think we know
that.


The average mode share for commutes in cities is far below 1% in the US:

https://www.census.gov/prod/2014pubs/acs-25.pdf

Now we can safely assume that most people (except in this NG) generally
consider any trip longer than 5mi "excessive" to cycle and hardly anyone
in rural America uses a bicycle at all. Shopping trips and such are
generally done by car. That means the mileage share for bicycles will be
a small fraction of a percent.

But take heart! As figure 3 at that linked PDF shows, in 1980, only
0.5% of U.S. commuters biked to work. Thanks to the many hundreds of
millions spent on segregated bike facilities, bike mode share has surged
from 0.5% to 0.6% in just 32 years!

Walking dropped by half, though, from 5.6% to 2.8%. Maybe people
finally heard that walking is three times as dangerous as cycling per
mile traveled.

Here's an idea: What if walkers had special facilities completely
separated from cars by curbs, or perhaps by parked cars? Maybe then
walking might finally become safe, and see the same surge that cycling did!

.... oh, wait...

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 2017-07-19 11:30, Duane wrote:
On 19/07/2017 1:39 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-17 02:43, Duane wrote:
John B. wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2017 12:50:54 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 12:02:18 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 7:42:52 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:

While admittedly finding an accurate of just how many people
actually
ride a bicycle is probably impossible the fact is that riding a
bike
is probably, statistically, one of the safest thing one can do
on the
road.

For example, in 2015 there were 35,092 fatalities while driving or
riding in a motor vehicle and 815 while riding a bicycle. Yet
people
argue how dangerious bicycling is and ignore automobiles.

How many times do you hear people say, "Oh! I'd be afraid to
drive a
car. It is so dangerious."


John - are you trying to convince the man who drives on busy hill
roads alone?

I know what the real chances are and I know that there are people
out
there that given a chance would run over a cyclist.

So if anyone wants to exaggerate the dangers in their own minds
that's
their business now isn't it? And because YOU feel safe what
business is
it of yours or mine to try to convince them otherwise? As I said,
some
of the very longest distance riders I know have quit because they
couldn't take the traffic anymore.

The facts of the matter are that, in 2012, according to NHTSA
statistics there were 734 cyclists deaths and 33,561 total traffic
fatalities. Bicycles amounted to only 2.1% of all traffic deaths.

--
Cheers,

John B.



And bikes amounted to what percentage of all traffic?

You will note, I hope, that I prefaced my remarks with the comment
that "While admittedly finding an accurate of just how many people
actually ride a bicycle is probably impossible" but the point is that
the usual news report says something like "Horrors! Bicycle deaths in
California were XYZ in 20xx"

See:
http://www.denverpost.com/2017/06/03...uries-cycling/
http://www.latimes.com/business/auto...027-story.html

http://tinyurl.com/ycl3vtm9

If the nation's news services see fit to announce these astonishing
statistics why should I be different?

But according to the statistics I do find
http://tinyurl.com/ybz2vz69
there were 65.67 million cyclists in 2015 and
http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/data/factsheet_crash.cfm
tells me that in 2015 818 cyclists were killed.

So tell me, what percent of cyclists were killed in 2015?

--
Cheers,

John B.



Your statement was that 2% of traffic fatalities were cyclists. To know
whether or not that is significant you have to know what percentage of
traffic is made up of cyclists. As you stated, I don't think we know
that.


The average mode share for commutes in cities is far below 1% in the US:

https://www.census.gov/prod/2014pubs/acs-25.pdf

Now we can safely assume that most people (except in this NG)
generally consider any trip longer than 5mi "excessive" to cycle and
hardly anyone in rural America uses a bicycle at all. Shopping trips
and such are generally done by car. That means the mileage share for
bicycles will be a small fraction of a percent.



Everything is conjecture if you don't actually know the numbers.


This is very easy to derive. The ballpark order of magnitude is rather
clear and it doesn't matter whether the total yearly bicycle miles are
0.1% or 0.5% that of cars. It proves that cycling in traffic carries
more risk than riding in traffic in a car. I do it anyhow but only if I
have to. Normally I prefer cycling infrastructure like yesterday a long
singletrack. The chance of being hit by a car there is zero.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/