A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » General
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

A March on Washington... on Bicycle?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old November 15th 08, 06:45 AM posted to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.rides,uk.rec.cycling
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 822
Default I am convinced bicycling is not safe

On Nov 14, 8:00 pm, (Tom Keats) wrote:

But my concern is about incipient new ridership who
may be affected to any degree. The very subject
line of this thread was obviously designed to
dissuade people who may be considering bicycling.
Then he throws in unsubstantiated, unqualified,
unquantified, ostensibly hearsay statements like:
"Accident statistics on bicycling are horrific per
mile traveled."

Great way to promote bicycling, eh?

....

Well horrific is a subjective term but it is true that bicycling has
per-mile injury rates far higher than driving. We shouldn't be too
surprised by that. Most of the injuries to bicyclists (80%) are
caused by falling off, wiping out, things motorists don't have to
worry about. And then, when a car and bike smash together, only the
bicyclist gets hurt. Bicycling may be a little more deadly than
driving but neither is remotely likely to result in fatality.
Motorcyclists have far worse fatality rates than anyone but better
injury rates than bicyclists. Again it is easy to predict this stuff
that is found in the numbers.

Bicycling has benefits that can't be gained any other way. That's the
difference that we need to get across to beginners or potential new
riders, and what is often forgotten when people start talking about
the danger of riding. The benefits dwarf the dangers.

People who are safety obsessed about bicycling are probably barking up
the wrong tree. There is no safety in traffic. The only cure is to not
leave the house. People who are too paranoid to ride a bike on the
street get in a car and go 80mph on the highway without a second
thought. That's simply irrational behavior. But bicycling has its
dangers and they should be acknowledged. Here in particular, the truth
shall set us free. The truth is that bicycling is the superior mode,
providing superior health benefits and other benefits as well as
superlatively efficient transportation, despite a relatively high
injury rate.

And I think it's okay to acknowledge that, because of the unique
challenges of riding a bike, bicycling may not be for everybody. Like
el Banana for instance.
Ads
  #62  
Old November 15th 08, 08:28 AM posted to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.rides,uk.rec.cycling
Edward Dolan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14,212
Default I am convinced bicycling is not safe


wrote in message
...
On Nov 14, 8:00 pm, (Tom Keats) wrote:

But my concern is about incipient new ridership who
may be affected to any degree. The very subject
line of this thread was obviously designed to
dissuade people who may be considering bicycling.
Then he throws in unsubstantiated, unqualified,
unquantified, ostensibly hearsay statements like:
"Accident statistics on bicycling are horrific per
mile traveled."

Great way to promote bicycling, eh?

...

Well horrific is a subjective term but it is true that bicycling has
per-mile injury rates far higher than driving. We shouldn't be too
surprised by that. Most of the injuries to bicyclists (80%) are
caused by falling off, wiping out, things motorists don't have to
worry about. And then, when a car and bike smash together, only the
bicyclist gets hurt. Bicycling may be a little more deadly than
driving but neither is remotely likely to result in fatality.
Motorcyclists have far worse fatality rates than anyone but better
injury rates than bicyclists. Again it is easy to predict this stuff
that is found in the numbers.

Bicycling has benefits that can't be gained any other way. That's the
difference that we need to get across to beginners or potential new
riders, and what is often forgotten when people start talking about
the danger of riding. The benefits dwarf the dangers.

People who are safety obsessed about bicycling are probably barking up
the wrong tree. There is no safety in traffic. The only cure is to not
leave the house. People who are too paranoid to ride a bike on the
street get in a car and go 80mph on the highway without a second
thought. That's simply irrational behavior. But bicycling has its
dangers and they should be acknowledged. Here in particular, the truth
shall set us free. The truth is that bicycling is the superior mode,
providing superior health benefits and other benefits as well as
superlatively efficient transportation, despite a relatively high
injury rate.

And I think it's okay to acknowledge that, because of the unique
challenges of riding a bike, bicycling may not be for everybody. Like
el Banana for instance.


