Regional and School Buses!

"Wilson" wrote in message
. ..

It took a while, but thank you.

You're welcome. Check the thread. I've been addressing
the issue of prevention and education all along. And part of
education is that cycling is not inherently unsafe.

[...] You calculate the fatality risk per hour of exposure, but I'll
take the Tractor-trailer rig regardless of the outcome of your
calculations.

Hooked.

Then the only reasonable recourse is to be the biggest, baddest
fastest one on the road? It's a flawed generalization that because
in some particular instance greater mass is an "advantage" that it's
an advantage over all.

Say a large number of people put their bikes in their cars and
drive thirty minutes to ride their bikes for an hour and then drive
home. That's something that a fair number of cyclists may do on
a regular basis for weekly club or group rides. During what
portion of this are the people "protected" by more mass, by
highly engineered safety features? During what portion of
this are the people exposed to greater risk of fatality
over all?

Which is perceived as "safer"? Most people think the
time in cars. But it's a strange definition of "safer" where
the risks of fatality are nearly twice as high.

Jon

"Jon" wrote in message
...
"Wilson" wrote in message
. ..

It took a while, but thank you.

You're welcome. Check the thread. I've been addressing
the issue of prevention and education all along. And part of
education is that cycling is not inherently unsafe.

All the education in the world will not make cycling safe since it is
inherently dangerous to be on the road with motor vehicles. But leave it to
Jon Meinekce to never have an ounce of common sense. What a dunce!
[...]

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

"Jon" wrote in message
...
"Wilson" wrote in message
. ..

It took a while, but thank you.

You're welcome. Check the thread. I've been addressing
the issue of prevention and education all along. And part of
education is that cycling is not inherently unsafe.
[.....]

Perhaps this is why we aren't understanding each other. I'm looking at this
from the standpoint that a bicycle/motor vehicle accident on the road is
inherently unsafe for the cyclist. I doubt there are statistics to dispute
this supposition.

Whatever can be done to avoid bicycle/motor vehicle accidents will primarily
benefit the cyclist. To me the basic means of avoidance for the cyclist is
to assume the driver can't see him, unless eye contact is made, and ride
accordingly. Avoiding crashes with motor vehicles is of the utmost
importance for cyclist safety.

I take it both of us along with Ed Dolan have put in a good number of road
miles in over the years and have done so in relative safety. Obviously luck
comes into play here, but maybe we've been doing something right.

And to Jeff Grippe, who has had the misfortune to have been in a road
accident with devastating results, I extend my hope for a full recovery to
whatever extent that is possible in his circumstance. My sympathies are
with him.

Wilson wrote:

Whatever can be done to avoid bicycle/motor vehicle accidents will
primarily benefit the cyclist. To me the basic means of avoidance for
the cyclist is to assume the driver can't see him, unless eye contact is
made, and ride accordingly.

That...

Avoiding crashes with motor vehicles is of
the utmost importance for cyclist safety.

And that, are not actually quite the obvious pairing you suppose,
because it's very a very different case between following traffic and
oncoming traffic you may be in conflict of right of way with at a junction.

If I assume nobody can see me until I can see they can see me, that
means I have to be out of the way of following traffic, down in the
gutter. But experience suggests that being well out of the gutter, very
much *in* the way, is better for me.

Motorists aren't blind: they can see potholes and road paint, cyclists
are not a stretch. IMHO the problem comes when they are seen and then
dismissed as irrelevant. With following traffic, you're irrelevant if
you're out of the way, or at least as far out of the way as a driver
thinks he can squeeze by without scratching his paintwork.

So I think sitting in a place that demands careful attention from a
driver is actually better than assuming you can't be seen, and that is
what will help you avoid a lot of crashes. I can't get eye contact with
everyone who might be behind me, it's just not realistic.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

"Wilson" wrote in message
. ..

"Jon" wrote in message
...
"Wilson" wrote in message
. ..

It took a while, but thank you.

You're welcome. Check the thread. I've been addressing
the issue of prevention and education all along. And part of
education is that cycling is not inherently unsafe.
[.....]

Perhaps this is why we aren't understanding each other. I'm looking at
this
from the standpoint that a bicycle/motor vehicle accident on the road is
inherently unsafe for the cyclist. I doubt there are statistics to
dispute this supposition.

Whatever can be done to avoid bicycle/motor vehicle accidents will
primarily benefit the cyclist. To me the basic means of avoidance for the
cyclist is to assume the driver can't see him, unless eye contact is made,
and ride accordingly. Avoiding crashes with motor vehicles is of the
utmost importance for cyclist safety.

I take it both of us along with Ed Dolan have put in a good number of road
miles in over the years and have done so in relative safety. Obviously
luck comes into play here, but maybe we've been doing something right.

And to Jeff Grippe, who has had the misfortune to have been in a road
accident with devastating results, I extend my hope for a full recovery to
whatever extent that is possible in his circumstance. My sympathies are
with him.

Wilson is a genius on my level. Those who think it is safe for cyclists to
be on the roads with motor vehicles are simply nuts. They want to ride where
they want to ride and so they deny the obvious hazards of motor vehicles by
citing meaningless statistics. What a laugh that is!

I have done thousands of rural road cycling miles here in Southwest
Minnesota. Yet, I know it is not all that safe. How do I know? Because
cyclists are regularly run over (hit from behind) by motorists who are
either drunk or careless or just idiots.

I highly recommend week long organized group bike tours for those of you who
like to ride long distances on rural roads. RAGBRAI is the classic example
of course, but there are now dozens of such rides all over the country every
summer. The reason I recommend these kind of rides is that you are
relatively safe on them because you are on the road with hundreds of other
cyclists. There is safety in numbers as they say.

By the way, Jeff Grippe was hit from behind in dense urban traffic while
stopped at a sign I believe. It is why we need our own bike paths (not bike
LANES) in cities and metro areas.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

"Wilson" wrote in message
. ..

"Jon" wrote in message
addresssing the issue of prevention and education all along. And
part of education is that cycling is not inherently unsafe.

Perhaps this is why we aren't understanding each other. I'm looking at
this from the standpoint that a bicycle/motor vehicle accident on the road
is
inherently unsafe for the cyclist.

Ok, but by the same reasoning, a small car/big truck accident on
the road is "inherently unsafe" for the small car occupants. In
actuallity, however, it does *not necessarily* follow from this that
the biggest vehicles are the safest.

I doubt there are statistics to dispute this supposition.
[collision inherently unsafe for the cyclist]

No, but the statistics I've cited do implicitly account for
bicycle/motor vehicle collisions. The instances of fatal
collisions must be infrequent enough that even the cyclists'
relative vulnerability compared to the cars' occupants
doesn't make the cyclist at large risk overall.

What seems *so incredible* to many people is that cycling
is actually *less risky* than many actitivies they don't think
of as very risky at all...

Whatever can be done to avoid bicycle/motor vehicle accidents
will primarily benefit the cyclist.

Yes, but it's the 'whatever', that may be at issue. Some
beneficial behaviors may seem counter to common sense
and some common sense behaviors may be counter
productive to risk reduction. As Peter points out, assuming
you're not seen, or worse, 'invisible', may lead to behavior
that actually increases risk. And assuming that every driver
out there wants to run you off "their road" isn't productive either.

Many have suggested that driver education, cyclist education,
public awareness, etc., are beneficial to reducing bicycle and
motor vehicle collisions. Improved infrastructure, safe
passing distance and other laws may be, too. Better
enforcement of existing regulations, yes even for cyclists,
may help. I've seen many, many cyclists behaving in
ways that increase risk for all road users, for instance, riding
against traffic, at night, without lights or reflectors... That's
really risky behavior.

