|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |