|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.
On 5/19/2019 2:00 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/19/2019 11:44 AM, jbeattie wrote: On Sunday, May 19, 2019 at 6:56:10 AM UTC-7, Duane wrote: John B. wrote: On Sat, 18 May 2019 01:04:14 -0700, sms wrote: On 5/17/2019 4:12 PM, John B. wrote: On Fri, 17 May 2019 08:49:37 -0700, sms wrote: On 5/16/2019 5:54 PM, John B. wrote: snip It seems likely that there are a multitude of reasons for people not commuting by bicycle ranging from "Oh! I just had my hair done", to "OH! But 3 miles is too far to go by bicycle", to "Good Lord! It's raining", to "Oh My God! My head hurts. No more booze on weekdays!", to "I don't wanna wear a Helmet!". When I was working in Jakarta I used to ride 100 km every Sunday morning but wouldn't have dreamed of commuting to work by bike. Partially because a chauffeur driven car was one of the perks of the job, partially because a white shirt and tie was more or less the standard uniform for managers in the business and one didn't want to be calling on clients looking all hot and sweaty, and partially because I spent the ride to work planning my day. While a dedicated bicyclist might argue that these are all surmountable problems the whole point is that they were sufficient, for me to decide not to ride a bike to work. Yes, in a tropical climate the "hot and sweaty" issue is a big one. In my area, the weather is mild, most larger companies have showering and changing facilities, and white shirts and ties are rare. The bigger issues around here a 1. I need to pick up children after work or attend their school activities. 2. I have to work late hours (very common in Silicon Valley because you've got a lot of conference calls late at night when it's daytime in Asia) 3. There's no safe route. 4. There's no secure bike parking. We can address 2, 3, and 4, but addressing 1 is hard. There's no helmet law for adults here, but it's rare to see any professionals riding without one. However professionals are only one segment of the cycling population. We have a lot of seniors from China living with their adult children and they ride without helmets. We have a lot of day workers that combine the bus and a bicycle. Riding without lights is actually a bigger issue around here, and I just received my first shipment of 200 rechargeable lights to give out. I suppose we could also try to fund helmets, but really it's unnecessary. You can buy a new helmet for $15, sometimes even less. The cost is not the reason some people don't wear helmets, they just are willing to accept the slight extra risk and not wear one. Taking steps to make cycling safer are more important than imposing helmet requirements. Just don't fall for the false narrative that if helmets are required then suddenly mass numbers of people will give up cycling in protest--there's never been any evidence of this happening. Making cycling safer? Is cycling safe? Or is cycling unsafe? Or is cycling only perceived as unsafe? Yes, all of the above. I ask as annually, in the U.S., approximately 750 people die while cycling and nearly that many die falling out of bed and since there seems to be no concept that going to bed is "dangerous" than it can't be a matter of simple numbers. Oh no, you're not going to start up with this nonsense are you. Taking injury and fatality numbers completely out of context is reserved for Frank. No one else is allowed to engage in this. I see. Nonsense because that ~759 bicyclists die each year? Because some 737 die from falling out of bed? Or nonsense because it doesn't agree with your highly political opinion? I suggest that the latter is the most likely truth. Maybe he’d prefer if you talked about the percentage of cyclists who died cycling compared to the percentage of people that sleep in beds who died falling out of beds. Not that I think either activity is very dangerous but this nonsense is getting boring. Various studies of bicycle "accidents" have found that from about 30% to as much as 60% (in at least one study) of the accidents are the fault of the cyclist which really does make one wonder about the mind set of the cyclists. "Hey! Just use good sense and obey the traffic laws and save your life. " I find it very strange that no one ever seems to mention this simple fact. It is free, it can save you from death, pain, or an expensive stay in the hospital, but it seems to be a fact that is kept a secret and instead we are told to "wear a helmet", or "we gotta build safer bicycle paths". Are the bicycle paths 30 to 60% safer? Reports I read seem to indicate that they are even less safe than riding on the open road. Actually I mentioned this today. I stressed that while the protected bike lanes, for which construction begins on Monday, will mitigate some of the bad behavior of motorists, that they are not a panacea. I also mentioned about what transpired in Ohio--big increase in cycling, but a lot of crashes on the path (though if you read the report carefully, not a many as it first appears). If I read you correctly you are really saying that bicyclists behave badly, do not comply with existing laws and regulations and (horrors) don't even display good sense and therefore special paths and byways must be constructed at the expense of the public to protect them from their own foolish actions. Whatever happened to those rugged and stalwart folks who through their efforts forged a great nation out of a wilderness? All gone? Like the dodo? -- cheers, John B. Uh oh, bicycles are suicide machines in the EU! Particularly where there is developed bicycle infrastructure. https://tinyurl.com/y4r935l4 NL is like the killing fields. The author serves a few tidbits of real knowledge in a stew of misinformation. I'd be interested in his source for "In the U.S., as in Europe, the car’s culpability is mostly a myth: just 29 per cent of bicycle fatalities involved autos." I think that's completely wrong. As measured by actual court decisions or merely by a disinterested omniscient being? I can see different conclusions drawn using different filters/methods. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
Ads |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.
On Sunday, May 19, 2019 at 3:00:42 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/19/2019 11:44 AM, jbeattie wrote: On Sunday, May 19, 2019 at 6:56:10 AM UTC-7, Duane wrote: John B. wrote: On Sat, 18 May 2019 01:04:14 -0700, sms wrote: On 5/17/2019 4:12 PM, John B. wrote: On Fri, 17 May 2019 08:49:37 -0700, sms wrote: On 5/16/2019 5:54 PM, John B. wrote: snip It seems likely that there are a multitude of reasons for people not commuting by bicycle ranging from "Oh! I just had my hair done", to "OH! But 3 miles is too far to go by bicycle", to "Good Lord! It's raining", to "Oh My God! My head hurts. No more booze on weekdays!", to "I don't wanna wear a Helmet!". When I was working in Jakarta I used to ride 100 km every Sunday morning but wouldn't have dreamed of commuting to work by bike. Partially because a chauffeur driven car was one of the perks of the job, partially because a white shirt and tie was more or less the standard uniform for managers in the business and one didn't want to be calling on clients looking all hot and sweaty, and partially because I spent the ride to work planning my day. While a dedicated bicyclist might argue that these are all surmountable problems the whole point is that they were sufficient, for me to decide not to ride a bike to work. Yes, in a tropical climate the "hot and sweaty" issue is a big one.. In my area, the weather is mild, most larger companies have showering and changing facilities, and white shirts and ties are rare. The bigger issues around here a 1. I need to pick up children after work or attend their school activities. 2. I have to work late hours (very common in Silicon Valley because you've got a lot of conference calls late at night when it's daytime in Asia) 3. There's no safe route. 4. There's no secure bike parking. We can address 2, 3, and 4, but addressing 1 is hard. There's no helmet law for adults here, but it's rare to see any professionals riding without one. However professionals are only one segment of the cycling population. We have a lot of seniors from China living with their adult children and they ride without helmets. We have a lot of day workers that combine the bus and a bicycle. Riding without lights is actually a bigger issue around here, and I just received my first shipment of 200 rechargeable lights to give out. I suppose we could also try to fund helmets, but really it's unnecessary. You can buy a new helmet for $15, sometimes even less. The cost is not the reason some people don't wear helmets, they just are willing to accept the slight extra risk and not wear one. Taking steps to make cycling safer are more important than imposing helmet requirements. Just don't fall for the false narrative that if helmets are required then suddenly mass numbers of people will give up cycling in protest--there's never been any evidence of this happening. Making cycling safer? Is cycling safe? Or is cycling unsafe? Or is cycling only perceived as unsafe? Yes, all of the above. I ask as annually, in the U.S., approximately 750 people die while cycling and nearly that many die falling out of bed and since there seems to be no concept that going to bed is "dangerous" than it can't be a matter of simple numbers. Oh no, you're not going to start up with this nonsense are you. Taking injury and fatality numbers completely out of context is reserved for Frank. No one else is allowed to engage in this. I see. Nonsense because that ~759 bicyclists die each year? Because some 737 die from falling out of bed? Or nonsense because it doesn't agree with your highly political opinion? I suggest that the latter is the most likely truth. Maybe he’d prefer if you talked about the percentage of cyclists who died cycling compared to the percentage of people that sleep in beds who died falling out of beds. Not that I think either activity is very dangerous but this nonsense is getting boring. Various studies of bicycle "accidents" have found that from about 30% to as much as 60% (in at least one study) of the accidents are the fault of the cyclist which really does make one wonder about the mind set of the cyclists. "Hey! Just use good sense and obey the traffic