bicycle-forum.net Promoting biking discussion.

Main Date: 14 Sep 2007 06:33:20 From: Greens Subject: Some grim cycling stats U.S. Bikers Less Safe Than European Counterparts In the United States, cyclists are 12 times more likely than people in cars to die en route to their destinations. On a per-kilometer and per-trip basis, U.S. cyclists are twice as likely to die on the road as German cyclists, and more than three times as likely as Dutch cyclists. While cycling fatalities in all of these countries have fallen in the last 25 years, U.S. cycling deaths have declined largely because of a drop in cycling, while in the Netherlands and Germany investments in infrastructure that make cycling safer account for much of the decline. http://www.thebicyclebum.com/   Date: 17 Sep 2007 22:54:45 From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats On Sep 17, 3:21 pm, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com > wrote: > Illegal drug OD is not a risk shared by the general population, > though. Those of us who do not use drugs have a 0% chance of OD. I > saw an idiotic show on great white sharks where they claimed that the > fish were relatively harmless because annually more people are killed > by toasters. Well, just as soon as we have both toasters and live > great white sharks on our kitchen counter tops, then we can compare > the mortality rates and see which is safer. I'll bet on the toaster. Yeah, but just think what the fatality rate would be if the ocean was filled with plugged-in toasters! Ben We have to fight toasterrorism there or we'll be fighting it here.   Date: 17 Sep 2007 15:21:46 From: Jay Beattie Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats On Sep 17, 1:45 pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org > wrote: > >>> <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in message > >>>> If you continue bicycling until the year 3000 A.D. or so, you may wish > >>>> to begin worrying. Until then, you're just indulging your phobia. > >>> How long do I have to live before I'm certain of getting colon cancer? > > <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote > >> I don't know. Why not spend some time looking that up, and report > >> back to us? > >> While you're at it, why not do the same for heart disease, strokes, > >> lung disease, influenza, motor vehicle accidents, drowning, falls > >> around the home, and, say, death by inhalation of poison gases? > >> I have a naive (and very slim) hope that by the time you've researched > >> all that, you'll have learned to interpret numbers. And that the > >> research will take long enough that you won't bother us for a while > >> with your phobias. > >> "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: > >>> When they tell you that you need to ride so many miles before you get > >>> killed, they don't just mean you have to ride that far. They mean that > >>> everytime all cyclists ride that far someone dies and all cyclists hit > >>> those > >>> killer mile markers all the time. That's why there are 750 or so dead a > >>> year > >>> cycling and who knows how many permanently damaged? Yea. I'd like to see > >>> a > >>> stat for that because death is quite a bit more rare than serious injury > >>> like joints that never work right again for 50 years. That's quite a > >>> penalty > >>> for cycling a few months a year. > > <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote > >> You don't realize it, but every day you post, you demonstrate your > >> extreme lack of math and science skills. The above paragraph is a > >> wonderful example. It shows that there is no sense trying to educate > >> you. > Greens wrote: > > I don't see a lot of math in that post. How can it demonstrate an extreme > > lack of math skill if there's no math? Just more of your poor logic I guess. > > Maybe you meant to use another word. > > I think Frank was referring to '750 or so' people out of 300+ million > which is an 'anomaly' not a 'crisis' (you'd have to confirm that with > Frank). > > Today's paper, we 35~54 year olds had 18,000+ fatal illicit drug ODs for > example:http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/17/opinion/17males.html?_r=1&oref=slogin > > Life kills, but cycling just isn't dangerous. Illegal drug OD is not a risk shared by the general population, though. Those of us who do not use drugs have a 0% chance of OD. I saw an idiotic show on great white sharks where they claimed that the fish were relatively harmless because annually more people are killed by toasters. Well, just as soon as we have both toasters and live great white sharks on our kitchen counter tops, then we can compare the mortality rates and see which is safer. I'll bet on the toaster. -- Jay Beattie.     Date: 17 Sep 2007 17:36:22 From: Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 15:21:46 -0700, Jay Beattie <jbeattie@lindsayhart.com > wrote: >On Sep 17, 1:45 pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >> >>> <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> >>>> If you continue bicycling until the year 3000 A.D. or so, you may wish >> >>>> to begin worrying. Until then, you're just indulging your phobia. >> >>> How long do I have to live before I'm certain of getting colon cancer? >> > <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote >> >> I don't know. Why not spend some time looking that up, and report >> >> back to us? >> >> While you're at it, why not do the same for heart disease, strokes, >> >> lung disease, influenza, motor vehicle accidents, drowning, falls >> >> around the home, and, say, death by inhalation of poison gases? >> >> I have a naive (and very slim) hope that by the time you've researched >> >> all that, you'll have learned to interpret numbers. And that the >> >> research will take long enough that you won't bother us for a while >> >> with your phobias. >> >> "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: >> >>> When they tell you that you need to ride so many miles before you get >> >>> killed, they don't just mean you have to ride that far. They mean that >> >>> everytime all cyclists ride that far someone dies and all cyclists hit >> >>> those >> >>> killer mile markers all the time. That's why there are 750 or so dead a >> >>> year >> >>> cycling and who knows how many permanently damaged? Yea. I'd like to see >> >>> a >> >>> stat for that because death is quite a bit more rare than serious injury >> >>> like joints that never work right again for 50 years. That's quite a >> >>> penalty >> >>> for cycling a few months a year. >> > <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote >> >> You don't realize it, but every day you post, you demonstrate your >> >> extreme lack of math and science skills. The above paragraph is a >> >> wonderful example. It shows that there is no sense trying to educate >> >> you. >> Greens wrote: >> > I don't see a lot of math in that post. How can it demonstrate an extreme >> > lack of math skill if there's no math? Just more of your poor logic I guess. >> > Maybe you meant to use another word. >> >> I think Frank was referring to '750 or so' people out of 300+ million >> which is an 'anomaly' not a 'crisis' (you'd have to confirm that with >> Frank). >> >> Today's paper, we 35~54 year olds had 18,000+ fatal illicit drug ODs for >> example:http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/17/opinion/17males.html?_r=1&oref=slogin >> >> Life kills, but cycling just isn't dangerous. > >Illegal drug OD is not a risk shared by the general population, >though. Those of us who do not use drugs have a 0% chance of OD. I >saw an idiotic show on great white sharks where they claimed that the >fish were relatively harmless because annually more people are killed >by toasters. Well, just as soon as we have both toasters and live >great white sharks on our kitchen counter tops, then we can compare >the mortality rates and see which is safer. I'll bet on the toaster. >-- Jay Beattie. Dear Jay, Another damned toaster apologist! Are you retained by the Amityville city council to keep the beaches open? If toasters are so harmless, why do we say, "He's toast!" when someone is utterly defeated? Fortunately, there's a web page dedicated to countering your lies: http://www.smthop.com/articles1details.asp?NewsNum=510 Cheers, Carl Fogel       Date: 18 Sep 2007 05:33:12 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats In article <fk3ue3hl1dhggcm9ke3m0tgvief85j1g75@4ax.com >, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: > On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 15:21:46 -0700, Jay Beattie > <jbeattie@lindsayhart.com> wrote: >>On Sep 17, 1:45 pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>>> <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> If you continue bicycling until the year 3000 A.D. or so, you may wish >>>>>>> to begin worrying. Until then, you're just indulging your phobia. >>>>>> How long do I have to live before I'm certain of getting colon cancer? >>>> <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote >>>>> I don't know. Why not spend some time looking that up, and report >>>>> back to us? >>>>> While you're at it, why not do the same for heart disease, strokes, >>>>> lung disease, influenza, motor vehicle accidents, drowning, falls >>>>> around the home, and, say, death by inhalation of poison gases? >>>>> I have a naive (and very slim) hope that by the time you've researched >>>>> all that, you'll have learned to interpret numbers. And that the >>>>> research will take long enough that you won't bother us for a while >>>>> with your phobias. >>>>> "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: >>>>>> When they tell you that you need to ride so many miles before you get >>>>>> killed, they don't just mean you have to ride that far. They mean that >>>>>> everytime all cyclists ride that far someone dies and all cyclists hit >>>>>> those >>>>>> killer mile markers all the time. That's why there are 750 or so dead a >>>>>> year >>>>>> cycling and who knows how many permanently damaged? Yea. I'd like to see >>>>>> a >>>>>> stat for that because death is quite a bit more rare than serious injury >>>>>> like joints that never work right again for 50 years. That's quite a >>>>>> penalty >>>>>> for cycling a few months a year. >>>> <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote >>>>> You don't realize it, but every day you post, you demonstrate your >>>>> extreme lack of math and science skills. The above paragraph is a >>>>> wonderful example. It shows that there is no sense trying to educate >>>>> you. >>> Greens wrote: >>>> I don't see a lot of math in that post. How can it demonstrate an extreme >>>> lack of math skill if there's no math? Just more of your poor logic I guess. >>>> Maybe you meant to use another word. >>> >>> I think Frank was referring to '750 or so' people out of 300+ million >>> which is an 'anomaly' not a 'crisis' (you'd have to confirm that with >>> Frank). >>> >>> Today's paper, we 35~54 year olds had 18,000+ fatal illicit drug ODs for >>> example:http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/17/opinion/17males.html?_r=1&oref=slogin >>> >>> Life kills, but cycling just isn't dangerous. >> >>Illegal drug OD is not a risk shared by the general population, >>though. Those of us who do not use drugs have a 0% chance of OD. I >>saw an idiotic show on great white sharks where they claimed that the >>fish were relatively harmless because annually more people are killed >>by toasters. Well, just as soon as we have both toasters and live >>great white sharks on our kitchen counter tops, then we can compare >>the mortality rates and see which is safer. I'll bet on the toaster. > > Another damned toaster apologist! > > Are you retained by the Amityville city council to keep the beaches > open? > > If toasters are so harmless, why do we say, "He's toast!" when someone > is utterly defeated? > > Fortunately, there's a web page dedicated to countering your lies: > > http://www.smthop.com/articles1details.asp?NewsNum=510 "This year toasters have killed nearly ten times more people worldwide than the deadly polio virus, and no one disputes what a terrible plague polio has been on society." Toaster fatalities are classified under Stupidity. Poliomyeletis is an infectious disease. Failure to inoculate against it by parents is gross negligence, not stupidity. I disagree with the entire thrust of the article. Will the gene pool miss these people? -- Michael Press pour encourager les autres     Date: 17 Sep 2007 19:07:01 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats Jay Beattie wrote: > On Sep 17, 1:45 pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>> <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>> If you continue bicycling until the year 3000 A.D. or so, you may wish >>>>>> to begin worrying. Until then, you're just indulging your phobia. >>>>> How long do I have to live before I'm certain of getting colon cancer? >>> <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote >>>> I don't know. Why not spend some time looking that up, and report >>>> back to us? >>>> While you're at it, why not do the same for heart disease, strokes, >>>> lung disease, influenza, motor vehicle accidents, drowning, falls >>>> around the home, and, say, death by inhalation of poison gases? >>>> I have a naive (and very slim) hope that by the time you've researched >>>> all that, you'll have learned to interpret numbers. And that the >>>> research will take long enough that you won't bother us for a while >>>> with your phobias. >>>> "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: >>>>> When they tell you that you need to ride so many miles before you get >>>>> killed, they don't just mean you have to ride that far. They mean that >>>>> everytime all cyclists ride that far someone dies and all cyclists hit >>>>> those >>>>> killer mile markers all the time. That's why there are 750 or so dead a >>>>> year >>>>> cycling and who knows how many permanently damaged? Yea. I'd like to see >>>>> a >>>>> stat for that because death is quite a bit more rare than serious injury >>>>> like joints that never work right again for 50 years. That's quite a >>>>> penalty >>>>> for cycling a few months a year. >>> <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote >>>> You don't realize it, but every day you post, you demonstrate your >>>> extreme lack of math and science skills. The above paragraph is a >>>> wonderful example. It shows that there is no sense trying to educate >>>> you. >> Greens wrote: >>> I don't see a lot of math in that post. How can it demonstrate an extreme >>> lack of math skill if there's no math? Just more of your poor logic I guess. >>> Maybe you meant to use another word. >> I think Frank was referring to '750 or so' people out of 300+ million >> which is an 'anomaly' not a 'crisis' (you'd have to confirm that with >> Frank). >> >> Today's paper, we 35~54 year olds had 18,000+ fatal illicit drug ODs for >> example:http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/17/opinion/17males.html?_r=1&oref=slogin >> >> Life kills, but cycling just isn't dangerous. > > Illegal drug OD is not a risk shared by the general population, > though. Those of us who do not use drugs have a 0% chance of OD. I > saw an idiotic show on great white sharks where they claimed that the > fish were relatively harmless because annually more people are killed > by toasters. Well, just as soon as we have both toasters and live > great white sharks on our kitchen counter tops, then we can compare > the mortality rates and see which is safer. I'll bet on the toaster. > -- Jay Beattie. > By the same token, almost everybody these days is immune to bicycle fatalities. I was once swimming off my boat in the middle of Buzzard's Bay (Cape Cod), reassuring myself that the last reported shark fatality was in 1934. Then I had the chilling thought that maybe nobody had swum in the middle of the bay since 1934...   Date: 17 Sep 2007 12:24:08 From: Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats On Sep 17, 2:06 pm, Wayne Pein <wp...@nc.rr.com > wrote: > Bill Sornson wrote: > > I'm no lurker, Skippy, and I don't agree with much you say. (You make Wayne > > Pein sound almost reasonable, fer Gawdsake!) That Frank's a blind, rude > > ideologue who resorts to personal attack when anyone disputes his highly > > disputable and misleading claims doesn't mean that you're not wrong and > > often silly. (Sounds nicer than "stupid".) > > You are a lurker, except when you are a stalker. Often, like in the > above post, you attack people, such as myself, unprovoked. You like to > take threads off topic, and like to engage in off topic banter when > someone else has taken it off topic. You're very good at distorting what > others have said. AFAIK, you've never published anything of interest or > useful to anyone regarding bicycling, but you love to come across as an > expert. You're an ignoramus. I'm sorry, Wayne, but I have to show you're sort of wrong on one point. You said that, as far as you know, Bill Sornson never published anything useful regarding bicycling. Well, if we can count posting to r.b.tech as (loosely) "publishing," then Bill did once post something useful! I think it was last week. A person had a slow leak they couldn't find. Bill told them to just change the tube. Granted, it wasn't much - but by Bill's usual standards, it was brilliant!! ;-) (Now don't get all puffed up, Bill. It's still true that your posts read like they were written by Paris Hilton.) - Frank Krygowski     Date: 17 Sep 2007 16:34:00 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > I'm sorry, Wayne, but I have to show you're sort of wrong on one > point. > > You said that, as far as you know, Bill Sornson never published > anything useful regarding bicycling. Well, if we can count posting > to r.b.tech as (loosely) "publishing," then Bill did once post > something useful! > > I think it was last week. A person had a slow leak they couldn't > find. Bill told them to just change the tube. > > Granted, it wasn't much - but by Bill's usual standards, it was > brilliant!! ;-) > Hmmmm. You may be correct. OTOH, changing the tube without determing the leak source is the measure of last resort and may result in a subsequent flat on the new tube. But at least it's not completely opposite wrong :-) A difficult to find leak is sometimes from chaffing. I recently found a very slow leak near the presta valve, probably the result of grit getting in the rim hole from rain riding and eventually wearing the tube. Wayne   Date: 17 Sep 2007 13:21:55 From: Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats On Sep 17, 3:24 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > wrote: > <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1189999268.074042.89620@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Sep 15, 11:02 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: > >> <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > >> > If you continue bicycling until the year 3000 A.D. or so, you may wish > >> > to begin worrying. Until then, you're just indulging your phobia. > > >> How long do I have to live before I'm certain of getting colon cancer? > > > I don't know. Why not spend some time looking that up, and report > > back to us? > > > While you're at it, why not do the same for heart disease, strokes, > > lung disease, influenza, motor vehicle accidents, drowning, falls > > around the home, and, say, death by inhalation of poison gases? > > > I have a naive (and very slim) hope that by the time you've researched > > all that, you'll have learned to interpret numbers. And that the > > research will take long enough that you won't bother us for a while > > with your phobias. > > >> When they tell you that you need to ride so many miles before you get > >> killed, they don't just mean you have to ride that far. They mean that > >> everytime all cyclists ride that far someone dies and all cyclists hit > >> those > >> killer mile markers all the time. That's why there are 750 or so dead a > >> year > >> cycling and who knows how many permanently damaged? Yea. I'd like to see > >> a > >> stat for that because death is quite a bit more rare than serious injury > >> like joints that never work right again for 50 years. That's quite a > >> penalty > >> for cycling a few months a year. > > > You don't realize it, but every day you post, you demonstrate your > > extreme lack of math and science skills. The above paragraph is a > > wonderful example. It shows that there is no sense trying to educate > > you. > > > - Frank Krygowski > > I don't see a lot of math in that post. How can it demonstrate an extreme > lack of math skill if there's no math? Those two sentences constitute more proof. The part you're missing, "Greens," is what sixth grade kids call "sentence problems." It's not the crunching of numbers that's the problem; it's the interpretation of what they mean, and how they relate to the real world. And if you don't have it by the time you're an adult, you're very unlikely to ever get it. Sorry. - Frank Krygowski     Date: 17 Sep 2007 11:35:50 From: Greens Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats <frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1190035315.907695.318750@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 17, 3:24 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: >> <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1189999268.074042.89620@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Sep 15, 11:02 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: >> >> <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >> > If you continue bicycling until the year 3000 A.D. or so, you may >> >> > wish >> >> > to begin worrying. Until then, you're just indulging your phobia. >> >> >> How long do I have to live before I'm certain of getting colon cancer? >> >> > I don't know. Why not spend some time looking that up, and report >> > back to us? >> >> > While you're at it, why not do the same for heart disease, strokes, >> > lung disease, influenza, motor vehicle accidents, drowning, falls >> > around the home, and, say, death by inhalation of poison gases? >> >> > I have a naive (and very slim) hope that by the time you've researched >> > all that, you'll have learned to interpret numbers. And that the >> > research will take long enough that you won't bother us for a while >> > with your phobias. >> >> >> When they tell you that you need to ride so many miles before you get >> >> killed, they don't just mean you have to ride that far. They mean that >> >> everytime all cyclists ride that far someone dies and all cyclists hit >> >> those >> >> killer mile markers all the time. That's why there are 750 or so dead >> >> a >> >> year >> >> cycling and who knows how many permanently damaged? Yea. I'd like to >> >> see >> >> a >> >> stat for that because death is quite a bit more rare than serious >> >> injury >> >> like joints that never work right again for 50 years. That's quite a >> >> penalty >> >> for cycling a few months a year. >> >> > You don't realize it, but every day you post, you demonstrate your >> > extreme lack of math and science skills. The above paragraph is a >> > wonderful example. It shows that there is no sense trying to educate >> > you. >> >> > - Frank Krygowski >> >> I don't see a lot of math in that post. How can it demonstrate an extreme >> lack of math skill if there's no math? > > Those two sentences constitute more proof. > > The part you're missing, "Greens," is what sixth grade kids call > "sentence problems." It's not the crunching of numbers that's the > problem; it's the interpretation of what they mean, and how they > relate to the real world. > > And if you don't have it by the time you're an adult, you're very > unlikely to ever get it. Sorry. > > - Frank Krygowski > Instead of explaining, you attack self esteem. You're just a garden variety flamer at this point, Frank.       Date: 17 Sep 2007 08:41:59 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats Greens wrote: >> - Frank Krygowski > Instead of explaining, you attack self esteem. You're just a garden > variety flamer at this point, Frank. ITYM "condescending bully" and/or "pompous gasbag". HTH         Date: 17 Sep 2007 12:47:34 From: Greens Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote in message news:46eea04e$0$28824$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > Greens wrote: > >>> - Frank Krygowski > >> Instead of explaining, you attack self esteem. You're just a garden >> variety flamer at this point, Frank. > > ITYM "condescending bully" and/or "pompous gasbag". HTH > Yea. Do you think there's any chance of changing his mind? Personally, I think if the lurkers that disagreed with him came out and spoke up it would help. My feeling is there's a very vocal minority here and huge apathetic majority.           Date: 17 Sep 2007 10:21:33 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats Greens wrote: > "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote in message > news:46eea04e$0$28824$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >> Greens wrote: >> >>>> - Frank Krygowski >> >>> Instead of explaining, you attack self esteem. You're just a garden >>> variety flamer at this point, Frank. >> >> ITYM "condescending bully" and/or "pompous gasbag". HTH >> > Yea. Do you think there's any chance of changing his mind? > Personally, I think if the lurkers that disagreed with him came out > and spoke up it would help. My feeling is there's a very vocal > minority here and huge apathetic majority. I'm no lurker, Skippy, and I don't agree with much you say. (You make Wayne Pein sound almost reasonable, fer Gawdsake!) That Frank's a blind, rude ideologue who resorts to personal attack when anyone disputes his highly disputable and misleading claims doesn't mean that you're not wrong and often silly. (Sounds nicer than "stupid".) Sorry.             