A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old May 18th 19, 09:04 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,477
Default HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.

On 5/17/2019 4:12 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 17 May 2019 08:49:37 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 5/16/2019 5:54 PM, John B. wrote:

snip

It seems likely that there are a multitude of reasons for people not
commuting by bicycle ranging from "Oh! I just had my hair done", to
"OH! But 3 miles is too far to go by bicycle", to "Good Lord! It's
raining", to "Oh My God! My head hurts. No more booze on weekdays!",
to "I don't wanna wear a Helmet!".

When I was working in Jakarta I used to ride 100 km every Sunday
morning but wouldn't have dreamed of commuting to work by bike.
Partially because a chauffeur driven car was one of the perks of the
job, partially because a white shirt and tie was more or less the
standard uniform for managers in the business and one didn't want to
be calling on clients looking all hot and sweaty, and partially
because I spent the ride to work planning my day.

While a dedicated bicyclist might argue that these are all
surmountable problems the whole point is that they were sufficient,
for me to decide not to ride a bike to work.


Yes, in a tropical climate the "hot and sweaty" issue is a big one.

In my area, the weather is mild, most larger companies have showering
and changing facilities, and white shirts and ties are rare.

The bigger issues around here a
1. I need to pick up children after work or attend their school activities.
2. I have to work late hours (very common in Silicon Valley because
you've got a lot of conference calls late at night when it's daytime in
Asia)
3. There's no safe route.
4. There's no secure bike parking.

We can address 2, 3, and 4, but addressing 1 is hard.

There's no helmet law for adults here, but it's rare to see any
professionals riding without one. However professionals are only one
segment of the cycling population. We have a lot of seniors from China
living with their adult children and they ride without helmets. We have
a lot of day workers that combine the bus and a bicycle.

Riding without lights is actually a bigger issue around here, and I just
received my first shipment of 200 rechargeable lights to give out. I
suppose we could also try to fund helmets, but really it's unnecessary.
You can buy a new helmet for $15, sometimes even less. The cost is not
the reason some people don't wear helmets, they just are willing to
accept the slight extra risk and not wear one.

Taking steps to make cycling safer are more important than imposing
helmet requirements. Just don't fall for the false narrative that if
helmets are required then suddenly mass numbers of people will give up
cycling in protest--there's never been any evidence of this happening.


Making cycling safer? Is cycling safe? Or is cycling unsafe? Or is
cycling only perceived as unsafe?


Yes, all of the above.

I ask as annually, in the U.S., approximately 750 people die while
cycling and nearly that many die falling out of bed and since there
seems to be no concept that going to bed is "dangerous" than it can't
be a matter of simple numbers.


Oh no, you're not going to start up with this nonsense are you. Taking
injury and fatality numbers completely out of context is reserved for
Frank. No one else is allowed to engage in this.

Various studies of bicycle "accidents" have found that from about 30%
to as much as 60% (in at least one study) of the accidents are the
fault of the cyclist which really does make one wonder about the mind
set of the cyclists.

"Hey! Just use good sense and obey the traffic laws and save your
life. "

I find it very strange that no one ever seems to mention this simple
fact. It is free, it can save you from death, pain, or an expensive
stay in the hospital, but it seems to be a fact that is kept a secret
and instead we are told to "wear a helmet", or "we gotta build safer
bicycle paths". Are the bicycle paths 30 to 60% safer? Reports I read
seem to indicate that they are even less safe than riding on the open
road.


Actually I mentioned this today. I stressed that while the protected
bike lanes, for which construction begins on Monday, will mitigate some
of the bad behavior of motorists, that they are not a panacea. I also
mentioned about what transpired in Ohio--big increase in cycling, but a
lot of crashes on the path (though if you read the report carefully, not
a many as it first appears).
Ads
  #82  
Old May 18th 19, 04:30 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.

On 5/18/2019 4:04 AM, sms wrote:
On 5/17/2019 4:12 PM, John B. wrote:

Various studies of bicycle "accidents" have found that from about 30%
to as much as 60% (in at least one study) of the accidents are the
fault of the cyclist which really does make one wonder about the mind
set of the cyclists.

"Hey! Just use good sense and obey the traffic laws and save your
life. "

I find it very strange that no one ever seems to mention this simple
fact. It is free, it can save you from death, pain,Â* or an expensive
stay in the hospital, but it seems to be a fact thatÂ* is kept a secret
and instead we are told to "wear a helmet", or "we gotta build safer
bicycle paths". Are the bicycle paths 30 to 60% safer? Reports I read
seem to indicate that they are even less safe than riding on the open
road.