laws and save your life. " I find it very strange that no one ever seems to mention this simple fact. It is free, it can save you from death, pain, or an expensive stay in the hospital, but it seems to be a fact that is kept a secret and instead we are told to "wear a helmet", or "we gotta build safer bicycle paths". Are the bicycle paths 30 to 60% safer? Reports I read seem to indicate that they are even less safe than riding on the open road. Actually I mentioned this today. I stressed that while the protected bike lanes, for which construction begins on Monday, will mitigate some of the bad behavior of motorists, that they are not a panacea. I also mentioned about what transpired in Ohio--big increase in cycling, but a lot of crashes on the path (though if you read the report carefully, not a many as it first appears). If I read you correctly you are really saying that bicyclists behave badly, do not comply with existing laws and regulations and (horrors) don't even display good sense and therefore special paths and byways must be constructed at the expense of the public to protect them from their own foolish actions. Whatever happened to those rugged and stalwart folks who through their efforts forged a great nation out of a wilderness? All gone? Like the dodo? -- cheers, John B. Uh oh, bicycles are suicide machines in the EU! Particularly where there is developed bicycle infrastructure. https://tinyurl.com/y4r935l4 NL is like the killing fields. The author serves a few tidbits of real knowledge in a stew of misinformation. I'd be interested in his source for "In the U.S., as in Europe, the car’s culpability is mostly a myth: just 29 per cent of bicycle fatalities involved autos." I think that's completely wrong. -- - Frank Krygowski Source? Otherwise it's pure conjecture on your part Frank. Where are the statistics to disprove that 29%? Here in Waterloo Region (Canada) I see many bicyclists flagrantly disobeying traffic laws. They cause many drivers to have to slam on the brakes or take evasive action by moving left sometimes into an oncoming lane. Many bicyclists themselves hereabouts are also a hazard to other bicyclists especially on MUPs or rail-trails. There's almost always some bicyclist, pairs of bicyclist or even groups of bicyclists on MUPs or rail-trails who seem to think that those utilities are their own private race training grounds. I've seen many cases where such "race training fast riding" bicyclists have hit another bicyclist or forced then off the path or trail and caused them to crash. I've also seen many instances of a bicyclist blowing through a red light or stop sign and just narrowly being hit by a vehicle with the right of way. I'm not surprised there are as many bicycle crashes as there are (as few as those may be overall) but I am surprised there aren't a lot more of them. In summer I avoid both the MUPs and the rail-trails due to the number of inconsiderate bicyclists riding them at speed with no consideration that there are others on those same trails, perhaps even coming around that blind curve. Cheers |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.
On Sunday, May 19, 2019 at 8:31:49 PM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
[about this from the article Jay linked:] "In the U.S., as in Europe, the car’s culpability is mostly a myth: just 29 per cent of bicycle fatalities involved autos." As measured by actual court decisions or merely by a disinterested omniscient being? I can see different conclusions drawn using different filters/methods. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 In an incident involving a car and a bicycle and a fatality, the bicyclist is far more likely to be the fatality than the driver. It's just human nature for the survivor, the only one able to tell the story, the motorist, to say the dead cyclist did something illegal, reckless, stupid. It amazes me that cyclists are so eager to jump on the motorist's bandwagon and condemn their fellow-cyclists with uncollated anecdotes of the odd cyclist committing traffic offence. Andre Jute Brother, can you spare an energy bar? |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.
