Bicycle statistics

On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 19:01:39 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 6/3/2019 3:54 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

snip

When reviewing pedestrian deaths one can only marvel. After all
pedestrians have had segregated pathways, practically for ever and yet
we are informed that pedestrian deaths are increasing. And nearly in
the same breath we are told that segregated bicycle paths will make
cycling safer?

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.

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 have

Ah, I see. Bicycle paths have no intersections. Yup, gottcha.
--
cheers,

John B.

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.

On Tuesday, June 4, 2019 at 4:03:57 AM UTC+1, James wrote:
On 4/6/19 6:32 am, Andre Jute wrote:
On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 1:38:08 PM UTC+1, duane wrote:

You end up with nonsense like cycling is more dangerous than sky
diving.

I didn't look up the stats on skydiving, but common sense tells us
that most incidents are likely to be fatal. All the same, a guy at
college with me broke his ankle skydiving and survived, only later to
commit suicide. I made a few jumps during my military service (we had
conscription), low level stuff, supposedly more dangerous, but I was
never hurt, nor was anybody from my training group. On the other
hand, just to rub Franki-boy, I knew at least one fellow who was
killed on his bike. From that, not having looked up the skydiving
stats, it would be easy to conclude that skydiving, at least for the
properly trained, is safer than bicycling on the public roads.
Skydivers, in my experience without exception, wear helmets. Just
saying...


I wonder how many have been saved by their helmet? Just asking...

--
JS

Just turning serious for a moment, from a skydiving height, a helmet would really have to encase the parachutist's head in enough balloonery or styrofoam or whatever to build a life-size model of the Taj Mahal. There'd so much material it would be hard to avoid encasing him entirely. Look Ma, not even a pinky broken...

Andre Jute
The biggest danger in skydiving is being beaten up by a farmer whose crop you damaged

On 6/3/2019 9:13 PM, John B. wrote:

snip

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.

The difference is that pedestrians routinely ignore the pedestrian
controls and motorists routinely speed through crosswalks where they are
required to yield but don't.

Cyclists are riding with traffic (unless they are turning themselves
into a pedestrian to use a crosswalk). Some cyclists run red lights but
generally only under certain circumstances like when they don't trigger
a sensor in the road, or when they are going through the top of a tee
intersection in a bike lane or on the shoulder. Cyclists are much less
likely to suddenly leave the sidewalk and dart across the road unexpectedly.

"In a recent study of 7,000 pedestrian-vehicle crashes in Florida,
researchers discovered that pedestrians were at fault in 80 percent of
these incidents. Similarly, in a U.K. study, pedestrian behavior
accounted for 90 percent of crashes where a vehicle struck a pedestrian."

Studies of bicycle crashes, in the U.S., vary, but the percentage of
at-fault cyclists is much lower than at-fauld pedestrians
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2011/05/20/136462246/when-bikes-and-cars-collide-whos-more-likely-to-be-at-fault

But I'm sure that you already knew all this without it having to be
explained to you.

On 03/06/2019 11:03 p.m., James wrote:
On 4/6/19 6:32 am, Andre Jute wrote:
On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 1:38:08 PM UTC+1, duane wrote:

You end up with nonsense like cycling is more dangerous than sky
diving.

I didn't look up the stats on skydiving, but common sense tells us
that most incidents are likely to be fatal. All the same, a guy at
college with me broke his ankle skydiving and survived, only later to
commit suicide. I made a few jumps during my military service (we had
conscription), low level stuff, supposedly more dangerous, but I was
never hurt, nor was anybody from my training group. On the other
hand, just to rub Franki-boy, I knew at least one fellow who was
killed on his bike. From that, not having looked up the skydiving
stats, it would be easy to conclude that skydiving, at least for the
properly trained, is safer than bicycling on the public roads.
Skydivers, in my experience without exception, wear helmets. Just
saying...


I wonder how many have been saved by their helmet?Â* Just asking...


I assumed Andre was being sarcastic which is why I replied with the
distance traveled comment...

sms 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. The original rationale of the airbag was that some restraining
device was required that worked without any action by the driver or
passenger. With recent cars, unless one is profoundly deaf it is
difficult to drive around without the belt fastened (it is possible to
fasten it behind ones self).

Now many new cars come standard with a variety of collision avoidance
sensors, even on lower priced models. My daughter bought a new Toyota
Corolla LE in 2017. The street price was under US$14,000, but it came
with Toyota "Safety Sense." All sorts of sensors and servos. If you're
drifting out of your lane, without activating your turn signal, it
gently tries to correct you (not like a 737 where it fights you). Some
sort of pre-collision warning if you're following too close, and
automatic emergency braking with pedestrian detection.

These features may help, but I think it's still too soon to tell. The
downside is the growth of entertainment screens in motor vehicles, all
operated by touch screen so that visual attention is required, and IMHO
way too complicated to operate safely while driving.

On 6/4/2019 9:11 AM, sms wrote:
On 6/3/2019 9:13 PM, John B. wrote:

snip

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.

The difference is that pedestrians routinely ignore the pedestrian
controls and motorists routinely speed through crosswalks where they are
required to yield but don't.

Cyclists are riding with traffic (unless they are turning themselves
into a pedestrian to use a crosswalk). Some cyclists run red lights but
generally only under certain circumstances like when they don't trigger
a sensor in the road, or when they are going through the top of a tee
intersection in a bike lane or on the shoulder. Cyclists are much less
likely to suddenly leave the sidewalk and dart across the road
unexpectedly.

So your solution to the (mostly imaginary) bike safety problem is to
have cyclists no longer ride "with traffic." Instead, you'll have them
ride in barrier separated bike lanes where motorists are much less
likely to notice them, and in fact may not be able to see them.

Then the cyclists are going to suddenly leave the "protection" at every
intersection, because the "protection" won't exist where there's an
intersection. The cyclists will "dart across" the intersection
unexpectedly - at least, according to the motorists driving across the
path of the now "unprotected" cyclists.

What could possibly go wrong?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 6/4/2019 10:32 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
sms 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. The original rationale of the airbag was that some restraining
device was required that worked without any action by the driver or
passenger. With recent cars, unless one is profoundly deaf it is
difficult to drive around without the belt fastened (it is possible to
fasten it behind ones self).

I've come across a few sources that say airbags are highly overrated.
This article
https://www.automobilemag.com/news/d...han-seatbelts/
says seatbelts are about 48% effective at preventing fatalities, but
airbags are only about 15% effective.

Here's another source with higher estimate of seatbelt effectiveness,
but the same low estimate for airbags:
http://freakonomics.com/2005/07/18/w...or-an-air-bag/

Granted, those are casual articles. But I've wondered if the main
benefit to airbags has been to get people to buckle seatbelts, ever
since some people who wore no seatbelts were killed by airbags. (The
warnings printed on our car's sun visors are pretty scary.)

Now many new cars come standard with a variety of collision avoidance
sensors, even on lower priced models. My daughter bought a new Toyota
Corolla LE in 2017. The street price was under US$14,000, but it came
with Toyota "Safety Sense." All sorts of sensors and servos. If you're
drifting out of your lane, without activating your turn signal, it
gently tries to correct you (not like a 737 where it fights you). Some
sort of pre-collision warning if you're following too close, and
automatic emergency braking with pedestrian detection.

These features may help, but I think it's still too soon to tell. The
downside is the growth of entertainment screens in motor vehicles, all
operated by touch screen so that visual attention is required, and IMHO
way too complicated to operate safely while driving.

"Too soon to tell" is right. Scharf has long been easily seduced by any
new "safety!" claims.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski writes:

On 6/4/2019 10:32 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
sms 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. The original rationale of the airbag was that some restraining
device was required that worked without any action by the driver or
passenger. With recent cars, unless one is profoundly deaf it is
difficult to drive around without the belt fastened (it is possible to
fasten it behind ones self).

I've come across a few sources that say airbags are highly
overrated. This article
https://www.automobilemag.com/news/d...han-seatbelts/
says seatbelts are about 48% effective at preventing fatalities, but
airbags are only about 15% effective.

Here's another source with higher estimate of seatbelt effectiveness,
but the same low estimate for airbags:
http://freakonomics.com/2005/07/18/w...or-an-air-bag/

Granted, those are casual articles. But I've wondered if the main
benefit to airbags has been to get people to buckle seatbelts, ever
since some people who wore no seatbelts were killed by airbags. (The
warnings printed on our car's sun visors are pretty scary.)

My recollection is that it really was a regulatory issue. Back in the
80s there were a number of attempts at no-user-volition safety devices,
such as shoulder belts that closed with the door. These were literally
worse than useless, because they did not secure the lap belt. Airbags
won because they do at least sometimes work, and they're money makers
for dealer maintenance shops. Also, who doesn't love explosive devices?

Now many new cars come standard with a variety of collision avoidance
sensors, even on lower priced models. My daughter bought a new Toyota
Corolla LE in 2017. The street price was under US$14,000, but it came
with Toyota "Safety Sense." All sorts of sensors and servos. If you're
drifting out of your lane, without activating your turn signal, it
gently tries to correct you (not like a 737 where it fights you). Some
sort of pre-collision warning if you're following too close, and
automatic emergency braking with pedestrian detection.

These features may help, but I think it's still too soon to tell. The
downside is the growth of entertainment screens in motor vehicles, all
operated by touch screen so that visual attention is required, and IMHO
way too complicated to operate safely while driving.

"Too soon to tell" is right. Scharf has long been easily seduced by
any new "safety!" claims.

--

On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 11:06:52 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 19:01:39 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 6/3/2019 3:54 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

snip

When reviewing pedestrian deaths one can only marvel. After all
pedestrians have had segregated pathways, practically for ever and yet
we are informed that pedestrian deaths are increasing. And nearly in
the same breath we are told that segregated bicycle paths will make
cycling safer?

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.

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 have

Ah, I see. Bicycle paths have no intersections. Yup, gottcha.
--
cheers,

John B.

In my city, counties, we have two types of bike lanes/paths/trails. Separate paved paths/sidewalks/trails that usually follow alongside the river/creek or where the railroad used to be. These have very few intersections. The ones out in the countryside do cross a lot of gravel roads. Trails in town don't cross much.

And then downtown we have bike lanes alongside a couple of the main downtown streets. Painted lines on the road on the side. Bike lanes. These of course cross every street and store entrance just like the road does.