|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Is cycling dangerous? | Bertie Wooster[_2_] | UK | 20 | March 17th 14 09:43 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 05:52 PM |