Actually I mentioned this today. I stressed that while the protected
bike lanes, for which construction begins on Monday, will mitigate some
of the bad behavior of motorists, that they are not a panacea. I also
mentioned about what transpired in Ohio--big increase in cycling, but a
lot of crashes on the path (though if you read the report carefully, not
a many as it first appears).


The increase on Summit Street was 75%, although nobody knows how many of
those were simply shifted from adjacent streets. (Any riders who chose
to change their route from an adjacent street to Summit would have
caused those adjacent streets to have a _decrease_ in cycling; so it's
likely the increase in the local area was less than what's touted.)

But why proclaim 75% to be a "big increase" but hide the more than 700%
increase in bike crashes? Why not mention that individual cyclists were
at much, much higher risk after the installation of the "protected" bike
lanes?

There were a total of six bike crashes in the four years before the
"protection" was installed; 1.5 per year. There were 24 crashes in less
than two years following the completion of the project; over 12 per
year. How is that "not as many as it first appears"?

The information is at
http://www.dot.state.oh.us/engineeri...oorhead_72.pdf



--
- Frank Krygowski
  #83  
Old May 18th 19, 05:00 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Sir Ridesalot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,270
Default HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.

On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 11:30:27 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/18/2019 4:04 AM, sms wrote:
On 5/17/2019 4:12 PM, John B. wrote:

Various studies of bicycle "accidents" have found that from about 30%
to as much as 60% (in at least one study) of the accidents are the
fault of the cyclist which really does make one wonder about the mind
set of the cyclists.

"Hey! Just use good sense and obey the traffic laws and save your
life. "

I find it very strange that no one ever seems to mention this simple
fact. It is free, it can save you from death, pain,Â* or an expensive
stay in the hospital, but it seems to be a fact thatÂ* is kept a secret
and instead we are told to "wear a helmet", or "we gotta build safer
bicycle paths". Are the bicycle paths 30 to 60% safer? Reports I read
seem to indicate that they are even less safe than riding on the open
road.


Actually I mentioned this today. I stressed that while the protected
bike lanes, for which construction begins on Monday, will mitigate some
of the bad behavior of motorists, that they are not a panacea. I also
mentioned about what transpired in Ohio--big increase in cycling, but a
lot of crashes on the path (though if you read the report carefully, not
a many as it first appears).


The increase on Summit Street was 75%, although nobody knows how many of
those were simply shifted from adjacent streets. (Any riders who chose
to change their route from an adjacent street to Summit would have
caused those adjacent streets to have a _decrease_ in cycling; so it's
likely the increase in the local area was less than what's touted.)

But why proclaim 75% to be a "big increase" but hide the more than 700%
increase in bike crashes? Why not mention that individual cyclists were
at much, much higher risk after the installation of the "protected" bike
lanes?

There were a total of six bike crashes in the four years before the
"protection" was installed; 1.5 per year. There were 24 crashes in less
than two years following the completion of the project; over 12 per
year. How is that "not as many as it first appears"?

The information is at
http://www.dot.state.oh.us/engineeri...oorhead_72.pdf



--
- Frank Krygowski


I often wonder if the agenda of the "DANGER! DANGER!" people like SMS is to first get bicyclists off the roads and into bike lanes or "protected lanes" and then later to get them off the roads entirely? From what I've seen and read it seems to me that many so called bicycling advocates are in fact commuting/transportation bicyclists worst enemies. What with all their emphasis on needed safety equipment in order to even ride a bicycle it's a wonder they expect to convince anyone to take up bicycling as a means of commuting or transportation.

Cheers
  #84  
Old May 18th 19, 08:51 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Kunich[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,231
Default HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.

On Friday, May 17, 2019 at 4:28:52 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 17 May 2019 12:16:13 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 7:27:58 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 16 May 2019 18:28:00 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 5/16/2019 1:10 AM, jbeattie wrote:

Without getting into the prudence of an adult MHL, I could see a MHL causing significant drops in certain populations.

Perhaps, but that's not what happened in Australia. In fact numbers went
up right after the MHL, just not as fast as the population increase.
When that fact was noted, the AHZs insisted that the reason that cycling
numbers went up slower than the population growth was because of the
MHL--even when the data didn't support their premise they simply created
a rationalization to excuse the actual data. Of course that was of
little importance since when the actual data doesn't support their
position they just fabricate data to suit them.

