Bicycle statistics

On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 9:55:06 PM UTC-4, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 9:09:24 PM UTC-4, Duane wrote:
Snipped
A lot of my cycling friends don’t commute anymore because they are either
retired or got fed up dealing with traffic when they can put more mileage
in riding in the country breathing fresh air rather than exhaust fumes.
I commute because I can’t afford to retire yet and prefer being on a bike
rather than stuck in bumper to bumper traffic. I can herd cars, as you say
if I have to, but if I can take an alternate route to avoid that I do. I
think anyone who wouldn’t must be a nutcase.
Snipped
--
duane

I agree about quieter alternate routes. One job I had in Toronto Canada was near the intersection of Yonge Street and Davenport Road. This was before bike lanes were installed on Bloor Street. My route to that job could up along Broadview Avenue to Danforth Avenue turn left onto Danforth and then continue when Danforth became Bloor Street and ride to Yonge Street and turn left on Yonge. Or... I could ride to River Street, turn left and go onto Bayview Avenue and ride to Rosedale Valley road and then ride along Rosedale Valley Road to Yonge Street.

Here's Bloor Street now.

https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Blo...!4d-79.3740356

Here's the alternative Rosedale Valley Road route.

https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Ros...!4d-79.3733053

Btw, there's only ONE stop on Rosedale Valley Road between Bayview Avenue and Yonge Street. The traffic on Rosedale Valley Road even in rush hour wasn't too bad. If one didn't like dealing with cars there is/was a pave separate lane/sidewalk most of the way.

Which route would the denizens of RBT prefer? The one along Bloor Street with its motor traffic congestion AND many squirrley bicylcists or the nice quiet valley road ride?

Cheers

Added. I just saw that they've added a guardrail between the road traffic and the paved path/sidewalk. That guardrail was NOT there when I used that road.

Cheers

On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 9:55:50 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 5:40:07 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 3:41:24 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:

I have two close
friends who had significant head injuries plus a broken rib (for one of
them) while walking. The
other tripped on a sidewalk during her lunchtime power walk. The latter
went to the ER
but the other just visited her own doctor. Neither would be in any
"walking injury" database.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Are you sure about that? I am not in the medical industry and have no connection with doctor offices or emergency rooms. But I suspect both fill out forms for every single person they treat. And put check marks on various boxes to classify every treatment some how. Head injuries, scalp abrasions, cuts, concussions would all have checkmarks. And broken ribs too. These injuries would end up in some total somewhere.

Yes, the information would end up in a patient chart but not necessarily get reported to any public agency for inclusion in an injury data base. A lot of collected data involves ICD (International Classification of Disease) codes, which are billing codes and pretty blunt. They ICDs are culled from reports that are required to be filed with the government, and that's how we get a lot of the stats. Death stats are easy to get because all deaths get reported.

Hey, who knew! There is an ICD code(s) for bicycle accidents! https://www..icd10data.com/ICD10CM/C...00-Y99/V10-V19 I almost had a V11 today with some dope riding the wrong way in a bike lane. SFB. You really, really want to avoid a V15.

-- Jay Beattie.

I see it says PEDAL CYCLE, does that include E-bikes and/or mopeds I wonder?

Cheers

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

On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 9:57:30 PM UTC-4, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 9:55:06 PM UTC-4, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 9:09:24 PM UTC-4, Duane wrote:
Snipped
A lot of my cycling friends don’t commute anymore because they are either
retired or got fed up dealing with traffic when they can put more mileage
in riding in the country breathing fresh air rather than exhaust fumes.
I commute because I can’t afford to retire yet and prefer being on a bike
rather than stuck in bumper to bumper traffic. I can herd cars, as you say
if I have to, but if I can take an alternate route to avoid that I do.. I
think anyone who wouldn’t must be a nutcase.
Snipped
--
duane

I agree about quieter alternate routes. One job I had in Toronto Canada was near the intersection of Yonge Street and Davenport Road. This was before bike lanes were installed on Bloor Street. My route to that job could up along Broadview Avenue to Danforth Avenue turn left onto Danforth and then continue when Danforth became Bloor Street and ride to Yonge Street and turn left on Yonge. Or... I could ride to River Street, turn left and go onto Bayview Avenue and ride to Rosedale Valley road and then ride along Rosedale Valley Road to Yonge Street.

Here's Bloor Street now.

https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Blo...!4d-79.3740356

Here's the alternative Rosedale Valley Road route.

https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Ros...!4d-79.3733053

Btw, there's only ONE stop on Rosedale Valley Road between Bayview Avenue and Yonge Street. The traffic on Rosedale Valley Road even in rush hour wasn't too bad. If one didn't like dealing with cars there is/was a pave separate lane/sidewalk most of the way.

Which route would the denizens of RBT prefer? The one along Bloor Street with its motor traffic congestion AND many squirrley bicylcists or the nice quiet valley road ride?

Cheers

Added. I just saw that they've added a guardrail between the road traffic and the paved path/sidewalk. That guardrail was NOT there when I used that road.

Cheers

Added. Ah, looking further I see that the guardrail is only in short areas NOT the entire road.

Cheers

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.

On 6/3/2019 6:55 PM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

Yes, the information would end up in a patient chart but not necessarily get reported to any public agency for inclusion in an injury data base. A lot of collected data involves ICD (International Classification of Disease) codes, which are billing codes and pretty blunt. They ICDs are culled from reports that are required to be filed with the government, and that's how we get a lot of the stats. Death stats are easy to get because all deaths get reported.

Hey, who knew! There is an ICD code(s) for bicycle accidents! https://www.icd10data.com/ICD10CM/Codes/V00-Y99/V10-V19 I almost had a V11 today with some dope riding the wrong way in a bike lane. SFB. You really, really want to avoid a V15.

There are surveys like the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care
Survey but it just looks at what type of treatment was provided, not the
underlying cause.

On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 10:05:27 PM UTC-4, 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.

Does that include all the intersections at driveways and entrances and exits to parking lots?

I really think you're dreaming and that large scale intensive segregated bike lanes are a pipe-dream for most of North America.

Cheers

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

On 6/3/2019 8:40 PM, wrote:
On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 3:41:24 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:

I have two close
friends who had significant head injuries plus a broken rib (for one of
them) while walking. The
other tripped on a sidewalk during her lunchtime power walk. The latter
went to the ER
but the other just visited her own doctor. Neither would be in any
"walking injury" database.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Are you sure about that? I am not in the medical industry and have no connection with doctor offices or emergency rooms. But I suspect both fill out forms for every single person they treat. And put check marks on various boxes to classify every treatment some how. Head injuries, scalp abrasions, cuts, concussions would all have checkmarks. And broken ribs too. These injuries would end up in some total somewhere.


OK, I just spent some time on the phone chatting with my lifelong friend
who recently retired as an ER doctor. Here's what he said:

In his state, he would record things via computer. They had a system of
check boxes and some drop-down menus, plus places to type details.

Since he knew one of the women I mentioned above, I asked about her
specific case. He said she might be recorded as a head injury from a
fall, but there would likely be no more details. He said he tended to
type more in the text boxes in case he was later deposed for lawsuits,
so he might have typed "while walking on sidewalk." But he said most
physicians would give no more than one word, probably "fall." He said he
was often frustrated when having to follow up on a patient originally
seen by another doctor, since "fall" in the chart didn't specify while
walking? Or off a step stool? Down the stairs? Off a roof? Off a cliff?

And it's anybody's guess what any physician in private practice, as
opposed to at an ER, would write on a patient's chart. But it wouldn't
matter, because any such notes would never be harvested.

But probably most important, the inconsistent ER descriptions would make
it impractical or impossible to gather the data for any large scale
analysis. For that to happen, you typically need coding so consistent
that it can be understood by fairly simple software. I'm told that just
doesn't happen for those types of injuries.

Perhaps in some special interest cases, graduate students or other
slaves could be forced to manually go through records for one hospital.
But on a national level, it's not going to happen.

This guy may be wrong. We could try to see if there's good national data
on the number of injuries from tripping while walking. But I haven't
found any.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 6/3/2019 10:05 PM, 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.

Oh, right!

And what percentage of "protected" bicycle lanes have those at all
intersections?

Before you answer, remember that every driveway is in effect an
intersection.

So, is that going to be the plan in Cupertino? Really?

--
- Frank Krygowski