A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Bicycle statistics



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old June 4th 19, 11:35 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
jOHN b.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default Bicycle statistics

On Tue, 4 Jun 2019 06:11:59 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 6/3/2019 9:13 PM, John B. wrote:

snip

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.


The difference is that pedestrians routinely ignore the pedestrian
controls and motorists routinely speed through crosswalks where they are
required to yield but don't.

I see.
That portion of the population that moves around on their own two
feet are scofflaws that ignore pedestrian controls but the cyclists
are all perfect little citizens that obey all laws and regulations.

So tell us what happens when a cyclist, instead of taking the bike,
decides to walk? Does he remain a meek little chap who obeys all rules
and regulations without fail? Or is he suddenly become some sort of
fiend that ignores any and all controls, urinates on people's lawns,
and generally acts in an uncivilized manner?

Cyclists are riding with traffic (unless they are turning themselves
into a pedestrian to use a crosswalk). Some cyclists run red lights but
generally only under certain circumstances like when they don't trigger
a sensor in the road, or when they are going through the top of a tee
intersection in a bike lane or on the shoulder. Cyclists are much less
likely to suddenly leave the sidewalk and dart across the road unexpectedly.

"In a recent study of 7,000 pedestrian-vehicle crashes in Florida,
researchers discovered that pedestrians were at fault in 80 percent of
these incidents. Similarly, in a U.K. study, pedestrian behavior
accounted for 90 percent of crashes where a vehicle struck a pedestrian."

Studies of bicycle crashes, in the U.S., vary, but the percentage of
at-fault cyclists is much lower than at-fauld pedestrians
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2011/05/20/136462246/when-bikes-and-cars-collide-whos-more-likely-to-be-at-fault


Interesting that your reference reports bicycle deaths in 2006. Have
there been no deaths in the past 13 years? Or is it just an out dated
report?

But since you brought the subject up (hopefully you will have actually
read the report) you must have noticed that it reported that in 2009
44 percent of fatalities from bike-car crashes were determined to be
the fault of the cyclist. In corroboration, the CHP study in 2012
reported that 59% of bike-car crashes were the fault of the cyclist.

In short, your comments (above) about how cyclists are all law abiding
citizens and obey the traffic controls doesn't seem to correspond
with information contained in the report that you reference.

Rather than your vaunted "segregated bicycle lanes" perhaps just
insisting that cyclists obeyed the traffic laws might turn bicycling
into a safe pastime rather then the current horribly dangerous ordeal
that you portray it as.

Based on the latest figures (that I can find easily) if you could get
the cyclists to ride in a safe and sane fashion and obey the traffic
code some 388 cyclists lives might have been saved.

Tell us. Is there more glory in being known as the bloke that built
the segregated bicycle lanes? Or saving 388 people from death?
--
cheers,

John B.

Ads
  #102  
Old June 5th 19, 12:09 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,477
Default Bicycle statistics

On 6/4/2019 11:02 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:

snip

My recollection is that it really was a regulatory issue. Back in the
80s there were a number of attempts at no-user-volition safety devices,
such as shoulder belts that closed with the door. These were literally
worse than useless, because they did not secure the lap belt. Airbags
won because they do at least sometimes work, and they're money makers
for dealer maintenance shops. Also, who doesn't love explosive devices?


Those shoulder belts were really annoying. As were the motorized
shoulder belts.

Airbags protect the occupants in certain kinds of crashes where seat
belts are not very effective. When you see someone claim that seatbelts
save x number of lives, but airbags save only y number of lives it's
important to realize that those two numbers don't really overlap by much.

Be wary of those that always demand more evidence than could possibly
ever be available. You can't do a double-blind study of fatalities of
seat belts-only versus airbags-only versus both combined. It's like the
tobacco companies always insisting that "more research is needed," or
the climate change deniers claiming that until the last 0.3% of
scientists are satisfied that you really can't know whether human
activity is contributing to it or not.

At some point you just have to accept the peer-reviewed scientific and
statistical evidence that's available and add in some common sense. But
when you have a specific agenda that you're desperately trying to
promote then statements like "too soon to tell" are all you have to
support your position.
  #103  
Old June 5th 19, 12:14 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,477
Default Bicycle statistics

On 6/4/2019 3:35 PM, John B. wrote:

snip

In short, your comments (above) about how cyclists are all law abiding
citizens and obey the traffic controls doesn't seem to correspond
with information contained in the report that you reference.


Only to those unable to discern 44-66% from 80-90%. Hopefully most
people can tell the difference, but apparently not everyone is able to.

Also, if you read some of these reports more carefully, you can see that
if a cyclist is more than 50% at fault then they are counted as at
fault, even though the motorist may also be partially at fault. I.e. a
speeding car hits a cyclist that runs a stop sign. Both have part of the
blame but the cyclist is likely to be considered at fault.

I'm sure that you actually really do already know all this, but for some
reason you enjoy being obtuse.
  #104  
Old June 5th 19, 12:50 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,447
Default Bicycle statistics

On 6/3/2019 10:39 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/3/2019 10:05 PM, 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.


Oh, right!

And what percentage of "protected" bicycle lanes have those
at all intersections?

Before you answer, remember that every driveway is in effect
an intersection.

So, is that going to be the plan in Cupertino? Really?


Elizabeth Warren yesterday said, "It's time for big ideas."
Why stop at impossible and impossibly expensive segregated
lanes? Let's dream big!:
http://transitx.com/

And for places where 'solar power' is its own punchline,
maybe power them with unicorn farts.

That Solar Pod Transit system is being considered by the
wise heads in Madison WI because, when it comes to taxpayer
funding, anything is possible!

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


  #105  
Old June 5th 19, 12:52 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,447
Default Bicycle statistics

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

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


  #106  
Old June 5th 19, 03:29 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Bicycle statistics

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.

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.

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #107  
Old June 5th 19, 03:53 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,422
Default Bicycle statistics

On Tuesday, June 4, 2019 at 2:20:26 PM UTC+1, duane wrote:
On 03/06/2019 11:03 p.m., James wrote:
On 4/6/19 6:32 am, Andre Jute wrote:
On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 1:38:08 PM UTC+1, duane wrote:

You end up with nonsense like cycling is more dangerous than sky
diving.

I didn't look up the stats on skydiving, but common sense tells us
that most incidents are likely to be fatal. All the same, a guy at
college with me broke his ankle skydiving and survived, only later to
commit suicide. I made a few jumps during my military service (we had
conscription), low level stuff, supposedly more dangerous, but I was
never hurt, nor was anybody from my training group. On the other
hand, just to rub Franki-boy, I knew at least one fellow who was
killed on his bike. From that, not having looked up the skydiving
stats, it would be easy to conclude that skydiving, at least for the
properly trained, is safer than bicycling on the public roads.
Skydivers, in my experience without exception, wear helmets. Just
saying...


I wonder how many have been saved by their helmet?Â* Just asking...


I assumed Andre was being sarcastic which is why I replied with the
distance traveled comment...


Moi? Never!

AJ
  #108  
Old June 5th 19, 04:11 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,422
Default Bicycle statistics

On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 12:50:33 AM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
Elizabeth Warren yesterday said, "It's time for big ideas."

Who could hate even President Trump so much that they would vote for this scolding, hectoring harridan?

Why stop at impossible and impossibly expensive segregated
lanes? Let's dream big!:
http://transitx.com/


You're dreaming of unobtanium. The link leads to: "An appropriate representation of the requested resource could not be found on this server." So who, besides you and whatsherface, the nightmare hall monitor, is authorised to see this Utopia?*

And for places where 'solar power' is its own punchline,
maybe power them with unicorn farts.


Australia, a country that was exceedingly good to me when I was a stateless, passportless political exile, is being turned into a tragedy of the commons by State governments in hock to the Greens shutting down coal-fired generating stations "because we can always buy fill0-in power when the wind doesn't blow from the next State along". Incredibly, no one ever asked, "WTF happens when all the States take that self-lacerating attitude?" If those politicians *tried* to wreck the country, they couldn't have done a better job.

That Solar Pod Transit system is being considered by the
wise heads in Madison WI because, when it comes to taxpayer
funding, anything is possible!


I'm sorry to hear that, Andrew. It was nice knowing you.

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


Andre Jute
*Of course I'm authorised to see Utopia. I paid for my Kranich.
  #109  
Old June 5th 19, 07:12 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
jOHN b.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default Bicycle statistics

On Tue, 4 Jun 2019 22:29:35 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

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.

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.


Ah Ha! Proof positive that Smurf is right! Pedestrians are law
breakers.

..... if you only had segregated bike lanes, and you were riding your
bike(s), you might have been safe.
--
cheers,

John B.

  #110  
Old June 5th 19, 08:10 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Rolf Mantel[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 267
Default Bicycle statistics

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.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
accident statistics: car vs motorcycle vs bicycle per mile travelled? [email protected] General 15 June 11th 08 03:27 AM
Bridge Statistics _[_2_] UK 7 September 10th 07 02:47 PM
Bridge Statistics _[_2_] UK 4 September 4th 07 11:01 PM
Where are those statistics? bob UK 15 August 30th 07 12:31 PM
Bicycle Injury Statistics [email protected] General 8 August 1st 06 07:33 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.