Date: 17 Sep 2007 14:06:40 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats Bill Sornson wrote: > I'm no lurker, Skippy, and I don't agree with much you say. (You make Wayne > Pein sound almost reasonable, fer Gawdsake!) That Frank's a blind, rude > ideologue who resorts to personal attack when anyone disputes his highly > disputable and misleading claims doesn't mean that you're not wrong and > often silly. (Sounds nicer than "stupid".) > You are a lurker, except when you are a stalker. Often, like in the above post, you attack people, such as myself, unprovoked. You like to take threads off topic, and like to engage in off topic banter when someone else has taken it off topic. You're very good at distorting what others have said. AFAIK, you've never published anything of interest or useful to anyone regarding bicycling, but you love to come across as an expert. You're an ignoramus. Wayne               Date: 17 Sep 2007 11:45:58 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats Wayne Pein wrote: > Bill Sornson wrote: > >> I'm no lurker, Skippy, and I don't agree with much you say. (You >> make Wayne Pein sound almost reasonable, fer Gawdsake!) That >> Frank's a blind, rude ideologue who resorts to personal attack when >> anyone disputes his highly disputable and misleading claims doesn't >> mean that you're not wrong and often silly. (Sounds nicer than >> "stupid".) > > You are a lurker, except when you are a stalker. Often, like in the > above post, you attack people, such as myself, unprovoked. "Attack" = "dare to disagree" in Peni's World of Paranoia! Off to ride...lidded and mostly (60% or so) bike laned! LOL HAND LOL   Date: 17 Sep 2007 03:21:08 From: Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats On Sep 15, 11:02 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > wrote: > <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > > > If you continue bicycling until the year 3000 A.D. or so, you may wish > > to begin worrying. Until then, you're just indulging your phobia. > > How long do I have to live before I'm certain of getting colon cancer? I don't know. Why not spend some time looking that up, and report back to us? While you're at it, why not do the same for heart disease, strokes, lung disease, influenza, motor vehicle accidents, drowning, falls around the home, and, say, death by inhalation of poison gases? I have a naive (and very slim) hope that by the time you've researched all that, you'll have learned to interpret numbers. And that the research will take long enough that you won't bother us for a while with your phobias. > When they tell you that you need to ride so many miles before you get > killed, they don't just mean you have to ride that far. They mean that > everytime all cyclists ride that far someone dies and all cyclists hit those > killer mile markers all the time. That's why there are 750 or so dead a year > cycling and who knows how many permanently damaged? Yea. I'd like to see a > stat for that because death is quite a bit more rare than serious injury > like joints that never work right again for 50 years. That's quite a penalty > for cycling a few months a year. You don't realize it, but every day you post, you demonstrate your extreme lack of math and science skills. The above paragraph is a wonderful example. It shows that there is no sense trying to educate you. - Frank Krygowski     Date: 17 Sep 2007 03:24:31 From: Greens Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats <frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1189999268.074042.89620@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 15, 11:02 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: >> <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> > >> > If you continue bicycling until the year 3000 A.D. or so, you may wish >> > to begin worrying. Until then, you're just indulging your phobia. >> >> How long do I have to live before I'm certain of getting colon cancer? > > I don't know. Why not spend some time looking that up, and report > back to us? > > While you're at it, why not do the same for heart disease, strokes, > lung disease, influenza, motor vehicle accidents, drowning, falls > around the home, and, say, death by inhalation of poison gases? > > I have a naive (and very slim) hope that by the time you've researched > all that, you'll have learned to interpret numbers. And that the > research will take long enough that you won't bother us for a while > with your phobias. > >> When they tell you that you need to ride so many miles before you get >> killed, they don't just mean you have to ride that far. They mean that >> everytime all cyclists ride that far someone dies and all cyclists hit >> those >> killer mile markers all the time. That's why there are 750 or so dead a >> year >> cycling and who knows how many permanently damaged? Yea. I'd like to see >> a >> stat for that because death is quite a bit more rare than serious injury >> like joints that never work right again for 50 years. That's quite a >> penalty >> for cycling a few months a year. > > You don't realize it, but every day you post, you demonstrate your > extreme lack of math and science skills. The above paragraph is a > wonderful example. It shows that there is no sense trying to educate > you. > > - Frank Krygowski > I don't see a lot of math in that post. How can it demonstrate an extreme lack of math skill if there's no math? Just more of your poor logic I guess. Maybe you meant to use another word.       Date: 17 Sep 2007 15:45:40 From: A Muzi Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats >>> <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>> If you continue bicycling until the year 3000 A.D. or so, you may wish >>>> to begin worrying. Until then, you're just indulging your phobia. >>> How long do I have to live before I'm certain of getting colon cancer? > <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote >> I don't know. Why not spend some time looking that up, and report >> back to us? >> While you're at it, why not do the same for heart disease, strokes, >> lung disease, influenza, motor vehicle accidents, drowning, falls >> around the home, and, say, death by inhalation of poison gases? >> I have a naive (and very slim) hope that by the time you've researched >> all that, you'll have learned to interpret numbers. And that the >> research will take long enough that you won't bother us for a while >> with your phobias. >> "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: >>> When they tell you that you need to ride so many miles before you get >>> killed, they don't just mean you have to ride that far. They mean that >>> everytime all cyclists ride that far someone dies and all cyclists hit >>> those >>> killer mile markers all the time. That's why there are 750 or so dead a >>> year >>> cycling and who knows how many permanently damaged? Yea. I'd like to see >>> a >>> stat for that because death is quite a bit more rare than serious injury >>> like joints that never work right again for 50 years. That's quite a >>> penalty >>> for cycling a few months a year. > <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote >> You don't realize it, but every day you post, you demonstrate your >> extreme lack of math and science skills. The above paragraph is a >> wonderful example. It shows that there is no sense trying to educate >> you. Greens wrote: > I don't see a lot of math in that post. How can it demonstrate an extreme > lack of math skill if there's no math? Just more of your poor logic I guess. > Maybe you meant to use another word. I think Frank was referring to '750 or so' people out of 300+ million which is an 'anomaly' not a 'crisis' (you'd have to confirm that with Frank). Today's paper, we 35~54 year olds had 18,000+ fatal illicit drug ODs for example: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/17/opinion/17males.html?_r=1&oref=slogin Life kills, but cycling just isn't dangerous. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971         Date: 17 Sep 2007 23:26:01 From: Greens Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats "A Muzi" <am@yellowjersey.org > wrote in message news:13etpq0oqc6j91a@corp.supernews.com... >>>> <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>> If you continue bicycling until the year 3000 A.D. or so, you may wish >>>>> to begin worrying. Until then, you're just indulging your phobia. >>>> How long do I have to live before I'm certain of getting colon cancer? > >> <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote >>> I don't know. Why not spend some time looking that up, and report >>> back to us? >>> While you're at it, why not do the same for heart disease, strokes, >>> lung disease, influenza, motor vehicle accidents, drowning, falls >>> around the home, and, say, death by inhalation of poison gases? >>> I have a naive (and very slim) hope that by the time you've researched >>> all that, you'll have learned to interpret numbers. And that the >>> research will take long enough that you won't bother us for a while >>> with your phobias. > >>> "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: >>>> When they tell you that you need to ride so many miles before you get >>>> killed, they don't just mean you have to ride that far. They mean that >>>> everytime all cyclists ride that far someone dies and all cyclists hit >>>> those >>>> killer mile markers all the time. That's why there are 750 or so dead a >>>> year >>>> cycling and who knows how many permanently damaged? Yea. I'd like to >>>> see a >>>> stat for that because death is quite a bit more rare than serious >>>> injury >>>> like joints that never work right again for 50 years. That's quite a >>>> penalty >>>> for cycling a few months a year. > >> <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote >>> You don't realize it, but every day you post, you demonstrate your >>> extreme lack of math and science skills. The above paragraph is a >>> wonderful example. It shows that there is no sense trying to educate >>> you. > > Greens wrote: >> I don't see a lot of math in that post. How can it demonstrate an extreme >> lack of math skill if there's no math? Just more of your poor logic I >> guess. Maybe you meant to use another word. > > I think Frank was referring to '750 or so' people out of 300+ million > which is an 'anomaly' not a 'crisis' (you'd have to confirm that with > Frank). > > Today's paper, we 35~54 year olds had 18,000+ fatal illicit drug ODs for > example: > http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/17/opinion/17males.html?_r=1&oref=slogin > > Life kills, but cycling just isn't dangerous. > -- > Andrew Muzi > www.yellowjersey.org > Open every day since 1 April, 1971 So now cycling is safe in comparison to motoring and doing hard drugs. That may be, but how does the high of cycling compare to the high of crystal meth? 99 out of 100 crystal meth users will tell you the drugs are better. Stick your bicycle up your ass.   