Bicycle statistics

On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 23:02:28 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 6/2/2019 7:57 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 13:32:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 6/1/2019 10:16 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Saturday, June 1, 2019 at 8:01:10 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/1/2019 4:46 PM, wrote:
On Saturday, June 1, 2019 at 9:42:59 AM UTC-5, sms wrote:
On 6/1/2019 3:02 AM, wrote:
On Saturday, June 1, 2019 at 2:22:45 AM UTC+2, wrote:
On Friday, May 31, 2019 at 2:48:36 PM UTC-5, AK wrote:

Average age of a bicyclist killed on US roads: 45 (36 in 2002)


Disregarding the "killed" part, this brings up a question about the demographics of bicycling today. Are all bicyclists getting older? Is bicycling becoming an older person activity? Are youngsters not taking up cycling? I have friends with children in the late teens and 20s age groups. Some of the kids do ride bikes. But others, their kids do not ride. Yet they ride lots and lots. I know on this forum some people say their children or one child does ride. But how many on this forum have children who do not ride ever? Yet they do.

All kids in the Netherlands ride a bicycle at least up to 18 years when they allowed to drive a car. Most of the times they can't affort a car at that age so the ride until they earn some money. After that they only ride recreational or when it is more practical/faster.

"Back in my day" we didn't get driven around everywhere, it was just
unthinkable that we would even ask to be driven somewhere fairly close
to our homes. We rode our bikes. Maybe if it was pouring rain our
parents would drive us. The times I was driven to elementary school,
about four blocks away were rare.

In the city I'm in now, it's extremely rare for an elementary school
student to ride a bike to school. It's still fairly common in middle
school and high school, but not at the level it should be. Traffic
around schools is insane?even though most students could walk or ride a
bike, they are driven, and sometimes it's only one block.


I'm not really talking about "kids" riding bikes during elementary, middle, or high school. I mean young adults. Or "kids" as I think of them, unfortunately. Younger people. Is bicycling, recreational, fun bicycling, becoming an older and older person activity? Are fewer and fewer young people doing the activity? Thus making the average age of the cyclist older and older.

I think that's the case, sadly. I think a huge chunk of American's
dedicated cyclists are still the ones that took it up during the early
1970s "bike boom" when it was trendy. (Fashion is powerful.) Those
people are now in their 60s, perhaps 70s.

It's not 100%, of course. We have a new young couple living next door
and they've got some very nice road bikes. OTOH, they have a new little
kid, so they won't be doing a lot of riding for a while.


--
- Frank Krygowski

I've heard it said that perception equals reality. Many people where I live think that bicycling is far too dangerous for them to try. Why that is is beyond me since those people don't read magazines or newsgroups. They perceive that bicycling is dangerous and thus do not engage in it nor do they let their children engage in it. Also, I've read that many schools do NOT allow children to bicycle to school.

As I recall, there was very, very little fear mongering about bicycling
until about 1975. Our parents told us "Watch out for cars" and "Be
careful," but that was about it. Bike magazines praised fine bikes,
country rides, sport riding, long tours and even utility riding. There
was not talk of injuries that I recall.

I still remember reading _Bicycling_ magazine's first article about
helmets. It started with an anecdote (of course!) about a guy riding
with friends falling off his bike - he may have hit a squirrel - and
described how he asked the same question repeatedly. Yes, he must have
had a concussion; but until that point, the magazine never mentioned
traumatic brain injuries as part of bicycling. Of course, at that point,
Bell Sports had just begun buying advertising for its styrofoam caps.
Pricey double page ads!

I think that was the beginning of serious fear mongering. Through many
ads, articles, and sketchy research papers, people were convinced that
this everyday activity was so dangerous that a helmet was necessary.
Then, because it was so dangerous, there began calls for bike lane
stripes for "safety." And now we're deep into "safety inflation," where
giving the advocates what they asked for last year is in no way sufficient.

And people like Scharf are happy to contribute, adding to the
implication that riding a bike is very, very dangerous! Unless, that is,
it's done in a barrier "protected" or parking "protected" lane. Oh, and
don't forget, with every intersection re-built (at maybe half a million
dollars per intersection) into a "protected" intersection.

But that's not all. The funny headgear is still absolutely necessary.
And now, a super-bright daytime headlight and taillight. And you can't
be safe if you're not wearing garish clothing.

It's easy to see why people think riding is super-risky.

Another point is that the number of deaths on bicycles has been,
generally, in the same range from 1980 until 2018. There have been
years where the numbers were lower than the average and equally years
when the numbers were higher but generally there have been *about*800
deaths annually. The highest seems to be 965 in 1980 and the lowest
was 623 in 2010.,

Given that the number of registered motor vehicles was increased by an
estimated 3.69 million each year since 1960 with the largest annual
growth between 1998 and 1999 as well as between 2000 and 2001 when the
number of motor vehicles in the United States increased by eight
million, there are obviously many more motor vehicles in the highway
in 2018 than there were in 1980.

If traffic density is a determining factor in bicycle deaths than why
didn't bicycle deaths match, even roughly, the increase in motor
vehicles?

Or, if wearing a helmet or special bicycle paths reduce bicycle deaths
then why haven't current annual deaths been reduced by the numbers
that now ride with helmets and the (limited to date) building of bike
paths?

One might even think that since traffic density has increased rather
dramatically since 1980 and the wearing of helmets have also
increased, and at least some bicycle lanes have been added, that it
might even be safer to ride a bicycle today than it was nearly 40
years ago.

As I've said before, I think it's often forgotten that medical
treatments have gotten much more effective. I suspect the drop in bike
fatalities - and the _greater_ drop in pedestrian fatalities - is due
in large part to better medical care.

You might well be correct. I now have a pacemaker implant, which, if
not for the device, I would likely be dead, or at least severely
incapacitated. With the device I can do about anything that a man of
my age could normally do. In fact my cardiologist encourages me to
walk and bicycle.

--

Cheers,

John B.

On 6/2/2019 8:56 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

snip
As I've said before, I think it's often forgotten that medical
treatments have gotten much more effective. I suspect the drop in bike
fatalities - and the _greater_ drop in pedestrian fatalities - is due
in large part to better medical care.

You might well be correct.

Except of course that pedestrian and bicycle fatalities haven't dropped,
at least not in the U.S.. So it's a bit difficult to attribute better
medical care to something that didn't actually happen though I guess
it's possible to claim that without better medical care the numbers
would be even worse.

"Pedestrian Deaths Reach Highest Level In Decades, Report Says"

https://www.npr.org/2019/02/28/699195211/pedestrian-deaths-reach-highest-level-in-decades-report-says

"Increased use of smartphones and the popularity of SUVs are among the
likely factors to have caused pedestrian fatalities to jump 35 percent,
the Governors Highway Safety Association says."

Better medical treatment doesn't trump distracted driving or texting
while walking.

It's the same issue with bicycling. "According to the League of American
Bicyclists, more cyclists died on U.S. roads in 2016 than at any other
time in the past quarter-century. But that doesn't show the whole picture."

https://www.outsideonline.com/2390525/bike-commuter-deaths

I now have a pacemaker implant, which, if
not for the device, I would likely be dead, or at least severely
incapacitated. With the device I can do about anything that a man of
my age could normally do. In fact my cardiologist encourages me to
walk and bicycle.

Doctors like their patients to exercise.

On Sunday, June 2, 2019 at 7:36:33 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/2/2019 6:57 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 13:32:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 6/1/2019 10:16 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Saturday, June 1, 2019 at 8:01:10 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/1/2019 4:46 PM, wrote:
On Saturday, June 1, 2019 at 9:42:59 AM UTC-5, sms wrote:
On 6/1/2019 3:02 AM, wrote:
On Saturday, June 1, 2019 at 2:22:45 AM UTC+2, wrote:
On Friday, May 31, 2019 at 2:48:36 PM UTC-5, AK wrote:

Average age of a bicyclist killed on US roads: 45 (36 in 2002)


Disregarding the "killed" part, this brings up a question about the demographics of bicycling today. Are all bicyclists getting older? Is bicycling becoming an older person activity? Are youngsters not taking up cycling? I have friends with children in the late teens and 20s age groups. Some of the kids do ride bikes. But others, their kids do not ride. Yet they ride lots and lots. I know on this forum some people say their children or one child does ride. But how many on this forum have children who do not ride ever? Yet they do.

All kids in the Netherlands ride a bicycle at least up to 18 years when they allowed to drive a car. Most of the times they can't affort a car at that age so the ride until they earn some money. After that they only ride recreational or when it is more practical/faster.

"Back in my day" we didn't get driven around everywhere, it was just
unthinkable that we would even ask to be driven somewhere fairly close
to our homes. We rode our bikes. Maybe if it was pouring rain our
parents would drive us. The times I was driven to elementary school,
about four blocks away were rare.

In the city I'm in now, it's extremely rare for an elementary school
student to ride a bike to school. It's still fairly common in middle
school and high school, but not at the level it should be. Traffic
around schools is insane?even though most students could walk or ride a
bike, they are driven, and sometimes it's only one block.


I'm not really talking about "kids" riding bikes during elementary, middle, or high school. I mean young adults. Or "kids" as I think of them, unfortunately. Younger people. Is bicycling, recreational, fun bicycling, becoming an older and older person activity? Are fewer and fewer young people doing the activity? Thus making the average age of the cyclist older and older.

I think that's the case, sadly. I think a huge chunk of American's
dedicated cyclists are still the ones that took it up during the early
1970s "bike boom" when it was trendy. (Fashion is powerful.) Those
people are now in their 60s, perhaps 70s.

It's not 100%, of course. We have a new young couple living next door
and they've got some very nice road bikes. OTOH, they have a new little
kid, so they won't be doing a lot of riding for a while.


--
- Frank Krygowski

I've heard it said that perception equals reality. Many people where I live think that bicycling is far too dangerous for them to try. Why that is is beyond me since those people don't read magazines or newsgroups. They perceive that bicycling is dangerous and thus do not engage in it nor do they let their children engage in it. Also, I've read that many schools do NOT allow children to bicycle to school.

As I recall, there was very, very little fear mongering about bicycling
until about 1975. Our parents told us "Watch out for cars" and "Be
careful," but that was about it. Bike magazines praised fine bikes,
country rides, sport riding, long tours and even utility riding. There
was not talk of injuries that I recall.

I still remember reading _Bicycling_ magazine's first article about
helmets. It started with an anecdote (of course!) about a guy riding
with friends falling off his bike - he may have hit a squirrel - and
described how he asked the same question repeatedly. Yes, he must have
had a concussion; but until that point, the magazine never mentioned
traumatic brain injuries as part of bicycling. Of course, at that point,
Bell Sports had just begun buying advertising for its styrofoam caps.
Pricey double page ads!

I think that was the beginning of serious fear mongering. Through many
ads, articles, and sketchy research papers, people were convinced that
this everyday activity was so dangerous that a helmet was necessary.
Then, because it was so dangerous, there began calls for bike lane
stripes for "safety." And now we're deep into "safety inflation," where
giving the advocates what they asked for last year is in no way sufficient.

And people like Scharf are happy to contribute, adding to the
implication that riding a bike is very, very dangerous! Unless, that is,
it's done in a barrier "protected" or parking "protected" lane. Oh, and
don't forget, with every intersection re-built (at maybe half a million
dollars per intersection) into a "protected" intersection.

But that's not all. The funny headgear is still absolutely necessary.
And now, a super-bright daytime headlight and taillight. And you can't
be safe if you're not wearing garish clothing.

It's easy to see why people think riding is super-risky.

Another point is that the number of deaths on bicycles has been,
generally, in the same range from 1980 until 2018. There have been
years where the numbers were lower than the average and equally years
when the numbers were higher but generally there have been *about*800
deaths annually. The highest seems to be 965 in 1980 and the lowest
was 623 in 2010.,

Given that the number of registered motor vehicles was increased by an
estimated 3.69 million each year since 1960 with the largest annual
growth between 1998 and 1999 as well as between 2000 and 2001 when the
number of motor vehicles in the United States increased by eight
million, there are obviously many more motor vehicles in the highway
in 2018 than there were in 1980.

If traffic density is a determining factor in bicycle deaths than why
didn't bicycle deaths match, even roughly, the increase in motor
vehicles?

Or, if wearing a helmet or special bicycle paths reduce bicycle deaths
then why haven't current annual deaths been reduced by the numbers
that now ride with helmets and the (limited to date) building of bike
paths?

One might even think that since traffic density has increased rather
dramatically since 1980 and the wearing of helmets have also
increased, and at least some bicycle lanes have been added, that it
might even be safer to ride a bicycle today than it was nearly 40
years ago.


It is, for all but about 800 of us.

Sadly, in our networked world, gruesome tragedies about
which we would once have never known are in our faces every
morning.
https://ktla.com/2019/06/01/big-rig-...boyle-heights/

Despite actual facts (which you review above) the impression
is calamitous.

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncbEucjsNFU

Andy

On Sunday, June 2, 2019 at 3:25:03 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/2/2019 1:54 PM, Andy wrote:
Just go on the sidewalk for a while.

Riding on sidewalks can be OK occasionally. Unless there are
pedestrians, of course. Then you should not.

And unless there are signs, telephone poles or other close obstructions.
Don't let your handlebar clip those.

And don't let your tires come close to the side edge of the sidewalk.
Many of them feature sharp dropoffs. If you slip off, you're likely to
crash because the edge prevents you from maintaining balance.

Also watch for bumps caused by tree roots, cracks or heaves in the
pavement. It's common for concrete sidewalks to have sections that lift
up exposing sharp edges that can cause pinch flats or worse.

And watch for bumps or curbs at intersections. These days, many
sidewalks have ADA approved ramps, but many don't. Even if the ramps are
present, there can be edges from things like gutter pans.

Above all, be _extremely_ careful entering an intersection. Motorists
are not looking for someone entering the street from a sidewalk,
especially at any speed above 3 mph. Look _all_ directions for cars.
Stop and wait, or at least yield, if they're approaching.

And the same goes for driveways. You even need to watch over your
shoulder for turning motorists. They will cut across the sidewalk to
enter the driveway without noticing you. Also, motorists exiting will
probably not stop before crossing the sidewalk as they hurry to reach
the edge of the street.

Those latter two problems are much worse if you're traveling "wrong way"
on the sidewalk. Motorists expect all traffic to flow in the same
direction. If you're headed the opposite direction, they won't look and
won't notice you.

Other than that, sure, sidewalks are fine. Assuming you're not going
much faster than a pedestrian.

I'm not saying never use a sidewalk. There are about 100 feet of
sidewalk near me I ride pretty frequently because they eliminate lots of
delay and complication with a five lane highway.

But you'd better be knowledgeable and careful. Really careful.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank,

You are singing to the choir.

Fortunately, Texas does not have laws prohibiting riding on the sidewalk that I am aware of.

There are situations where you have to use the sidewalk to access a home or business.

Having to dodge broken glass, uplifted sidewalks, etc. sharpens your riding skills. :-)

Andy

On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 00:25:36 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 6/2/2019 8:56 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

snip
As I've said before, I think it's often forgotten that medical
treatments have gotten much more effective. I suspect the drop in bike
fatalities - and the _greater_ drop in pedestrian fatalities - is due
in large part to better medical care.

You might well be correct.

Except of course that pedestrian and bicycle fatalities haven't dropped,
at least not in the U.S.. So it's a bit difficult to attribute better
medical care to something that didn't actually happen though I guess
it's possible to claim that without better medical care the numbers
would be even worse.

"Pedestrian Deaths Reach Highest Level In Decades, Report Says"

https://www.npr.org/2019/02/28/69919...each-hignearby surveillance camerahest-level-in-decades-report-says



"Increased use of smartphones and the popularity of SUVs are among the
likely factors to have caused pedestrian fatalities to jump 35 percent,
the Governors Highway Safety Association says."

Better medical treatment doesn't trump distracted driving or texting
while walking.

It's the same issue with bicycling. "According to the League of American
Bicyclists, more cyclists died on U.S. roads in 2016 than at any other
time in the past quarter-century. But that doesn't show the whole picture."

https://www.outsideonline.com/2390525/bike-commuter-deaths

Yes, that seems correct in that in 2016 some 840 cyclists died and in
1991 some 842 died, but what they don't say is that during that period
from 1991 until 2016, the previous quarter century, in 24 of those
years the death rate was lower than in 2016 and in 2017 the death rate
was lower than in 2016. It is called "Cherry Picking" and the Wiki
describes it as "the act of pointing to individual cases or data that
seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant
portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position."

The information regarding bicycle deaths is freely available on the
Internet so I find it surprising that you didn't .research the facts,
even a little bit, before trumpeting your cries of doom.
--

Cheers,

John B.

On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 7:05:50 AM UTC-4, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 00:25:36 -0700, sms
Snipped
The information regarding bicycle deaths is freely available on the
Internet so I find it surprising that you didn't .research the facts,
even a little bit, before trumpeting your cries of doom.
--

Cheers,

John B.

WHAT! SMS, do diligent research and present the truth? DOn't you realize that "SMS" and "truth" are oxymorons?

Cheers

On 03/06/2019 7:05 a.m., John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 00:25:36 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 6/2/2019 8:56 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

snip
As I've said before, I think it's often forgotten that medical
treatments have gotten much more effective. I suspect the drop in bike
fatalities - and the _greater_ drop in pedestrian fatalities - is due
in large part to better medical care.

You might well be correct.

Except of course that pedestrian and bicycle fatalities haven't dropped,
at least not in the U.S.. So it's a bit difficult to attribute better
medical care to something that didn't actually happen though I guess
it's possible to claim that without better medical care the numbers
would be even worse.

"Pedestrian Deaths Reach Highest Level In Decades, Report Says"

https://www.npr.org/2019/02/28/69919...each-hignearby surveillance camerahest-level-in-decades-report-says



"Increased use of smartphones and the popularity of SUVs are among the
likely factors to have caused pedestrian fatalities to jump 35 percent,
the Governors Highway Safety Association says."

Better medical treatment doesn't trump distracted driving or texting
while walking.

It's the same issue with bicycling. "According to the League of American
Bicyclists, more cyclists died on U.S. roads in 2016 than at any other
time in the past quarter-century. But that doesn't show the whole picture."

https://www.outsideonline.com/2390525/bike-commuter-deaths

Yes, that seems correct in that in 2016 some 840 cyclists died and in
1991 some 842 died, but what they don't say is that during that period
from 1991 until 2016, the previous quarter century, in 24 of those
years the death rate was lower than in 2016 and in 2017 the death rate
was lower than in 2016. It is called "Cherry Picking" and the Wiki
describes it as "the act of pointing to individual cases or data that
seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant
portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position."

The information regarding bicycle deaths is freely available on the
Internet so I find it surprising that you didn't .research the facts,
even a little bit, before trumpeting your cries of doom.
--


Sure. But the more you look at "facts" the more you realize (or should
realize) that cycling deaths are likely random. Given that when dealing
with statistical analysis of cycling accidents, deaths appear to be
outliers, this is not surprising.

Unfortunately, the data recording when the result isn't a trip to the
morgue is less than adequate so people tend to use fatalities. But this
is at best statistically misleading. You end up with nonsense like
cycling is more dangerous than sky diving. Or less dangerous than
gardening.

On 6/2/2019 9:48 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/2/2019 5:18 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, June 2, 2019 at 9:59:43 AM UTC-7, Frank
Krygowski wrote:
On 6/2/2019 10:30 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/1/2019 7:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/1/2019 4:46 PM, wrote:
On Saturday, June 1, 2019 at 9:42:59 AM UTC-5, sms wrote:
On 6/1/2019 3:02 AM, wrote:
On Saturday, June 1, 2019 at 2:22:45 AM UTC+2,
wrote:
On Friday, May 31, 2019 at 2:48:36 PM UTC-5, AK wrote:

     Average age of a bicyclist killed on
US roads:
45 (36 in 2002)


Disregarding the "killed" part, this brings up a
question about the demographics of bicycling today.
Are all bicyclists getting older? Is bicycling
becoming an older person activity? Are youngsters
not
taking up cycling? I have friends with children
in the
late teens and 20s age groups. Some of the kids do
ride bikes. But others, their kids do not ride.Â
Yet
they ride lots and lots. I know on this forum some
people say their children or one child does ride.Â
But
how many on this forum have children who do not ride
ever? Yet they do.

All kids in the Netherlands ride a bicycle at least up
to 18 years when they allowed to drive a car. Most of
the times they can't affort a car at that age so the
ride until they earn some money. After that they only
ride recreational or when it is more practical/faster.

