|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Dangerous? Study: 77 to 1 benefit to risk
On 8/7/2011 12:26 AM, Dan wrote:
Frank writes: [...] I agree with reduced speed limits in any place where a pedestrian or cyclist could be expected to be traveling. Hold on a sec' - where should a cyclist *not* be expected to travel? [...] Controlled access roadways with minimum speed limits. -- Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W I am a vehicular cyclist. |
Ads |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Dangerous? Study: 77 to 1 benefit to risk
"T°m Sherm@n" " writes:
On 8/6/2011 5:32 PM, Dan wrote: "T°m " writes: On 8/6/2011 3:37 PM, Dan wrote: [...] And the surest way to get people out of their cars and using bikes instead is to create dedicated space and bike facilites from what is now essentially space dedicated to cars - space that bicyclists may have a *right* to use, but that die-hard cagers think is too dangerous to ride in, and that cagers think belongs exclusively to them. I prefer economic incentives to get people of of their giant cages - an $8/gallon tax would be a start. I'm all about that, too. Especially the "I need a big vehicle for safety" (and screw other road users) people. How about taking driving seriously, so you do not get into accidents in the first place? Serious Q : are you such a complete idiot as your posts suggest? Do you know what an "accident" is? Are you aware that people are "human" and that things fail, and **** happens, and adverse weather conditions affect perception? Idiots like you make real cyclists and people who try to encourage people to cycle look like extremist nut cases. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Dangerous? Study: 77 to 1 benefit to risk
On 8/7/2011 1:47 AM, "T°m Sherm@n" wrote:
On 8/6/2011 10:26 PM, Peter Cole wrote: On 8/6/2011 4:21 PM, "T°m Sherm@n" wrote: On 8/6/2011 12:50 PM, Peter Cole wrote: [...] I hate queuing up behind long lines of hot, exhaust spewing vehicles jammed curb to curb.[...] That only happens a few times a year (at special events) where I live in Iowa. I can believe that, but the context of my comments was dense urban areas. Yes, but why would sane people choose to live in such places? Lots of reasons. One relevant to this thread: the potential to live car-free and/or use a bicycle for most of your transportation. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Dangerous? Study: 77 to 1 benefit to risk
On 8/6/2011 4:10 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
Peter considered Sat, 06 Aug 2011 14:02:15 -0400 the perfect time to write: On 8/6/2011 11:45 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote: Lou Holtman wrote: What does 7:1 etc mean? What is benefit to risk ratio? The ratio is an estimate of the number of years of life gained for every year of life lost due to cycling. Obviously, it's an estimate, and one that's complicated to construct. But researchers have previously estimated the effects on longevity of various behaviors and environmental factors. This cycling research attempts to aggregate those effects as they relate to cycling, vs. not cycling (which typically means motoring). For example, one factor is breathing various concentrations of polluted air. (That applies to cyclists, motorists and bystanders - but "Danger! Danger!" people like Duane make noise about only the effect on cyclists.) Anyway, researchers can use measured data to estimate the amount of air pollution inhaled by cyclists and by motorists, and compute how many years of life are expected to be lost for each group. (That one's small, and worse for motorists, BTW.) They can also examine data on the health benefits of moderate exercise, and use that to estimate the number of years of life gained by regular cycling. That factor is quite large in favor of the cyclists. Finally, the big one in most people's minds: They can look at data on frequency of traffic crashes and see how likely a cyclist is to get killed or seriously injured while riding. They can work that into the computation as well. However, it turns out it's relatively tiny. Despite the fear mongering, loss of life while cycling is a very, very tiny risk. Again, Mayer Hillman's computations many years ago (around 1990, IIRC) put cycling's benefit:risk at 20:1. De Hartog's came out at 7:1 or 9:1 for different groups of cyclists. This latest comes out 77:1 - i.e. for each population year of life lost due to cycling-related factors, there are 77 years of life gained. Cycling is tremendously beneficial. The differences in these estimates are large, of course. But no matter which a person chooses, it shows that fears of cycling are unjustified, and that we don't need weird measures to reduce the mythical danger levels. But it's like an inverse lottery. Every one is likely to get a small benefit, but a few are destined for a big loss. Ken K. and J. Brandt being two examples. I'd say, given (apparent) human nature, that lotteries are an attractive form of gambling, while cycling is an unattractive one. But every car off the road is one less spin of the wheel, roll of the dice, or turn of the card. So increasing cycling at the expense of motoring reduces the number destined for a big loss, at the same time as increasing the number of small benefits. In aggregate, yes, which is one reason that it makes sense to promote cycling on a social level. As for the comparison with long-odds gambling, in the context of risk/reward, that's a matter of self-interest, not altruism. If one were to assume altruistic motives, we'd live in a very different world. My comments were about the world we live in. Human nature, for whatever reason, seems to favor gambling the likely small loss against the unlikely large win vs. the other way around. Perhaps a better way to promote cycling during the various "Bike Weeks" would be to randomly give out a few large prizes rather than free drinks and energy bars to everyone. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Dangerous? Study: 77 to 1 benefit to risk
On 8/7/2011 12:12 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Peter Cole wrote: That's really the issue. It's not whether, as you say, cycling is safe enough to do -- we apparently all agree that it is -- but could it (easily) be made safer... Of course "... can be made safer..." applies to every activity on earth. Yes, but the key word being "easier". There's always a point of diminishing returns in risk reduction -- the location of which is usually where the argument rages, this case being no exception. ... -- and I'd add -- more convenient and more pleasant. On our local expressways we have "HOV" (high occupancy vehicle) dedicated lanes. I'd like the same in the city. I hate queuing up behind long lines of hot, exhaust spewing vehicles jammed curb to curb. I'd like to take a little space from the road hogs. Ideally, I'd like my own signals, or even signal timings, and I'd like exemptions from traffic controls along the lines of "Idaho stops". I'd like to see a reduction in urban areas from the default thickly settled speed limit of 30 mph to a more reasonable 20. Simple stuff that would make cycling safer, more pleasant and more convenient. I agree with reduced speed limits in any place where a pedestrian or cyclist could be expected to be traveling. I would assume by that you mean the only exception would be limited access highways. I think that exception should be obvious and not particularly relevant to dense urban areas. The rest of the factors you mention would not give me measurable benefit, and would give some detriments. Even in the core of downtown Pittsburgh at rush hour (really, gridlock hour), I've never needed a separate bike lane to avoid vehicles jammed curb to curb. If so, either you or Pittsburgh are unusual. Being impeded by vehicular traffic, whether cycling or on foot, significantly detracts from the convenience of either. By reducing the advantage of cycling it is made less attractive as an alternative. If priority is given to vehicular traffic over other modes it is discriminatory and an effective social subsidy of motor traffic. I think the only thing that could make this not painfully obvious is some form of dogmatic myopia. And separate signal phases would slow everyone down even more. Giving cyclists an "early green", for instance, might slow some motorists slightly, but I doubt it would have any real cross-town trip time effect. Giving cyclists a head start allows them to not have to contend with vehicles at intersections, particularly turning vehicles. It is similar in principle to pedestrian signal phases -- a slight inconvenience to motorists, but a big convenience to others. Early greens and bike boxes only level the playing field slightly, but in such a distorted landscape even that tiny bit seems huge. Motorist convenience has been the driving force behind road design for so long that people don't see the bias. It's not helpful when cyclists become the blind leading the blind. Bicycles are "vehicles" only in an absurdly pedantic sense. In the end it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy: roads are designed for motorists because only motorists use them. And such wish lists so seldom mention any education efforts! Again, the context of my comments was specifically dense urban environs. I don't believe there's anything about them that makes education more or less beneficial. The thing that does distinguish rural vs. urban risks to cyclists is the greater degree of hazard presented by vehicles in urban settings. This translates into a greater percentage of "cyclist not at fault" incidents. One could then argue that a well educated cyclist might be at a much lower risk in a rural setting, while the benefit of education might be reduced comparatively in the city. A specific counter-example might be dooring hazard, where one could argue that education ("don't ride there") provides the most effective strategy, but as successful as that may be as a pragmatic approach, it still has the unfortunate side effect of putting the onus on the cyclist even though the fault obviously lies elsewhere. In this manner, education alone, takes on an inescapable "blame the victim" bias. An alternative would be to simply remove the risk of dooring by eliminating parallel parking. Given the impracticality of doing this in all places it seems reasonable to continue with education and legal approaches to lower the hazard, but specific modifications to bike routes (AKA facilities) make more sense than an education-only approach. Cyclists have specific needs, they do not "fare best" when treated as the operators of "vehicles", but when they're treated as cyclists. A dogma based on a false premise is unavoidably a false dogma. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Dangerous? Study: 77 to 1 benefit to risk
On 8/7/2011 2:26 AM, Simon Lewis wrote:
"T°m " writes: On 8/6/2011 5:32 PM, Dan wrote: "T°m " writes: On 8/6/2011 3:37 PM, Dan wrote: [...] And the surest way to get people out of their cars and using bikes instead is to create dedicated space and bike facilites from what is now essentially space dedicated to cars - space that bicyclists may have a *right* to use, but that die-hard cagers think is too dangerous to ride in, and that cagers think belongs exclusively to them. I prefer economic incentives to get people of of their giant cages - an $8/gallon tax would be a start. I'm all about that, too. Especially the "I need a big vehicle for safety" (and screw other road users) people. How about taking driving seriously, so you do not get into accidents in the first place? Serious Q : are you such a complete idiot as your posts suggest? Do you know what an "accident" is? Are you aware that people are "human" and that things fail, and **** happens, and adverse weather conditions affect perception? Pulling one's head out of one's ass and learning to drive a vehicle with proper brakes and handling is much safer that relying on the sheer bulk of a rolling living room, and much less dangerous to others. No it will not save everyone all the time, but neither will planting one's fat ass in a fat ass SUV. I think we should make everyone ride motorcycles, as it would soon thin the herd by weeding out the incompetent. As for inclement weather, slow the hell down to a safe speed. Duh. Idiots like you make real cyclists and people who try to encourage people to cycle look like extremist nut cases. A nut case is believing all the crap shoveled out by the anti-cycling farcilities (sic) promoters and the Liddite foam bicycle hat sellers. -- Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W I am a vehicular cyclist. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Dangerous? Study: 77 to 1 benefit to risk
On 8/7/2011 8:10 AM, Peter Cole wrote:
On 8/7/2011 12:12 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote: [...] I agree with reduced speed limits in any place where a pedestrian or cyclist could be expected to be traveling. I would assume by that you mean the only exception would be limited access highways. I think that exception should be obvious and not particularly relevant to dense urban areas.[...] The problem with controlled access roads in dense urban areas is too much access. Get rid of the interchanges in the cities, and it would make it much quicker to traverse them on the way to one's destination. -- Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W I am a vehicular cyclist. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Dangerous? Study: 77 to 1 benefit to risk
On 8/7/2011 6:43 AM, Peter Cole wrote:
On 8/7/2011 1:47 AM, "T°m Sherm@n" wrote: On 8/6/2011 10:26 PM, Peter Cole wrote: On 8/6/2011 4:21 PM, "T°m Sherm@n" wrote: On 8/6/2011 12:50 PM, Peter Cole wrote: [...] I hate queuing up behind long lines of hot, exhaust spewing vehicles jammed curb to curb.[...] That only happens a few times a year (at special events) where I live in Iowa. I can believe that, but the context of my comments was dense urban areas. Yes, but why would sane people choose to live in such places? Lots of reasons. One relevant to this thread: the potential to live car-free and/or use a bicycle for most of your transportation. People can do that in areas with less than a quarter of a million people, without all the negatives huge population concentrations bring. -- Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W I am a vehicular cyclist. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Dangerous? Study: 77 to 1 benefit to risk
Dan wrote:
"T°m " writes: Well, the foam bicycle hat can work as a decent bump and scrape protector (assuming you do not land on your face), but the inability to prevent serious brain trauma is well established. DANGER! DANGER! You're misunderstanding the conversation, Dan. I don't recall Tom every claiming that bicycling is very dangerous. Quite the opposite. I don't care for typical bicycle helmets without a hard shell. My *extensive* relevant experience leads me to conclude that my bicycle helmet is an excellent bump and scrape protector. Of course, you should realize you're some of the best living evidence for the principle of risk compensation. I think this would offer much more benefit for those people: http://cyclingsavvy.org/about/3-part-course/. Active safety passive safety. Three hours in a parking lot watching each other take turns learning to stop and go and balance and steer? Three hours in a classroom discussing video and animation? (Uh-oh, "Students discover that bicycle drivers are equal road users, with the right and ability to control their space.") A three hour experiential tour of Orlando roads? In a *group*? Stopping to survey and discuss each exercise location? (The picture even shows the group standing around *looking* at the road.) Not much experience, if you ask me. What was it about your life that gave you such an anti-education bent? Whether it was playing sports, doing engineering, playing a musical instrument, riding bike or whatever, I've found that getting some good instruction made skills much easier to acquire. That doesn't mean that one plays like Joshua Bell or Kevin Burke after three hours of fiddle lessons. But it does mean that nobody plays like Joshua Bell or Kevin Burke if they've never had a lesson. - Frank Krygowski |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Study to investigate if cyclists are putting their health at risk----- one for Geoff. | Rob | Australia | 1 | March 29th 11 12:20 PM |
More dangerous drivers who put cyclists seriously at risk. | Doug[_10_] | UK | 9 | October 22nd 10 09:16 AM |
Dangerous, dangerous furniture | F. Kurgan Gringioni | Racing | 0 | April 30th 10 06:27 AM |
"Cycling is not dangerous. Cars are dangerous." | Doug[_3_] | UK | 56 | September 14th 09 05:57 PM |
New Study... bicycles offer little benefit to the environment. | Richard B | General | 18 | August 6th 06 03:21 AM |