Dangerous? Study: 77 to 1 benefit to risk

On 8/7/2011 12:52 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
Op 7-8-2011 19:21, "T°m Sherm@n" schreef:
On 8/7/2011 11:52 AM, Dan wrote:
[...]
I am all about education - *love* it! Especially the public schools -
one of the best things going - a great equalizer that kids all deserve.
[...]

Including the indoctrination in "American Exceptionalism" and crony
capitalism?



Man, you must have a tough life getting upset about so many things.

Lou

Sorry that I think for myself.

If you had to live here, you would be angry too at what is, compared to
what could *easily* be.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
I am a vehicular cyclist.

In article ,
"Jay Beattie" wrote:

The laws appear to be totally meaningless -- I see as many or more people on
phones these days than I did before the law. What amazes me is the number
of people walking and talking, texting, apping, etc., etc. It seems like
everyone on the sidewalks downtown is on the phone. Who are they
talking/texting to? What is so important? I see asswipes on bikes talking
on the phone. I read some guy the riot act the other day who was riding
like a fool while talking on a cellphone. Incessant yakking has become the
new opiate of the masses. People are utterly afraid to shut up and listen
to themselves think these days.

That last sentence nails it. They will get fed up with it eventually.
«l'enfer, c'est les autres»

"Uryy vf bgure crbcyr."

--
Michael Press

On 8/7/2011 11:24 AM, "T°m Sherm@n" wrote:
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.


Yeah if you want to shop at Wal-Mart and eat fast food.

In article ,
Frank Krygowski wrote:

Peter Cole wrote:
On 8/7/2011 12:12 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

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.

Yes, being _significantly_ impeded by anything at all does significantly
detract from the convenience of _any_ mode of transportation. That
includes weather delays when flying, trains that are late, crowds of
zoning-out walkers on a MUP, etc. This is life in our universe, like it
or not.

But I have essentially never been significantly delayed by car traffic.
Occasionally, rarely, I've missed a green light that I could have
caught; yet that doesn't meet the definition of "significant" in my
book. And contrary to the claims of some others, I've never seen a
traffic jam so curb-to-curb that I couldn't filter forward on a bike
when I chose to. As it is, I rarely choose to... but again, that's
because the delays haven't been significant.

IME, the most serious problem with downtown gridlock at 5 PM Friday is
the occasional driver's explosion of chaotic behavior. Things like the
fuming driver who suddenly says "#%$!! I'm just going to whip a U-turn
and get out of this jam!" and does something totally unexpected, with no
warning nor caution. But a stripe of paint has zero influence on such
people. You just have to learn to be alert.

But there's that "learning" thing again.

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.

Yeah. I get that already by not being too far to the right at an
intersection. That keeps me visible in a motorist's attention zone, and
prevents right hooks. (There's that "learning" thing again.)

Early greens and bike boxes only level the playing field slightly...

Are you aware that Portland's green bike boxes haven't been shown to
work? Last I heard, data shows just as many intersection conflicts as
before.

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.

The obvious question is, what does one choose to believe? Seems most
people make their pick, then call the opposing view "dogma." And you've
chosen the dogma that says "The only way for biking to be safe and
popular is by adding facilities that change the rules of the road."

My decades of experience have shown me that the rules of the road work
really, really well.

I agree with what you say here all down the line, Frank.

When I drive a car I am easily frustrated.
When I ride the bike, much less so. Therefore
when I ride the bike I remember what it is
for the car drivers and make contact with them.
It reduces their frustration.

--
Michael Press

On 8/7/2011 12:04 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Peter Cole wrote:
As for the comparison with long-odds
gambling... Human nature, for whatever reason, seems to favor gambling
the
likely small loss against the unlikely large win vs. the other way
around.

Ropiek's book _How Risky Is It Really?_ deals with that, and with lots
more on the psychology of risk. Yes, humans are bad at making rational
decisions involving extremely unlikely events.

Human's might also be considered irrational at making decisions
involving mortality. How much would you pay for one more year of life?
For your spouse? For your child?

Sometimes you can make it an apples to apples choice -- e.g. years
gained by putative health benefits vs. years lost via accidents, but
sometimes not, often safety costs have to be weighed against life span
losses, and that requires a dollar valuation.

Probability is often counter-intuitive, witness the famous Monty Hall
problem.

You can say people are irrational, but that irrationality is the product
of millions of years of evolution that enabled every single one of our
ancestors to survive long enough to at least reproduce, all the way back
to the beginnings of life.

Game theory studies the outcomes of various decision making strategies,
but it has been famously observed, at least in some scenarios, that the
only ones who behaved "rationally" were "psychopaths and economists".

Peter Cole wrote:
On 8/7/2011 12:04 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Peter Cole wrote:
As for the comparison with long-odds
gambling... Human nature, for whatever reason, seems to favor gambling
the
likely small loss against the unlikely large win vs. the other way
around.

Ropiek's book _How Risky Is It Really?_ deals with that, and with lots
more on the psychology of risk. Yes, humans are bad at making rational
decisions involving extremely unlikely events.

Human's might also be considered irrational at making decisions
involving mortality. How much would you pay for one more year of life?
For your spouse? For your child?

Sometimes you can make it an apples to apples choice -- e.g. years
gained by putative health benefits vs. years lost via accidents, but
sometimes not, often safety costs have to be weighed against life span
losses, and that requires a dollar valuation.

Probability is often counter-intuitive, witness the famous Monty Hall
problem.

You can say people are irrational, but that irrationality is the product
of millions of years of evolution that enabled every single one of our
ancestors to survive long enough to at least reproduce, all the way back
to the beginnings of life.

Game theory studies the outcomes of various decision making strategies,
but it has been famously observed, at least in some scenarios, that the
only ones who behaved "rationally" were "psychopaths and economists".


"... millions of years of evolution that enabled every
single one of our ancestors to survive long enough to at
least reproduce ..."


Not a very demanding standard.


--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 8/7/2011 2:52 PM, Peter Cole wrote:
On 8/7/2011 11:24 AM, "T°m Sherm@n" wrote:
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.


Yeah if you want to shop at Wal-Mart and eat fast food.

Gee, I have alternatives to both of those. *WITHIN* reasonable cycling
distance.

Contrary to myth, Iowa is *not* a northern version of Mississippi or
other backwards [1] southern state.

[1] Any place that approves of flying the Confederate Flag is *not* modern.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On 8/7/2011 12:26 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Peter Cole wrote:
On 8/7/2011 12:12 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

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.

Yes, being _significantly_ impeded by anything at all does significantly
detract from the convenience of _any_ mode of transportation. That
includes weather delays when flying, trains that are late, crowds of
zoning-out walkers on a MUP, etc. This is life in our universe, like it
or not.

I'm not talking about acts of god, I'm talking about planned congestion
and associated delays. You know, that stuff people go to school to learn.

But I have essentially never been significantly delayed by car traffic.
Occasionally, rarely, I've missed a green light that I could have
caught; yet that doesn't meet the definition of "significant" in my
book. And contrary to the claims of some others, I've never seen a
traffic jam so curb-to-curb that I couldn't filter forward on a bike
when I chose to. As it is, I rarely choose to... but again, that's
because the delays haven't been significant.

If you didn't need to filter then the queue didn't last more than one
light cycle. Lucky you. I wouldn't call that gridlock. You might not be
aware that many/most people would not be comfortable filtering at all,
particularly between lines of traffic. You have an elitist view of
cycling. Tell a grandmother with her grandchildren in tow to filter
between lines of rush hour traffic. I would love to see how that's
received, even in the cycling utopia of Pittsburgh.


IME, the most serious problem with downtown gridlock at 5 PM Friday is
the occasional driver's explosion of chaotic behavior. Things like the
fuming driver who suddenly says "#%$!! I'm just going to whip a U-turn
and get out of this jam!" and does something totally unexpected, with no
warning nor caution. But a stripe of paint has zero influence on such
people. You just have to learn to be alert.

But there's that "learning" thing again.

Maybe you could invent an alternative to Ritalin. Something
"educational". Work it into your blame the victim seminar. Pass out hair
shirts. Maybe you could replace ghost bikes with bikes of shame. Paint
them red. Just another inattentive fool who got what she deserved.

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.

Yeah. I get that already by not being too far to the right at an
intersection. That keeps me visible in a motorist's attention zone, and
prevents right hooks. (There's that "learning" thing again.)

In curb to curb gridlock, that's not an option. Your logic would have us
abandon express and HOV lanes as well as pedestrian light cycles. Just
"educate" them to dodge traffic.

Early greens and bike boxes only level the playing field slightly...

Are you aware that Portland's green bike boxes haven't been shown to
work? Last I heard, data shows just as many intersection conflicts as
before.

You've got to define "not working".


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.

The obvious question is, what does one choose to believe? Seems most
people make their pick, then call the opposing view "dogma." And you've
chosen the dogma that says "The only way for biking to be safe and
popular is by adding facilities that change the rules of the road."

You should capitalize "Rules of the Road". You make them sound like they
came down from the mount carved in stone.


My decades of experience have shown me that the rules of the road work
really, really well.

Compared to what? Different rules of the road or anarchy?


And then, of course, there's the data confirming that...

Again, define "work".

I've seen the "data", it confirms nothing. Besides, it isn't the data
you're citing, it's your interpretation of the data. Critical difference.

You seem unaware that there is a spectrum of opinion, and your views are
extreme in that they describe a static, Panglossian world. Such rigid
thinking is dogmatic and deeply conservative. Dogmatism isn't merely
holding an opinion*. Politics is the art of compromise and road sharing
is a completely political negotiation. There are no absolutes, and the
current state of affairs reflects the historical dominance of certain
interests, and priorities, no more. You are doing nothing more than
rationalizing the status quo. That is reflexive, irrational resistance
to change, the very definition of conservatism. It is based on the
notion that the status quo had a functional evolution and therefore
represents the "best of possible worlds", AKA Panglossianism.

What you fail to recognize is that the world has changed, and
particularly in dense urban areas, vehicular traffic has been judged to
present more of a problem than a solution. The particular compromise
reached over decades is now being renegotiated. Do you really think all
of these bike sharing programs are merely gimmicks?

Your position is not particularly rational, in fact it is quite
arbitrary, and at this point in time you're on the wrong side of
history. You won't turn the clock back to Forester's 50's, no matter how
hard you try. Nobody's listening.

*Definition of DOGMATISM
1
: positiveness in assertion of opinion especially when unwarranted or
arrogant
2
: a viewpoint or system of ideas based on insufficiently examined premises

In article ,
Simon Lewis wrote:

"T°m Sherm@n" " 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.

(Also, don't berate them as irrational cowards for their choice to
wear a helmet. It takes experience to develop a realistic concept
of the risk.)

And the uselessness of bicycle helmets.

Bicycle helmets protect the skull if it comes into contact with the
road. How is that useless?

They might protect against superficial abrasions
at the cost of inducing other injuries. A helmet
can hit something and drive the temple piece of
eyeglasses into the skin, when the bare head
would never have hit in the first place. Notice
how bicycling helmets are going over to hard
shells. That is a tacit admission that soft shell
helmets grip the road and induce torsional neck
injuries.

--
Michael Press

On 8/7/2011 5:00 PM, Peter Cole wrote:
But I have essentially never been significantly delayed by car traffic.
Occasionally, rarely, I've missed a green light that I could have
caught; yet that doesn't meet the definition of "significant" in my
book. And contrary to the claims of some others, I've never seen a
traffic jam so curb-to-curb that I couldn't filter forward on a bike
when I chose to. As it is, I rarely choose to... but again, that's
because the delays haven't been significant.

If you didn't need to filter then the queue didn't last more than one
light cycle. Lucky you. I wouldn't call that gridlock. You might not be
aware that many/most people would not be comfortable filtering at all,
particularly between lines of traffic. You have an elitist view of
cycling. Tell a grandmother with her grandchildren in tow to filter
between lines of rush hour traffic. I would love to see how that's
received, even in the cycling utopia of Pittsburgh.

Filtering is legal on motos in California. You can also filter in
Moscow (Russia, not Iowa):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XihQeZpwqpE&feature=player_embedded.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
I am a vehicular cyclist.