#111
|
|||
|
|||
Bicycle statistics
On Wed, 5 Jun 2019 09:10:26 +0200, Rolf Mantel
wrote: Am 04.06.2019 um 16:32 schrieb Radey Shouman: writes: On 6/3/2019 1:23 PM, Radey Shouman wrote: The trend in all motor vehicle fatalities over the past 20 years or so is down, perhaps largely due to better emergency treatment. More likely due to the presences of a large number of airbags in new vehicles. Prior to that there were seat belts, shoulder belts, collapsible steering columns, safety glass, padded dashboards, and safety cages. Maybe, although it would be good to have*some* evidence that this is so. There is one very simple way of separating the effect of "passive safety measures" (seat belts, air bags etc) from other fatality avoidance measures (speed limits, better emergency treatments etc). If you compare long-term fatality figures for car drivers with fatality figures for motor bikes, pedestrians and bicycles, anything that affects all of them in the same way is due to speed limits, better emergency treatments, etc. Everything that on affects car inhabitants but does not affect others is due to passive safety measures like seat belts, air bags, better brakes. I think that death rates also have to, some how, be equated to total participants. After all if only one guy/girl/thing uses a Hula-Hoop and dies than accurate headlines could read "100% of hula-hoop users die!"... or, equally, "one guy died while using a hula-hoop". -- cheers, John B. |
Ads |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
Bicycle statistics
On 6/5/2019 12:10 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
snip Everything that on affects car inhabitants but does not affect others is due to passive safety measures like seat belts, air bags, better brakes. Weather affects the safety of different groups differently. And of course you have to take into account the numbers in each group and the unit of measure. You can't measure vehicle drivers and pedestrians both by distance. As we've seen in this group, there is often a concerted effort to take statistics completely out of context, and that's assuming that the statistics are actually real in the first place. |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
Bicycle statistics
On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 6:56:26 AM UTC-4, sms wrote:
Snipped As we've seen in this group, there is often a concerted effort to take statistics completely out of context, and that's assuming that the statistics are actually real in the first place. Yes, and you're expert at doing that. Cheers |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
Bicycle statistics
On 05/06/2019 4:40 a.m., John B. wrote:
On Wed, 5 Jun 2019 09:10:26 +0200, Rolf Mantel wrote: Am 04.06.2019 um 16:32 schrieb Radey Shouman: writes: On 6/3/2019 1:23 PM, Radey Shouman wrote: The trend in all motor vehicle fatalities over the past 20 years or so is down, perhaps largely due to better emergency treatment. More likely due to the presences of a large number of airbags in new vehicles. Prior to that there were seat belts, shoulder belts, collapsible steering columns, safety glass, padded dashboards, and safety cages. Maybe, although it would be good to have*some* evidence that this is so. There is one very simple way of separating the effect of "passive safety measures" (seat belts, air bags etc) from other fatality avoidance measures (speed limits, better emergency treatments etc). If you compare long-term fatality figures for car drivers with fatality figures for motor bikes, pedestrians and bicycles, anything that affects all of them in the same way is due to speed limits, better emergency treatments, etc. Everything that on affects car inhabitants but does not affect others is due to passive safety measures like seat belts, air bags, better brakes. I think that death rates also have to, some how, be equated to total participants. After all if only one guy/girl/thing uses a Hula-Hoop and dies than accurate headlines could read "100% of hula-hoop users die!"... or, equally, "one guy died while using a hula-hoop". -- cheers, John B. Jeez I've been telling you this for some time. Comparing numbers with no participation makes cycling more dangerous than a lot of things. Skydiving, Hockey, defusing land mines ... g |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
Bicycle statistics
Frank Krygowski writes:
On 6/4/2019 7:52 PM, AMuzi wrote: On 6/3/2019 11:13 PM, John B. wrote: On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 19:05:23 -0700, sms wrote: Oops, hit send to soon.... On 6/3/2019 3:54 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote: snip How can this be? Segregated foot paths and pedestrian deaths are increasing while segregated bicycle paths will make us safer? Because the two things are not the same. As I am sure that you understand. Pedestrian injuries and deaths only occasionally happen on the sidewalk. The problem is at intersections, of which they cross a great many. Jaywalking and vehicle traffic violations play the biggest part. A properly designed protected bicycle lane will, by design, have proper controls at intersections. No right-on-red (or no right turn at all). Traffic lights with a phase for cyclists. Bollards and other devices that discourage vehicle intrusion into the protected bicycle lane even at intersections. Ah, again you enlighten us. Pedestrians get killed at intersections where they do not obey even rudimentary traffic laws because, apparently, there aren't any proper controls but bicycles will be safe because they do have proper controls. Tell me, what sort of primitive area do you reside in that doesn't have pedestrian controls at intersections? I ask as even in this benighted little country we have them and I find it amazing that they don't (apparently) exist in the U.S. -- cheers, John B. You don't have pedestrian controls. THIS is pedestrian control: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8279531.html That's scary. Today my wife and I walked to the post office, then the pharmacy, then library and returned home. We could have been ticketed for jaywalking twice. The first was the one that made my wife nervous, across 60 feet of pavement between blocks. But we knew that if we walked to the only marked crosswalk on our route, the pedestrian button would not work. It hasn't worked for about a year. And it involves walking past the pharmacy, then doubling back on the other side of the street. And the multi-direction traffic and separate light phases make that marked crosswalk more hazardous than what we did, which was wait until there were no cars at all within a block either direction. It took a little patience, but it wasn't bad. Jaywalking is frequently rational when many drivers do not properly yield to pedestrians, eg turning right or left. Crossing mid block can give a much simpler traffic situation to deal with. Even stray cats can eventually figure this out. Coming out of the library, which is about 50 feet from a T intersection, there's a sign saying "No Pedestrian Crossing - Cross at intersection." But it doesn't mean that intersection 50 feet away, because there's an identical sign there! It means the intersection with a traffic light a block further away. Again, we waited just a few seconds, then were lucky enough to then have absolutely no passing cars - a rarity. And I think that's the reason lots of people jaywalk. The system has been set up so peds are expected to wait long times at crossing places that are quite a way from their intended destination. I'd rather ride a bike, where I'm a legitimate part of traffic. The invention of jaywalking was a fine bit of rhetorical judo. Before jay walking, when motor vehicles were a new idea, we had "jay driving", which meant driving without regard for the rules of the road, perhaps on the wrong side. "Jay" meant a rube or a hick, someone incapable of town manners. Eventually motor car advocacy groups managed to turn the idea around -- those walking across the road wherever it seemed convenient were hounded as "jaywalkers". In the modern era, when any white man might aspire to own a motor car, pedestrians would cross only where permitted by law. More at https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26073797 . The book mentioned, _Why We Drive the Way We Do_, Tom Vanderbilt, is worth reading. |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
Bicycle statistics
On 6/5/2019 10:02 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes: On 6/4/2019 7:52 PM, AMuzi wrote: On 6/3/2019 11:13 PM, John B. wrote: On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 19:05:23 -0700, sms wrote: Oops, hit send to soon.... On 6/3/2019 3:54 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote: snip How can this be? Segregated foot paths and pedestrian deaths are increasing while segregated bicycle paths will make us safer? Because the two things are not the same. As I am sure that you understand. Pedestrian injuries and deaths only occasionally happen on the sidewalk. The problem is at intersections, of which they cross a great many. Jaywalking and vehicle traffic violations play the biggest part. A properly designed protected bicycle lane will, by design, have proper controls at intersections. No right-on-red (or no right turn at all). Traffic lights with a phase for cyclists. Bollards and other devices that discourage vehicle intrusion into the protected bicycle lane even at intersections. Ah, again you enlighten us. Pedestrians get killed at intersections where they do not obey even rudimentary traffic laws because, apparently, there aren't any proper controls but bicycles will be safe because they do have proper controls. Tell me, what sort of primitive area do you reside in that doesn't have pedestrian controls at intersections? I ask as even in this benighted little country we have them and I find it amazing that they don't (apparently) exist in the U.S. -- cheers, John B. You don't have pedestrian controls. THIS is pedestrian control: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8279531.html That's scary. Today my wife and I walked to the post office, then the pharmacy, then library and returned home. We could have been ticketed for jaywalking twice. The first was the one that made my wife nervous, across 60 feet of pavement between blocks. But we knew that if we walked to the only marked crosswalk on our route, the pedestrian button would not work. It hasn't worked for about a year. And it involves walking past the pharmacy, then doubling back on the other side of the street. And the multi-direction traffic and separate light phases make that marked crosswalk more hazardous than what we did, which was wait until there were no cars at all within a block either direction. It took a little patience, but it wasn't bad. Jaywalking is frequently rational when many drivers do not properly yield to pedestrians, eg turning right or left. Crossing mid block can give a much simpler traffic situation to deal with. Even stray cats can eventually figure this out. Coming out of the library, which is about 50 feet from a T intersection, there's a sign saying "No Pedestrian Crossing - Cross at intersection." But