Sierra Club -- cycling is scary

From the January issue of the Sierra Club's magazine, ostensibly trying
to encourage people to ride:

http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200501/bike_tech.asp

"But I'm scared stiff of biking"
Well, you should be. There are a lot of idiots behind the wheel, and
662 cyclists were among the more than 42,500 Americans slaughtered in
motor vehicle accidents in 2002. Bikers should learn safety measures
and, above all, wear a helmet. About 85 percent of those cyclists were
not wearing helmets. Avoiding main roads and staying sober greatly
increase your odds of survival, since about 60 percent of bike
fatalities occur on major roads, and over a fourth of the dead cyclists
had been drinking. Also, the fatality rate soars at night.

wrote in message
ups.com...
From the January issue of the Sierra Club's magazine,
ostensibly trying
to encourage people to ride:

http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200501/bike_tech.asp

"But I'm scared stiff of biking"
Well, you should be.

With friends like these...

On 4 Jan 2005 18:14:12 -0800, wrote:

From the January issue of the Sierra Club's magazine, ostensibly trying
to encourage people to ride:

http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200501/bike_tech.asp

"But I'm scared stiff of biking"
Well, you should be. There are a lot of idiots behind the wheel, and
662 cyclists were among the more than 42,500 Americans slaughtered in
motor vehicle accidents in 2002. Bikers should learn safety measures
and, above all, wear a helmet. About 85 percent of those cyclists were
not wearing helmets. Avoiding main roads and staying sober greatly
increase your odds of survival, since about 60 percent of bike
fatalities occur on major roads, and over a fourth of the dead cyclists
had been drinking. Also, the fatality rate soars at night.

That article stinks on several levels. Right from the opening writerly gimmick
that exposes a complete lack of research. "The Wright brothers made an awful
mistake when they abandoned bicycle manufacturing for aeronautics. If they'd
saved just a fraction of their genius for bikes, we might well be pedaling
through the air today instead of polluting it." The Wrights were responsible
for a number of cycling innovations and inventions some in current use.

The article gets worse from there.

Ron

wrote:

From the January issue of the Sierra Club's magazine, ostensibly
trying to encourage people to ride:

http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200501/bike_tech.asp

"But I'm scared stiff of biking"
Well, you should be. There are a lot of idiots behind the wheel, and
662 cyclists were among the more than 42,500 Americans slaughtered in
motor vehicle accidents in 2002. Bikers should learn safety measures
and, above all, wear a helmet. About 85 percent of those cyclists were
not wearing helmets. Avoiding main roads and staying sober greatly
increase your odds of survival, since about 60 percent of bike
fatalities occur on major roads, and over a fourth of the dead
cyclists had been drinking. Also, the fatality rate soars at night.

The enemy of your enemy is not your friend. I hate the Sierra Club. They exist
mostly for the benefit of the people on their payroll. If it's not to line
their pockets, it's to feather their caps.

Matt O.

Matt O'Toole wrote:
The enemy of your enemy is not your friend. I hate the Sierra Club.
They exist
mostly for the benefit of the people on their payroll. If it's not
to line
their pockets, it's to feather their caps.

You're welcome to hate whomever you wish, of course. The Sierra Club
certainly has its share of flakes and that article does include some
stupid comments, but not all chapters or members are the same.

I've been a Sierra Club member for about 10 years. The chapter I
belong to has a few flakes, but our membership is predominantly
scientists, engineers and teachers. Our chapter is involved with our
community: we pick up trash at local parks; we help the county plant
trees for erosion control; we sponsor film festivals and lectures; we
organize outings, etc. To my knowledge, nobody in our chapter gets
paid.

As for the cycling article: if their data are correct, then I'm
surprised by the number of cyclists who drink and ride. I'm
comfortable on public roads -- alert, but comfortable -- but there's no
way I'd go out there with a couple of beers in me.

The night riding statistic doesn't surprise me so much -- without
proper reflection/lighting we can be damned hard to see. It's worth
taking note even if the rest of the article is screwy.

JR

On 5 Jan 2005 12:15:10 -0800, "SlowRider"
wrote:

Matt O'Toole wrote:
The enemy of your enemy is not your friend. I hate the Sierra Club.
They exist
mostly for the benefit of the people on their payroll. If it's not
to line
their pockets, it's to feather their caps.

You're welcome to hate whomever you wish, of course. The Sierra Club
certainly has its share of flakes and that article does include some
stupid comments, but not all chapters or members are the same.

I've been a Sierra Club member for about 10 years. The chapter I
belong to has a few flakes, but our membership is predominantly
scientists, engineers and teachers. Our chapter is involved with our
community: we pick up trash at local parks; we help the county plant
trees for erosion control; we sponsor film festivals and lectures; we
organize outings, etc. To my knowledge, nobody in our chapter gets
paid.

As for the cycling article: if their data are correct, then I'm
surprised by the number of cyclists who drink and ride. I'm
comfortable on public roads -- alert, but comfortable -- but there's no
way I'd go out there with a couple of beers in me.

The night riding statistic doesn't surprise me so much -- without
proper reflection/lighting we can be damned hard to see. It's worth
taking note even if the rest of the article is screwy.

JR

It isn't surprising that riding drunk leads to accidents. Balance is
pretty damn important to riding a bike and I bet it goes ride down the
tubes when you drink. Is it possible that 1/4 bicycle accidents
involves a tipsy rider? Who checks to see? I don't think breathalyzer
testing is required for a bike rider.

dgk wrote:
On 5 Jan 2005 12:15:10 -0800, "SlowRider"
wrote:

Matt O'Toole wrote:
The enemy of your enemy is not your friend. I hate the Sierra
Club.
They exist
mostly for the benefit of the people on their payroll. If it's
not
to line
their pockets, it's to feather their caps.

You're welcome to hate whomever you wish, of course. The Sierra
Club
certainly has its share of flakes and that article does include some
stupid comments, but not all chapters or members are the same.

I've been a Sierra Club member for about 10 years. The chapter I
belong to has a few flakes, but our membership is predominantly
scientists, engineers and teachers. Our chapter is involved with
our
community: we pick up trash at local parks; we help the county plant
trees for erosion control; we sponsor film festivals and lectures;
we
organize outings, etc. To my knowledge, nobody in our chapter gets
paid.

As for the cycling article: if their data are correct, then I'm
surprised by the number of cyclists who drink and ride. I'm
comfortable on public roads -- alert, but comfortable -- but there's
no
way I'd go out there with a couple of beers in me.

The night riding statistic doesn't surprise me so much -- without
proper reflection/lighting we can be damned hard to see. It's worth
taking note even if the rest of the article is screwy.

JR

It isn't surprising that riding drunk leads to accidents. Balance is
pretty damn important to riding a bike and I bet it goes ride down
the
tubes when you drink. Is it possible that 1/4 bicycle accidents
involves a tipsy rider? Who checks to see? I don't think breathalyzer
testing is required for a bike rider.

Actually I'm struck by the very low number of cycling deaths. ~700 is
really a pretty small number considering the number of cyclist miles
per year.
Here in Tucson we have several cyclist deaths per year. It seems to
split evenly between recreational cyclists getting sideswipped by
agressive motorists and folks just out on bikes, often in the night
without lights.
Last week we had a particularly grisly episode in which a cyclist was
riding on the shoulder of I-10 at night without lights and got hit by
several vehicles. The body was so ripped up that it took two days to
determine its gender!
Even I, who always wears a helmet, would concede that a helmet would
not have been of much use. But lights and some judgement - (there is a
frontage road along that section of the interstate)

As to the Sierra Club, I was a member for several years but was put off
by the constant fund raising appeals- Imean really constant.

SlowRider wrote:

snip

You're welcome to hate whomever you wish, of course. The Sierra Club
certainly has its share of flakes and that article does include some
stupid comments, but not all chapters or members are the same.

Well stated.

One poorly written, article in Sierra, shouldn't make the club into some
sort of ogre. They do some good work, and g-d knows there needs to be
someone countering Bush's wholesale attack on the environment. One
misinformed individual shouldn’t make the whole club bad. It's too bad
Schildgen didn't run that article by some cyclists prior to submitting
it, but I fault the editor of Sierra for allowing it in, more than I
fault the author.

I was in the Sierra Club for many years, primarily for the activity
sections (skiing, cycling, singles). There were plenty of flakes in the
club, especially in the chapter that covered Oakland, San Francisco,
Marin, and Berkeley (Bay Chapter), but that shouldn't reflect on the
whole club, as every organization has its flakes.

I was impressed to see that the Sierra Club has beaten back the various
side-issue factions (immigration, animal rights, hunting, gun-control),
and was able to stay focused on environmental issues. Those people that
are so concerned about these other issues can join NPG, PETA, and
Handgun Control Inc., to promote these causes, if they so desire. The
hunting faction of the NRA is often allied with the Sierra Club, not an
enemy.

Steven M. Scharf Wrote:
SlowRider wrote:

snip

You're welcome to hate whomever you wish, of course. The Sierra Club
certainly has its share of flakes and that article does include some
stupid comments, but not all chapters or members are the same.

I currently live with a member, and I can attest that some are not all
together, if you catch my drift.
I have nothing against the organization in general other than it has
backed or instigated a great deal of anti mountain bike in the name of
environment lawsuits that cost IMBA big hassles and big buck. Claiming
that a couple of 2,000 lb pointy hoofed horses is environmentally
'freindly'. Such illogic irks me.


--
Conniebiker

In article , sonicechoes-
says...

It isn't surprising that riding drunk leads to accidents. Balance is
pretty damn important to riding a bike and I bet it goes ride down the
tubes when you drink. Is it possible that 1/4 bicycle accidents
involves a tipsy rider? Who checks to see? I don't think breathalyzer
testing is required for a bike rider.

Bicycling while intoxicated is illegal, so breath tests can be used, but
I doubt they're as rigorous about it as they are with car accidents.

Still, the numbers aren't at all surprising -- people here might not call
them "cyclists," but many people who lose their licenses after repeated
DUIs will then ride a bicycle to the bar or the liquor store instead.

--
is Joshua Putnam
http://www.phred.org/~josh/
Books for Bicycle Mechanics and Tinkerers:
http://www.phred.org/~josh/bike/bikebooks.html