Date: 17 Sep 2007 03:06:47 From: Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats On Sep 16, 1:35 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > wrote: > <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1189926634.454225.41870@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Sep 16, 5:47 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: > >> "(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid> wrote in message > > >>news:p68pe3hbcbpna166j022su8npag7p80r9t@4ax.com... > > >> > Per Greens: > >> >>I'm pretty sure that there are some people here today who've said > >> >>they've > >> >>witnessed incidents in which motorists deliberately hit cyclists. > > >> > I'm one of those witnesses. But the real zinger was that I > >> > flagged down a cop who stopped the driver - and the driver drove > >> > away without even getting a ticket. > >> > -- > >> > PeteCresswell > > >> Cops are not professionals. They have their own prejudices. They had no > >> interest in the lady that let her dogs walk in front of me while I was > >> cycling and then told one of them to bite me while in a rage and calling > >> me > >> a "bastard" three times, standing so close and slightly behind that I > >> couldn't get off my bike without kicking her. The cop said I was part of > >> it > >> since when the dogs came charging out I said to her, "Get your fucking > >> dog > >> off me!" like I'm supposed to be very calm and civil with her dog's nose > >> two inches from my calf and growling. > > >> Really he didn't even want to hear what happned because there were no > >> injuries. He also said he couldn't do anything about the off leash dogs > >> because he didn't witness it, essentially calling me a liar. He said she > >> showed him the leashes they were on. (I got him to talk to her in her > >> hourse > >> after a lot of cajoling) This was in the house thirty minutes later. What > >> shit! > > > The quality of police is something that probably varies more widely > > than anything else in this world. Sounds like you had a poor > > encounter. I think you should move because your current locale is > > giving you too much stress. I'm not making fun of you, I'm serious. > > Life is too short to walk/ride around scared or pissed all the time. > > > Joseph > > Moving is not an option. > > There are other factors. I've been riding a lot this year - up to three > hours at a time and often at night. The incident with the lady happned at > night. I do use a headlight and taillights. Still, people seem to be very > confused by things they haven't seen before. A bike at night isn't expected, > especially on an enclosed circle. People who live deep in these projects > that don't get through traffic start to think of themselves as owning the > road as well as their yard. They're like life forms that have adapted to > living in caves. > > I'm fat. People hate fat people. I probably draw more abuse than a skinny > cyclist. Of course I don't have any stats to back this up. There are none I > know of. You're world is, indeed, terrible. People are mean to you. You insist on participating in an activity you fear. You are fat. And to top it off, you have no talent for math or science. It's no wonder you're unhappy and complaining all the time. Too bad. - Frank Krygowski     Date: 17 Sep 2007 03:34:28 From: Greens Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats <frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1189998407.940459.9520@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 16, 1:35 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: >> <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1189926634.454225.41870@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Sep 16, 5:47 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: >> >> "(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid> wrote in message >> >> >>news:p68pe3hbcbpna166j022su8npag7p80r9t@4ax.com... >> >> >> > Per Greens: >> >> >>I'm pretty sure that there are some people here today who've said >> >> >>they've >> >> >>witnessed incidents in which motorists deliberately hit cyclists. >> >> >> > I'm one of those witnesses. But the real zinger was that I >> >> > flagged down a cop who stopped the driver - and the driver drove >> >> > away without even getting a ticket. >> >> > -- >> >> > PeteCresswell >> >> >> Cops are not professionals. They have their own prejudices. They had >> >> no >> >> interest in the lady that let her dogs walk in front of me while I was >> >> cycling and then told one of them to bite me while in a rage and >> >> calling >> >> me >> >> a "bastard" three times, standing so close and slightly behind that I >> >> couldn't get off my bike without kicking her. The cop said I was part >> >> of >> >> it >> >> since when the dogs came charging out I said to her, "Get your fucking >> >> dog >> >> off me!" like I'm supposed to be very calm and civil with her dog's >> >> nose >> >> two inches from my calf and growling. >> >> >> Really he didn't even want to hear what happned because there were no >> >> injuries. He also said he couldn't do anything about the off leash >> >> dogs >> >> because he didn't witness it, essentially calling me a liar. He said >> >> she >> >> showed him the leashes they were on. (I got him to talk to her in her >> >> hourse >> >> after a lot of cajoling) This was in the house thirty minutes later. >> >> What >> >> shit! >> >> > The quality of police is something that probably varies more widely >> > than anything else in this world. Sounds like you had a poor >> > encounter. I think you should move because your current locale is >> > giving you too much stress. I'm not making fun of you, I'm serious. >> > Life is too short to walk/ride around scared or pissed all the time. >> >> > Joseph >> >> Moving is not an option. >> >> There are other factors. I've been riding a lot this year - up to three >> hours at a time and often at night. The incident with the lady happned at >> night. I do use a headlight and taillights. Still, people seem to be very >> confused by things they haven't seen before. A bike at night isn't >> expected, >> especially on an enclosed circle. People who live deep in these projects >> that don't get through traffic start to think of themselves as owning the >> road as well as their yard. They're like life forms that have adapted to >> living in caves. >> >> I'm fat. People hate fat people. I probably draw more abuse than a skinny >> cyclist. Of course I don't have any stats to back this up. There are none >> I >> know of. > > You're world is, indeed, terrible. People are mean to you. You > insist on participating in an activity you fear. You are fat. And to > top it off, you have no talent for math or science. > > It's no wonder you're unhappy and complaining all the time. > > Too bad. > > - Frank Krygowski > Boo hoo hoo. I'm all hurt by your brilliant insults.   Date: 16 Sep 2007 10:57:20 From: joseph.santaniello@gmail.com Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats On Sep 16, 7:35 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > wrote: > <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1189926634.454225.41870@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Sep 16, 5:47 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: > >> "(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid> wrote in message > > >>news:p68pe3hbcbpna166j022su8npag7p80r9t@4ax.com... > > >> > Per Greens: > >> >>I'm pretty sure that there are some people here today who've said > >> >>they've > >> >>witnessed incidents in which motorists deliberately hit cyclists. > > >> > I'm one of those witnesses. But the real zinger was that I > >> > flagged down a cop who stopped the driver - and the driver drove > >> > away without even getting a ticket. > >> > -- > >> > PeteCresswell > > >> Cops are not professionals. They have their own prejudices. They had no > >> interest in the lady that let her dogs walk in front of me while I was > >> cycling and then told one of them to bite me while in a rage and calling > >> me > >> a "bastard" three times, standing so close and slightly behind that I > >> couldn't get off my bike without kicking her. The cop said I was part of > >> it > >> since when the dogs came charging out I said to her, "Get your fucking > >> dog > >> off me!" like I'm supposed to be very calm and civil with her dog's nose > >> two inches from my calf and growling. > > >> Really he didn't even want to hear what happned because there were no > >> injuries. He also said he couldn't do anything about the off leash dogs > >> because he didn't witness it, essentially calling me a liar. He said she > >> showed him the leashes they were on. (I got him to talk to her in her > >> hourse > >> after a lot of cajoling) This was in the house thirty minutes later. What > >> shit! > > > The quality of police is something that probably varies more widely > > than anything else in this world. Sounds like you had a poor > > encounter. I think you should move because your current locale is > > giving you too much stress. I'm not making fun of you, I'm serious. > > Life is too short to walk/ride around scared or pissed all the time. > > > Joseph > > Moving is not an option. > > There are other factors. I've been riding a lot this year - up to three > hours at a time and often at night. The incident with the lady happned at > night. I do use a headlight and taillights. Still, people seem to be very > confused by things they haven't seen before. A bike at night isn't expected, > especially on an enclosed circle. People who live deep in these projects > that don't get through traffic start to think of themselves as owning the > road as well as their yard. They're like life forms that have adapted to > living in caves. > > I'm fat. People hate fat people. I probably draw more abuse than a skinny > cyclist. Of course I don't have any stats to back this up. There are none I > know of. As much as I like dogs, some of the owners are very odd people indeed. Sometimes large people (fat or not) seem intimidating, and this gets others to go into a defensive stance right away when there is a conflict. Keep at the riding, and focus on the fun part that you like. Don't let the assholes get you down. Find someplace you like to ride and ride there. There are some places around where I live where some things irritate me so much I just don't go there just to avoid the hassle. And it's not even really a hassle and most people wouldn't be irritated at all, but I am so I don't go there. It's not worth it. I want my cycling to be fun. Joseph   Date: 16 Sep 2007 00:15:26 From: joseph.santaniello@gmail.com Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats On Sep 16, 5:18 am, "(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid > wrote: > Per joseph.santanie...@gmail.com: > > > It's a > >general awareness of the traffic situation, not a special respect for > >people on bikes. > > I wonder what it would do for overall driving competence in the > USA if police were empowered/encouraged to write tickets that > required not payment of a fine, but satisfactory completion of a > course of instruction in driving tb satisfied. > -- > PeteCresswell Norway has very steep fines ($300 for 5mph over) and jail-time for serious infractions. 20mph over the limit and you're going to jail. They also have a super-long mandatory drivers' ed program that requires hundreds of hours and costs almost $4000. And yet there are STILL knuckleheads. Some folks are just incapable of acting like a normal civilized person no matter what. Joseph   Date: 16 Sep 2007 00:10:34 From: joseph.santaniello@gmail.com Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats On Sep 16, 5:47 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > wrote: > "(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid> wrote in message > > news:p68pe3hbcbpna166j022su8npag7p80r9t@4ax.com... > > > Per Greens: > >>I'm pretty sure that there are some people here today who've said they've > >>witnessed incidents in which motorists deliberately hit cyclists. > > > I'm one of those witnesses. But the real zinger was that I > > flagged down a cop who stopped the driver - and the driver drove > > away without even getting a ticket. > > -- > > PeteCresswell > > Cops are not professionals. They have their own prejudices. They had no > interest in the lady that let her dogs walk in front of me while I was > cycling and then told one of them to bite me while in a rage and calling me > a "bastard" three times, standing so close and slightly behind that I > couldn't get off my bike without kicking her. The cop said I was part of it > since when the dogs came charging out I said to her, "Get your fucking dog > off me!" like I'm supposed to be very calm and civil with her dog's nose > two inches from my calf and growling. > > Really he didn't even want to hear what happned because there were no > injuries. He also said he couldn't do anything about the off leash dogs > because he didn't witness it, essentially calling me a liar. He said she > showed him the leashes they were on. (I got him to talk to her in her hourse > after a lot of cajoling) This was in the house thirty minutes later. What > shit! The quality of police is something that probably varies more widely than anything else in this world. Sounds like you had a poor encounter. I think you should move because your current locale is giving you too much stress. I'm not making fun of you, I'm serious. Life is too short to walk/ride around scared or pissed all the time. Joseph     Date: 16 Sep 2007 13:35:02 From: Greens Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats <joseph.santaniello@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1189926634.454225.41870@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 16, 5:47 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: >> "(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid> wrote in message >> >> news:p68pe3hbcbpna166j022su8npag7p80r9t@4ax.com... >> >> > Per Greens: >> >>I'm pretty sure that there are some people here today who've said >> >>they've >> >>witnessed incidents in which motorists deliberately hit cyclists. >> >> > I'm one of those witnesses. But the real zinger was that I >> > flagged down a cop who stopped the driver - and the driver drove >> > away without even getting a ticket. >> > -- >> > PeteCresswell >> >> Cops are not professionals. They have their own prejudices. They had no >> interest in the lady that let her dogs walk in front of me while I was >> cycling and then told one of them to bite me while in a rage and calling >> me >> a "bastard" three times, standing so close and slightly behind that I >> couldn't get off my bike without kicking her. The cop said I was part of >> it >> since when the dogs came charging out I said to her, "Get your fucking >> dog >> off me!" like I'm supposed to be very calm and civil with her dog's nose >> two inches from my calf and growling. >> >> Really he didn't even want to hear what happned because there were no >> injuries. He also said he couldn't do anything about the off leash dogs >> because he didn't witness it, essentially calling me a liar. He said she >> showed him the leashes they were on. (I got him to talk to her in her >> hourse >> after a lot of cajoling) This was in the house thirty minutes later. What >> shit! > > The quality of police is something that probably varies more widely > than anything else in this world. Sounds like you had a poor > encounter. I think you should move because your current locale is > giving you too much stress. I'm not making fun of you, I'm serious. > Life is too short to walk/ride around scared or pissed all the time. > > Joseph > Moving is not an option. There are other factors. I've been riding a lot this year - up to three hours at a time and often at night. The incident with the lady happned at night. I do use a headlight and taillights. Still, people seem to be very confused by things they haven't seen before. A bike at night isn't expected, especially on an enclosed circle. People who live deep in these projects that don't get through traffic start to think of themselves as owning the road as well as their yard. They're like life forms that have adapted to living in caves. I'm fat. People hate fat people. I probably draw more abuse than a skinny cyclist. Of course I don't have any stats to back this up. There are none I know of.       Date: 16 Sep 2007 20:28:20 From: (PeteCresswell) Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats Per Greens: >Moving is not an option. > >There are other factors. I've been riding a lot this year - up to three >hours at a time and often at night. What kind of environment is it? Would a mountain bike be an option? That's what I did after the nth close call: just swore off road riding. It's definitely less aerobic, but at my stage of deterioration, the important thing is just getting out there on some kind of regular basis and the MTB works for me. -- PeteCresswell         Date: 16 Sep 2007 22:11:22 From: Greens Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid > wrote in message news:ocire3duu2frcdidelo4m9fl1oi25aoo6o@4ax.com... > Per Greens: >>Moving is not an option. >> >>There are other factors. I've been riding a lot this year - up to three >>hours at a time and often at night. > > What kind of environment is it? Would a mountain bike be an > option? That's what I did after the nth close call: just swore > off road riding. It's definitely less aerobic, but at my stage > of deterioration, the important thing is just getting out there > on some kind of regular basis and the MTB works for me. > -- > PeteCresswell It is a mountain bike. I ride it on roads. I take it off road too, but probably I'm on streets 80% of the time or more. I did a lot of riding between 11pm and 4am this summer with two tail lights and head light. They say it's statistically dangerous, but it seems very safe. Sometimes I don't see more than 15 cars in all three hours. The cars notice me and are in less of a hurry and more focused on me than during the day when there are so many other distractions. Riding at dusk is on the other hand one of the most dangerous times. In the day I occasionally enjoy going into the more congested areas and I find that people either don't know that bikes are vehicles or they don't care. I just can't assume they're going to yield when they're at a stop sign. Before this summer I'd done a lot of walking. I'd stop walking on the roads, mostly because my dog didn't like it anymore. (He'll just sit down and refuse to go on). The stats about walking claim it's more dangerous than cycling, but it's very easy to make walking one of the safest activities you can do. Just walk in the woods where there are no cars or hunters. Avoid cliffs. About the only thing that can happen is a tree fall on you or you get hypothermia.           Date: 17 Sep 2007 08:36:32 From: (PeteCresswell) Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats Per Greens: >The stats about walking claim it's more dangerous than >cycling, but it's very easy to make walking one of the safest activities you >can do. My observation (based on family/friends) is that if one is really heavy, walking can use up the hip/knee cartilage prematurely. -- PeteCresswell             Date: 17 Sep 2007 12:27:31 From: Greens Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid > wrote in message news:p4tse3tgfkcduo67t0rocqpt4o1qblso2e@4ax.com... > Per Greens: >>The stats about walking claim it's more dangerous than >>cycling, but it's very easy to make walking one of the safest activities >>you >>can do. > > My observation (based on family/friends) is that if one is really > heavy, walking can use up the hip/knee cartilage prematurely. > -- > PeteCresswell Getting older doesn't help the situation either. Generally speaking in the USA people get older and heavier. Not a good combination. Walking doesn't burn enough calories. Cycling does, but it's not as safe as walking in the woods. Now I'm cycling in the woods, but the roads are a constant temptation. I like their openness and of course there are so many more roads than trails.   Date: 16 Sep 2007 00:07:56 From: joseph.santaniello@gmail.com Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats On Sep 16, 6:04 am, bdbafh <bdb...@gmail.com > wrote: > On Sep 15, 12:32 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > On Sep 14, 2:57 pm, "joseph.santanie...@gmail.com" > > > <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I'm curious where you ride that has such an unpleasant atmosphere. I > > > meet with the occasional jerk out on the road, but for the most part > > > everywhere I've been, most people are ok. The numers of jerks and > > > incompetents varies widely of course, but they are still always in the > > > significant minority. > > > I agree entirely. And "where I ride" has included hundreds of cities > > and almost all states in the US, plus Canada, Britain, Ireland, Italy, > > Switzerland, Poland, Austria, and the Czech Republic. > > > I think there are a lot of cyclists who are needlessly afraid. I > > think there are some who's bravery crumples anytime they hear a horn > > honk. And I think there are lots who just don't know how to ride > > properly, and who therefore scare themselves. > > > Even with the low level of cyclist competence, the average cyclist > > would ride many millions of miles before reaching a 50/50 chance of > > dying on the bike. Ride correctly, and your odds get roughly twice as > > good. > > > Bicycling is not very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is. > > > - Frank Krygowski > > That horn makes me want to get the motorist of out the vehicle and > square off. > I'm 6'3" and 215 lbs and unless they are bringing a gun to the fun, > they are in for a battle, as they have already pissed me off enough > that the adrenaline > level will be high enough that they will be in for a world of hurt (I > might be too). > > -bdbafh Dude, we should ride a tandem together! 12'6", 430lb of cyclist ready to throw! Tag team? Joseph   Date: 16 Sep 2007 05:09:23 From: datakoll Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats On Sep 16, 12:54 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > wrote: > <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1189873942.785726.238860@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Sep 14, 2:57 pm, "joseph.santanie...@gmail.com" > > <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> I'm curious where you ride that has such an unpleasant atmosphere. I > >> meet with the occasional jerk out on the road, but for the most part > >> everywhere I've been, most people are ok. The numers of jerks and > >> incompetents varies widely of course, but they are still always in the > >> significant minority. > > > I agree entirely. And "where I ride" has included hundreds of cities > > and almost all states in the US, plus Canada, Britain, Ireland, Italy, > > Switzerland, Poland, Austria, and the Czech Republic. > > > I think there are a lot of cyclists who are needlessly afraid. I > > think there are some who's bravery crumples anytime they hear a horn > > honk. And I think there are lots who just don't know how to ride > > properly, and who therefore scare themselves. > > > Even with the low level of cyclist competence, the average cyclist > > would ride many millions of miles before reaching a 50/50 chance of > > dying on the bike. Ride correctly, and your odds get roughly twice as > > good. > > > Bicycling is not very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is. > > > - Frank Krygowski > > The consumer product safety commission says bicycling is "risky".http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/pubs/344.pdf- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - being a black greek orthodox lesbian is risky!   Date: 16 Sep 2007 04:24:36 From: datakoll Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats I apologize, he is a black greek orthodox lesbian.   Date: 16 Sep 2007 04:04:24 From: bdbafh Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats On Sep 15, 12:32 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > On Sep 14, 2:57 pm, "joseph.santanie...@gmail.com" > > <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I'm curious where you ride that has such an unpleasant atmosphere. I > > meet with the occasional jerk out on the road, but for the most part > > everywhere I've been, most people are ok. The numers of jerks and > > incompetents varies widely of course, but they are still always in the > > significant minority. > > I agree entirely. And "where I ride" has included hundreds of cities > and almost all states in the US, plus Canada, Britain, Ireland, Italy, > Switzerland, Poland, Austria, and the Czech Republic. > > I think there are a lot of cyclists who are needlessly afraid. I > think there are some who's bravery crumples anytime they hear a horn > honk. And I think there are lots who just don't know how to ride > properly, and who therefore scare themselves. > > Even with the low level of cyclist competence, the average cyclist > would ride many millions of miles before reaching a 50/50 chance of > dying on the bike. Ride correctly, and your odds get roughly twice as > good. > > Bicycling is not very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is. > > - Frank Krygowski That horn makes me want to get the motorist of out the vehicle and square off. I'm 6'3" and 215 lbs and unless they are bringing a gun to the fun, they are in for a battle, as they have already pissed me off enough that the adrenaline level will be high enough that they will be in for a world of hurt (I might be too). -bdbafh   Date: 16 Sep 2007 00:35:29 From: datakoll Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats a lot of unbalanced anaylsis and self parody suggests cycle path planning and intelligent vehicle operation give low cycling mortality rates: an equation in part of these two elements. Florida has planning, somewhat accidental as bike paths are hurricane escape routes but the USA's lowest intelligence and highest rate of violence therefore a dangerous riding environment. Titusville and Cape Canaveral have bike routes and intelligent drivers, an outstanding safe environment. Is Portland similar? There's a bad weather factor - learn or die. More riders wear yellow? You may find fewer accidents in a transportation cycling environment compared to a sport cycling environment, the transportation carrying a higher intelligence and common sense than the sport as well as greater awareness from vehicular traffic. Locally, in Florida, a division exists. The service economy and tourists are extremely dangerous but retirees are extremely cautious recognzing the cyclist as a mentally retarded threat to auto insurance. But that's does one no good at all considering the continuous incidence of low speed intersection collisions where two or more vehicles cannot see the other at 200'. So you could arrive at the conclusion large numbers of cyclists produce greater vehicular awareness then fewer accidents but is this true of Singapore or ...? Incidently, a comparison of cycle deaths versus death in Iraq...?   