On Sun, 19 May 2019 08:44:04 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote: On Sunday, May 19, 2019 at 6:56:10 AM UTC-7, Duane wrote: John B. wrote: On Sat, 18 May 2019 01:04:14 -0700, sms wrote: On 5/17/2019 4:12 PM, John B. wrote: On Fri, 17 May 2019 08:49:37 -0700, sms wrote: On 5/16/2019 5:54 PM, John B. wrote: snip It seems likely that there are a multitude of reasons for people not commuting by bicycle ranging from "Oh! I just had my hair done", to "OH! But 3 miles is too far to go by bicycle", to "Good Lord! It's raining", to "Oh My God! My head hurts. No more booze on weekdays!", to "I don't wanna wear a Helmet!". When I was working in Jakarta I used to ride 100 km every Sunday morning but wouldn't have dreamed of commuting to work by bike. Partially because a chauffeur driven car was one of the perks of the job, partially because a white shirt and tie was more or less the standard uniform for managers in the business and one didn't want to be calling on clients looking all hot and sweaty, and partially because I spent the ride to work planning my day. While a dedicated bicyclist might argue that these are all surmountable problems the whole point is that they were sufficient, for me to decide not to ride a bike to work. Yes, in a tropical climate the "hot and sweaty" issue is a big one. In my area, the weather is mild, most larger companies have showering and changing facilities, and white shirts and ties are rare. The bigger issues around here a 1. I need to pick up children after work or attend their school activities. 2. I have to work late hours (very common in Silicon Valley because you've got a lot of conference calls late at night when it's daytime in Asia) 3. There's no safe route. 4. There's no secure bike parking. We can address 2, 3, and 4, but addressing 1 is hard. There's no helmet law for adults here, but it's rare to see any professionals riding without one. However professionals are only one segment of the cycling population. We have a lot of seniors from China living with their adult children and they ride without helmets. We have a lot of day workers that combine the bus and a bicycle. Riding without lights is actually a bigger issue around here, and I just received my first shipment of 200 rechargeable lights to give out. I suppose we could also try to fund helmets, but really it's unnecessary. You can buy a new helmet for $15, sometimes even less. The cost is not the reason some people don't wear helmets, they just are willing to accept the slight extra risk and not wear one. Taking steps to make cycling safer are more important than imposing helmet requirements. Just don't fall for the false narrative that if helmets are required then suddenly mass numbers of people will give up cycling in protest--there's never been any evidence of this happening. Making cycling safer? Is cycling safe? Or is cycling unsafe? Or is cycling only perceived as unsafe? Yes, all of the above. I ask as annually, in the U.S., approximately 750 people die while cycling and nearly that many die falling out of bed and since there seems to be no concept that going to bed is "dangerous" than it can't be a matter of simple numbers. Oh no, you're not going to start up with this nonsense are you. Taking injury and fatality numbers completely out of context is reserved for Frank. No one else is allowed to engage in this. I see. Nonsense because that ~759 bicyclists die each year? Because some 737 die from falling out of bed? Or nonsense because it doesn't agree with your highly political opinion? I suggest that the latter is the most likely truth. Maybe he’d prefer if you talked about the percentage of cyclists who died cycling compared to the percentage of people that sleep in beds who died falling out of beds. Not that I think either activity is very dangerous but this nonsense is getting boring. Various studies of bicycle "accidents" have found that from about 30% to as much as 60% (in at least one study) of the accidents are the fault of the cyclist which really does make one wonder about the mind set of the cyclists. "Hey! Just use good sense and obey the traffic laws and save your life. " I find it very strange that no one ever seems to mention this simple fact. It is free, it can save you from death, pain, or an expensive stay in the hospital, but it seems to be a fact that is kept a secret and instead we are told to "wear a helmet", or "we gotta build safer bicycle paths". Are the bicycle paths 30 to 60% safer? Reports I read seem to indicate that they are even less safe than riding on the open road. Actually I mentioned this today. I stressed that while the protected bike lanes, for which construction begins on Monday, will mitigate some of the bad behavior of motorists, that they are not a panacea. I also mentioned about what transpired in Ohio--big increase in cycling, but a lot of crashes on the path (though if you read the report carefully, not a many as it first appears). If I read you correctly you are really saying that bicyclists behave badly, do not comply with existing laws and regulations and (horrors) don't even display good sense and therefore special paths and byways must be constructed at the expense of the public to protect them from their own foolish actions. Whatever happened to those rugged and stalwart folks who through their efforts forged a great nation out of a wilderness? All gone? Like the dodo? -- cheers, John B. Uh oh, bicycles are suicide machines in the EU! Particularly where there is developed bicycle infrastructure. https://tinyurl.com/y4r935l4 NL is like the killing fields. -- Jay Beattie. Good Lord! Why hasn't something been done about this? We must make laws to protect those two wheel fools from themselves! -- cheers, John B. |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.