If traffic is no so bad that you really need to ride a bike, then people
with a "live free or die" or "don't muss my hair" or overheat my head
mentality may not ride -- assuming there is any real effort to enforce
the law. In Amsterdam, people would probably just ignore the law, and
there would be no change. In the London scrum, they may comply because
driving is impossible and riding is objectively dangerous. In Portland,
compliance is pretty high already and enforcement would be nil, so there
would be no change. It really depends on the population. I don't see
any reason why the drop in Australia couldn't be "real" as opposed to
or the result of some confounding factor. Entire populations can become
entrenched on some relatively minor issues.

Tomorrow we kick off construction of some protected bike lanes near a
high school. These are real protected bike lanes, not some widely placed
pop-up bollards. While I would be thrilled to get the increase in
cycling that they saw in Columbus Ohio (75%)
http://www.dot.state.oh.us/engineering/OTEC/2017Presentations/72/Moorhead_72.pdf
I'd be happy with just 15%. The fact that we're doing real protected
bike lanes will hopefully mean that we see less of an increase in
non-fatal crashes than Columbus saw.

Perusing any of the studies of bicycle accidents that included an
attempt at defining who was at fault, who basically caused the
accident, shows that from about 30, to over 50 percent
( in one study) of the "accidents" between motor vehicles and bicycles
were the fault of the bicyclist, and this ignores the fact that a
substantial percentage, as many as 30%, in some studies, of all
bicycle crashes are "single vehicle crashes".

Thus it seems likely that simply building a private road for bicycles
while it may decrease bicycle versus motor vehicle crashes where the
fault lies with the motor vehicle it is not likely, as the "Columbus
Study" demonstrated, to reduce crashes significantly. In fact the
fact that the bicycles are protected from any attack by motor vehicles
will likely result in an increase in the "stupid stunts" that
bicyclists seem to do. One study, for example, listed "failure to
yield right of way", by both motor vehicles and bicycles, as a major
cause of crashes. Will being isolated from motor vehicles on the
Bicycle Road reduce the number of "failure to yield", by bicycle,
incidents? Or, for that matter, the number of single vehicle crashes?

One of the questions about the reduction in bicyclists when the
Australia helmet law went into effect was "is this a result of having
to wear a helmet?" Or is it "a result of discovering that bicycling
had become so dangerous that one must wear a helmet to be safe?"
--
cheers,

John B.


True John, but it does reduce fatalities. Single vehicle accidents only rarely end in fatalities. Though watching that Frenchman descending Mt Hamilton in the Tour of California might have given you doubts. I cannot believe a man that strong and a pro with a 7 minute lead had absolutely NO idea of how to take a corner at speed.


Does it? I wonder.

The figures I read are more in line with "of those that had a head
injury only xyz were wearing a helmet", but what is a head injury?
"Scratched your nose" is a head injury.

What I don't see is number such as "of those with fractures of the
skull or brain damage XYZ ware wearing a helmet." Probably because in
an accident that severe a bicycle helmet would do no good at all.

I recently read an article that stated that even U.S. football helmets
which are far more protective than a bicycle helmet do not protect
from brain damage so how can a Styrofoam Bennie, with holes in,
protect one from significant head or brain injury.
--
cheers,

John B.


I have not been a believer in helmets for a very long time now. But the new Bontrager (Trek) helmets are something else altogether though they certainly have a long way to go to make them more comfortable. I bought a Chinese helmet that is really comfortable but it lacks the technology of the Bontrager which has engineered the foam to actually be absorbent.

Trek's data says that this new foam has 28 times less chance of causing concussion which is the majority injury to bicyclist with severe injuries.
  #85  
Old May 18th 19, 08:55 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Kunich[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,231
Default HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.

On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 9:00:37 AM UTC-7, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 11:30:27 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/18/2019 4:04 AM, sms wrote:
On 5/17/2019 4:12 PM, John B. wrote:

Various studies of bicycle "accidents" have found that from about 30%
to as much as 60% (in at least one study) of the accidents are the
fault of the cyclist which really does make one wonder about the mind
set of the cyclists.

"Hey! Just use good sense and obey the traffic laws and save your
life. "

I find it very strange that no one ever seems to mention this simple
fact. It is free, it can save you from death, pain,Â* or an expensive
stay in the hospital, but it seems to be a fact thatÂ* is kept a secret
and instead we are told to "wear a helmet", or "we gotta build safer
bicycle paths". Are the bicycle paths 30 to 60% safer? Reports I read
seem to indicate that they are even less safe than riding on the open
road.

