Bicycle statistics

On Wed, 5 Jun 2019 09:10:26 +0200, Rolf Mantel
wrote:

Am 04.06.2019 um 16:32 schrieb Radey Shouman:
writes:

On 6/3/2019 1:23 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:

The trend in all motor vehicle fatalities over the past 20 years or so
is down, perhaps largely due to better emergency treatment.
More likely due to the presences of a large number of airbags in new
vehicles. Prior to that there were seat belts, shoulder belts,
collapsible steering columns, safety glass, padded dashboards, and
safety cages.

Maybe, although it would be good to have*some* evidence that this is
so.

There is one very simple way of separating the effect of "passive safety
measures" (seat belts, air bags etc) from other fatality avoidance
measures (speed limits, better emergency treatments etc).

If you compare long-term fatality figures for car drivers with fatality
figures for motor bikes, pedestrians and bicycles, anything that affects
all of them in the same way is due to speed limits, better emergency
treatments, etc.

Everything that on affects car inhabitants but does not affect others is
due to passive safety measures like seat belts, air bags, better brakes.

I think that death rates also have to, some how, be equated to total
participants. After all if only one guy/girl/thing uses a Hula-Hoop
and dies than accurate headlines could read "100% of hula-hoop users
die!"... or, equally, "one guy died while using a hula-hoop".
--
cheers,

John B.

On 6/5/2019 12:10 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:

snip

Everything that on affects car inhabitants but does not affect others is
due to passive safety measures like seat belts, air bags, better brakes.

Weather affects the safety of different groups differently. And of
course you have to take into account the numbers in each group and the
unit of measure. You can't measure vehicle drivers and pedestrians both
by distance.

As we've seen in this group, there is often a concerted effort to take
statistics completely out of context, and that's assuming that the
statistics are actually real in the first place.

On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 6:56:26 AM UTC-4, sms wrote:
Snipped
As we've seen in this group, there is often a concerted effort to take
statistics completely out of context, and that's assuming that the
statistics are actually real in the first place.

Yes, and you're expert at doing that.

Cheers

On 05/06/2019 4:40 a.m., John B. wrote:
On Wed, 5 Jun 2019 09:10:26 +0200, Rolf Mantel
wrote:

Am 04.06.2019 um 16:32 schrieb Radey Shouman:
writes:

On 6/3/2019 1:23 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:

The trend in all motor vehicle fatalities over the past 20 years or so
is down, perhaps largely due to better emergency treatment.
More likely due to the presences of a large number of airbags in new
vehicles. Prior to that there were seat belts, shoulder belts,
collapsible steering columns, safety glass, padded dashboards, and
safety cages.

Maybe, although it would be good to have*some* evidence that this is
so.

There is one very simple way of separating the effect of "passive safety
measures" (seat belts, air bags etc) from other fatality avoidance
measures (speed limits, better emergency treatments etc).

If you compare long-term fatality figures for car drivers with fatality
figures for motor bikes, pedestrians and bicycles, anything that affects
all of them in the same way is due to speed limits, better emergency
treatments, etc.

Everything that on affects car inhabitants but does not affect others is
due to passive safety measures like seat belts, air bags, better brakes.

I think that death rates also have to, some how, be equated to total
participants. After all if only one guy/girl/thing uses a Hula-Hoop
and dies than accurate headlines could read "100% of hula-hoop users
die!"... or, equally, "one guy died while using a hula-hoop".
--
cheers,

John B.


Jeez I've been telling you this for some time. Comparing numbers with
no participation makes cycling more dangerous than a lot of things.
Skydiving, Hockey, defusing land mines ... g

Frank Krygowski writes:

On 6/4/2019 7:52 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/3/2019 11:13 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 19:05:23 -0700, sms
wrote:

Oops, hit send to soon....

On 6/3/2019 3:54 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

snip

How can this be? Segregated foot paths and pedestrian deaths are
increasing while segregated bicycle paths will make us safer?

Because the two things are not the same. As I am sure that you
understand.

Pedestrian injuries and deaths only occasionally happen on the sidewalk.
The problem is at intersections, of which they cross a great many.
Jaywalking and vehicle traffic violations play the biggest part.

A properly designed protected bicycle lane will, by design, have proper
controls at intersections. No right-on-red (or no right turn at all).
Traffic lights with a phase for cyclists. Bollards and other devices
that discourage vehicle intrusion into the protected bicycle lane even
at intersections.

Ah, again you enlighten us. Pedestrians get killed at intersections
where they do not obey even rudimentary traffic laws because,
apparently, there aren't any proper controls but bicycles will be safe
because they do have proper controls.

Tell me, what sort of primitive area do you reside in that doesn't
have pedestrian controls at intersections? I ask as even in this
benighted little country we have them and I find it amazing that they
don't (apparently) exist in the U.S.
--
cheers,

John B.



You don't have pedestrian controls.
THIS is pedestrian control:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8279531.html

That's scary.

Today my wife and I walked to the post office, then the pharmacy, then
library and returned home. We could have been ticketed for jaywalking
twice.

The first was the one that made my wife nervous, across 60 feet of
pavement between blocks. But we knew that if we walked to the only
marked crosswalk on our route, the pedestrian button would not
work. It hasn't worked for about a year. And it involves walking past
the pharmacy, then doubling back on the other side of the street. And
the multi-direction traffic and separate light phases make that marked
crosswalk more hazardous than what we did, which was wait until there
were no cars at all within a block either direction. It took a little
patience, but it wasn't bad.

Jaywalking is frequently rational when many drivers do not properly
yield to pedestrians, eg turning right or left. Crossing mid block can
give a much simpler traffic situation to deal with. Even stray cats
can eventually figure this out.

Coming out of the library, which is about 50 feet from a T
intersection, there's a sign saying "No Pedestrian Crossing - Cross at
intersection." But it doesn't mean that intersection 50 feet away,
because there's an identical sign there! It means the intersection
with a traffic light a block further away. Again, we waited just a few
seconds, then were lucky enough to then have absolutely no passing
cars - a rarity.

And I think that's the reason lots of people jaywalk. The system has
been set up so peds are expected to wait long times at crossing places
that are quite a way from their intended destination. I'd rather ride
a bike, where I'm a legitimate part of traffic.

The invention of jaywalking was a fine bit of rhetorical judo. Before
jay walking, when motor vehicles were a new idea, we had "jay driving",
which meant driving without regard for the rules of the road, perhaps on
the wrong side. "Jay" meant a rube or a hick, someone incapable of town
manners.

Eventually motor car advocacy groups managed to turn the idea around --
those walking across the road wherever it seemed convenient were hounded
as "jaywalkers". In the modern era, when any white man might aspire to
own a motor car, pedestrians would cross only where permitted by law.

More at https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26073797 . The book
mentioned, _Why We Drive the Way We Do_, Tom Vanderbilt, is worth
reading.

On 6/5/2019 10:02 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 6/4/2019 7:52 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/3/2019 11:13 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 19:05:23 -0700, sms
wrote:

Oops, hit send to soon....

On 6/3/2019 3:54 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

snip

How can this be? Segregated foot paths and pedestrian deaths are
increasing while segregated bicycle paths will make us safer?

Because the two things are not the same. As I am sure that you
understand.

Pedestrian injuries and deaths only occasionally happen on the sidewalk.
The problem is at intersections, of which they cross a great many.
Jaywalking and vehicle traffic violations play the biggest part.

A properly designed protected bicycle lane will, by design, have proper
controls at intersections. No right-on-red (or no right turn at all).
Traffic lights with a phase for cyclists. Bollards and other devices
that discourage vehicle intrusion into the protected bicycle lane even
at intersections.

Ah, again you enlighten us. Pedestrians get killed at intersections
where they do not obey even rudimentary traffic laws because,
apparently, there aren't any proper controls but bicycles will be safe
because they do have proper controls.

Tell me, what sort of primitive area do you reside in that doesn't
have pedestrian controls at intersections? I ask as even in this
benighted little country we have them and I find it amazing that they
don't (apparently) exist in the U.S.
--
cheers,

John B.



You don't have pedestrian controls.
THIS is pedestrian control:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8279531.html

That's scary.

Today my wife and I walked to the post office, then the pharmacy, then
library and returned home. We could have been ticketed for jaywalking
twice.

The first was the one that made my wife nervous, across 60 feet of
pavement between blocks. But we knew that if we walked to the only
marked crosswalk on our route, the pedestrian button would not
work. It hasn't worked for about a year. And it involves walking past
the pharmacy, then doubling back on the other side of the street. And
the multi-direction traffic and separate light phases make that marked
crosswalk more hazardous than what we did, which was wait until there
were no cars at all within a block either direction. It took a little
patience, but it wasn't bad.

Jaywalking is frequently rational when many drivers do not properly
yield to pedestrians, eg turning right or left. Crossing mid block can
give a much simpler traffic situation to deal with. Even stray cats
can eventually figure this out.

Coming out of the library, which is about 50 feet from a T
intersection, there's a sign saying "No Pedestrian Crossing - Cross at
intersection." But it doesn't mean that intersection 50 feet away,
because there's an identical sign there! It means the intersection
with a traffic light a block further away. Again, we waited just a few
seconds, then were lucky enough to then have absolutely no passing
cars - a rarity.

And I think that's the reason lots of people jaywalk. The system has
been set up so peds are expected to wait long times at crossing places
that are quite a way from their intended destination. I'd rather ride
a bike, where I'm a legitimate part of traffic.

The invention of jaywalking was a fine bit of rhetorical judo. Before
jay walking, when motor vehicles were a new idea, we had "jay driving",
which meant driving without regard for the rules of the road, perhaps on
the wrong side. "Jay" meant a rube or a hick, someone incapable of town
manners.

Eventually motor car advocacy groups managed to turn the idea around --
those walking across the road wherever it seemed convenient were hounded
as "jaywalkers". In the modern era, when any white man might aspire to
own a motor car, pedestrians would cross only where permitted by law.

More at https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26073797 . The book
mentioned, _Why We Drive the Way We Do_, Tom Vanderbilt, is worth
reading.

A minor correction: Tom Vanderbilt's book is titled _Traffic: Why we
drive the way we do_.

The book was fascinating. Almost every page, I was thinking "Wow, that's
really interesting." Others to whom I've recommended it have agreed,
including my long haul trucker friend.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 6/5/2019 8:11 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 6:56:26 AM UTC-4, sms wrote:
Snipped
As we've seen in this group, there is often a concerted effort to take
statistics completely out of context, and that's assuming that the
statistics are actually real in the first place.

Yes, and you're expert at doing that.

Most often, Scharf (aka "sms") just makes snide comments and allusions
with no data attached.

He ignores information like this
http://www.ohiobike.org/images/pdfs/...gIsSafeTLK.pdf
except to vaguely say "people take statistics out of context."

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 6/5/2019 5:31 AM, Duane wrote:

snip

I think that death rates also have to, some how, be equated to total
participants. After all if only one guy/girl/thing uses a Hula-Hoop
and dies than accurate headlines could read "100% of hula-hoop users
die!"... or,Â* equally, "one guy died while using a hula-hoop".
--
cheers,

John B.


Jeez I've been telling you this for some time.Â* Comparing numbers with
no participation makes cycling more dangerous than a lot of things.
Skydiving, Hockey, defusing land mines ... g

Well your harping on this has apparently worked, at least in this case.
Now get Frank to understand this and you'll get a medal. Or at least a
proclamation.

On 6/5/2019 7:02 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:

snip

The invention of jaywalking was a fine bit of rhetorical judo. Before
jay walking, when motor vehicles were a new idea, we had "jay driving",
which meant driving without regard for the rules of the road, perhaps on
the wrong side. "Jay" meant a rube or a hick, someone incapable of town
manners.

Yet the "Danger Danger" groups insist that crossing the street at an
intersection is preferable because there may be a signal or a crosswalk.

Crosswalks can give pedestrians a false sense of security. And at least
in my area there is an epidemic of red light running. At an intersection
you have to deal with vehicles coming from four different directions,
occasionally more than that since there are also 5 way intersections.
Crossing mid-block you only have to worry about two directions of vehicles.

On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 12:23:05 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:
On 6/5/2019 7:02 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:

snip

The invention of jaywalking was a fine bit of rhetorical judo. Before
jay walking, when motor vehicles were a new idea, we had "jay driving",
which meant driving without regard for the rules of the road, perhaps on
the wrong side. "Jay" meant a rube or a hick, someone incapable of town
manners.

Yet the "Danger Danger" groups insist that crossing the street at an
intersection is preferable because there may be a signal or a crosswalk.

Crosswalks can give pedestrians a false sense of security. And at least
in my area there is an epidemic of red light running. At an intersection
you have to deal with vehicles coming from four different directions,
occasionally more than that since there are also 5 way intersections.
Crossing mid-block you only have to worry about two directions of vehicles.

So what does a bicyclist who is moving faster than a pedestrian do when he/she leaves the bike lane or separated bike path and tries to cross the intersection where motorists are NOT expecting them?

Cheers