On Sun, 19 May 2019 15:00:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 5/19/2019 11:44 AM, jbeattie wrote: On Sunday, May 19, 2019 at 6:56:10 AM UTC-7, Duane wrote: John B. wrote: On Sat, 18 May 2019 01:04:14 -0700, sms wrote: On 5/17/2019 4:12 PM, John B. wrote: On Fri, 17 May 2019 08:49:37 -0700, sms wrote: On 5/16/2019 5:54 PM, John B. wrote: snip It seems likely that there are a multitude of reasons for people not commuting by bicycle ranging from "Oh! I just had my hair done", to "OH! But 3 miles is too far to go by bicycle", to "Good Lord! It's raining", to "Oh My God! My head hurts. No more booze on weekdays!", to "I don't wanna wear a Helmet!". When I was working in Jakarta I used to ride 100 km every Sunday morning but wouldn't have dreamed of commuting to work by bike. Partially because a chauffeur driven car was one of the perks of the job, partially because a white shirt and tie was more or less the standard uniform for managers in the business and one didn't want to be calling on clients looking all hot and sweaty, and partially because I spent the ride to work planning my day. While a dedicated bicyclist might argue that these are all surmountable problems the whole point is that they were sufficient, for me to decide not to ride a bike to work. Yes, in a tropical climate the "hot and sweaty" issue is a big one. In my area, the weather is mild, most larger companies have showering and changing facilities, and white shirts and ties are rare. The bigger issues around here a 1. I need to pick up children after work or attend their school activities. 2. I have to work late hours (very common in Silicon Valley because you've got a lot of conference calls late at night when it's daytime in Asia) 3. There's no safe route. 4. There's no secure bike parking. We can address 2, 3, and 4, but addressing 1 is hard. There's no helmet law for adults here, but it's rare to see any professionals riding without one. However professionals are only one segment of the cycling population. We have a lot of seniors from China living with their adult children and they ride without helmets. We have a lot of day workers that combine the bus and a bicycle. Riding without lights is actually a bigger issue around here, and I just received my first shipment of 200 rechargeable lights to give out. I suppose we could also try to fund helmets, but really it's unnecessary. You can buy a new helmet for $15, sometimes even less. The cost is not the reason some people don't wear helmets, they just are willing to accept the slight extra risk and not wear one. Taking steps to make cycling safer are more important than imposing helmet requirements. Just don't fall for the false narrative that if helmets are required then suddenly mass numbers of people will give up cycling in protest--there's never been any evidence of this happening. Making cycling safer? Is cycling safe? Or is cycling unsafe? Or is cycling only perceived as unsafe? Yes, all of the above. I ask as annually, in the U.S., approximately 750 people die while cycling and nearly that many die falling out of bed and since there seems to be no concept that going to bed is "dangerous" than it can't be a matter of simple numbers. Oh no, you're not going to start up with this nonsense are you. Taking injury and fatality numbers completely out of context is reserved for Frank. No one else is allowed to engage in this. I see. Nonsense because that ~759 bicyclists die each year? Because some 737 die from falling out of bed? Or nonsense because it doesn't agree with your highly political opinion? I suggest that the latter is the most likely truth. Maybe he’d prefer if you talked about the percentage of cyclists who died cycling compared to the percentage of people that sleep in beds who died falling out of beds. Not that I think either activity is very dangerous but this nonsense is getting boring. Various studies of bicycle "accidents" have found that from about 30% to as much as 60% (in at least one study) of the accidents are the fault of the cyclist which really does make one wonder about the mind set of the cyclists. "Hey! Just use good sense and obey the traffic laws and save your life. " I find it very strange that no one ever seems to mention this simple fact. It is free, it can save you from death, pain, or an expensive stay in the hospital, but it seems to be a fact that is kept a secret and instead we are told to "wear a helmet", or "we gotta build safer bicycle paths". Are the bicycle paths 30 to 60% safer? Reports I read seem to indicate that they are even less safe than riding on the open road. Actually I mentioned this today. I stressed that while the protected bike lanes, for which construction begins on Monday, will mitigate some of the bad behavior of motorists, that they are not a panacea. I also mentioned about what transpired in Ohio--big increase in cycling, but a lot of crashes on the path (though if you read the report carefully, not a many as it first appears). If I read you correctly you are really saying that bicyclists behave badly, do not comply with existing laws and regulations and (horrors) don't even display good sense and therefore special paths and byways must be constructed at the expense of the public to protect them from their own foolish actions. Whatever happened to those rugged and stalwart folks who through their efforts forged a great nation out of a wilderness? All gone? Like the dodo? -- cheers, John B. Uh oh, bicycles are suicide machines in the EU! Particularly where there is developed bicycle infrastructure. https://tinyurl.com/y4r935l4 NL is like the killing fields. The author serves a few tidbits of real knowledge in a stew of misinformation. I'd be interested in his source for "In the U.S., as in Europe, the car’s culpability is mostly a myth: just 29 per cent of bicycle fatalities involved autos." I think that's completely wrong. https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...69847816300699 for the trend and https://www.iamexpat.nl/expat-info/d...ds-not-falling for a percentage. And for your favorite passion see https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1261.html -- cheers, John B. |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.
On Mon, 20 May 2019 05:50:04 +0700, John B.
wrote: On Sun, 19 May 2019 08:44:04 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie wrote: On Sunday, May 19, 2019 at 6:56:10 AM UTC-7, Duane wrote: John B. wrote: On Sat, 18 May 2019 01:04:14 -0700, sms wrote: On 5/17/2019 4:12 PM, John B. wrote: On Fri, 17 May 2019 08:49:37 -0700, sms wrote: On 5/16/2019 5:54 PM, John B. wrote: snip It seems likely that there are a multitude of reasons for people not commuting by bicycle ranging from "Oh! I just had my hair done", to "OH! But 3 miles is too far to go by bicycle", to "Good Lord! It's raining", to "Oh My God! My head hurts. No more booze on weekdays!", to "I don't wanna wear a Helmet!". When I was working in Jakarta I used to ride 100 km every Sunday morning but wouldn't have dreamed of commuting to work by bike. Partially because a chauffeur driven car was one of the perks of the job, partially because a white shirt and tie was more or less the standard uniform for managers in the business and one didn't want to be calling on clients looking all hot and sweaty, and partially because I spent the ride to work planning my day. While a dedicated bicyclist might argue that these are all surmountable problems the whole point is that they were sufficient, for me to decide not to ride a bike to work. Yes, in a tropical climate the "hot and sweaty" issue is a big one. In my area, the weather is mild, most larger companies have showering and changing facilities, and white shirts and ties are rare. The bigger issues around here a 1. I need to pick up children after work or attend their school activities. 2. I have to work late hours (very common in Silicon Valley because you've got a lot of conference calls late at night when it's daytime in Asia) 3. There's no safe route. 4. There's no secure bike parking. We can address 2, 3, and 4, but addressing 1 is hard. There's no helmet law for adults here, but it's rare to see any professionals riding without one. However professionals are only one segment of the cycling population. We have a lot of seniors from China living with their adult children and they ride without helmets. We have a lot of day workers that combine the bus and a bicycle. Riding without lights is actually a bigger issue around here, and I just received my first shipment of 200 rechargeable lights to give out. I suppose we could also try to fund helmets, but really it's unnecessary. You can buy a new helmet for $15, sometimes even less. The cost is not the reason some people don't wear helmets, they just are willing to accept the slight extra risk and not wear one. Taking steps to make cycling safer are more important than imposing helmet requirements. Just don't fall for the