it doesn't mean that intersection 50 feet away, because there's an identical sign there! It means the intersection with a traffic light a block further away. Again, we waited just a few seconds, then were lucky enough to then have absolutely no passing cars - a rarity. And I think that's the reason lots of people jaywalk. The system has been set up so peds are expected to wait long times at crossing places that are quite a way from their intended destination. I'd rather ride a bike, where I'm a legitimate part of traffic. The invention of jaywalking was a fine bit of rhetorical judo. Before jay walking, when motor vehicles were a new idea, we had "jay driving", which meant driving without regard for the rules of the road, perhaps on the wrong side. "Jay" meant a rube or a hick, someone incapable of town manners. Eventually motor car advocacy groups managed to turn the idea around -- those walking across the road wherever it seemed convenient were hounded as "jaywalkers". In the modern era, when any white man might aspire to own a motor car, pedestrians would cross only where permitted by law. More at https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26073797 . The book mentioned, _Why We Drive the Way We Do_, Tom Vanderbilt, is worth reading. A minor correction: Tom Vanderbilt's book is titled _Traffic: Why we drive the way we do_. The book was fascinating. Almost every page, I was thinking "Wow, that's really interesting." Others to whom I've recommended it have agreed, including my long haul trucker friend. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
Bicycle statistics
On 6/5/2019 8:11 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 6:56:26 AM UTC-4, sms wrote: Snipped As we've seen in this group, there is often a concerted effort to take statistics completely out of context, and that's assuming that the statistics are actually real in the first place. Yes, and you're expert at doing that. Most often, Scharf (aka "sms") just makes snide comments and allusions with no data attached. He ignores information like this http://www.ohiobike.org/images/pdfs/...gIsSafeTLK.pdf except to vaguely say "people take statistics out of context." -- - Frank Krygowski |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
Bicycle statistics
On 6/5/2019 5:31 AM, Duane wrote:
snip I think that death rates also have to, some how, be equated to total participants. After all if only one guy/girl/thing uses a Hula-Hoop and dies than accurate headlines could read "100% of hula-hoop users die!"... or,Â* equally, "one guy died while using a hula-hoop". -- cheers, John B. Jeez I've been telling you this for some time.Â* Comparing numbers with no participation makes cycling more dangerous than a lot of things. Skydiving, Hockey, defusing land mines ... g Well your harping on this has apparently worked, at least in this case. Now get Frank to understand this and you'll get a medal. Or at least a proclamation. |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
Bicycle statistics
On 6/5/2019 7:02 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
snip The invention of jaywalking was a fine bit of rhetorical judo. Before jay walking, when motor vehicles were a new idea, we had "jay driving", which meant driving without regard for the rules of the road, perhaps on the wrong side. "Jay" meant a rube or a hick, someone incapable of town manners. Yet the "Danger Danger" groups insist that crossing the street at an intersection is preferable because there may be a signal or a crosswalk. Crosswalks can give pedestrians a false sense of security. And at least in my area there is an epidemic of red light running. At an intersection you have to deal with vehicles coming from four different directions, occasionally more than that since there are also 5 way intersections. Crossing mid-block you only have to worry about two directions of vehicles. |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
Bicycle statistics
On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 12:23:05 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:
On 6/5/2019 7:02 AM, Radey Shouman wrote: snip The invention of jaywalking was a fine bit of rhetorical judo. Before jay walking, when motor vehicles were a new idea, we had "jay driving", which meant driving without regard for the rules of the road, perhaps on the wrong side. "Jay" meant a rube or a hick, someone incapable of town manners. Yet the "Danger Danger" groups insist that crossing the street at an intersection is preferable because there may be a signal or a crosswalk. Crosswalks can give pedestrians a false sense of security. And at least in my area there is an epidemic of red light running. At an intersection you have to deal with vehicles coming from four different directions, occasionally more than that since there are also 5 way intersections. Crossing mid-block you only have to worry about two directions of vehicles. So what does a bicyclist who is moving faster than a pedestrian do when he/she leaves the bike lane or separated bike path and tries to cross the intersection where motorists are NOT expecting them? Cheers |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
accident statistics: car vs motorcycle vs bicycle per mile travelled? | [email protected] | General | 15 | June 11th 08 03:27 AM |
Bridge Statistics | _[_2_] | UK | 7 | September 10th 07 02:47 PM |
Bridge Statistics | _[_2_] | UK | 4 | September 4th 07 11:01 PM |
Where are those statistics? | bob | UK | 15 | August 30th 07 12:31 PM |
Bicycle Injury Statistics | [email protected] | General | 8 | August 1st 06 07:33 AM |