|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |