#101
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |