Not much needed in a "Be Seen" light

Frank Krygowski writes:

On 10/25/2014 7:56 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Fri, 24 Oct 2014 23:25:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 10/24/2014 8:29 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
we are
bombarded with news stories talking about an auto hitting a bicycle
while the driver are texting, looking in the mirror to put on
lipstick, etc.

Are we really "bombarded" with those news stories? Or would it be more
accurate to say they sometimes trickle in?

Err... Frank, didn't James just post some statistics, from Australia,
that showed that something like 40% of bicycle deaths were the result
of being struck by a vehicle traveling in the same direction?

We were given data showing that. But we're talking about less than
half of a very rare occurrence, a cycling fatality. More to the
point, we were not shown anything about the lane position of the
cyclists before the collision occurred - a fact which is not
surprising, but still critically relevant.

Do most cyclists ride gutter-style? Yes. If a cyclist is hit by
someone traveling the same direction, was it because he was riding
gutter-style? Perhaps. Those who tend to ride further left report
much less problems with close passes, unthinking motorists, etc.

Unfortunately, this entire issue is so far below the radar that it
will likely be a while before research appears and settles the matter.
I have some I can link to, but it's not definitive.

But the point isn't that it is rare, or common as dirt, the point is
that if she doesn't see you are very likely dead.

There must be a name for that style of thinking - ignoring probability
and fixating on worst-case-scenarios - but I don't know what it is.

But isn't it obvious that the same statement can be made about trees
falling on people in the forest ("Don't go hiking!!"), about bridges
collapsing ("Never drive over a bridge!!"), about shark attacks ("Stay
out of the ocean!!"), about airplane crashes ("Never get on a
plane!!") and about thousands of other unlikely hazards?

Again, the real question is how do we best discourage those incidents.
Those who have tried only hiding at the edge are sure that must be the
best way. Those who have tried riding more prominently have learned
that it's better.

Well Frank, you may be all tied up in how to discourage these things
but my major interest is in not having it happen to ME.`

Yep. When I take a prominent lane position to discourage unsafe driver
behavior, I am doing it so squeeze-by sideswipes or rear-end crashes
will not happen to ME. I'm (usually) not trying to protect anyone
else. (Well, sometimes, I'm protecting my wife.)

Today I led a club ride, a small one, just six people. We did over 50
miles on all sorts of roads: tiny lanes, quiet country roads,
neighborhood streets, rural highways, busy four-lanes, park roads,
etc. etc. There must have been over 50 times that one or more of us
rode at lane center to be sure a motorist wouldn't try to squeeze
past. We never heard one horn honk, not one shout of disapproval. We
had no problems. We certainly never had anyone come close to running
us down from behind! And this is perfectly normal.

Just curious, what was the highest posted speed limit on any of those
roads on which you took the lane? What was the typical speed limit (a
guess). Almost no rides I ride on have less than a 45 mph speed limit.

--
Joe Riel

On 10/25/2014 7:35 PM, Joe Riel wrote:


Just curious, what was the highest posted speed limit on any of those
roads on which you took the lane? What was the typical speed limit (a
guess). Almost no rides I ride on have less than a 45 mph speed limit.

55 mph would have been the highest. Typical would be hard to say, since
(again) the roads had so much variety. It went down to 25 on some park
roads and, I assume, on some of the residential streets. Heck, we even
rode down one alley for a block.

The most difficult, psychologically, was one heavily traveled suburban
road whose pavement had deteriorated to patches upon patches. Back when
it was smooth, it was wide enough to be comfortably shared; but now,
there were times that I was further left just because the right was so
damned rough. In that situation, I worry a bit that the motorist might
not understand what we're up against. It's speed limit is 45, IIRC.

And BTW, there I definitely rode far left until cars were close,
specifically so they'd notice us far in advance. Most of the time, I
was able to then move right - but not always.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 10/25/2014 7:19 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
John B. Slocomb considered Fri, 24 Oct 2014
09:21:30 +0700 the perfect time to write:


Oliver had warned Schill on Friday: "You want to avoid any further
violations of the law. I'm not telling you that you can't have your
bicycle out there. We've established that bicycles have some rights
out there."

So she has rights, but he'll fine her if she uses them.
That'll be a slam-dunk on appeal then.

Sadly, it's far from a slam-dunk. The problem is that Kentucky's
phrasing of the law pretty much forces her to use the shoulder. Except,
of course, if the shoulder's not safe to use.

