A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

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

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old May 17th 19, 02:28 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,477
Default HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.

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.
Ads
  #52  
Old May 17th 19, 03:27 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
jOHN b.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.

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.

  #53  
Old May 17th 19, 03:38 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.

On 5/16/2019 6:34 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
Love this too. Frank-boy Krygowski, who advertises loudly that he doesn't read my posts...


Jute's memory is faulty, yet again.

It is true I don't read most of what he writes. But I do generally skim
his bloviations in case there's any information of value.

On average, it takes less than ten seconds per post to determine there
is none. A great time saver!

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #54  
Old May 17th 19, 03:58 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.

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
  #55  
Old May 17th 19, 03:10 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Duane[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 401
Default HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.

On 16/05/2019 4:38 p.m., 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.



My neighbor's brother from London visits yearly and always wants to go
out cycling. He tells me riding in London is hell next to Montreal.
Never been there myself except via TacX so I can't say.

  #56  
Old May 17th 19, 03:31 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,477
Default HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.

On 5/17/2019 7:10 AM, Duane wrote:

snip

My neighbor's brother from London visits yearly and always wants to go
out cycling.Â* He tells me riding in London is hell next to Montreal.
Never been there myself except via TacX so I can't say.


When the public transit workers go on one of their periodic strikes
there are a lot of bicycles on the road.

On the subway you see a lot of people with Bromptons, for the trip
between the station and home or work.

A lot of bike share bikes in London but I haven't used them. I have used
the bike share bikes in Dublin, and they have pretty good separated
cycling infrastructure in some parts of the city.

  #57  
Old May 17th 19, 04:49 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,477
Default HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.

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.
  #58  
Old May 17th 19, 04:51 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,477
Default HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.

On 5/16/2019 1:38 PM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

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.


And they're all on the wrong side of the road as well.
  #59  
Old May 17th 19, 05:23 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Duane[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 401
Default HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.

On 17/05/2019 11:49 a.m., 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.
PartiallyÂ* because a chauffeur driven car was one of theÂ* 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 pointÂ* 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.


I'm lucky in that I have a shower available with a locker and a place in
the plant to store my bike. The bigger issues around here are that it
snows 6 months out of the year and in the spring as it is now it's still
cold and mostly raining.

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


Yeah my kid is 22 now. I actually miss when I had that problem. Missed
a lot of Sunday rides to coach soccer.

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.


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. People
around here use helmets or they don't when commuting. 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. Very few use headlights. No one seems to pay much attention to
DRL either way. It sort of annoys me on Sunday rides when I see
headlights in my mirror though. I think it's a car back but when they
don't overtake I eventually realize it's a bike.

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.


  #60  
Old May 17th 19, 07:59 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Kunich[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,231
Default HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.

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.
 




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
Is cycling dangerous? Bertie Wooster[_2_] UK 20 March 17th 14 10:43 PM
Cycling casualties plummet despite rise in numbers Simon Mason[_4_] UK 7 April 6th 12 08:06 AM
"Cycling is not dangerous. Cars are dangerous." Doug[_3_] UK 56 September 14th 09 05:57 PM
Help Texas Cycling call these numbers throughout the weekend Anton Berlin Racing 4 June 25th 09 08:58 PM
Cycling is dangerous Garry Jones General 375 November 21st 03 06:52 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.