Many residential streets are safe for cycling but some aren't. Same goes for
roads both rural and urban. High speed highways with no shoulders are never
safe for cyclists. Bike lanes are not as safe as some think. Bike paths are
the safest provided they do not become too crowded. Ergo, we should all work
for bike paths as much as possible.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota


  #63  
Old November 15th 08, 03:44 PM posted to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.rides,uk.rec.cycling
ComandanteBanana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,097
Default I am convinced bicycling is not safe

On Nov 14, 8:34 pm, Dane Buson wrote:
In rec.bicycles.misc Bill Sornson wrote:





Dane Buson wrote:
In rec.bicycles.misc Tom Keats wrote:
In article KingOfTheApes writes:


But since
you say biking is so dangerous, and neither the Republican Party nor
the Democratic Party is the solution, who's the solution?


Solution to /what/ -- your disinformation about the supposed
"dangerousness" of cycling? The solution to that is
pretty obvious, but you're still here.


I will admit that sometimes truly I long for the day where you can
deliver a punch to the face over TCP/IP. It would purely make for a
much politer interblag.


You want to punch someone in the face over what's quoted above?


Wow.


Nah, it's more of a generalized desire due to BananaBoy's (or whatever nym
he's using this week) general idiocy. Really, I'm not all bent out of
shape, I wish he'd just go away.


The Internet was created so smart and civilized behavior prevailed in
the jungle. But there still some alpha male apes that relapse to
primitive behavior. Usually cured with a banana.
  #64  
Old November 15th 08, 03:50 PM posted to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.rides,uk.rec.cycling
ComandanteBanana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,097
Default I am convinced bicycling is not safe

On Nov 14, 10:00*pm, (Tom Keats) wrote:
In article ,
* * * * Dane Buson writes:

In rec.bicycles.misc Tom Keats wrote:
In article KingOfTheApes writes:


But since
you say biking is so dangerous, and neither the Republican Party nor
the Democratic Party is the solution, who's the solution?


Solution to /what/ -- your disinformation about the supposed
"dangerousness" of cycling? *The solution to that is
pretty obvious, but you're still here.


I will admit that sometimes truly I long for the day where you can
deliver a punch to the face over TCP/IP. *It would purely make for a
much politer interblag.


I allow I may be encouraging Sgt Simian, by responding
to, and rebutting his inanities.

But I'm certain that ignoring him would actually
encourage him all the more, as that would let
his destructive fearmongering go unchallenged.
To further explain my point:

most regular perusers of these various x-posted
newsgroups recognize his hogwash for what it is.

But my concern is about incipient new ridership who
may be affected to any degree. *The very subject
line of this thread was obviously designed to
dissuade people who may be considering bicycling.
Then he throws in unsubstantiated, unqualified,
unquantified, ostensibly hearsay statements like:
"Accident statistics on bicycling are horrific per
mile traveled."

Great way to promote bicycling, eh?

Impugning people with certain /federal/
political leanings, for some alleged sorry
state of affairs is just a feint to divert
attention, so his planted seeds of Fear,
Uncertainty & Doubt (about the safety of
bicycling) might quietly and subtly sprout in
the minds of folks thinking about taking up
the bicycling avocation.
The ol' hit-'n-run propaganda technique.

His seeds are weeds in a garden. *We can't
ignore weeds in a garden. *Not for very long,
anyway.


There's no garden. There's simply a jungle on American roads, and
possibly in Canada. NO LANE DISCIPLINE, NO LAWS AGAINST CELL PHONES,
NO RESPECT FOR CYCLISTS.

Ride at your own risk, and hope that if you are hit, it doesn't become
another HIT AND RUN, something very common around here.


And to anybody in the world who is considering
[re]joining the ranks of bicyclists: there are
plenty of resources available on-line, in hard
copy, at your local cycling clubs and among your
cycling compatriots & peers, from which to learn
to ride safely and enjoyably. *If you see people
already riding safely and enjoyably in your own
parts of the world, that should be proof enough
that BananaCreamBoy is working against you.

cheers,
* * * * Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.