Trouble is, almost no judge or jury is going to believe that a shoulder,
no matter how bad, is unsafe for a bicyclist. How could they? They
regularly see gutter bunnies bouncing along in the dirt beyond the
shoulder - or doing anything else to avoid delaying any motorist by any
amount.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 10/25/2014 8:07 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
Frank Krygowski considered Fri, 24 Oct 2014
16:34:11 -0400 the perfect time to write:

Some of my riding buddies are cops. One low-ranking guy, a city cop,
was run off the road by an elderly lady on a quiet residential street,
an act which was either deliberate or extremely incompetent. He
reported it, asking authority to ticket her after the fact (I think that
was the plan) but his superiors denied it. He thought they were afraid
of bad publicity and perhaps taxpayer revolt.

How on earth can a cop not have authority to ticket without getting
authorisation?

Honestly, I don't know. I was pretty amazed by that result, partly
because at least one (maybe two) of the guys riding with him were cops -
although from different jurisdictions.

The guy in question does seem to have a reputation for being a bit
undisciplined. Maybe that somehow factored into the department politics
at work. But again, I don't know.


But in another case, a higher ranking guy was deliberately harrassed by
a motorist. He had the authority to decide on his own, and he used it.
In full uniform, he returned to the guys home, said "That was me on
the bike," and arresting him.

I don't recall for sure how the charges worked out in the end; I think
the guy just paid a fine. But I doubt he'll be as aggressive with
cyclists any more.

Good when it works, but it shouldn't need to be a high-ranking cop
that is the victim in order for anything to be done.
It should be as automatic from the receipt of an action cam video as
it would be to issue a speeding ticket from a gatso or traffic light
camera..

Agreed. In the U.S., drivers' licenses are far, far too easy to get,
and far too difficult to lose.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Saturday, October 25, 2014 6:47:33 PM UTC-7, Phil W Lee wrote:

snip

Anyhow, riding in the middle of the lane on a busy street with a bicycle
is IMHO not smart.

No, it's NOT taking the lane that's not smart.
Get some proper training!


Full disagreement here. And that won't change.

Ignore safety advice at your peril.
But I do wish you'd stop reinforcing motorists sense of
over-entitlement by pretending that they are in any way superior in
law. They aren't, and the last thing any cyclist should be doing is
endangering others by promoting that agenda.

http://www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/ would make good reading for
you, I think. It should be required reading for all prospective
motorists.

Taking the lane is an imperative sometimes. Taking it all the time requires a parade permit. There is a happy medium between never and always -- and that happy medium is easily divined from reading the UVC.

Notwithstanding the right under the UVC to take the lane, it might not be the safe thing to do under certain circumstances, e.g. on a twisting road with poor sight lines. I always find it hard to believe, though, when someone claims that an entire region (Calfornia or even just Cameron Park) is simply too dangerous to take the lane or ride without a retina burning flasher.

I was riding home on Friday behind a guy with three rear flashers. Where will it end -- a police escort? Not that we shouldn't use modern safety equipment, but it is becoming freakish.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 10/25/2014 10:28 PM, jbeattie wrote:


Taking the lane is an imperative sometimes. Taking it all the time requires a parade permit. There is a happy medium between never and always -- and that happy medium is easily divined from reading the UVC.

Notwithstanding the right under the UVC to take the lane, it might not be the safe thing to do under certain circumstances, e.g. on a twisting road with poor sight lines. I always find it hard to believe, though, when someone claims that an entire region (Calfornia or even just Cameron Park) is simply too dangerous to take the lane or ride without a retina burning flasher.

I was riding home on Friday behind a guy with three rear flashers. Where will it end -- a police escort? Not that we shouldn't use modern safety equipment, but it is becoming freakish.

I've never had a problem taking the lane on twisty roads. I think some
people forget that the driver sits close to the center line. He can see
further around a curve than one might think. And of course, the
twistier the road, the slower the motorist's speed (usually), but the
cyclist's speed isn't affected so much. That means less relative
closing speed.

Much tougher, I think is a narrow road with steep vertical humps, where
the road rises and falls sharply. A cyclist (especially a slow one) can
be hidden from view until the last second, when a motorist sails over
the hump at speed.

We have some of those roads not far from here, but sort of out of my
normal riding territory. I've never had an incident, but I do try to
watch far in the distance using my rear view mirror. I knew one person
who had a car panic brake behind her in that situation.

BTW, I drove on one of those roads just tonight. My worry, especially
this time of year, is coming across deer in the road just over one of
those humps.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski writes:

On 10/25/2014 10:28 PM, jbeattie wrote:


Taking the lane is an imperative sometimes. Taking it all the time requires a parade permit. There is a happy medium between never and always -- and that happy medium is easily divined from reading the UVC.

Notwithstanding the right under the UVC to take the lane, it might not be the safe thing to do under certain circumstances, e.g. on a twisting road with poor sight lines. I always find it hard to believe, though, when someone claims that an entire region (Calfornia or even just Cameron Park) is simply too dangerous to take the lane or ride without a retina burning flasher.

I was riding home on Friday behind a guy with three rear flashers. Where will it end -- a police escort? Not that we shouldn't use modern safety equipment, but it is becoming freakish.

I've never had a problem taking the lane on twisty roads. I think
some people forget that the driver sits close to the center line. He
can see further around a curve than one might think. And of course,
the twistier the road, the slower the motorist's speed (usually), but
the cyclist's speed isn't affected so much. That means less relative
closing speed.

Much tougher, I think is a narrow road with steep vertical humps,
where the road rises and falls sharply. A cyclist (especially a slow
one) can be hidden from view until the last second, when a motorist
sails over the hump at speed.

Interesting. There's nothing like that around here that I'm aware.
Any link to a video showing what the driver sees?

--
Joe Riel

On Sat, 25 Oct 2014 18:10:38 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/25/2014 7:56 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Fri, 24 Oct 2014 23:25:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 10/24/2014 8:29 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
we are
bombarded with news stories talking about an auto hitting a bicycle
while the driver are texting, looking in the mirror to put on
lipstick, etc.

Are we really "bombarded" with those news stories? Or would it be more
accurate to say they sometimes trickle in?

Err... Frank, didn't James just post some statistics, from Australia,
that showed that something like 40% of bicycle deaths were the result
of being struck by a vehicle traveling in the same direction?

We were given data showing that. But we're talking about less than half
of a very rare occurrence, a cycling fatality. More to the point, we
were not shown anything about the lane position of the cyclists before
the collision occurred - a fact which is not surprising, but still
critically relevant.


But Frank, is it actually a rare occurrence? After all, while we know
that there re approximately 700 bicycle deaths a year that figure
alone is meaningless. What is the total number of cyclists? If you
actually have a factual number I would appreciate it if you would post
the reference because I cannot find a reasonably reliable number
anywhere.

I read the NBDA page and it tells me that there were 16.2 million
bicycles sold in 2013.

I read STATISTA and it tells me that "between 42 million (Outdoor
Foundation) and around 51 million (Scarborough) people rode a bike /
went cycling in the last twelve months in the United States". Then I
read
http://www.peopleforbikes.org/statis...ics#the-basics
and I think we are getting somewhere. It states that "Less than 2% of
Americans cycle daily, and less than 1% achieve 30 minutes of physical
activity on any given day. " So according to this about 6.3 million
that cycle frequently.

So, when we are calculating the bicycle fatality percentages do we use
a base of 16.2 million? Or 42 million, or 51 million, or maybe 6.3
million?

It makes a difference.

You seem to equate bicycle fatalities with pedestrian fatalities and
point out that bicycles are almost trivial as they are only about
1/6th the size of pedestrian deaths. But if we look at percentages
then we have 700/6.3 million = Bicycle deaths 0.01%.

And pedestrian deaths, well like numbers of about cyclists it is
difficult to find numbers but if we were to accept that approximately
85% (just to pick a number) of the U.S. population walks somewhere
then we have 4,743/268,723,802 = Pedestrian deaths = 0.0017%.

Or bicycle riding is six times more dangerous then walking.

And, of course, both numbers become ridiculously small when compared
with the automobile.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 10/25/2014 11:24 PM, Joe Riel wrote:

Much tougher, I think is a narrow road with steep vertical humps,
where the road rises and falls sharply. A cyclist (especially a slow
one) can be hidden from view until the last second, when a motorist
sails over the hump at speed.

Interesting. There's nothing like that around here that I'm aware.
Any link to a video showing what the driver sees?

Not that I know of, sorry. But on tonight's drive, to and from a
concert at a little college, there were a couple dozen times when I
crested a little rise, unable to see the road surface beyond until I was
over the top.

A cyclist is above the road surface, so visible sooner. But it still
seems like a (rare) potential problem. I don't get paranoid about it.
I just stay aware.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 10/26/2014 12:28 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:


But Frank, is it [a bike fatality] actually a rare occurrence? After all, while we know
that there re approximately 700 bicycle deaths a year that figure
alone is meaningless. What is the total number of cyclists? If you
actually have a factual number I would appreciate it if you would post
the reference because I cannot find a reasonably reliable number
anywhere.

I read the NBDA page and it tells me that there were 16.2 million
bicycles sold in 2013.

I read STATISTA and it tells me that "between 42 million (Outdoor
Foundation) and around 51 million (Scarborough) people rode a bike /
went cycling in the last twelve months in the United States". Then I
read
http://www.peopleforbikes.org/statis...ics#the-basics
and I think we are getting somewhere. It states that "Less than 2% of
Americans cycle daily, and less than 1% achieve 30 minutes of physical
activity on any given day. " So according to this about 6.3 million
that cycle frequently.

So, when we are calculating the bicycle fatality percentages do we use
a base of 16.2 million? Or 42 million, or 51 million, or maybe 6.3
million?

It makes a difference.

You seem to equate bicycle fatalities with pedestrian fatalities and
point out that bicycles are almost trivial as they are only about
1/6th the size of pedestrian deaths. But if we look at percentages
then we have 700/6.3 million = Bicycle deaths 0.01%.

And pedestrian deaths, well like numbers of about cyclists it is
difficult to find numbers but if we were to accept that approximately
85% (just to pick a number) of the U.S. population walks somewhere
then we have 4,743/268,723,802 = Pedestrian deaths = 0.0017%.

Or bicycle riding is six times more dangerous then walking.

Well, "just to pick a number" is rarely considered a good way of
assessing danger.

Still, as we've noted many times before, there are many denominators
that can be used to figure risk, as in fatalities (or perhaps serious
injuries) per [whatever denominator]. And regrettably, for anything not
involving a car, all denominators are very approximate. We can discuss
the merits of calculating risk per participant, or per trip, per hour
activity, per mile traveled, per unit population, and perhaps others.
All those have been used in one form or other.

In trying to assess whether fatalities from a given activity are "rare"
or not, I think most people look at the number per year in their
country, and compare with other causes of death. It's not a perfect
assessment of risk, but it satisfies the common definition of "rare."
And by that standard, bike fatalities are certainly rare, being far, far
down on the list of causes of death. (Bike fatalities of sober cyclists
are even more rare, and those of cyclists riding competently are far lower.)

But I think the best metrics for risk are fatalities per mile ridden,
and fatalities per hour of activity. Those can also be compared to
other activities, to get a handle on relative risk.

The best per-mile-ridden data seems to come from John Pucher of Rutgers,
who has devoted his research life to this stuff. And it's nice that
Pucher is on your team, so to speak; his entire schtick is to say that
U.S. bicycling is far too dangerous, that ordinary bike lanes are
insufficient, and that we must have "protected" cycle tracks everywhere.

So how dangerous does he say bicycling is? In _Cycling for Everyone:
Lessons from Europe_ he says U.S. cyclists suffer 5.8 fatalities per 100
million kilometers of riding. (He doesn't explain, AFAIK, how he
arrived at the denominator, i.e. the miles ridden, but he's not biased
toward making cycling look safe.) 5.8 deaths per 10^8 km equates to one
fatality in over ten million miles of cycling.

Does one fatality in ten million miles of riding qualify as "rare"? I'd
certainly say it does! If you ride 3000 miles per year, that means
you'll need well over 3000 years of riding to get to a 50/50 chance of
dying on the bike. If you don't ride drunk, if you use _any_ lights at
night, if you respect stop signs, ride on the proper side of the road,
etc. you'll ride for even more thousands of years more.

Hers's another bit of data that proclaims "rare":
http://www.vehicularcyclist.com/comparat.html
That list (which is admittedly old, from 1993) was produced by America's
largest risk consultation firm. It serves the insurance industry,
helping them evaluate risk. As with Pucher, they didn't explain how
they arrived at the denominator, i.e. the hours of participation. In
their case, it's probably proprietary techniques; but there's no reason
to believe they were biased in favor of bicycling.

So is 0.26 bike fatalities per million hours of activity "rare"? I'd
say it is. That's nearly four million hours of riding to get to a 50/50
chance of dying on the bike, assuming you were no better than the
incompetent average.

And it's true that if we assume a reasonable cycling speed, Pucher and
Failure Analysis don't really agree. John "Danger! Danger!" Pucher's
figures sound worse - if you can call 10 million miles per fatality "worse."

Yes, all this has been discussed before. I've pointed to this summary
many times: http://www.ohiobike.org/misc/CyclingIsSafeTLK.pdf

Why not look it over? Double check some of the sources, if you like.

All the above is still separate from the question of how to best prevent
those really rare events. I think "edge riding" often adds risks,
compared with riding more visibly. Of course, that too has been
discussed before.

--
- Frank Krygowski