This looks like a good strategy for safety advocates

http://tinyurl.com/w7b6

Looks more like a strategy to discourage bicycling through fear.

The prudent strategy for improving the safety of bicycle transportation is
to draw attention to the causes of collisions, in particular violation of
right-of-way laws and other user errors, rather than dwelling on the
consequences.

Steve Goodridge
http://humantransport.org/bicycledriving/

"Steven Goodridge" wrote in message
nk.net...

Looks more like a strategy to discourage bicycling through fear.

The prudent strategy for improving the safety of bicycle transportation is
to draw attention to the causes of collisions, in particular violation of
right-of-way laws and other user errors, rather than dwelling on the
consequences.

I agree with you in principle. However, principles are hard to communicate
quickly without a striking visual symbol, and these "dead bikes" are quite
eloquent.

And while I don't disagree that they might scare tentative cyclists off the
street, there are still a lot more drivers than there are cyclists (or even
potential ones), and they are a lot more dangerous.

And I'm not quite ready to concede that fear alone is a primary deterrent to
cycling, rather than just a secondary rationalization. Fear keeps few people
from driving on highways or walking across streets, both of which are often
quite deadly.

RichC

"Rich Clark" wrote in message
...

And I'm not quite ready to concede that fear alone is a primary deterrent to
cycling, rather than just a secondary rationalization. Fear keeps few people
from driving on highways or walking across streets, both of which are often
quite deadly.

Fear definately keeps people from riding, or letting their kids ride. I'd say
it's the main deterrent besides laziness. When I tell people my bicycle is my
main form of local transportation, they're convinced I'm some kind of reckless
daredevil.

Is walking across streets deadly? Really? More deadly than driving on them?
It may be counterintuitive, but I don't believe it. More Manhattanites walk
across streets every day than drive cars on them, but I bet there are more
driver fatalities in Manhattan than pedestrian.

Matt O.

"Zippy the Pinhead" wrote in message
s.com...
http://tinyurl.com/w7b6

Almost as bad as the "wear a helmet or you'll DIE" safety campaign.

Bicycling is not dangerous, let's stop giving into the people bankrolled by
the auto industry.

C.Q.C.

Steven wrote:
Looks more like a strategy to discourage bicycling through fear.

The prudent strategy for improving the safety of bicycle transportation is
to draw attention to the causes of collisions, in particular violation of
right-of-way laws and other user errors, rather than dwelling on the
consequences.

Reminds me of the roadside crosses typically placed at hairpin
turns and traffic sign poles. (There was a clever article in the
L.A.W.'s magazine back in the 80's, with one of those touring
raconteur types describing a "five-shrine curve.")
--Karen M.
who almost got right-turned into this afternoon by a senior in an Old
Person Car, passing a pharmacy's drive-up entrance

In article ,
Rich Clark wrote:

And I'm not quite ready to concede that fear alone is a primary deterrent to
cycling, rather than just a secondary rationalization. Fear keeps few people
from driving on highways or walking across streets, both of which are often
quite deadly.

Driving on highways and walking across streets is often quite deadly, but it
isn't perceived as such. Cycling is. The requirement to wear a certain piece
of protective clothing for cycling but not walking or driving shows how
widespread this perception is, even at the levels of county and city councils
who have a duty to not legislate from a position of ignorance.

Cycling is considered a dangerous activity, and this (false) perception
discourages people from engaging in it. So-called cycling advocacy groups
blowing the number of cyclists killed out of proportion as proof that the
streets aren't safe do cyclists no favors. If they ever succeed in convincing
lawmakers that that the roads aren't safe for cyclists, the answer will never
be to build a bike lane on every road or to place restrictions on drivers.
The answer will always be something that serves the interest of the majority,
and that's people in cars, at the expense of the minority, that's people on
bikes. Saying the streets aren't safe for bicycles is paramount to saying
bicycles should be banned from streets.

"Trent Piepho" wrote in message
...

Cycling is considered a dangerous activity, and this (false) perception
discourages people from engaging in it. So-called cycling advocacy groups
blowing the number of cyclists killed out of proportion as proof that the
streets aren't safe do cyclists no favors.

Sorry pal, gotta cut you off here. Which cycling advocacy groups do this?
Quotes, please...

Matt O.

On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 18:21:41 GMT, "Matt O'Toole"
wrote:


"Trent Piepho" wrote in message
...

Cycling is considered a dangerous activity, and this (false) perception
discourages people from engaging in it. So-called cycling advocacy groups
blowing the number of cyclists killed out of proportion as proof that the
streets aren't safe do cyclists no favors.

Sorry pal, gotta cut you off here. Which cycling advocacy groups do this?
Quotes, please...

Well, you know. The cycling advocacy groups who are trying to
discourage people from taking up cycling. Duhhhhh....

In article ,
Matt O'Toole wrote:

"Trent Piepho" wrote in message
...

Cycling is considered a dangerous activity, and this (false) perception
discourages people from engaging in it. So-called cycling advocacy groups
blowing the number of cyclists killed out of proportion as proof that the
streets aren't safe do cyclists no favors.

Sorry pal, gotta cut you off here. Which cycling advocacy groups do this?
Quotes, please...

How about the story from the original post? http://tinyurl.com/w7b6

Is he putting up mangled dummies where pedestrians have been hit, or crushed
cars where they have been car accidents? No, just bikes.