"Back in my day" we didn't get driven around everywhere,
it was just
unthinkable that we would even ask to be driven
somewhere
fairly close
to our homes. We rode our bikes. Maybe if it was pouring
rain our
parents would drive us. The times I was driven to
elementary school,
about four blocks away were rare.

In the city I'm in now, it's extremely rare for an
elementary school
student to ride a bike to school. It's still fairly
common in middle
school and high school, but not at the level it should
be. Traffic
around schools is insane�even though most
students
could walk or ride a
bike, they are driven, and sometimes it's only one
block.


I'm not really talking about "kids" riding bikes during
elementary, middle, or high school. I mean young
adults.
Or "kids" as I think of them, unfortunately. Younger
people. Is bicycling, recreational, fun bicycling,
becoming an older and older person activity? Are fewer
and fewer young people doing the activity? Thus making
the average age of the cyclist older and older.

I think that's the case, sadly. I think a huge chunk of
American's dedicated cyclists are still the ones that took
it up during the early 1970s "bike boom" when it was
trendy.
(Fashion is powerful.) Those people are now in their 60s,
perhaps 70s.

It's not 100%, of course. We have a new young couple
living
next door and they've got some very nice road bikes. OTOH,
they have a new little kid, so they won't be doing a
lot of
riding for a while.



So bicycles are basically skateboards for old people?

Maybe.

What do you see in your shop? Is business up or down,
long term? What
are the customer demographics?

As I recall, when I was in my 20s and 30s and hanging
around bike shops,
there were no 60+ customers buying nice bikes. In fact,
when one good
friend about 40 years old (a marathoner) bought a really
nice bike, we
thought he was really something.

Folks born around the turn of the century didn't view
bicycling as an adult activity. In the 60s, you were more
likely to see the 60+ crowd at a Moose Lodge. Success was
a Coupe Deville and not a Colnago.

True. But I think now, success is a really great phone and
lots of skin ink.



Unlike a telephone, irezumi last a lifetime.

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

AMuzi writes:

On 6/2/2019 9:48 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/2/2019 5:18 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, June 2, 2019 at 9:59:43 AM UTC-7, Frank
Krygowski wrote:
On 6/2/2019 10:30 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/1/2019 7:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/1/2019 4:46 PM, wrote:
On Saturday, June 1, 2019 at 9:42:59 AM UTC-5, sms wrote:
On 6/1/2019 3:02 AM, wrote:
On Saturday, June 1, 2019 at 2:22:45 AM UTC+2,
wrote:
On Friday, May 31, 2019 at 2:48:36 PM UTC-5, AK wrote:

     Average age of a bicyclist killed on
US roads:
45 (36 in 2002)


Disregarding the "killed" part, this brings up a
question about the demographics of bicycling today.
Are all bicyclists getting older? Is bicycling
becoming an older person activity? Are youngsters
not
taking up cycling? I have friends with children
in the
late teens and 20s age groups. Some of the kids do
ride bikes. But others, their kids do not ride.Â
Yet
they ride lots and lots. I know on this forum some
people say their children or one child does ride.Â
But
how many on this forum have children who do not ride
ever? Yet they do.

All kids in the Netherlands ride a bicycle at least up
to 18 years when they allowed to drive a car. Most of
the times they can't affort a car at that age so the
ride until they earn some money. After that they only
ride recreational or when it is more practical/faster.

"Back in my day" we didn't get driven around everywhere,
it was just
unthinkable that we would even ask to be driven
somewhere
fairly close
to our homes. We rode our bikes. Maybe if it was pouring
rain our
parents would drive us. The times I was driven to
elementary school,
about four blocks away were rare.

In the city I'm in now, it's extremely rare for an
elementary school
student to ride a bike to school. It's still fairly
common in middle
school and high school, but not at the level it should
be. Traffic
around schools is insane�even though most
students
could walk or ride a
bike, they are driven, and sometimes it's only one
block.


I'm not really talking about "kids" riding bikes during
elementary, middle, or high school. I mean young
adults.
Or "kids" as I think of them, unfortunately. Younger
people. Is bicycling, recreational, fun bicycling,
becoming an older and older person activity? Are fewer
and fewer young people doing the activity? Thus making
the average age of the cyclist older and older.

I think that's the case, sadly. I think a huge chunk of
American's dedicated cyclists are still the ones that took
it up during the early 1970s "bike boom" when it was
trendy.
(Fashion is powerful.) Those people are now in their 60s,
perhaps 70s.

It's not 100%, of course. We have a new young couple
living
next door and they've got some very nice road bikes. OTOH,
they have a new little kid, so they won't be doing a
lot of
riding for a while.



So bicycles are basically skateboards for old people?

Maybe.

What do you see in your shop? Is business up or down,
long term? What
are the customer demographics?

As I recall, when I was in my 20s and 30s and hanging
around bike shops,
there were no 60+ customers buying nice bikes. In fact,
when one good
friend about 40 years old (a marathoner) bought a really
nice bike, we
thought he was really something.

Folks born around the turn of the century didn't view
bicycling as an adult activity. In the 60s, you were more
likely to see the 60+ crowd at a Moose Lodge. Success was
a Coupe Deville and not a Colnago.

True. But I think now, success is a really great phone and
lots of skin ink.



Unlike a telephone, irezumi last a lifetime.

And sometimes beyond:

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/m...fter-death-629

On 6/3/2019 8:38 AM, Duane wrote:
On 03/06/2019 7:05 a.m., John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 00:25:36 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 6/2/2019 8:56 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

snip
As I've said before, I think it's often forgotten that medical
treatments have gotten much more effective. I suspect the drop in bike
fatalities - and the _greater_Â* drop in pedestrian fatalities - is due
in large part to better medical care.

You might well be correct.

Except of course that pedestrian and bicycle fatalities haven't dropped,
at least not in the U.S.. So it's a bit difficult to attribute better
medical care to something that didn't actually happen though I guess
it's possible to claim that without better medical care the numbers
would be even worse.

"Pedestrian Deaths Reach Highest Level In Decades, Report Says"

https://www.npr.org/2019/02/28/69919...each-hignearby
surveillance camerahest-level-in-decades-report-says



"Increased use of smartphones and the popularity of SUVs are among the
likely factors to have caused pedestrian fatalities to jump 35 percent,
the Governors Highway Safety Association says."

Better medical treatment doesn't trump distracted driving or texting
while walking.

It's the same issue with bicycling. "According to the League of American
Bicyclists, more cyclists died on U.S. roads in 2016 than at any other
time in the past quarter-century. But that doesn't show the whole
picture."

https://www.outsideonline.com/2390525/bike-commuter-deaths

Yes, that seems correct in that in 2016 some 840 cyclists died and in
1991 some 842 died, but what they don't say is that during that period
from 1991 until 2016, the previous quarter century, in 24 of those
years the death rate was lower than in 2016 and in 2017 the death rate
was lower than in 2016. It is called "Cherry Picking" and the Wiki
describes it as "the act of pointing to individual cases or data that
seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant
portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position."

The information regarding bicycle deaths is freely available on the
Internet so I find it surprising that you didn't .research the facts,
even a little bit, before trumpeting your cries of doom.
--


Sure. But the more you look at "facts" the more you realize (or should
realize) that cycling deaths are likely random.Â* Given that when dealing
with statistical analysis of cycling accidents, deaths appear to be
outliers, this is not surprising.

We were talking specifically about fatalities, Duane. So what do you
mean by "cycling deaths are likely random" or "deaths appear to be
outliers"? Are you saying they're impervious to analysis, that we can't
discuss them at all?

It's true that biking deaths are rare. That does mean there's going to
be very visible variation in the annual count. But there's clearly a
long term downward trend over decades. It doesn't take advanced
mathematics to spot it. See http://www.vehicularcyclist.com/fatals.html
for example.

Unfortunately, the data recording when the result isn't a trip to the
morgue is less than adequate so people tend to use fatalities.Â* But this
is at best statistically misleading.Â* You end up with nonsense like
cycling is more dangerous than sky diving.Â* Or less dangerous than
gardening.

Damn, you really hate data, don't you?

FWIW, the only comparative data I've seen shows that bicycling is
hundreds of times safer than skydiving, as measured in fatalities per
hour exposure.

And like it or not, the available comparative data shows that gardeners
report more monthly injuries than bicyclists.

Sources are in this article:
http://www.ohiobike.org/images/pdfs/...gIsSafeTLK.pdf


--
- Frank Krygowski