HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.

On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 5:37:27 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/16/2019 3:38 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 9:18:32 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/16/2019 4:10 AM, jbeattie wrote:


Without getting into the prudence of an adult MHL, I could see a MHL causing significant drops in certain populations. If traffic is no so bad that you really need to ride a bike, then people with a "live free or die" or "don't muss my hair" or overheat my head mentality may not ride -- assuming there is any real effort to enforce the law. In Amsterdam, people would probably just ignore the law, and there would be no change. In the London scrum, they may comply because driving is impossible and riding is objectively dangerous. In Portland, compliance is pretty high already and enforcement would be nil, so there would be no change. It really depends on the population. I don't see any reason why the drop in Australia couldn't be "real" as opposed to or the result of some confounding factor. Entire populations can become entrenched on some relatively minor issues.

The drop in Australia was very significant (well over 30%) and occurred
as a step change immediately upon enactment of the helmet laws. In the
past, Scharf has vaguely said the drops could have been due to more
traffic, more video games, changes in demographics, etc. But none of
those explain a step change concurrent with the legislation.

Australians are sensitive. Like mink. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...orce-jets.html


Oh, and telephone surveys confirmed that the MHL was the reason many
stopped cycling. Scharf's capacity for denial is amazing.

Regarding your point that different populations would react differently
- another big factor is different enforcement. Portland cops, like most
in America, would probably pay no attention except in cases where they
wanted to stop someone for other reasons. "Riding while black" might be
an example. And fines would probably be minimal, making the ticket
hardly worth the processing time.

Australia went maniacal on enforcement, and fines are not minor - well
over $100. Bicycles have been confiscated and people have been jailed
for ignoring the laws and resulting fines.

Regarding the other examples, I question whether riding in London is
"objectively dangerous." While I've never ridden in the city proper, I
have good friends who lived and worked there for a year. When I asked
about the riding, they said "Oh, it was fine."

The big publicity a few years ago about London bike fatalities was a
close parallel to our "Year of the Shark" a couple decades ago.
Bicyclists demanding segregated facilities were outraged about a few
deaths in a short period; but cycling deaths had been trending down, and
that year ended up with no more bike fatalities than recent years.
Indeed, bike deaths were a fraction of pedestrian deaths, yet no
pedestrians staged "die-ins."

I'm in London right now. It's a f****** scrum with masses of non-compliant pedestrians with crushing auto traffic and droves of cyclists mostly sharing roadways with aggressive double-decker bus drivers. There are not a lot of facilities and really no place to ride except in the lane. It looks like about 60-75% wear helmets, even including the rent-a-bike set. In City of London and Westminster, there are lots of racer-ish riders, and in fact, the mix looks a lot like Portland, although less mountain bikes and more Bromptons and other folders. I was really amazed at the average pack speed. Some of the groups were moving like a bad Cat 5 race -- with a lot blowing lights and just missing pedestrians. I don't know about the injury stats, but If I lived here, I'd find commuting generally unpleasant.

-- Jay Beattie.


that may be a self-correcting problem:
https://nypost.com/2019/05/16/cyclis...ing-red-light/

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

I consider the fixy to be the bane of the cycling world. While I see may advantages because of the necessarily higher gear and commensurate effort to accelerate from a stop, riders do not want to stop and blow signs that they should not.

On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 5:54:32 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 17 May 2019 08:43:11 +1000, James
wrote:

On 16/5/19 6:10 pm, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 5:32:52 PM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 5/15/2019 4:23 PM, James wrote:

snip
The National Cycling Participation Survey results are free to
download from the Austroads website - after you register. The
only reason I posted a link from cycle-helmets.com is because you
don't need to register to download it from them.

Okay, fair enough. It's just that everyone gets very wary with a
reference includes cycle-helmets.com, a site that is well-known
for intentionally misinterpreting data, ignoring data that doesn't
fit their agenda, and constantly trying to equate correlation and
causation. If cycling rates fall, no matter what the actual reason,
if there was a helmet law then they insist that the helmet law was
the cause. The fact is that cycling rates rise and fall for a large
number of reasons. One poster recently pointed out that new bicycle
infrastructure caused a 75% increase in the number of riders.
Sometimes, as happened in China, it's vast improvements in public
transit that drastically reduced cycling rates. Sometimes it's
economic factors. Sometimes it's weather. Sometimes it's
demographic shifts.

The thing that jumps out immediately about that "survey" is the
statement "Participation is defined as the number of individuals
who have cycled for any journey or purpose and in any location over
a specified time period." Cycle around the block once a year, and
you're counted as a cyclist. Decide you're too old the next year
and don't take out the bike, and you're not counted.


A proper survey would be much more specific and look at annual
distance and number of cycling days per year. While the
"Participation Survey" can be interesting, the problem with it are
the organizations and individuals that try to draw false
conclusions from it.

SMS has misrepresented the survey.

The respondents are grouped into those who cycled at least once in the
last year, month or week, and ...

"2.4 Time ridden over past week.
Respondents who had ridden over the past
week were asked for an estimate of how much time they had spent riding.
We note that this measure is based on respondent recall over the
previous week and is likely to be at best a rough estimate. The number
of hours ridden in 2017 averaged 2.54 hoursper week (95% CI: 2.28 –
2.79); this is a statistically significantly decline on 2011 (Figure 2.11)"

Distance for many people is an unknown. Not everyone has or uses a
bicycling computer for every trip. The only estimate that everyone
is capable of making with some degree of accuracy, is how many hours
they cycled in the last week.

This survey was designed by professionals, not SMS.


Without getting into the prudence of an adult MHL, I could see a MHL
causing significant drops in certain populations. If traffic is no so
bad that you really need to ride a bike, then people with a "live
free or die" or "don't muss my hair" or overheat my head mentality
may not ride -- assuming there is any real effort to enforce the law.

In most of Australia there is a real effort to enforce the law. There
are only a handful of exceptions. One exception is Byron Bay. Though
situated in NSW, the state with the most heavy fines ($330 IIRC) and
strict enforcement near it's capital city (Sydney), helmet enforcement
around Byron Bay seems very relaxed. I've visited a few times over the
last year, and each time I am pleasantly surprised by the number of
young women riding. A sight unseen elsewhere (except perhaps Darwin
where the law was relaxed many years ago, but I haven't been there to
see first hand).


In Amsterdam, people would probably just ignore the law, and there
would be no change.

Finland has a MHL but there is no fine and no enforcement. Consequently
survey results find helmets are not a factor in people's decision to
ride or not. Mostly it is perceived safety and that riding a bicycle
makes you hot (yes, that is an actual reason the Fins surveyed gave).

In the London scrum, they may comply because
driving is impossible and riding is objectively dangerous. In
Portland, compliance is pretty high already and enforcement would be
nil, so there would be no change. It really depends on the
population. I don't see any reason why the drop in Australia
couldn't be "real" as opposed to or the result of some confounding
factor. Entire populations can become entrenched on some relatively
minor issues.


The latest round of MHL zealots in Australia think they have shown
scientifically that there was no drop in participation, or at least that
there is no evidence of one. They dismiss the census data that shows
that cycling used as the method of travel to work on the census day
dropped significantly after MHL-day, claiming that the data is not of
sufficiently high quality. Cherry picking now springs to mind.

They rely on a couple of surveys and dismiss all the other evidence,
conveniently.

It seems likely that there are a multitude of reasons for people not
commuting by bicycle ranging from "Oh! I just had my hair done", to
"OH! But 3 miles is too far to go by bicycle", to "Good Lord! It's
raining", to "Oh My God! My head hurts. No more booze on weekdays!",
to "I don't wanna wear a Helmet!".

When I was working in Jakarta I used to ride 100 km every Sunday
morning but wouldn't have dreamed of commuting to work by bike.
Partially because a chauffeur driven car was one of the perks of the
job, partially because a white shirt and tie was more or less the
standard uniform for managers in the business and one didn't want to
be calling on clients looking all hot and sweaty, and partially
because I spent the ride to work planning my day.

While a dedicated bicyclist might argue that these are all
surmountable problems the whole point is that they were sufficient,
for me to decide not to ride a bike to work.
--
cheers,

John B.

I do not see that there is anything special about riding a bike to work unless it has advantages. It takes about the same amount of time to ride a bike to my neurologist's clinic as to drive so why beat myself up especially in inclement weather?