However, me on my bike in the the left turn lane waiting
my turn in traffic isn't risky behavior, despite what some
may think. It's the appropriate, legal, and smart thing to
do. Yes, I will be "in people's way", the same as I am in
my car in the same position. I will be as "out of their way"
as is possible and prudent as soon as I can be. Often as
fast out of the intersection as the car in front of me.

Jon

"Jon" wrote in message
...
"Wilson" wrote in message
. ..

"Jon" wrote in message
addresssing the issue of prevention and education all along. And
part of education is that cycling is not inherently unsafe.

Perhaps this is why we aren't understanding each other. I'm looking at
this from the standpoint that a bicycle/motor vehicle accident on the
road
is
inherently unsafe for the cyclist.

Ok, but by the same reasoning, a small car/big truck accident on
the road is "inherently unsafe" for the small car occupants. In
actuallity, however, it does *not necessarily* follow from this that
the biggest vehicles are the safest.
[....]

Ok so it might even be true that nothing in this life necessarily follows
anything else. Throw a coke bottle up in the air and I suppose it may *not
necessary* follow that it will return to earth, but I'm willing to bet it
will.

I do know that I don't want to be in a Mini Cooper that collides with a semi
truck and trailer. I don't care if it does *not necessarily* follow that
the occupants of the semi truck will be safer than the occupants of the Mini
Cooper. My common sense tells me the odds of survival overwhelingly favor
the semi truck occupants over the Mini Cooper occupants.

The link below is to a graphic photo of car plowing into a peloton of cycle
racers in Mexico near the Texas border. There's also a video availble if
the still shot isn't graphic enough. According to your statistics all
these cyclists were statistically less safe driving to the start of the race
with their bikes in tow than they were on the road racing their bikes. Then
the unthinkable happened. Your statistics are no respector of persons.
Statistics to the contrary don't matter when it's your body flying though
the air.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/...ory?id=4984659

Watch Out and Stay safe. All of y'all.

"Wilson" wrote in message
. ..

"Jon" wrote
"Wilson" wrote

a bicycle/motor vehicle accident on the road is
inherently unsafe for the cyclist.

Ok, but by the same reasoning, a small car/big truck accident on
the road is "inherently unsafe" for the small car occupants. In
actuallity, however, it does *not necessarily* follow from this that
the biggest vehicles are the safest.
[....]

Ok so it might even be true that nothing in this life necessarily follows
anything else. Throw a coke bottle up in the air and I suppose it may
*not necessary* follow that it will return to earth, but I'm willing to
bet it will.

I do know that I don't want to be in a Mini Cooper that collides
with a semi truck and trailer.

Me neither, but again, that's not the point I am addressing. The
problem with accessing risk in this case, as is common, is one
of selective observation and flawed generalization.

Imagine you are in a minor car collision, wearing your seat belt.
You are not injured, but a gasoline leak has started a fire. You
have time to escape if you move quickly, but your seat belt is
jammed. You die in the fire. OK, so you carry a knife to cut
the seat belt. What if that slight delay makes the difference?

Clearly in this case, wearing the seat belt was as undesirable
as being in the Mini Cooper crushed by the semi. But it does
not necessarily follow that *not* wearing seat belts is the safest
behavior.

Throw a coke bottle up in the air and I suppose it may *not necessary*
follow that it will return to earth, but I'm willing to
bet it will.

Depends on whether the bottle obtains escape velocity. %^)
That you are willing to wager on the likely outcome suggests an
understanding of the laws of physics or at least a sound
generalization from observation of a fairly simple circumstance
with few variables.

But when assessing relative risk of various human activities, the
laws of physics are only part of the picture. Hmmm, this
reminds me of the falling Coke bottle in the movie, _The Gods
Must be Crazy_.

graphic photo of car plowing into a peloton [...]
According to your statistics all these cyclists were statistically less
safe driving to the start of the race with their bikes in tow than they
were on the road racing their bikes.

The cyclists were exposed to greater risk while driving.

Shall I send you links to news photos of the mangled
remains of the SUV where four children of friends of
mine died?

Then the unthinkable happened.

Not unthinkable. An unlikely thing happened.
A tragic incident.

Do you propose that the cyclists involved failed to
properly prepare for and take evasive action?

Do you propose that they failed to make eye contact
with the driver, -- drunk, asleep at the wheel,-- before
proceeding?

The inherently unsafe aspect here is the drunk driver.
Sadly, that's not a very rare occurrence. This was
not about the physics of smaller or larger bodies in
motion colliding. If the reports are true, this was
not a accident, it was man slaughter.

Your statistics are no respector of persons.

Correct. One-in-a-million events happen.
Strangely, in about one in a million times over
the long run. %^)

Statistics to the contrary don't matter when it's your
body flying though the air.

Correct.

No more than statistics matter if the drunk driver had
swerved onto the sidewalk and into a crowd of
pedestrians. Or had crossed into oncoming traffic
and struck head-on a van full of kids going to church
camp. Both have happened here.

Doesn't change the point that cycling is not particularly
dangerous.

Jon

"Jon" wrote in message
...
[...]
The inherently unsafe aspect here is the drunk driver.
Sadly, that's not a very rare occurrence. This was
not about the physics of smaller or larger bodies in
motion colliding. If the reports are true, this was
not a [an] accident, it was man slaughter [manslaughter].

The inherently unsafe aspect was the cyclists being on the road with motor
vehicles - period! And racing in groups on such a shared road is especially
stupid.
[...]

No more than statistics matter if the drunk driver had
swerved onto the sidewalk and into a crowd of
pedestrians. Or had crossed into oncoming traffic
and struck head-on a van full of kids going to church
camp. Both have happened here.

Those types of incidents are extremely rare whereas cyclists getting hit on
the road by motor vehicles is as common as mud.

Doesn't change the point that cycling is not particularly
dangerous.

Cycling is not dangerous provided it has its own pathways. Being on the road
in the same lane with motor vehicles is actually quite dumb. But whoever
said cyclists have any brains. Jon Meinecke proves he is an idiot every time
he posts to ARBR.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

In general I would say the Ed Dolan is on crack, but this is the day
that the sun shines on that dog's ass...

Cycling in NOT particularly dangerous.

Motor vehicles are inherently dangerous. In the US there are about
44,000 fatalities caused by motor vehicle collisions every year, very
few of these involve bikes, or peds, or horses or whatever else you
might imagine other than motor vehicles. A pretty good segment of
these fatal collisions involve only the one vehicle colliding with
something immobile like a bridge support or a tree or even just the
ground in an unusual direction. That's why we the people don't allow
kids and drunks to drive and require licensed operators to be
financially liable for the potential damage they are about to cause.

This number, 44,000 per annum, does NOT include deaths related to
automobile manufacture or operation other than collisions, however a
good many people have put forth that motor vehicles do indeed cause
death in manners not related to collisions. I understand that
operating one in an enclosed space can be quite fatal. In this regard
and in so much as the big ball we live on doesn't seem to share an
atmospheric current with any other celestial body it in and of itself
would seem to constitute one rather large enclosed space. It only
stands to reason that the outcome of operating these motor vehicles in
our atmosphere is essentially the same as operating them in a large
enclosed space, it's only a matter of time before it produces the same
results. I mean to say that if you fired up your Buick in a three car
garage it would take longer to kill you than it would in a one car
garage, but if the tank is full sooner or later your gonna get the
same results. Wouldn't it be nice if we could hold the people that
profit from the manufacture and sale of these things liable for the
damage their product does? I guess if we're going down that road we
ought to go after the booze vendors first as that would be more bang
for our buck.

People that think bicycles are dangerous can wear helmets and/or cups.
Personally I won't ride without a night-light, 'cause I'm scared of
the dark - YMMV.