Actually I mentioned this today. I stressed that while the protected
bike lanes, for which construction begins on Monday, will mitigate some
of the bad behavior of motorists, that they are not a panacea. I also
mentioned about what transpired in Ohio--big increase in cycling, but a
lot of crashes on the path (though if you read the report carefully, not
a many as it first appears).


The increase on Summit Street was 75%, although nobody knows how many of
those were simply shifted from adjacent streets. (Any riders who chose
to change their route from an adjacent street to Summit would have
caused those adjacent streets to have a _decrease_ in cycling; so it's
likely the increase in the local area was less than what's touted.)

But why proclaim 75% to be a "big increase" but hide the more than 700%
increase in bike crashes? Why not mention that individual cyclists were
at much, much higher risk after the installation of the "protected" bike
lanes?

There were a total of six bike crashes in the four years before the
"protection" was installed; 1.5 per year. There were 24 crashes in less
than two years following the completion of the project; over 12 per
year. How is that "not as many as it first appears"?

The information is at
http://www.dot.state.oh.us/engineeri...oorhead_72.pdf



--
- Frank Krygowski


I often wonder if the agenda of the "DANGER! DANGER!" people like SMS is to first get bicyclists off the roads and into bike lanes or "protected lanes" and then later to get them off the roads entirely? From what I've seen and read it seems to me that many so called bicycling advocates are in fact commuting/transportation bicyclists worst enemies. What with all their emphasis on needed safety equipment in order to even ride a bicycle it's a wonder they expect to convince anyone to take up bicycling as a means of commuting or transportation.

Cheers


I wouldn't assign ulterior motives to people who feel very uncomfortable riding around traffic.
  #86  
Old May 18th 19, 09:29 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Sir Ridesalot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,270
Default HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.

On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 3:55:35 PM UTC-4, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 9:00:37 AM UTC-7, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 11:30:27 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/18/2019 4:04 AM, sms wrote:
On 5/17/2019 4:12 PM, John B. wrote:

Various studies of bicycle "accidents" have found that from about 30%
to as much as 60% (in at least one study) of the accidents are the
fault of the cyclist which really does make one wonder about the mind
set of the cyclists.

"Hey! Just use good sense and obey the traffic laws and save your
life. "

I find it very strange that no one ever seems to mention this simple
fact. It is free, it can save you from death, pain,Â* or an expensive
stay in the hospital, but it seems to be a fact thatÂ* is kept a secret
and instead we are told to "wear a helmet", or "we gotta build safer
bicycle paths". Are the bicycle paths 30 to 60% safer? Reports I read
seem to indicate that they are even less safe than riding on the open
road.

Actually I mentioned this today. I stressed that while the protected
bike lanes, for which construction begins on Monday, will mitigate some
of the bad behavior of motorists, that they are not a panacea. I also
mentioned about what transpired in Ohio--big increase in cycling, but a
lot of crashes on the path (though if you read the report carefully, not
a many as it first appears).

The increase on Summit Street was 75%, although nobody knows how many of
those were simply shifted from adjacent streets. (Any riders who chose
to change their route from an adjacent street to Summit would have
caused those adjacent streets to have a _decrease_ in cycling; so it's
likely the increase in the local area was less than what's touted.)

But why proclaim 75% to be a "big increase" but hide the more than 700%
increase in bike crashes? Why not mention that individual cyclists were
at much, much higher risk after the installation of the "protected" bike
lanes?

There were a total of six bike crashes in the four years before the
"protection" was installed; 1.5 per year. There were 24 crashes in less
than two years following the completion of the project; over 12 per
year. How is that "not as many as it first appears"?

The information is at
http://www.dot.state.oh.us/engineeri...oorhead_72.pdf



--
- Frank Krygowski


I often wonder if the agenda of the "DANGER! DANGER!" people like SMS is to first get bicyclists off the roads and into bike lanes or "protected lanes" and then later to get them off the roads entirely? From what I've seen and read it seems to me that many so called bicycling advocates are in fact commuting/transportation bicyclists worst enemies. What with all their emphasis on needed safety equipment in order to even ride a bicycle it's a wonder they expect to convince anyone to take up bicycling as a means of commuting or transportation.