On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 6:27:27 PM UTC-7, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 8:54:32 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 17 May 2019 08:43:11 +1000, James
wrote:

On 16/5/19 6:10 pm, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 5:32:52 PM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 5/15/2019 4:23 PM, James wrote:

snip
The National Cycling Participation Survey results are free to
download from the Austroads website - after you register. The
only reason I posted a link from cycle-helmets.com is because you
don't need to register to download it from them.

Okay, fair enough. It's just that everyone gets very wary with a
reference includes cycle-helmets.com, a site that is well-known
for intentionally misinterpreting data, ignoring data that doesn't
fit their agenda, and constantly trying to equate correlation and
causation. If cycling rates fall, no matter what the actual reason,
if there was a helmet law then they insist that the helmet law was
the cause. The fact is that cycling rates rise and fall for a large
number of reasons. One poster recently pointed out that new bicycle
infrastructure caused a 75% increase in the number of riders.
Sometimes, as happened in China, it's vast improvements in public
transit that drastically reduced cycling rates. Sometimes it's
economic factors. Sometimes it's weather. Sometimes it's
demographic shifts.

The thing that jumps out immediately about that "survey" is the
statement "Participation is defined as the number of individuals
who have cycled for any journey or purpose and in any location over
a specified time period." Cycle around the block once a year, and
you're counted as a cyclist. Decide you're too old the next year
and don't take out the bike, and you're not counted.


A proper survey would be much more specific and look at annual
distance and number of cycling days per year. While the
"Participation Survey" can be interesting, the problem with it are
the organizations and individuals that try to draw false
conclusions from it.

SMS has misrepresented the survey.

The respondents are grouped into those who cycled at least once in the
last year, month or week, and ...

"2.4 Time ridden over past week.
Respondents who had ridden over the past
week were asked for an estimate of how much time they had spent riding..
We note that this measure is based on respondent recall over the
previous week and is likely to be at best a rough estimate. The number
of hours ridden in 2017 averaged 2.54 hoursper week (95% CI: 2.28 –
2.79); this is a statistically significantly decline on 2011 (Figure 2..11)"

Distance for many people is an unknown. Not everyone has or uses a
bicycling computer for every trip. The only estimate that everyone
is capable of making with some degree of accuracy, is how many hours
they cycled in the last week.

This survey was designed by professionals, not SMS.


Without getting into the prudence of an adult MHL, I could see a MHL
causing significant drops in certain populations. If traffic is no so
bad that you really need to ride a bike, then people with a "live
free or die" or "don't muss my hair" or overheat my head mentality
may not ride -- assuming there is any real effort to enforce the law..

In most of Australia there is a real effort to enforce the law. There
are only a handful of exceptions. One exception is Byron Bay. Though
situated in NSW, the state with the most heavy fines ($330 IIRC) and
strict enforcement near it's capital city (Sydney), helmet enforcement
around Byron Bay seems very relaxed. I've visited a few times over the
last year, and each time I am pleasantly surprised by the number of
young women riding. A sight unseen elsewhere (except perhaps Darwin
where the law was relaxed many years ago, but I haven't been there to
see first hand).


In Amsterdam, people would probably just ignore the law, and there
would be no change.

Finland has a MHL but there is no fine and no enforcement. Consequently
survey results find helmets are not a factor in people's decision to
ride or not. Mostly it is perceived safety and that riding a bicycle
makes you hot (yes, that is an actual reason the Fins surveyed gave).

In the London scrum, they may comply because
driving is impossible and riding is objectively dangerous. In
Portland, compliance is pretty high already and enforcement would be
nil, so there would be no change. It really depends on the
population. I don't see any reason why the drop in Australia
couldn't be "real" as opposed to or the result of some confounding
factor. Entire populations can become entrenched on some relatively
minor issues.


The latest round of MHL zealots in Australia think they have shown
scientifically that there was no drop in participation, or at least that
there is no evidence of one. They dismiss the census data that shows
that cycling used as the method of travel to work on the census day
dropped significantly after MHL-day, claiming that the data is not of
sufficiently high quality. Cherry picking now springs to mind.

They rely on a couple of surveys and dismiss all the other evidence,
conveniently.

It seems likely that there are a multitude of reasons for people not
commuting by bicycle ranging from "Oh! I just had my hair done", to
"OH! But 3 miles is too far to go by bicycle", to "Good Lord! It's
raining", to "Oh My God! My head hurts. No more booze on weekdays!",
to "I don't wanna wear a Helmet!".