Yeah, you sure sound like a very unsafe person.
  #65  
Old November 15th 08, 04:04 PM posted to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.rides,uk.rec.cycling
ComandanteBanana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,097
Default TAME TRAFFIC AND/OR BUILD BIKE FACILITIES

On Nov 15, 1:45*am, wrote:
On Nov 14, 8:00 pm, (Tom Keats) wrote:

But my concern is about incipient new ridership who
may be affected to any degree. *The very subject
line of this thread was obviously designed to
dissuade people who may be considering bicycling.
Then he throws in unsubstantiated, unqualified,
unquantified, ostensibly hearsay statements like:
"Accident statistics on bicycling are horrific per
mile traveled."


Great way to promote bicycling, eh?


...

Well horrific is a subjective term but it is true that bicycling has
per-mile injury rates far higher than driving. We shouldn't be too
surprised by that. Most of the injuries to bicyclists (80%) are
caused by falling off, wiping out, things motorists don't have to
worry about. And then, when a car and bike smash together, only the
bicyclist gets hurt. Bicycling may be a little more deadly than
driving but neither is remotely likely to result in fatality.
Motorcyclists have far worse fatality rates than anyone but better
injury rates than bicyclists. Again it is easy to predict this stuff
that is found in the numbers.

Bicycling has benefits that can't be gained any other way. That's the
difference that we need to get across to beginners or potential new
riders, and what is often forgotten when people start talking about
the danger of riding. The benefits dwarf the dangers.

People who are safety obsessed about bicycling are probably barking up
the wrong tree. There is no safety in traffic. The only cure is to not
leave the house. People who are too paranoid to ride a bike on the
street get in a car and go 80mph on the highway without a second
thought. That's simply irrational behavior. But bicycling has its
dangers and they should be acknowledged. Here in particular, the truth
shall set us free. The truth is that bicycling is the superior mode,
providing superior health benefits and other benefits as well as
superlatively efficient transportation, despite a relatively high
injury rate.

And I think it's okay to acknowledge that, because of the unique
challenges of riding a bike, bicycling may not be for everybody. Like
el Banana for instance.


Neither for 99% of Americans who do NOT dare ride on the road. First
you have to TAME TRAFFIC AND/OR BUILD BIKE FACILITIES. Did I say that
before?

The other day I went down this very dangerous causeways where I've had
so many incidents before, and for the first time I obeyed the law...
and walked my bike across bridge. It took me over 5 min. of walking
and a lot of care not miss my step on a sidewalk that's only 2 1/2'
wide. Yeah, someone has determined that this bridge in not rideable,
but I'm sure he hasn't walked it either. He probably forgot that a
bicycle IS a vehicle in Florida.

I felt like a piece of trash, humiliated and mad. So I decided to ride
it back against all laws, including the law of the jungle, which is
the most prevalent around here. So it is incidents like this that keep
me coming back to the Internet, and making a lot of noise.

Well, it's not chaotic noise, but the clear cry of "lion!"

Here's a video of how the lions can be fought...

BATTLE AT KRUGER (THE PERFECT METAPHOR)

*WITHOUT SOLIDARITY WE ARE LUNCH!!!*

http://mybignoise.blogspot.com/2007/...of-jungle.html
  #66  
Old November 15th 08, 04:06 PM posted to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.rides,uk.rec.cycling
ComandanteBanana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,097
Default I am convinced bicycling is not safe

On Nov 15, 3:28*am, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
wrote in message

...





On Nov 14, 8:00 pm, (Tom Keats) wrote:


But my concern is about incipient new ridership who
may be affected to any degree. *The very subject
line of this thread was obviously designed to
dissuade people who may be considering bicycling.
Then he throws in unsubstantiated, unqualified,
unquantified, ostensibly hearsay statements like:
"Accident statistics on bicycling are horrific per
mile traveled."


Great way to promote bicycling, eh?

...


Well horrific is a subjective term but it is true that bicycling has
per-mile injury rates far higher than driving. We shouldn't be too
surprised by that. Most of the injuries to bicyclists (80%) are
caused by falling off, wiping out, things motorists don't have to
worry about. And then, when a car and bike smash together, only the
bicyclist gets hurt. Bicycling may be a little more deadly than
driving but neither is remotely likely to result in fatality.
Motorcyclists have far worse fatality rates than anyone but better
injury rates than bicyclists. Again it is easy to predict this stuff
that is found in the numbers.