false narrative that if helmets are required then suddenly mass numbers of people will give up cycling in protest--there's never been any evidence of this happening. Making cycling safer? Is cycling safe? Or is cycling unsafe? Or is cycling only perceived as unsafe? Yes, all of the above. I ask as annually, in the U.S., approximately 750 people die while cycling and nearly that many die falling out of bed and since there seems to be no concept that going to bed is "dangerous" than it can't be a matter of simple numbers. Oh no, you're not going to start up with this nonsense are you. Taking injury and fatality numbers completely out of context is reserved for Frank. No one else is allowed to engage in this. I see. Nonsense because that ~759 bicyclists die each year? Because some 737 die from falling out of bed? Or nonsense because it doesn't agree with your highly political opinion? I suggest that the latter is the most likely truth. Maybe he’d prefer if you talked about the percentage of cyclists who died cycling compared to the percentage of people that sleep in beds who died falling out of beds. Not that I think either activity is very dangerous but this nonsense is getting boring. Various studies of bicycle "accidents" have found that from about 30% to as much as 60% (in at least one study) of the accidents are the fault of the cyclist which really does make one wonder about the mind set of the cyclists. "Hey! Just use good sense and obey the traffic laws and save your life. " I find it very strange that no one ever seems to mention this simple fact. It is free, it can save you from death, pain, or an expensive stay in the hospital, but it seems to be a fact that is kept a secret and instead we are told to "wear a helmet", or "we gotta build safer bicycle paths". Are the bicycle paths 30 to 60% safer? Reports I read seem to indicate that they are even less safe than riding on the open road. Actually I mentioned this today. I stressed that while the protected bike lanes, for which construction begins on Monday, will mitigate some of the bad behavior of motorists, that they are not a panacea. I also mentioned about what transpired in Ohio--big increase in cycling, but a lot of crashes on the path (though if you read the report carefully, not a many as it first appears). If I read you correctly you are really saying that bicyclists behave badly, do not comply with existing laws and regulations and (horrors) don't even display good sense and therefore special paths and byways must be constructed at the expense of the public to protect them from their own foolish actions. Whatever happened to those rugged and stalwart folks who through their efforts forged a great nation out of a wilderness? All gone? Like the dodo? -- cheers, John B. Uh oh, bicycles are suicide machines in the EU! Particularly where there is developed bicycle infrastructure. https://tinyurl.com/y4r935l4 NL is like the killing fields. -- Jay Beattie. Good Lord! Why hasn't something been done about this? We must make laws to protect those two wheel fools from themselves! After some consideration I realized that if the U.S. would simply ban all bicycles there would be a savings of ~750 lives a year and prevent an almost unimaginable number of injuries. This carnage MUST stop! -- cheers, John B. |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.
On 5/19/2019 3:31 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/19/2019 2:00 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 5/19/2019 11:44 AM, jbeattie wrote: Uh oh, bicycles are suicide machines in the EU! Particularly where there is developed bicycle infrastructure. https://tinyurl.com/y4r935l4 NL is like the killing fields. The author serves a few tidbits of real knowledge in a stew of misinformation. I'd be interested in his source for "In the U.S., as in Europe, the car’s culpability is mostly a myth: just 29 per cent of bicycle fatalities involved autos." I think that's completely wrong. As measured by actual court decisions or merely by a disinterested omniscient being? I can see different conclusions drawn using different filters/methods. I'm not talking about the culpability part. I'm talking about the claim that just 29 percent involved autos at all. Even if the cyclist were riding at night with no lights going the wrong way and killed himself by riding into a car that was barely moving, that fatality would still involve an auto. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.