When I was working in Jakarta I used to ride 100 km every Sunday
morning but wouldn't have dreamed of commuting to work by bike.
Partially because a chauffeur driven car was one of the perks of the
job, partially because a white shirt and tie was more or less the
standard uniform for managers in the business and one didn't want to
be calling on clients looking all hot and sweaty, and partially
because I spent the ride to work planning my day.

While a dedicated bicyclist might argue that these are all
surmountable problems the whole point is that they were sufficient,
for me to decide not to ride a bike to work.
--
cheers,

John B.

When I lived in Toronto Ontario Canada I was fortunate to be able to bicycle commute to any of the jobs I had there. In most cases it was faster than taking the transit even though where I lived there were 2 streetcars going up to the subway. I'd have a leisurely ride into work and then use the return ride for interval training. Two jobs I had were fantastic because one route I could take was along a gorgeous valley road (Rosedale Valley)and another route ran through a number of connected parks and both routes eliminated almost all of the traffic that I'd otherwise have encountered had I had to use the roads.

Once again with bicycle commuting it's a case of different strokes for different folks with different wants/needs.

Cheers

How did you ride intervals with work cloths on?

On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 7:27:58 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 16 May 2019 18:28:00 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 5/16/2019 1:10 AM, jbeattie wrote:

Without getting into the prudence of an adult MHL, I could see a MHL causing significant drops in certain populations.

Perhaps, but that's not what happened in Australia. In fact numbers went
up right after the MHL, just not as fast as the population increase.
When that fact was noted, the AHZs insisted that the reason that cycling
numbers went up slower than the population growth was because of the
MHL--even when the data didn't support their premise they simply created
a rationalization to excuse the actual data. Of course that was of
little importance since when the actual data doesn't support their
position they just fabricate data to suit them.

If traffic is no so bad that you really need to ride a bike, then people
with a "live free or die" or "don't muss my hair" or overheat my head
mentality may not ride -- assuming there is any real effort to enforce
the law. In Amsterdam, people would probably just ignore the law, and
there would be no change. In the London scrum, they may comply because
driving is impossible and riding is objectively dangerous. In Portland,
compliance is pretty high already and enforcement would be nil, so there
would be no change. It really depends on the population. I don't see
any reason why the drop in Australia couldn't be "real" as opposed to
or the result of some confounding factor. Entire populations can become
entrenched on some relatively minor issues.

Tomorrow we kick off construction of some protected bike lanes near a
high school. These are real protected bike lanes, not some widely placed
pop-up bollards. While I would be thrilled to get the increase in
cycling that they saw in Columbus Ohio (75%)
http://www.dot.state.oh.us/engineering/OTEC/2017Presentations/72/Moorhead_72.pdf
I'd be happy with just 15%. The fact that we're doing real protected
bike lanes will hopefully mean that we see less of an increase in
non-fatal crashes than Columbus saw.

Perusing any of the studies of bicycle accidents that included an
attempt at defining who was at fault, who basically caused the
accident, shows that from about 30, to over 50 percent
( in one study) of the "accidents" between motor vehicles and bicycles
were the fault of the bicyclist, and this ignores the fact that a
substantial percentage, as many as 30%, in some studies, of all
bicycle crashes are "single vehicle crashes".

Thus it seems likely that simply building a private road for bicycles
while it may decrease bicycle versus motor vehicle crashes where the
fault lies with the motor vehicle it is not likely, as the "Columbus
Study" demonstrated, to reduce crashes significantly. In fact the
fact that the bicycles are protected from any attack by motor vehicles
will likely result in an increase in the "stupid stunts" that
bicyclists seem to do. One study, for example, listed "failure to
yield right of way", by both motor vehicles and bicycles, as a major
cause of crashes. Will being isolated from motor vehicles on the
Bicycle Road reduce the number of "failure to yield", by bicycle,
incidents? Or, for that matter, the number of single vehicle crashes?

One of the questions about the reduction in bicyclists when the
Australia helmet law went into effect was "is this a result of having
to wear a helmet?" Or is it "a result of discovering that bicycling
had become so dangerous that one must wear a helmet to be safe?"
--
cheers,

John B.

True John, but it does reduce fatalities. Single vehicle accidents only rarely end in fatalities. Though watching that Frenchman descending Mt Hamilton in the Tour of California might have given you doubts. I cannot believe a man that strong and a pro with a 7 minute lead had absolutely NO idea of how to take a corner at speed.

On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 7:58:29 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/16/2019 9:28 PM, sms wrote:
On 5/16/2019 1:10 AM, jbeattie wrote:

Without getting into the prudence of an adult MHL, I could see a MHL
causing significant drops in certain populations.

Perhaps, but that's not what happened in Australia. In fact numbers went
up right after the MHL, just not as fast as the population increase.
When that fact was noted, the AHZs insisted that the reason that cycling
numbers went up slower than the population growth was because of the
MHL--even when the data didn't support their premise they simply created
a rationalization to excuse the actual data. Of course that was of
little importance since when the actual data doesn't support their
position they just fabricate data to suit them.

Almost all of that is false, and probably deliberately false.

Tomorrow we kick off construction of some protected bike lanes near a
high school. These are real protected bike lanes, not some widely placed
pop-up bollards. While I would be thrilled to get the increase in
cycling that they saw in Columbus Ohio (75%)
http://www.dot.state.oh.us/engineering/OTEC/2017Presentations/72/Moorhead_72.pdf
I'd be happy with just 15%. The fact that we're doing real protected
bike lanes will hopefully mean that we see less of an increase in
non-fatal crashes than Columbus saw.

Columbus's Summit Street "protected" bike lanes _were_ "real protected
bike lanes." At least, they conformed to the most modern opinions on how
such nonsense should be designed. As the photos in the link showed, the
cyclists were "protected" by parked cars, by bollards and by pedestrian
islands. There were green painted turn boxes and other fancy tricks.

Of course, the cyclists were not "protected" at intersections, which is
where the crashes happened. As noted repeatedly, these facilities offer
"protection" against being hit from behind, a relatively rare crash
type. But they add extra complexity and surprise at intersections, which
is where most car-bike crashes occur. That's the reason that a 75%
increase in bike traffic was accompanied by a more than 700% increase in
car-bike crashes.

Before the installation: An average of 1.5 car-bike crashes per year.
After the installation: over 12 car-bike crashes per year.


--
- Frank Krygowski

One of the comical bike lanes around a school here is that the bike lanes are only in front of the school and stop either side.

On 5/17/2019 9:23 AM, Duane wrote:

snip

No idea how helmet laws or riding without lights in the day time has
anything to do with safety or anything else in this thread.Â* People
around here use helmets or they don't when commuting.Â* Most cyclists
doing rec rides use helmets out of choice.

Some of us use a tail light in the daylight since it's so dreary here
lately.Â* Very few use headlights.Â* No one seems to pay much attention to
DRL either way.Â* It sort of annoys me on Sunday rides when I see
headlights in my mirror though.Â* I think it's a car back but when they
don't overtake I eventually realize it's a bike.

This problem will resolve itself over time. Older bicycle headlights had
a strobe mode with the highest brightness setting being used. Newer
designs operate at lower power for the DRL plus they modulate (also
called breathe mode) which is still effective at increasing conspicuity
without being annoying.

The lights I ordered are not really for the daytime though they could be
used that way. They're for the cyclists with no lights at night. Often
it's not a question of money as to why they have no lights, it's a
question of laziness. I decided to use my discretionary funds as mayor
to buy as many lights as those funds will pay for.

We do have a youth helmet law and it's pretty well obeyed, though
probably helmet use is more because the parents insist on it. In fact
this is the real problem I see with helmet laws, they give a false sense
of security and can take the place of learning proper cycling
techniques. Frank may scream "Danger Danger" at every opportunity, but
the fact is that cycling is not all that dangerous and you can take
specific steps to reduce the danger through proper equipment and
training. You're not likely to be able to train drivers, and the "I just
didn't see him (or her)" excuse will continue to dominate if cyclists
don't learn how to make themselves more visible.

On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 2:41:28 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/16/2019 4:38 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 9:18:32 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/16/2019 4:10 AM, jbeattie wrote:


Without getting into the prudence of an adult MHL, I could see a MHL causing significant drops in certain populations. If traffic is no so bad that you really need to ride a bike, then people with a "live free or die" or "don't muss my hair" or overheat my head mentality may not ride -- assuming there is any real effort to enforce the law. In Amsterdam, people would probably just ignore the law, and there would be no change. In the London scrum, they may comply because driving is impossible and riding is objectively dangerous. In Portland, compliance is pretty high already and enforcement would be nil, so there would be no change. It really depends on the population. I don't see any reason why the drop in Australia couldn't be "real" as opposed to or the result of some confounding factor. Entire populations can become entrenched on some relatively minor issues.

The drop in Australia was very significant (well over 30%) and occurred
as a step change immediately upon enactment of the helmet laws. In the
past, Scharf has vaguely said the drops could have been due to more
traffic, more video games, changes in demographics, etc. But none of
those explain a step change concurrent with the legislation.

Australians are sensitive. Like mink. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...orce-jets.html


Oh, and telephone surveys confirmed that the MHL was the reason many
stopped cycling. Scharf's capacity for denial is amazing.

Regarding your point that different populations would react differently
- another big factor is different enforcement. Portland cops, like most
in America, would probably pay no attention except in cases where they
wanted to stop someone for other reasons. "Riding while black" might be
an example. And fines would probably be minimal, making the ticket
hardly worth the processing time.

Australia went maniacal on enforcement, and fines are not minor - well
over $100. Bicycles have been confiscated and people have been jailed
for ignoring the laws and resulting fines.

Regarding the other examples, I question whether riding in London is
"objectively dangerous." While I've never ridden in the city proper, I
have good friends who lived and worked there for a year. When I asked
about the riding, they said "Oh, it was fine."

The big publicity a few years ago about London bike fatalities was a
close parallel to our "Year of the Shark" a couple decades ago.
Bicyclists demanding segregated facilities were outraged about a few
deaths in a short period; but cycling deaths had been trending down, and
that year ended up with no more bike fatalities than recent years.
Indeed, bike deaths were a fraction of pedestrian deaths, yet no
pedestrians staged "die-ins."

I'm in London right now. It's a f****** scrum with masses of non-compliant pedestrians with crushing auto traffic and droves of cyclists mostly sharing roadways with aggressive double-decker bus drivers. There are not a lot of facilities and really no place to ride except in the lane. It looks like about 60-75% wear helmets, even including the rent-a-bike set. In City of London and Westminster, there are lots of racer-ish riders, and in fact, the mix looks a lot like Portland, although less mountain bikes and more Bromptons and other folders. I was really amazed at the average pack speed. Some of the groups were moving like a bad Cat 5 race -- with a lot blowing lights and just missing pedestrians. I don't know about the injury stats, but If I lived here, I'd find commuting generally unpleasant.

It's been a few years, but ISTR recall our friends saying they searched
out routes that were a bit longer, but quieter. They (husband and wife)
are both very experience utility cyclists and very comfortable with
taking the lane.

Pedestrians do worse than cyclists in London, perhaps because of their
non-compliance. Be especially careful when walking!

From one advocacy organization:

2014 : 64 pedestrians and 13 cyclists killed, = 77 citizens; 61% of all
road deaths (56% of all KSIs)

2015 – 66 pedestrians and 9 cyclists killed = 75 citizens; 55% of all
road deaths (53% of all KSIs)

2016 – 70 pedestrians and 8 cyclists killed = 79 citizens; 63% of all
road deaths (53% of all KSIs)


2017 – 76 pedestrians and 10 cyclists killed = 86 citizens; 64% of all
road deaths (54% of all KSIs)

Not dying does not a good ride make.

Most of the riders I observed were gutter bunnies for the simple reason that the gutter was passable except when occupied by a stopped bus. London cyclists appear to take whatever space is open in the lane. There is no "primary" position unless primary means the position that will get you through the gaggle of nearly stopped buses, cars and trucks. When traffic allows, they do take the lane -- often on roads were simply being on the road means taking the lane. Riders also liked to filter to the front and take the lane at lights, e.g. https://static.independent.co.uk/s3f...sts-london.jpg They launch through the intersection into the next great wall of traffic and start filtering again. The facilities are much more inviting and a lot more efficient at moving bikes.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Friday, May 17, 2019 at 12:04:59 PM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 5:37:27 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/16/2019 3:38 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 9:18:32 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/16/2019 4:10 AM, jbeattie wrote:


Without getting into the prudence of an adult MHL, I could see a MHL causing significant drops in certain populations. If traffic is no so bad that you really need to ride a bike, then people with a "live free or die" or "don't muss my hair" or overheat my head mentality may not ride -- assuming there is any real effort to enforce the law. In Amsterdam, people would probably just ignore the law, and there would be no change. In the London scrum, they may comply because driving is impossible and riding is objectively dangerous. In Portland, compliance is pretty high already and enforcement would be nil, so there would be no change. It really depends on the population. I don't see any reason why the drop in Australia couldn't be "real" as opposed to or the result of some confounding factor. Entire populations can become entrenched on some relatively minor issues.

The drop in Australia was very significant (well over 30%) and occurred
as a step change immediately upon enactment of the helmet laws. In the
past, Scharf has vaguely said the drops could have been due to more
traffic, more video games, changes in demographics, etc. But none of
those explain a step change concurrent with the legislation.

Australians are sensitive. Like mink. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...orce-jets.html


Oh, and telephone surveys confirmed that the MHL was the reason many
stopped cycling. Scharf's capacity for denial is amazing.

Regarding your point that different populations would react differently
- another big factor is different enforcement. Portland cops, like most
in America, would probably pay no attention except in cases where they
wanted to stop someone for other reasons. "Riding while black" might be
an example. And fines would probably be minimal, making the ticket
hardly worth the processing time.

Australia went maniacal on enforcement, and fines are not minor - well
over $100. Bicycles have been confiscated and people have been jailed
for ignoring the laws and resulting fines.

Regarding the other examples, I question whether riding in London is
"objectively dangerous." While I've never ridden in the city proper, I
have good friends who lived and worked there for a year. When I asked
about the riding, they said "Oh, it was fine."

The big publicity a few years ago about London bike fatalities was a
close parallel to our "Year of the Shark" a couple decades ago.
Bicyclists demanding segregated facilities were outraged about a few
deaths in a short period; but cycling deaths had been trending down, and
that year ended up with no more bike fatalities than recent years.
Indeed, bike deaths were a fraction of pedestrian deaths, yet no
pedestrians staged "die-ins."

I'm in London right now. It's a f****** scrum with masses of non-compliant pedestrians with crushing auto traffic and droves of cyclists mostly sharing roadways with aggressive double-decker bus drivers. There are not a lot of facilities and really no place to ride except in the lane. It looks like about 60-75% wear helmets, even including the rent-a-bike set. In City of London and Westminster, there are lots of racer-ish riders, and in fact, the mix looks a lot like Portland, although less mountain bikes and more Bromptons and other folders. I was really amazed at the average pack speed. Some of the groups were moving like a bad Cat 5 race -- with a lot blowing lights and just missing pedestrians. I don't know about the injury stats, but If I lived here, I'd find commuting generally unpleasant.

-- Jay Beattie.


that may be a self-correcting problem:
https://nypost.com/2019/05/16/cyclis...ing-red-light/

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

I consider the fixy to be the bane of the cycling world. While I see may advantages because of the necessarily higher gear and commensurate effort to accelerate from a stop, riders do not want to stop and blow signs that they should not.

It's a life style choice for many -- the rebel without a clue, hoping his rear wheel and landing in a skid, which is a totally in effective way of stopping -- but it's dramatic. Rear tire life is probably measured in weeks.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Friday, May 17, 2019 at 7:59:40 PM UTC+1, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 3:34:25 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
Love this too. Frank-boy Krygowski, who advertises loudly that he doesn't read my posts, now admits he reads me. His answer cuts all my substantive points, because he simply doesn't have answers to my perfectly reasonable points. The fact that the rest from this clown is pure personal abuse not worth replying to demonstrates that poor Krygowski is an insecure loser, hence the bluster and the bullying. - Andre Jute

On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 7:25:31 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/16/2019 1:05 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 2:33:46 AM UTC+1, James wrote:


There are also MHL zealots and plain vanilla helmet zealots.

Sure. But they don't bother me. There are all kinds of zealots. If they start lecturing me, I cut them down and they don't do it again.

Jute probably conflates their total dismissal of him with their being
intimidated.

Nah, I don't bother to intimidate people unless they actually hit me or drive too near me, then I deal with them. Even zealots with bees in their bonnets who're dumb enough to try and impose their "moral" view on me, get a polite, reasoned answer, noblesse oblige in action, and then, because they have no answers except circular self-referential ones, like the Mormons who tell you "but the book Mormon says", they either never mention the subject again, or run away either physically or virtually, just like your pretence, Franki-boy, that you don't read me, so that your lack of rational answers to perfectly logical points isn't exposed -- you hope!