Bicycling has benefits that can't be gained any other way. That's the
difference that we need to get across to beginners or potential new
riders, and what is often forgotten when people start talking about
the danger of riding. The benefits dwarf the dangers.


People who are safety obsessed about bicycling are probably barking up
the wrong tree. There is no safety in traffic. The only cure is to not
leave the house. People who are too paranoid to ride a bike on the
street get in a car and go 80mph on the highway without a second
thought. That's simply irrational behavior. But bicycling has its
dangers and they should be acknowledged. Here in particular, the truth
shall set us free. The truth is that bicycling is the superior mode,
providing superior health benefits and other benefits as well as
superlatively efficient transportation, despite a relatively high
injury rate.


And I think it's okay to acknowledge that, because of the unique
challenges of riding a bike, bicycling may not be for everybody. Like
el Banana for instance.


Many residential streets are safe for cycling but some aren't. Same goes for
roads both rural and urban. High speed highways with no shoulders are never
safe for cyclists. Bike lanes are not as safe as some think. Bike paths are
the safest provided they do not become too crowded. Ergo, we should all work
for bike paths as much as possible.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


You've come down in the evil scale by 3 points. Now you stand at 7
(passing grade). Keep up the good work!
  #67  
Old November 16th 08, 12:23 AM posted to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.rides,uk.rec.cycling
Edward Dolan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14,212
Default I am convinced bicycling is not safe


"ComandanteBanana" wrote in message
...
[...]
The Internet was created so smart and civilized behavior prevailed in
the jungle. But there still some alpha male apes that relapse to
primitive behavior. Usually cured with a banana.


There is no animal so disgusting, so vile that it deserves comparison to
you, for even the lowest, dirtiest, most parasitic member of the animal
kingdom fills an ecological niche. You fill no niche.
To call you a parasite would be injurious to the thousands of honest
parasitic species. You are worse than vermin, for vermin does not pretend
to be what it is not. You are truly human garbage.

****ing Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota


  #68  
Old November 16th 08, 12:29 AM posted to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.rides,uk.rec.cycling
Edward Dolan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14,212
Default I am convinced bicycling is not safe


"ComandanteBanana" wrote in message
...
On Nov 15, 3:28 am, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
[...]
Many residential streets are safe for cycling but some aren't. Same goes
for
roads both rural and urban. High speed highways with no shoulders are
never
safe for cyclists. Bike lanes are not as safe as some think. Bike paths
are
the safest provided they do not become too crowded. Ergo, we should all
work
for bike paths as much as possible.


You've come down in the evil scale by 3 points. Now you stand at 7

(passing grade). Keep up the good work!

Every time you make allusions to your animals of the jungle you will get
nothing but invective from me. Either reform yourself and start making some
sense or get used to being called a scumbag. Also, learn how to edit a post
so we do not have to keep wading through the same old **** over and over.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota



  #69  
Old November 16th 08, 03:49 AM posted to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc
Harry Brogan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 64
Default I am convinced bicycling is not safe

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 02:28:46 -0600, "Edward Dolan"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Nov 14, 8:00 pm, (Tom Keats) wrote:

But my concern is about incipient new ridership who
may be affected to any degree. The very subject
line of this thread was obviously designed to
dissuade people who may be considering bicycling.
Then he throws in unsubstantiated, unqualified,
unquantified, ostensibly hearsay statements like:
"Accident statistics on bicycling are horrific per
mile traveled."

Great way to promote bicycling, eh?

...

Well horrific is a subjective term but it is true that bicycling has
per-mile injury rates far higher than driving. We shouldn't be too
surprised by that. Most of the injuries to bicyclists (80%) are
caused by falling off, wiping out, things motorists don't have to
worry about. And then, when a car and bike smash together, only the
bicyclist gets hurt. Bicycling may be a little more deadly than
driving but neither is remotely likely to result in fatality.
Motorcyclists have far worse fatality rates than anyone but better
injury rates than bicyclists. Again it is easy to predict this stuff
that is found in the numbers.

Bicycling has benefits that can't be gained any other way. That's the
difference that we need to get across to beginners or potential new
riders, and what is often forgotten when people start talking about
the danger of riding. The benefits dwarf the dangers.