On 5/19/2019 7:12 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 19 May 2019 15:00:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: I'd be interested in his source for "In the U.S., as in Europe, the car’s culpability is mostly a myth: just 29 per cent of bicycle fatalities involved autos." I think that's completely wrong. https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...69847816300699 for the trend and https://www.iamexpat.nl/expat-info/d...ds-not-falling for a percentage. From that link, regarding the Netherlands, where there is FAR more bike use per capita than the U.S. (or almost anywhere else): "Almost half of all cyclists who died in traffic accidents did so by colliding with a car." If Dutch bike fatalities are "almost half" by car-bike crashes, then the statement "just 29 per cent of bicycle fatalities involved autos" is not true anywhere. Again, I'm not talking about culpability. I'm refuting the claim that lots of cyclists die with no car present. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.
On Monday, May 20, 2019 at 1:24:28 AM UTC+1, John B. wrote:
After some consideration I realized that if the U.S. would simply ban all bicycles there would be a savings of ~750 lives a year and prevent an almost unimaginable number of injuries. This carnage MUST stop! No need to overreact, Slow Johnny. What we're discussing, any time you and Krygowski give us a chance to get out a complete sentence before you say something stupid that you've said 2000 and umpteen times before, is which part of the 750 lives are needlessly cut short by the idiotic refusal to sanction a mandatory helmet law, and which part would live longer if clowns like you didn't overreact and instead condemn them to dying early anyway from congestive heart failure brought on by sitting in traffic jams eating rubbish calories. See, I've already proved (from the New York compilation) that a very large part of those 750 cyclists dead on American roads every year would live if there were a mandatory helmet law. *** I'm bored with all this iterative talk. We're no further forward than we were when I arrived here c2010. Why don't we speed up matters by holding a Nuremberg Trial for the CINOs (cyclists in name only) who do more harm than good. We could start with Slow Johnny and Krygowski in the dock. Andre Jute Patience is not an endless commodity |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.
On Sun, 19 May 2019 21:04:04 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 5/19/2019 3:31 PM, AMuzi wrote: On 5/19/2019 2:00 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 5/19/2019 11:44 AM, jbeattie wrote: Uh oh, bicycles are suicide machines in the EU! Particularly where there is developed bicycle infrastructure. https://tinyurl.com/y4r935l4 NL is like the killing fields. The author serves a few tidbits of real knowledge in a stew of misinformation. I'd be interested in his source for "In the U.S., as in Europe, the car’s culpability is mostly a myth: just 29 per cent of bicycle fatalities involved autos." I think that's completely wrong. As measured by actual court decisions or merely by a disinterested omniscient being? I can see different conclusions drawn using different filters/methods. I'm not talking about the culpability part. I'm talking about the claim that just 29 percent involved autos at all. Even if the cyclist were riding at night with no lights going the wrong way and killed himself by riding into a car that was barely moving, that fatality would still involve an auto. You are straining just a bit there, aren't you? What about a parked auto? Or even an abandoned auto with no wheels? But I did come across some statistics that might be of interest. From CYCLING FACTS, Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis (KIM) Total numbers of bicycle deaths as percent of total Road Deaths - 30% Total numbers of motor car/truck deaths as percent of total road deaths- 39% Total percent of serious road injuries as bicycle-auto collisions- 11% Total percent of serious road injuries as bicycle - without auto collisions - 52% -- cheers, John B. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Is cycling dangerous? | Bertie Wooster[_2_] | UK | 20 | March 17th 14 09:43 PM |
Cycling casualties plummet despite rise in numbers | Simon Mason[_4_] | UK | 7 | April 6th 12 08:06 AM |
"Cycling is not dangerous. Cars are dangerous." | Doug[_3_] | UK | 56 | September 14th 09 05:57 PM |
Help Texas Cycling call these numbers throughout the weekend | Anton Berlin | Racing | 4 | June 25th 09 08:58 PM |
Cycling is dangerous | Garry Jones | General | 375 | November 21st 03 05:52 PM |