Franki-boy has no answer to Gandhi either. His answer to poor living things smaller than him is to drown them, probably the most painfully prolonged way of killing them.

I find Jute to be similar, and I treat him similarly. I suspect others
do as well.

Are you threatening to drown me in your toilet, Franki-boy? Isn't that overly ambitious for a limp wimp like you?

When I was hit I was very angry but it died down pretty quickly when I saw that it was an old lady who was simply distracted. I could have sued but that wouldn't have been Christian. And it would have only made her life harder. Around here life is hard enough that I won't add to it.

I once worked for a Yugoslav we called Buzz who would say of someone, as his highest expression of praise: "He's a gentleman and scholar." You're definitely a scholar and a gentleman, Tom.

On Fri, 17 May 2019 08:49:37 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 5/16/2019 5:54 PM, John B. wrote:

snip

It seems likely that there are a multitude of reasons for people not
commuting by bicycle ranging from "Oh! I just had my hair done", to
"OH! But 3 miles is too far to go by bicycle", to "Good Lord! It's
raining", to "Oh My God! My head hurts. No more booze on weekdays!",
to "I don't wanna wear a Helmet!".

When I was working in Jakarta I used to ride 100 km every Sunday
morning but wouldn't have dreamed of commuting to work by bike.
Partially because a chauffeur driven car was one of the perks of the
job, partially because a white shirt and tie was more or less the
standard uniform for managers in the business and one didn't want to
be calling on clients looking all hot and sweaty, and partially
because I spent the ride to work planning my day.

While a dedicated bicyclist might argue that these are all
surmountable problems the whole point is that they were sufficient,
for me to decide not to ride a bike to work.

Yes, in a tropical climate the "hot and sweaty" issue is a big one.

In my area, the weather is mild, most larger companies have showering
and changing facilities, and white shirts and ties are rare.

The bigger issues around here a
1. I need to pick up children after work or attend their school activities.
2. I have to work late hours (very common in Silicon Valley because
you've got a lot of conference calls late at night when it's daytime in
Asia)
3. There's no safe route.
4. There's no secure bike parking.

We can address 2, 3, and 4, but addressing 1 is hard.

There's no helmet law for adults here, but it's rare to see any
professionals riding without one. However professionals are only one
segment of the cycling population. We have a lot of seniors from China
living with their adult children and they ride without helmets. We have
a lot of day workers that combine the bus and a bicycle.

Riding without lights is actually a bigger issue around here, and I just
received my first shipment of 200 rechargeable lights to give out. I
suppose we could also try to fund helmets, but really it's unnecessary.
You can buy a new helmet for $15, sometimes even less. The cost is not
the reason some people don't wear helmets, they just are willing to
accept the slight extra risk and not wear one.

Taking steps to make cycling safer are more important than imposing
helmet requirements. Just don't fall for the false narrative that if
helmets are required then suddenly mass numbers of people will give up
cycling in protest--there's never been any evidence of this happening.

Making cycling safer? Is cycling safe? Or is cycling unsafe? Or is
cycling only perceived as unsafe?

I ask as annually, in the U.S., approximately 750 people die while
cycling and nearly that many die falling out of bed and since there
seems to be no concept that going to bed is "dangerous" than it can't
be a matter of simple numbers.

Various studies of bicycle "accidents" have found that from about 30%
to as much as 60% (in at least one study) of the accidents are the
fault of the cyclist which really does make one wonder about the mind
set of the cyclists.

"Hey! Just use good sense and obey the traffic laws and save your
life. "

I find it very strange that no one ever seems to mention this simple
fact. It is free, it can save you from death, pain, or an expensive
stay in the hospital, but it seems to be a fact that is kept a secret
and instead we are told to "wear a helmet", or "we gotta build safer
bicycle paths". Are the bicycle paths 30 to 60% safer? Reports I read
seem to indicate that they are even less safe than riding on the open
road.

Of course politicians, to be successful and get re-elected, have to be
seen to be doing something for their constituents so from a political
point of view building bike paths is a very logical act.

But from a safety point of view simply enforcing the present traffic
laws would be an even more logical act.
--
cheers,

John B.