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

"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."

"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/

"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

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

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 14:45:22 +1100, LightCycles wrote:

Helmets work! Wear one! I am lucky as hell!

So do chest protectors, but you weren't wearing one of those.

All is relative. I tend to not ride at 35+ mph on mountain roads, usually
on flatland with little traffic, so I'll leave the lid at home when I
don't feel like it and live with the consequences.

Yes, I've been hit before, btw, so I'm not one of those "it can't happen
to me people".

=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_

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_

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.

Brian Huntley Wrote:
"Hugh Jass"
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."


I agree with the last one, but not on many of the previous points.
Generally speaking, I think that streets are/should be for people and
that, as a general principle, there should be a lot of on-street
parking. But there should be even more utility parking and short term
(i.e. 10 minutes or less) parking.

Yes, I know that it would mean less traffic lanes, but that would be
part of the plan. Make it hard to be there for people who don't need to
be there with a private vehicle. So if Yonge street becomes 1 lane per
direction instead of 2, or a 1-lane one way with another dedicated lane
for streetcars, that's great!


--
mgagnonlv

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