People who are safety obsessed about bicycling are probably barking up
the wrong tree. There is no safety in traffic. The only cure is to not
leave the house. People who are too paranoid to ride a bike on the
street get in a car and go 80mph on the highway without a second
thought. That's simply irrational behavior. But bicycling has its
dangers and they should be acknowledged. Here in particular, the truth
shall set us free. The truth is that bicycling is the superior mode,
providing superior health benefits and other benefits as well as
superlatively efficient transportation, despite a relatively high
injury rate.

And I think it's okay to acknowledge that, because of the unique
challenges of riding a bike, bicycling may not be for everybody. Like
el Banana for instance.


Many residential streets are safe for cycling but some aren't. Same goes for
roads both rural and urban. High speed highways with no shoulders are never
safe for cyclists. Bike lanes are not as safe as some think. Bike paths are
the safest provided they do not become too crowded. Ergo, we should all work
for bike paths as much as possible.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota




I have to agree with Ed on this. Working towards safer and better
bike paths is the way to go. All to often we hear about the "I
didn't see them" excuse.

The person that hit me a couple of years ago tried to use that
excuse....at first....but then changed her story to the talking on the
cell phone excuse. Those need to be banned while you are driving the
car. There can't be a call that's so important that you can't pull
over to take it.
__o | Every time I see an adult on a bicycle....
_`\(,_ | I no longer despair for the human race.
(_)/ (_) | ---H.G. Wells---
  #70  
Old November 16th 08, 10:05 AM posted to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc
Peter Clinch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,852
Default I am convinced bicycling is not safe

Harry Brogan wrote:

I have to agree with Ed on this. Working towards safer and better
bike paths is the way to go.


The usual problem with bike paths is rights of way conflicts where
they inevitably meet roads. That creates junctions, and junctions
are where most accidents happen.
Go and spend some time in NL and you find that a fietspad, even as
well implemented as in the NL, does *not* isolate you from traffic.
However, in NL you find that the typical driver is a great deal
more aware of bicycles than pretty much anywhere else you may have
cycled, and I suspect that that is rather more to do with the low
accident rates. It is actually the case that plenty of roads in NL
don't have a fietspad alongside and, especially in older towns and
villages, you may well be sharing the roads with cars. That these
areas don't appear to be accident black spots further suggests that
it's the awareness of many Dutch drivers that makes the biggest
difference.

All to often we hear about the "I didn't see them" excuse.


And you hear that most at junctions, and with bike paths you've
still got junctions.

The person that hit me a couple of years ago tried to use that
excuse....at first....but then changed her story to the talking on the
cell phone excuse. Those need to be banned while you are driving the
car. There can't be a call that's so important that you can't pull
over to take it.


It's illegal to use a mobile 'phone (hands-free excepted, not
because it's safe but it's vitually impossible to detect and
enforce sensibly) in the UK, and I suspect quite a few other places
too. But you still see numpties on their 'phones, and they'll
still be using them as they go past the junctions of bike tracks
and roads that you'll have to use to negotiate a bike path network.

Not that bike tracks don't have their place: there are several I
use simply because they're plain /nicer/ to use, and that's reason
enough, but that's not the same as making me safer.

As for the thesis "bicycling is not safe", well, of course it
isn't. People get killed falling over stepping in and out of the
bath, so if taking a bath isn't safe why do you expect cycling to
be? Check out the fatlities in cars, no shortage, so in absolute
terms that's certainly not safe either.
The trick is whether it is safe /enough/. Consult the actual
accident statistics for your own area to find out who suffers how
much in different places. At least in the UK cycling is actually
remarkably safe when you look at the actual figures, even though
the public perception is it's terribly dangerous. Moral of that
one is you can't trust superficial perceptions.
From a UK perspective (and it's not necessarily the same
eveywhere, granted)
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/321/7276/1582 gives a more
balanced view than most people's perceptions IMHO.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Tom Danielson March 13 1978 - March 13 2008 [email protected] Racing 0 March 13th 08 09:31 AM
Mt. Washington BC nrkist Unicycling 4 August 28th 05 11:21 PM
Washington Post: A Rough Ride for Schwinn Bicycle Ed General 12 December 12th 04 04:24 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.