Cheers


I wouldn't assign ulterior motives to people who feel very uncomfortable riding around traffic.


Unfortunately many people are being convinced by the "DANGER! DANGER!" crowd that it's far too dangerous to ever attempt to ride in traffic. In a way that's a good thing as it keeps the number of bicyclists low and that in turn prevents bicycle gridlock.

When I lived in Toronto Canada one of my routes went along Danforth/Bloor Street which often had really pokey squirrley bicyclists on it. I was delighted to find that a short detour up River Street to Bayview Avenue would take me to Rosedale Valley Road that had only one stop sign just before Yonge Street and bypassed the vast majority of those squirrley riders plus had the extra benefit of being a nice ride through a nice valley with little motor vehicle traffic.

I do wonder though. If bicycling infrastructure became commonplace would laws then be enacted forcing bicyclist to only use that infrastructure?

Cheers
  #87  
Old May 18th 19, 09:46 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Duane[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,546
Default HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.

Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 3:55:35 PM UTC-4, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 9:00:37 AM UTC-7, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 11:30:27 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/18/2019 4:04 AM, sms wrote:
On 5/17/2019 4:12 PM, John B. wrote:

Various studies of bicycle "accidents" have found that from about 30%
to as much as 60% (in at least one study) of the accidents are the
fault of the cyclist which really does make one wonder about the mind
set of the cyclists.

"Hey! Just use good sense and obey the traffic laws and save your
life. "

I find it very strange that no one ever seems to mention this simple
fact. It is free, it can save you from death, pain,Â* or an expensive
stay in the hospital, but it seems to be a fact thatÂ* is kept a secret
and instead we are told to "wear a helmet", or "we gotta build safer
bicycle paths". Are the bicycle paths 30 to 60% safer? Reports I read
seem to indicate that they are even less safe than riding on the open
road.

Actually I mentioned this today. I stressed that while the protected
bike lanes, for which construction begins on Monday, will mitigate some
of the bad behavior of motorists, that they are not a panacea. I also
mentioned about what transpired in Ohio--big increase in cycling, but a
lot of crashes on the path (though if you read the report carefully, not
a many as it first appears).

The increase on Summit Street was 75%, although nobody knows how many of
those were simply shifted from adjacent streets. (Any riders who chose
to change their route from an adjacent street to Summit would have
caused those adjacent streets to have a _decrease_ in cycling; so it's
likely the increase in the local area was less than what's touted.)

But why proclaim 75% to be a "big increase" but hide the more than 700%
increase in bike crashes? Why not mention that individual cyclists were
at much, much higher risk after the installation of the "protected" bike
lanes?

There were a total of six bike crashes in the four years before the
"protection" was installed; 1.5 per year. There were 24 crashes in less
than two years following the completion of the project; over 12 per
year. How is that "not as many as it first appears"?

The information is at
http://www.dot.state.oh.us/engineeri...oorhead_72.pdf



--
- Frank Krygowski

I often wonder if the agenda of the "DANGER! DANGER!" people like SMS
is to first get bicyclists off the roads and into bike lanes or
"protected lanes" and then later to get them off the roads entirely?
From what I've seen and read it seems to me that many so called
bicycling advocates are in fact commuting/transportation bicyclists
worst enemies. What with all their emphasis on needed safety equipment
in order to even ride a bicycle it's a wonder they expect to convince
anyone to take up bicycling as a means of commuting or transportation.

Cheers


I wouldn't assign ulterior motives to people who feel very uncomfortable
riding around traffic.


Unfortunately many people are being convinced by the "DANGER! DANGER!"
crowd that it's far too dangerous to ever attempt to ride in traffic. In
a way that's a good thing as it keeps the number of bicyclists low and
that in turn prevents bicycle gridlock.

When I lived in Toronto Canada one of my routes went along Danforth/Bloor
Street which often had really pokey squirrley bicyclists on it. I was
delighted to find that a short detour up River Street to Bayview Avenue
would take me to Rosedale Valley Road that had only one stop sign just
before Yonge Street and bypassed the vast majority of those squirrley
riders plus had the extra benefit of being a nice ride through a nice
valley with little motor vehicle traffic.

I do wonder though. If bicycling infrastructure became commonplace would
laws then be enacted forcing bicyclist to only use that infrastructure?

Cheers


It’s pretty common place in Montreal but there’s a rider in the Highway
Code saying cyclists are not forced to use it. Mostly because bike paths
have a 20km/h limit. Good thing since it’s mostly too crowded to get
anywhere in a hurry. The other good thing is it keeps slower riders off
the road.

I haven’t ridden in Toronto much. Just once and I didn’t find Yonge Street
very pleasant. The area around Niagara wine country was pretty cool
though.

--
duane
  #88  
Old May 18th 19, 11:12 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
jOHN b.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.

On Sat, 18 May 2019 01:04:14 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 5/17/2019 4:12 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 17 May 2019 08:49:37 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 5/16/2019 5:54 PM, John B. wrote:

snip

It seems likely that there are a multitude of reasons for people not
commuting by bicycle ranging from "Oh! I just had my hair done", to
"OH! But 3 miles is too far to go by bicycle", to "Good Lord! It's
raining", to "Oh My God! My head hurts. No more booze on weekdays!",
to "I don't wanna wear a Helmet!".

When I was working in Jakarta I used to ride 100 km every Sunday
morning but wouldn't have dreamed of commuting to work by bike.
Partially because a chauffeur driven car was one of the perks of the
job, partially because a white shirt and tie was more or less the
standard uniform for managers in the business and one didn't want to
be calling on clients looking all hot and sweaty, and partially
because I spent the ride to work planning my day.

While a dedicated bicyclist might argue that these are all
surmountable problems the whole point is that they were sufficient,
for me to decide not to ride a bike to work.

Yes, in a tropical climate the "hot and sweaty" issue is a big one.

In my area, the weather is mild, most larger companies have showering
and changing facilities, and white shirts and ties are rare.

The bigger issues around here a
1. I need to pick up children after work or attend their school activities.
2. I have to work late hours (very common in Silicon Valley because
you've got a lot of conference calls late at night when it's daytime in
Asia)
3. There's no safe route.
4. There's no secure bike parking.

We can address 2, 3, and 4, but addressing 1 is hard.

There's no helmet law for adults here, but it's rare to see any
professionals riding without one. However professionals are only one
segment of the cycling population. We have a lot of seniors from China
living with their adult children and they ride without helmets. We have
a lot of day workers that combine the bus and a bicycle.

Riding without lights is actually a bigger issue around here, and I just
received my first shipment of 200 rechargeable lights to give out. I
suppose we could also try to fund helmets, but really it's unnecessary.
You can buy a new helmet for $15, sometimes even less. The cost is not
the reason some people don't wear helmets, they just are willing to
accept the slight extra risk and not wear one.

Taking steps to make cycling safer are more important than imposing
helmet requirements. Just don't fall for the false narrative that if
helmets are required then suddenly mass numbers of people will give up
cycling in protest--there's never been any evidence of this happening.


Making cycling safer? Is cycling safe? Or is cycling unsafe? Or is
cycling only perceived as unsafe?


Yes, all of the above.

I ask as annually, in the U.S., approximately 750 people die while
cycling and nearly that many die falling out of bed and since there
seems to be no concept that going to bed is "dangerous" than it can't
be a matter of simple numbers.


Oh no, you're not going to start up with this nonsense are you. Taking
injury and fatality numbers completely out of context is reserved for
Frank. No one else is allowed to engage in this.

I see. Nonsense because that ~759 bicyclists die each year? Because
some 737 die from falling out of bed? Or nonsense because it doesn't
agree with your highly political opinion?

I suggest that the latter is the most likely truth.

Various studies of bicycle "accidents" have found that from about 30%
to as much as 60% (in at least one study) of the accidents are the
fault of the cyclist which really does make one wonder about the mind
set of the cyclists.

"Hey! Just use good sense and obey the traffic laws and save your
life. "

I find it very strange that no one ever seems to mention this simple
fact. It is free, it can save you from death, pain, or an expensive
stay in the hospital, but it seems to be a fact that is kept a secret
and instead we are told to "wear a helmet", or "we gotta build safer
bicycle paths". Are the bicycle paths 30 to 60% safer? Reports I read
seem to indicate that they are even less safe than riding on the open
road.


Actually I mentioned this today. I stressed that while the protected
bike lanes, for which construction begins on Monday, will mitigate some
of the bad behavior of motorists, that they are not a panacea. I also
mentioned about what transpired in Ohio--big increase in cycling, but a
lot of crashes on the path (though if you read the report carefully, not
a many as it first appears).


If I read you correctly you are really saying that bicyclists behave
badly, do not comply with existing laws and regulations and (horrors)
don't even display good sense and therefore special paths and byways
must be constructed at the expense of the public to protect them from
their own foolish actions.

