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
  #71  
Old May 18th 19, 12:28 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 Fri, 17 May 2019 12:16:13 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

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.


Does it? I wonder.

The figures I read are more in line with "of those that had a head
injury only xyz were wearing a helmet", but what is a head injury?
"Scratched your nose" is a head injury.

What I don't see is number such as "of those with fractures of the
skull or brain damage XYZ ware wearing a helmet." Probably because in
an accident that severe a bicycle helmet would do no good at all.

I recently read an article that stated that even U.S. football helmets
which are far more protective than a bicycle helmet do not protect
from brain damage so how can a Styrofoam Bennie, with holes in,
protect one from significant head or brain injury.
--
cheers,

John B.

Ads
  #72  
Old May 18th 19, 12:39 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,447
Default HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.

On 5/17/2019 6:12 PM, John B. wrote:
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.



It's dicey to make categorical statements on the subject.

You recall the fixie rider who fatefully ran a red light in
NYC yesterday? This happened within hours of that:

https://nypost.com/2019/05/15/teen-c...h-in-brooklyn/

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


  #73  
Old May 18th 19, 01:08 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Sir Ridesalot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,270
Default HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.

On Friday, May 17, 2019 at 3:11:30 PM UTC-4, Tom Kunich wrote:
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?


I'd take my work clothes to work Monday on an easy ride or I'd roll and strap them under the saddle; most times I wore my bicycling shorts and jersey. At work I'd go into the washroom and have either a sponge bath with water or a wipe-down with alcohol. In winter I just wore regular clothes over my bicycling shorts.

A neat thing with one of those jobs was when the boss found out I was locking my bicycle outside he told me to bring it inside and lock it to something.

Some days it'd be raining and I'd wear rain gear but some days it'd be hot and muggy (high humidity) and I'd be very glad to have bicycling shorts and jersey.

Cheers
  #74  
Old May 18th 19, 01:31 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 Fri, 17 May 2019 18:39:56 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 5/17/2019 6:12 PM, John B. wrote:
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.



It's dicey to make categorical statements on the subject.

You recall the fixie rider who fatefully ran a red light in
NYC yesterday? This happened within hours of that:

https://nypost.com/2019/05/15/teen-c...h-in-brooklyn/


I see. One is riding down a line of parked cars and one doesn't slow
down so that if someone were to open a door one might stop in time?

I say that as when I come across a line of parked cars I do slow down
so that I can stop in time and yes, I have had occasional cases where
someone opened a door.... and I stopped.
--
cheers,

John B.

  #75  
Old May 18th 19, 03:40 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 5/17/2019 3:22 PM, sms wrote:
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...


SMS is so dishonest. I've never been the one claiming cycling is
dangerous. Instead, I've spent decades providing data proving it's NOT
dangerous. As one example of many, here's an article I wrote back in the
early 1990s:
http://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/SafetyQuiz.htm

Meanwhile, SMS has spent decades saying bicyclists need helmets, and
super-powerful lights (including in daytime), and bike lanes, and now
"protected" bike lanes, and nautical strobes, and horizontal "safety"
flags, and more to be safe. He's been the one crying "Danger! Danger!"
for decades.

There may be politicians that don't habitually lie. Scharf is not one of
them.

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #76  
Old May 18th 19, 03:48 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 5/17/2019 8:31 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 17 May 2019 18:39:56 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 5/17/2019 6:12 PM, John B. wrote:
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.



It's dicey to make categorical statements on the subject.

You recall the fixie rider who fatefully ran a red light in
NYC yesterday? This happened within hours of that:

https://nypost.com/2019/05/15/teen-c...h-in-brooklyn/


I see. One is riding down a line of parked cars and one doesn't slow
down so that if someone were to open a door one might stop in time?

I say that as when I come across a line of parked cars I do slow down
so that I can stop in time and yes, I have had occasional cases where
someone opened a door.... and I stopped.


I think stopping is possible only in limited circumstances, only if
riding at low speed, and only if you're quite skilled and quite lucky.
If you're riding at a fairly normal cycling speed and the door pops open
as you reach the back bumper of the car, it's essentially impossible to
avoid it. This is basic physics.

I don't ride in door zones. And the door zone is quite wide. I stay at
least five or six feet from parked cars.


--
- Frank Krygowski
  #77  
Old May 18th 19, 03:54 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 5/17/2019 3:08 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:

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?


I can see leaving the bike home if the weather is inclement. (I was
never as consistent as Jay Beattie.) But I certainly found advantages to
riding.

It saved time, in the sense that I got about an hour's riding per day at
a "time cost" of only half an hour. That's because I was able to ride
during the time I would have absolutely wasted by driving.

It also kept me in pretty good shape. It forced a hill climb or two on
me every day. It often motivated me to go fast, just to see how fast I
cold make it home. And it added miles that I would otherwise had not ridden.

Plus, it was fun. I always felt better on days I rode to work, compared
to the days I drove.

There were some disadvantages too, but on the whole, it worked out well
for me. I had a lot of fun with it.

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #78  
Old May 18th 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 5/17/2019 3:11 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 6:27:27 PM UTC-7, Sir Ridesalot wrote:


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?


Personally, I never did intervals. But I often did time trials on the
way home. If the first few traffic lights were green, I'd always try to
see how fast I could make it home.

And yes, I did that in my work clothes, which were office casual style.
I just figured they were going in the wash when I got home.

BTW, I think one of the ways cycling helps cardio shape is that it tends
to build in natural "intervals." Those are normally called "hills." I
always worked hard on the hills, then eased off a bit after the top.
Pretty much the same as cranking as hard as you can for a while on
flats, then easing off to recover.

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #79  
Old May 18th 19, 04:02 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 Fri, 17 May 2019 22:48:16 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/17/2019 8:31 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 17 May 2019 18:39:56 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 5/17/2019 6:12 PM, John B. wrote:
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.


It's dicey to make categorical statements on the subject.

You recall the fixie rider who fatefully ran a red light in
NYC yesterday? This happened within hours of that:

https://nypost.com/2019/05/15/teen-c...h-in-brooklyn/


I see. One is riding down a line of parked cars and one doesn't slow
down so that if someone were to open a door one might stop in time?

I say that as when I come across a line of parked cars I do slow down
so that I can stop in time and yes, I have had occasional cases where
someone opened a door.... and I stopped.


I think stopping is possible only in limited circumstances, only if
riding at low speed, and only if you're quite skilled and quite lucky.
If you're riding at a fairly normal cycling speed and the door pops open
as you reach the back bumper of the car, it's essentially impossible to
avoid it. This is basic physics.


Yes, of course. But is it more demeaning to ride "at a low speed"? Or
to be hit by a car door and possible (as in the reference above) die?
I feel it is the better choice to slow down so that I can stop as
opposed to the alternate (as in the above).

I don't ride in door zones. And the door zone is quite wide. I stay at
least five or six feet from parked cars.


Nor do I, nor (hopefully) does any other even faintly intelligent
bicyclist, although quite obviously (as in the above) some do.
--
cheers,

John B.

  #80  
Old May 18th 19, 04:07 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 5/17/2019 3:54 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, May 17, 2019 at 12:04:59 PM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:


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.


It's a trend or fashion in some circles.

Fashion is weird, unpredictable and powerful.


--
- Frank Krygowski
 




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 10:05 AM.


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.