Whatever happened to those rugged and stalwart folks who through their
efforts forged a great nation out of a wilderness? All gone? Like the
dodo?
--
cheers,

John B.

  #89  
Old May 18th 19, 11:40 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
jOHN b.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.

On Sat, 18 May 2019 09:00:34 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 11:30:27 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/18/2019 4:04 AM, sms wrote:
On 5/17/2019 4:12 PM, John B. wrote:

Various studies of bicycle "accidents" have found that from about 30%
to as much as 60% (in at least one study) of the accidents are the
fault of the cyclist which really does make one wonder about the mind
set of the cyclists.

"Hey! Just use good sense and obey the traffic laws and save your
life. "

I find it very strange that no one ever seems to mention this simple
fact. It is free, it can save you from death, pain,* or an expensive
stay in the hospital, but it seems to be a fact that* is kept a secret
and instead we are told to "wear a helmet", or "we gotta build safer
bicycle paths". Are the bicycle paths 30 to 60% safer? Reports I read
seem to indicate that they are even less safe than riding on the open
road.

Actually I mentioned this today. I stressed that while the protected
bike lanes, for which construction begins on Monday, will mitigate some
of the bad behavior of motorists, that they are not a panacea. I also
mentioned about what transpired in Ohio--big increase in cycling, but a
lot of crashes on the path (though if you read the report carefully, not
a many as it first appears).


The increase on Summit Street was 75%, although nobody knows how many of
those were simply shifted from adjacent streets. (Any riders who chose
to change their route from an adjacent street to Summit would have
caused those adjacent streets to have a _decrease_ in cycling; so it's
likely the increase in the local area was less than what's touted.)

But why proclaim 75% to be a "big increase" but hide the more than 700%
increase in bike crashes? Why not mention that individual cyclists were
at much, much higher risk after the installation of the "protected" bike
lanes?

There were a total of six bike crashes in the four years before the
"protection" was installed; 1.5 per year. There were 24 crashes in less
than two years following the completion of the project; over 12 per
year. How is that "not as many as it first appears"?

The information is at
http://www.dot.state.oh.us/engineeri...oorhead_72.pdf



--
- Frank Krygowski


I often wonder if the agenda of the "DANGER! DANGER!" people like SMS is to first get bicyclists off the roads and into bike lanes or "protected lanes" and then later to get them off the roads entirely? From what I've seen and read it seems to me that many so called bicycling advocates are in fact commuting/transportation bicyclists worst enemies. What with all their emphasis on needed safety equipment in order to even ride a bicycle it's a wonder they expect to convince anyone to take up bicycling as a means of commuting or transportation.

Cheers


Well SMS is obvious. He got elected to office and is thinking of
re-election, probably the most common concern of all politicians, and
to get re-elected he needs something to show the voters to justify his
re-election. What better than bicycle paths to save all those poor
innocent bicyclists from the horrors of using the public highways?

Think of it. It is the perfect solution to a politician's problems. If
he takes on pollution than he would have to be telling his
constituents to get rid of their automobiles. If he takes on illegal
immigrants than who is going to pick the beans. The ratio of Black
criminals in California jails? Suicide!

But bicycle paths? The perfect scheme as it upsets no one and
apparently is something that demonstrates a politician's great love
for the American Public.

One might also peruse
https://tinyurl.com/y2qq6ygs
--
cheers,

John B.

  #90  
Old May 18th 19, 11:50 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
jOHN b.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.

On Sat, 18 May 2019 12:51:45 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Friday, May 17, 2019 at 4:28:52 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 17 May 2019 12:16:13 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 7:27:58 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 16 May 2019 18:28:00 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 5/16/2019 1:10 AM, jbeattie wrote:

Without getting into the prudence of an adult MHL, I could see a MHL causing significant drops in certain populations.

Perhaps, but that's not what happened in Australia. In fact numbers went
up right after the MHL, just not as fast as the population increase.
When that fact was noted, the AHZs insisted that the reason that cycling
numbers went up slower than the population growth was because of the
MHL--even when the data didn't support their premise they simply created
a rationalization to excuse the actual data. Of course that was of
little importance since when the actual data doesn't support their
position they just fabricate data to suit them.

If traffic is no so bad that you really need to ride a bike, then people
with a "live free or die" or "don't muss my hair" or overheat my head
mentality may not ride -- assuming there is any real effort to enforce
the law. In Amsterdam, people would probably just ignore the law, and
there would be no change. In the London scrum, they may comply because
driving is impossible and riding is objectively dangerous. In Portland,
compliance is pretty high already and enforcement would be nil, so there
would be no change. It really depends on the population. I don't see
any reason why the drop in Australia couldn't be "real" as opposed to
or the result of some confounding factor. Entire populations can become
entrenched on some relatively minor issues.

Tomorrow we kick off construction of some protected bike lanes near a
high school. These are real protected bike lanes, not some widely placed
pop-up bollards. While I would be thrilled to get the increase in
cycling that they saw in Columbus Ohio (75%)
http://www.dot.state.oh.us/engineering/OTEC/2017Presentations/72/Moorhead_72.pdf
I'd be happy with just 15%. The fact that we're doing real protected
bike lanes will hopefully mean that we see less of an increase in
non-fatal crashes than Columbus saw.

Perusing any of the studies of bicycle accidents that included an
attempt at defining who was at fault, who basically caused the
accident, shows that from about 30, to over 50 percent
( in one study) of the "accidents" between motor vehicles and bicycles
were the fault of the bicyclist, and this ignores the fact that a
substantial percentage, as many as 30%, in some studies, of all
bicycle crashes are "single vehicle crashes".

Thus it seems likely that simply building a private road for bicycles
while it may decrease bicycle versus motor vehicle crashes where the
fault lies with the motor vehicle it is not likely, as the "Columbus
Study" demonstrated, to reduce crashes significantly. In fact the
fact that the bicycles are protected from any attack by motor vehicles
will likely result in an increase in the "stupid stunts" that
bicyclists seem to do. One study, for example, listed "failure to
yield right of way", by both motor vehicles and bicycles, as a major
cause of crashes. Will being isolated from motor vehicles on the
Bicycle Road reduce the number of "failure to yield", by bicycle,
incidents? Or, for that matter, the number of single vehicle crashes?

One of the questions about the reduction in bicyclists when the
Australia helmet law went into effect was "is this a result of having
to wear a helmet?" Or is it "a result of discovering that bicycling
had become so dangerous that one must wear a helmet to be safe?"
--
cheers,

John B.

True John, but it does reduce fatalities. Single vehicle accidents only rarely end in fatalities. Though watching that Frenchman descending Mt Hamilton in the Tour of California might have given you doubts. I cannot believe a man that strong and a pro with a 7 minute lead had absolutely NO idea of how to take a corner at speed.


Does it? I wonder.

The figures I read are more in line with "of those that had a head
injury only xyz were wearing a helmet", but what is a head injury?
"Scratched your nose" is a head injury.

What I don't see is number such as "of those with fractures of the
skull or brain damage XYZ ware wearing a helmet." Probably because in
an accident that severe a bicycle helmet would do no good at all.

I recently read an article that stated that even U.S. football helmets
which are far more protective than a bicycle helmet do not protect
from brain damage so how can a Styrofoam Bennie, with holes in,
protect one from significant head or brain injury.
--
cheers,

John B.


I have not been a believer in helmets for a very long time now. But the new Bontrager (Trek) helmets are something else altogether though they certainly have a long way to go to make them more comfortable. I bought a Chinese helmet that is really comfortable but it lacks the technology of the Bontrager which has engineered the foam to actually be absorbent.

I read a bit about the New! Improved! (more expensive) Bontrager
helmet. It's claim to fame is that it allows 6mm of rotational
movement. 6 mm, think of it?

Trek's data says that this new foam has 28 times less chance of causing concussion which is the majority injury to bicyclist with severe injuries.


Data? I wonder. After all the best football helmet, and you must admit
that football helmets do a much better job of protection than bicycle
helmets, provide about 20% protection but the NEW! Improved! Bontrager
helmets provide almost a third more protection?
--
cheers,

John B.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is cycling dangerous? Bertie Wooster[_2_] UK 20 March 17th 14 10:43 PM
Cycling casualties plummet despite rise in numbers Simon Mason[_4_] UK 7 April 6th 12 08:06 AM
"Cycling is not dangerous. Cars are dangerous." Doug[_3_] UK 56 September 14th 09 05:57 PM
Help Texas Cycling call these numbers throughout the weekend Anton Berlin Racing 4 June 25th 09 08:58 PM
Cycling is dangerous Garry Jones General 375 November 21st 03 06:52 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:12 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.