Date: 15 Sep 2007 11:38:02 From: joseph.santaniello@gmail.com Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats On Sep 15, 7:54 pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org > wrote: > >>> Donga <idomybestworkonab...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >>>> I visited the US from Australia in February. In a week in Florida, > >>>> spent in and around Orlando and up to Gainesville. Not counting the > >>>> latter, where there were a few cyclists on bike lanes around the > >>>> university, I saw TWO cyclists, that's all. Both were poor looking > >>>> dudes on poor looking bikes. I saw a billion cars on roads not > >>>> designed for bikes. That was extremely depressing and the statistic > >>>> quoted by Greens surprises me not a bit. Elsewhere in the US, I've > >>>> seen some cycling-friendly areas where people ride a lot, generally > >>>> other university towns. Otherwise, the roads and drivers seem cycling- > >>>> hostile. The apples/oranges argument does not devalue the statistic > >>>> one bit and is crap. > >> <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> I still think it's apples and oranges. I don't disagree with the > >>> statistics, I'm just skeptical of what they mean. Sure there are > >>> miserable places to ride in the US. But comparing the whole US to a > >>> small select bike friendly area like Holland is not reasonable. Europe > >>> stretches from Portugal to Latvia. There are more than a few miserable > >>> places to ride between those two. > > Donga <idomybestworkonab...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> There couldn't be too many of your friendly places, judging by the > >> statistic. > joseph.santanie...@gmail.com wrote: > > Holland has 0.35% of the land area of the US. The US has milions and > > millions of kilometers more roads. There are plenty of places that are > > friendly, and if you hand pick some tiny area, I'm sure you could find > > some place just as safe as Holland, if not more so. > > > My main point is that to say "in the US" is often a meaningless way to > > group things. It's like someone saying they know what Europe is like > > because they have been to Greece, and thus thinking they know what > > it's like in Ireland as a result. > > Thank you. I was frankly amazed see find Netherlands in only 13082 sq > mi, not even double the size of New Jersey. Not just small, amazingly small. > -- > Andrew Muziwww.yellowjersey.org > Open every day since 1 April, 1971 The Netherlands is about the same size and population (and thus population density) as Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego counties together. Not that I have any reason to think those are particularly safe places to ride, but I wonder what the stats are there. Joseph   Date: 15 Sep 2007 11:12:16 From: Jay Beattie Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats On Sep 15, 10:28 am, autopi <iamnetf...@yahoo.com > wrote: > Jay, I absolutely agree that you can't explain injury rates for > cycling on the basis of driver awareness alone. That seems pretty > intuitive: there are many causes of bike accidents, and it's not > always due to lack of driver awarness (however we define that.) It > could also be cyclist negligence, poor roads, bad design of > intersections, all sorts of things. I also agree that it is quite > possible that there would be scenarios in which increased # of > cyclists is not accompanied by an increased # of accidents, in which > case the rate of accident per cyclist necessarily goes down. I don't > think anyone is disputing these points. > > The proposition that I think is in question is this: is a lack of > driver awarness a significant contributing cause to bike-car > accidents? > I am including e.g. not looking before opening a door, driving too > close, etc. under the rubric of "driver awareness," and I am agnostic > as to whether we explain this as a result of general driver > competence, as Joseph suggests, or as increased respect for cyclists, > as Mike suggests, or both or neither. > > NB: this also means that Frank might be right that the number of bike- > car accidents is quite small; the issue is rather, of the accidents > that DO occur, is lack of driver awareness a significant issue? > > I am supposing that the answer to this is yes, which leads to the > policy suggestion that one way to decrease bike-car accidents > (supposing that's one our list of priorities) is to increase driver > awarness. Again, this is 100% compatible with saying that other, and > perhaps more effective, ways of reducing the incidence of bike-car > accidents is by better design of intersections, training cyclists to > ride safely, or whatever else; and it is also compatible with saying, > as Frank seems to suggest, that whatever the rate of accidents is, > it's low enough that we don't need to worry about it. I think that sums it up nicely. -- Jay Beattie.   Date: 15 Sep 2007 13:53:33 From: David L. Johnson Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats Greens wrote: > U.S. Bikers Less Safe Than European Counterparts > > > In the United States, cyclists are 12 times more likely than people in > cars to die en route to their destinations. On a per-kilometer and per-trip > basis, U.S. cyclists are twice as likely to die on the road as German > cyclists, and more than three times as likely as Dutch cyclists. While > cycling fatalities in all of these countries have fallen in the last 25 > years, U.S. cycling deaths have declined largely because of a drop in > cycling, while in the Netherlands and Germany investments in infrastructure > that make cycling safer account for much of the decline. > > http://www.thebicyclebum.com/ Oddly, even though that link does say that, the link he provides to the clearly unbiased "worldwatch institute" has nothing about these claims, even using their search on the word "bicycle". These stats are made up by someone interested in fearmongering, as is clear from the link. -- David L. Johnson Become MicroSoft-free forever. Ask me how.     Date: 15 Sep 2007 22:54:33 From: Greens Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats "David L. Johnson" <david.johnson@lehigh.edu > wrote in message news:R4qdnZTus5CIgXHbnZ2dnUVZ_gOdnZ2d@ptd.net... > Greens wrote: >> U.S. Bikers Less Safe Than European Counterparts >> >> >> In the United States, cyclists are 12 times more likely than people in >> cars to die en route to their destinations. On a per-kilometer and >> per-trip basis, U.S. cyclists are twice as likely to die on the road as >> German cyclists, and more than three times as likely as Dutch cyclists. >> While cycling fatalities in all of these countries have fallen in the >> last 25 years, U.S. cycling deaths have declined largely because of a >> drop in cycling, while in the Netherlands and Germany investments in >> infrastructure that make cycling safer account for much of the decline. >> >> http://www.thebicyclebum.com/ > > Oddly, even though that link does say that, the link he provides to the > clearly unbiased "worldwatch institute" has nothing about these claims, > even using their search on the word "bicycle". These stats are made up by > someone interested in fearmongering, as is clear from the link. > > -- > > David L. Johnson > > Become MicroSoft-free forever. Ask me how. How odd that you would jump to that conclusion. I would think that an organization engaged in "fearmongering" would also try to discourage cycling. "In addition to bicycles' environmental and health benefits, mayors all over the world are finding that bicycles can also fight crime and cut administrative costs. City inspectors, health workers, meter readers, parks and recreation officials, paramedics, and a host of other employees can use bikes for at least some of their work." - World watch Instittute http://www.worldwatch.org/node/1629 They just go on and on about the benefits of cycling for much longer than that little blurb. It sounds to me like they're encouraging cycling and that really they're just somewhat critical of our cycling system or our lack of a cycling system. Maybe you think the bicycle bum is part of some sinister conspiracy to rid the streets of bicycles. Is that what you meant? Ha ha ha. That's really laughable. You could at least ask him first where he got the stats from? That would be fairer than insinuating he's up to something. Maybe it's old stuff that's been taken down by WWI. The bum just hasn't kept up. People do delete things off their sites from time to time and put up different things. Do you think it's really normal to assume that it's all part of some plot to discredit your shitty stats? I mean really, some of your side's ideas are that helmets are dangerous on bicycles. Wouldn't they be dangerous to football players too. How about motorcyclists and parachutists? No? Only cyclists. Ha ha ha.       Date: 16 Sep 2007 00:13:11 From: David L. Johnson Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats Greens wrote: > "David L. Johnson" <david.johnson@lehigh.edu> wrote in message > news:R4qdnZTus5CIgXHbnZ2dnUVZ_gOdnZ2d@ptd.net... >> Greens wrote: >>> U.S. Bikers Less Safe Than European Counterparts >>> >>> >>> In the United States, cyclists are 12 times more likely than people in >>> cars to die en route to their destinations. On a per-kilometer and >>> per-trip basis, U.S. cyclists are twice as likely to die on the road as >>> German cyclists, and more than three times as likely as Dutch cyclists. >>> While cycling fatalities in all of these countries have fallen in the >>> last 25 years, U.S. cycling deaths have declined largely because of a >>> drop in cycling, while in the Netherlands and Germany investments in >>> infrastructure that make cycling safer account for much of the decline. >>> >>> http://www.thebicyclebum.com/ >> Oddly, even though that link does say that, the link he provides to the >> clearly unbiased "worldwatch institute" has nothing about these claims, >> even using their search on the word "bicycle". These stats are made up by >> someone interested in fearmongering, as is clear from the link. >> >> -- >> >> David L. Johnson >> >> Become MicroSoft-free forever. Ask me how. > > How odd that you would jump to that conclusion. I would think that an > organization engaged in "fearmongering" would also try to discourage > cycling. You misunderstand me. As far as is visible to me, they (worldwatch) did not come up with these supposed statistics. You did, or whoever wrote the bicyclebum site. _That_ site is pure fearmongering about the supposed dangers of cycling, which seems to be your fetish as well. The link to the world watch institute has nothing to say about the supposed dangers of cycling compared to those of driving. > > "In addition to bicycles' environmental and health benefits, mayors all over > the world are finding that bicycles can also fight crime and cut > administrative costs. City inspectors, health workers, meter readers, parks > and recreation officials, paramedics, and a host of other employees can use > bikes for at least some of their work." - World watch Instittute > http://www.worldwatch.org/node/1629 This link has nothing to do with your claims, either. > Maybe you think the bicycle bum is part of some sinister conspiracy to rid > the streets of bicycles. Is that what you meant? Ha ha ha. That's really > laughable. You could at least ask him first where he got the stats from? "He" indicated the world watch site, but as I said, there was nothing there to suggest this claim. "He" is supposedly Gary Green.. Hmm. You are?? As far as asking where his stats came from, the link was indicated to this worldwatch site. Sadly, there is nothing there about those statistics, so I would just have to take his/your word for it. But the bicyclebum site is full of fearmongering, as are your posts. Perhaps "he" could provide a real link. But someone who starts out with the claim that streets are just "too dangerous nowadays" is not likely to have an unbiased view. > That would be fairer than insinuating he's up to something. Maybe it's old > stuff that's been taken down by WWI. The bum just hasn't kept up. People do > delete things off their sites from time to time and put up different things. > Do you think it's really normal to assume that it's all part of some plot to > discredit your shitty stats? I mean really, some of your side's ideas are > that helmets are dangerous on bicycles. My side? If someone is going to throw unbelievable stats around, at least they should have the courtesy of pointing out their original source. World watch is just a propaganda site, and, frankly, not a likely candidate to have published this claim. Who is promoting shitty statistics? Ans yes, I do mean to discredit them. Wild claims like that require some justification, or else they are merely bullshit. I'm a bit embarrassed for others who have responded to this troll without at least a cursory check on the source of the claim. -- David L. Johnson Do not worry about your difficulties in mathematics, I can assure you that mine are all greater. -- A. Einstein         Date: 16 Sep 2007 01:20:46 From: Greens Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats "David L. Johnson" <david.johnson@lehigh.edu > wrote in message news:mP-dnY1dzunRMHHbnZ2dnUVZ_hudnZ2d@ptd.net... > Greens wrote: >> "David L. Johnson" <david.johnson@lehigh.edu> wrote in message >> news:R4qdnZTus5CIgXHbnZ2dnUVZ_gOdnZ2d@ptd.net... >>> Greens wrote: >>>> U.S. Bikers Less Safe Than European Counterparts >>>> >>>> >>>> In the United States, cyclists are 12 times more likely than people >>>> in cars to die en route to their destinations. On a per-kilometer and >>>> per-trip basis, U.S. cyclists are twice as likely to die on the road as >>>> German cyclists, and more than three times as likely as Dutch cyclists. >>>> While cycling fatalities in all of these countries have fallen in the >>>> last 25 years, U.S. cycling deaths have declined largely because of a >>>> drop in cycling, while in the Netherlands and Germany investments in >>>> infrastructure that make cycling safer account for much of the decline. >>>> >>>> http://www.thebicyclebum.com/ >>> Oddly, even though that link does say that, the link he provides to the >>> clearly unbiased "worldwatch institute" has nothing about these claims, >>> even using their search on the word "bicycle". These stats are made up >>> by someone interested in fearmongering, as is clear from the link. >>> >>> -- >>> >>> David L. Johnson >>> >>> Become MicroSoft-free forever. Ask me how. >> >> How odd that you would jump to that conclusion. I would think that an >> organization engaged in "fearmongering" would also try to discourage >> cycling. > > You misunderstand me. As far as is visible to me, they (worldwatch) did > not come up with these supposed statistics. You did, or whoever wrote the > bicyclebum site. _That_ site is pure fearmongering about the supposed > dangers of cycling, which seems to be your fetish as well. The link to > the world watch institute has nothing to say about the supposed dangers of > cycling compared to those of driving. >> >> "In addition to bicycles' environmental and health benefits, mayors all >> over the world are finding that bicycles can also fight crime and cut >> administrative costs. City inspectors, health workers, meter readers, >> parks and recreation officials, paramedics, and a host of other employees >> can use bikes for at least some of their work." - World watch Instittute >> http://www.worldwatch.org/node/1629 > > This link has nothing to do with your claims, either. > >> Maybe you think the bicycle bum is part of some sinister conspiracy to >> rid the streets of bicycles. Is that what you meant? Ha ha ha. That's >> really laughable. You could at least ask him first where he got the stats >> from? > > "He" indicated the world watch site, but as I said, there was nothing > there to suggest this claim. "He" is supposedly Gary Green.. Hmm. You > are?? > > As far as asking where his stats came from, the link was indicated to this > worldwatch site. Sadly, there is nothing there about those statistics, so > I would just have to take his/your word for it. But the bicyclebum site > is full of fearmongering, as are your posts. Perhaps "he" could provide a > real link. But someone who starts out with the claim that streets are > just "too dangerous nowadays" is not likely to have an unbiased view. > >> That would be fairer than insinuating he's up to something. Maybe it's >> old stuff that's been taken down by WWI. The bum just hasn't kept up. >> People do delete things off their sites from time to time and put up >> different things. Do you think it's really normal to assume that it's all >> part of some plot to discredit your shitty stats? I mean really, some of >> your side's ideas are that helmets are dangerous on bicycles. > > My side? If someone is going to throw unbelievable stats around, at least > they should have the courtesy of pointing out their original source. > World watch is just a propaganda site, and, frankly, not a likely > candidate to have published this claim. > > Who is promoting shitty statistics? Ans yes, I do mean to discredit them. > Wild claims like that require some justification, or else they are merely > bullshit. > > I'm a bit embarrassed for others who have responded to this troll without > at least a cursory check on the source of the claim. > > -- > > David L. Johnson > > Do not worry about your difficulties in mathematics, I can assure you > that mine are all greater. > -- A. Einstein I've got to ask you if you sell bikes, manufacture bikes or work in that business, or are a lawyer who defends cycle manufacturing. Do you have anything to gain from defending cycling's safety record directly or indirectly? I find it hard to believe the level of bullshit appearing in this newsgroup. And what exactly are you saying. Refresh my memory if you've already made a statement. Are you saying anything besides the stats I posted are fear mongering? Have you said that cycling is "Safe"? Have you seen this? http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/pubs/344.pdf Is the Consumer Product Safety Commission fear mongering? Bikebum's statement that the streets are "too dangerous nowadays". That marks him as a fear mongering nutjob?           Date: 16 Sep 2007 15:09:37 From: A Muzi Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats -snip cycling as unsafe habit?- >> Greens wrote: >>> That would be fairer than insinuating he's up to something. Maybe it's >>> old stuff that's been taken down by WWI. The bum just hasn't kept up. >>> People do delete things off their sites from time to time and put up >>> different things. Do you think it's really normal to assume that it's all >>> part of some plot to discredit your shitty stats? I mean really, some of >>> your side's ideas are that helmets are dangerous on bicycles. "David L. Johnson" <david.johnson@lehigh.edu > wrote >> My side? If someone is going to throw unbelievable stats around, at least >> they should have the courtesy of pointing out their original source. >> World watch is just a propaganda site, and, frankly, not a likely >> candidate to have published this claim. >> >> Who is promoting shitty statistics? Ans yes, I do mean to discredit them. >> Wild claims like that require some justification, or else they are merely >> bullshit. >> I'm a bit embarrassed for others who have responded to this troll without >> at least a cursory check on the source of the claim. Greens wrote: > I've got to ask you if you sell bikes, manufacture bikes or work in that > business, or are a lawyer who defends cycle manufacturing. Do you have > anything to gain from defending cycling's safety record directly or > indirectly? I find it hard to believe the level of bullshit appearing in > this newsgroup. > And what exactly are you saying. Refresh my memory if you've already made a > statement. Are you saying anything besides the stats I posted are fear > mongering? Have you said that cycling is "Safe"? > Have you seen this? > http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/pubs/344.pdf > Is the Consumer Product Safety Commission fear mongering? > Bikebum's statement that the streets are "too dangerous nowadays". That > marks him as a fear mongering nutjob? "fear mongering nutjob". Well phrased. p.s. the CPSC are _professional_ fear mongering nutjobs -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971             Date: 16 Sep 2007 16:37:49 From: Greens Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats "A Muzi" <am@yellowjersey.org > wrote in message news:13er3abipn4b77c@corp.supernews.com... > -snip cycling as unsafe habit?- > >>> Greens wrote: >>>> That would be fairer than insinuating he's up to something. Maybe it's >>>> old stuff that's been taken down by WWI. The bum just hasn't kept up. >>>> People do delete things off their sites from time to time and put up >>>> different things. Do you think it's really normal to assume that it's >>>> all part of some plot to discredit your shitty stats? I mean really, >>>> some of your side's ideas are that helmets are dangerous on bicycles. > > "David L. Johnson" <david.johnson@lehigh.edu> wrote >>> My side? If someone is going to throw unbelievable stats around, at >>> least they should have the courtesy of pointing out their original >>> source. World watch is just a propaganda site, and, frankly, not a >>> likely candidate to have published this claim. >>> >>> Who is promoting shitty statistics? Ans yes, I do mean to discredit >>> them. Wild claims like that require some justification, or else they are >>> merely bullshit. >>> I'm a bit embarrassed for others who have responded to this troll >>> without at least a cursory check on the source of the claim. > > Greens wrote: >> I've got to ask you if you sell bikes, manufacture bikes or work in that >> business, or are a lawyer who defends cycle manufacturing. Do you have >> anything to gain from defending cycling's safety record directly or >> indirectly? I find it hard to believe the level of bullshit appearing in >> this newsgroup. >> And what exactly are you saying. Refresh my memory if you've already made >> a statement. Are you saying anything besides the stats I posted are fear >> mongering? Have you said that cycling is "Safe"? >> Have you seen this? >> http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/pubs/344.pdf >> Is the Consumer Product Safety Commission fear mongering? >> Bikebum's statement that the streets are "too dangerous nowadays". That >> marks him as a fear mongering nutjob? > > "fear mongering nutjob". Well phrased. > p.s. the CPSC are _professional_ fear mongering nutjobs > -- > Andrew Muzi > www.yellowjersey.org > Open every day since 1 April, 1971 Correction" p.s. the CPSC are incompetent*_professional_ fear mongering nutjobs. *In light of their handling of the Chinese made, lead coated children's toys** **Haven't really followed it closely. Don't want to be accused of spouting nonsense. Comedy purposes only. Details not to be taken literally. Not to be construed as a slur against asians or their manufacturing processes and predilictions towards corruption.           Date: 16 Sep 2007 15:17:46 From: David L. Johnson Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats Greens wrote: > I've got to ask you if you sell bikes, manufacture bikes or work in that > business, or are a lawyer who defends cycle manufacturing. Do you have > anything to gain from defending cycling's safety record directly or > indirectly? No. Do you have something to gain by exaggerating the dangers? > I find it hard to believe the level of bullshit appearing in > this newsgroup. Sure is. > > And what exactly are you saying. Refresh my memory if you've already made a > statement. Are you saying anything besides the stats I posted are fear > mongering? Have you said that cycling is "Safe"? > > Have you seen this? > http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/pubs/344.pdf Look at the stats there. For adult cyclists (15-64), the injury rate averages 25 per _million_ hours of use, and 4 per 1000 cyclists. There were about 500 adult bicyclist deaths in the US in 1989 according to their stats. There are 40-50 thousand people killed in car accidents each year. None of that squares with your "friend"'s statistics. > > Is the Consumer Product Safety Commission fear mongering? > Well, yes, but in a nice way. > Bikebum's statement that the streets are "too dangerous nowadays". That > marks him as a fear mongering nutjob? Yup. -- David L. Johnson "Business!" cried the Ghost. "Mankind was my business. The common welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence, were, all, my business. The dealings of my trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!" --Dickens, "A Christmas Carol"             Date: 16 Sep 2007 16:21:08 From: Greens Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats "David L. Johnson" <david.johnson@lehigh.edu > wrote in message news:QradndNN6ePUHHDbnZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d@ptd.net... > Greens wrote: > >> I've got to ask you if you sell bikes, manufacture bikes or work in that >> business, or are a lawyer who defends cycle manufacturing. Do you have >> anything to gain from defending cycling's safety record directly or >> indirectly? > > No. Do you have something to gain by exaggerating the dangers? No, and I don't exaggerate the dangers. I often supply links to verify what I say if those links are available. When, specifically, did I exaggerate? You mention the stats I put up. Those came from where I linked. I didn't create them. Maybe you could be more precise in your language such as, "Greens consistently supplies us with stats that suggest cycling is more dangerous than it is.", but no you just say that "Greens exaggerates". It's not true. That makes you a "liar". > >> I find it hard to believe the level of bullshit appearing in this >> newsgroup. > > Sure is. >> >> And what exactly are you saying. Refresh my memory if you've already made >> a statement. Are you saying anything besides the stats I posted are fear >> mongering? Have you said that cycling is "Safe"? It's interesting that you don't address this part of my post. I would have thought you'd be eager to clarify your position. Apparantly, you'd rather your position be rather vague. People often are vague so that they can switch sides when it's convenient. >> >> Have you seen this? >> http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/pubs/344.pdf > > Look at the stats there. For adult cyclists (15-64), the injury rate > averages 25 per _million_ hours of use, and 4 per 1000 cyclists. There > were about 500 adult bicyclist deaths in the US in 1989 according to their > stats. There are 40-50 thousand people killed in car accidents each year. > None of that squares with your "friend"'s statistics. >> >> Is the Consumer Product Safety Commission fear mongering? >> > Well, yes, but in a nice way. Ha ha. Very funny. It makes you look like a dolt, but it was a serious question. > >> Bikebum's statement that the streets are "too dangerous nowadays". That >> marks him as a fear mongering nutjob? > > Yup. A terse reply. Afraid of explaining yourself? > > > -- > > David L. Johnson > > "Business!" cried the Ghost. "Mankind was my business. The common > welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence, > were, all, my business. The dealings of my trade were but a drop of > water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!" > --Dickens, "A Christmas Carol"               Date: 16 Sep 2007 17:18:16 From: David L. Johnson Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats Greens wrote: > No, and I don't exaggerate the dangers. I often supply links to verify what > I say if those links are available. When, specifically, did I exaggerate? > You mention the stats I put up. Those came from where I linked. I didn't > create them. Oh? But the further stats you provided directly contradict what that one said. Maybe you could be more precise in your language such as, > "Greens consistently supplies us with stats that suggest cycling is more > dangerous than it is.", but no you just say that "Greens exaggerates". It's > not true. That makes you a "liar". No, that last line makes you an ass. > >>> I find it hard to believe the level of bullshit appearing in this >>> newsgroup. >> Sure is. >>> And what exactly are you saying. Refresh my memory if you've already made >>> a statement. Are you saying anything besides the stats I posted are fear >>> mongering? Have you said that cycling is "Safe"? > > It's interesting that you don't address this part of my post. It was an ad hominim remark, so I ignored it. >>> Bikebum's statement that the streets are "too dangerous nowadays". That >>> marks him as a fear mongering nutjob? >> Yup. > > A terse reply. Afraid of explaining yourself? Yes, it does make "him" a fear-mongering nutjob. Better? BTW, you are the guy who posted the bikebum site, aren't you. -- David L. Johnson The lottery is a tax on those who fail to understand mathematics.                 Date: 16 Sep 2007 17:46:25 From: Greens Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats "David L. Johnson" <david.johnson@lehigh.edu > wrote in message news:4dOdnYYkG44bAHDbnZ2dnUVZ_ryqnZ2d@ptd.net... > Greens wrote: > >> No, and I don't exaggerate the dangers. I often supply links to verify >> what I say if those links are available. When, specifically, did I >> exaggerate? You mention the stats I put up. Those came from where I >> linked. I didn't create them. > > Oh? But the further stats you provided directly contradict what that one > said. You're just not very good at analyzing stats. I see no need to explain this in detail since you see no need in explaining any of your accusations and insults in detail. > > Maybe you could be more precise in your language such as, >> "Greens consistently supplies us with stats that suggest cycling is more >> dangerous than it is.", but no you just say that "Greens exaggerates". >> It's not true. That makes you a "liar". > > No, that last line makes you an ass. How so? >> >>>> I find it hard to believe the level of bullshit appearing in this >>>> newsgroup. >>> Sure is. >>>> And what exactly are you saying. Refresh my memory if you've already >>>> made a statement. Are you saying anything besides the stats I posted >>>> are fear mongering? Have you said that cycling is "Safe"? >> >> It's interesting that you don't address this part of my post. > > It was an ad hominim remark, so I ignored it. > I don't see where asking you to clarify your position is an ad hominem remark. > >>>> Bikebum's statement that the streets are "too dangerous nowadays". That >>>> marks him as a fear mongering nutjob? >>> Yup. >> >> A terse reply. Afraid of explaining yourself? > > Yes, it does make "him" a fear-mongering nutjob. Better? > > BTW, you are the guy who posted the bikebum site, aren't you. Yea. I'm the guy that posted the bikebum link. > > -- > > David L. Johnson > > The lottery is a tax on those who fail to understand mathematics.             Date: 16 Sep 2007 19:37:07 From: _ Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 15:17:46 -0400, David L. Johnson wrote: > Greens wrote: > >> I've got to ask you if you sell bikes, manufacture bikes or work in that >> business, or are a lawyer who defends cycle manufacturing. Do you have >> anything to gain from defending cycling's safety record directly or >> indirectly? > > No. Do you have something to gain by exaggerating the dangers? > >> I find it hard to believe the level of bullshit appearing in >> this newsgroup. > > Sure is. >> >> And what exactly are you saying. Refresh my memory if you've already made a >> statement. Are you saying anything besides the stats I posted are fear >> mongering? Have you said that cycling is "Safe"? >> >> Have you seen this? >> http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/pubs/344.pdf > > Look at the stats there. For adult cyclists (15-64), the injury rate > averages 25 per _million_ hours of use Yup - and that is for _all_ injuries, which include the kind minor scrapes and nicks that people get from cycling or picking blackberries or peeling vegetables. The *death* rate is roughly one one-hundredth of that - which works out to one death per 450 years of cycling non-stop 24 hours a day. Now, if someone can look at those figures and decide that cycling is "dangerous", they can also be a pro-helmet and pro-MHL loony, because they just ignore the data that disagrees with their "common sense". This characterisation of cycling as a dangerous activity means that someone's got an agenda here; and maybe we have another contender for the "Paris-Hilton-of-r.b.t." title.               Date: 16 Sep 2007 16:28:49 From: Greens Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats "_" <jtayNOSPAMlor@hfDONTSENDMESPAMx.andara.com > wrote in message news:c5sjsf7nw8in$.1jram670z1.dlg@40tude.net... > On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 15:17:46 -0400, David L. Johnson wrote: > >> Greens wrote: >> >>> I've got to ask you if you sell bikes, manufacture bikes or work in that >>> business, or are a lawyer who defends cycle manufacturing. Do you have >>> anything to gain from defending cycling's safety record directly or >>> indirectly? >> >> No. Do you have something to gain by exaggerating the dangers? >> >>> I find it hard to believe the level of bullshit appearing in >>> this newsgroup. >> >> Sure is. >>> >>> And what exactly are you saying. Refresh my memory if you've already >>> made a >>> statement. Are you saying anything besides the stats I posted are fear >>> mongering? Have you said that cycling is "Safe"? >>> >>> Have you seen this? >>> http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/pubs/344.pdf >> >> Look at the stats there. For adult cyclists (15-64), the injury rate >> averages 25 per _million_ hours of use > > Yup - and that is for _all_ injuries, which include the kind minor scrapes > and nicks that people get from cycling or picking blackberries or peeling > vegetables. The *death* rate is roughly one one-hundredth of that - which > works out to one death per 450 years of cycling non-stop 24 hours a day. > > Now, if someone can look at those figures and decide that cycling is > "dangerous", they can also be a pro-helmet and pro-MHL loony, because they > just ignore the data that disagrees with their "common sense". This > characterisation of cycling as a dangerous activity means that someone's > got an agenda here; and maybe we have another contender for the > "Paris-Hilton-of-r.b.t." title. Your name is "_"? Sounds like someone who might already be here under a different name, someone with no imagination.   Date: 15 Sep 2007 17:37:26 From: Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats On Sep 14, 1:06 pm, "joseph.santanie...@gmail.com" > But a handgun shoved into some lycra shorts if VERY noticable. Same deal with a couple of potatoes.     Date: 15 Sep 2007 12:20:09 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats r15757@aol.com wrote: > On Sep 14, 1:06 pm, "joseph.santanie...@gmail.com" > >> But a handgun shoved into some lycra shorts if VERY noticable. > > Same deal with a couple of potatoes. Front or back? Bill "won't one suffice?" S.     Date: 15 Sep 2007 11:05:23 From: Ted Bennett Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats r15757@aol.com wrote: > On Sep 14, 1:06 pm, "joseph.santanie...@gmail.com" > > > But a handgun shoved into some lycra shorts if VERY noticable. > > Same deal with a couple of potatoes. Sure, but the type of attention depends on whether the potatoes are placed in the front or the back. -- Ted Bennett   Date: 15 Sep 2007 10:28:20 From: autopi Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats Jay, I absolutely agree that you can't explain injury rates for cycling on the basis of driver awareness alone. That seems pretty intuitive: there are many causes of bike accidents, and it's not always due to lack of driver awarness (however we define that.) It could also be cyclist negligence, poor roads, bad design of intersections, all sorts of things. I also agree that it is quite possible that there would be scenarios in which increased # of cyclists is not accompanied by an increased # of accidents, in which case the rate of accident per cyclist necessarily goes down. I don't think anyone is disputing these points. The proposition that I think is in question is this: is a lack of driver awarness a significant contributing cause to bike-car accidents? I am including e.g. not looking before opening a door, driving too close, etc. under the rubric of "driver awareness," and I am agnostic as to whether we explain this as a result of general driver competence, as Joseph suggests, or as increased respect for cyclists, as Mike suggests, or both or neither. NB: this also means that Frank might be right that the number of bike- car accidents is quite small; the issue is rather, of the accidents that DO occur, is lack of driver awareness a significant issue? I am supposing that the answer to this is yes, which leads to the policy suggestion that one way to decrease bike-car accidents (supposing that's one our list of priorities) is to increase driver awarness. Again, this is 100% compatible with saying that other, and perhaps more effective, ways of reducing the incidence of bike-car accidents is by better design of intersections, training cyclists to ride safely, or whatever else; and it is also compatible with saying, as Frank seems to suggest, that whatever the rate of accidents is, it's low enough that we don't need to worry about it.     Date: 15 Sep 2007 21:19:07 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats autopi wrote: > I am supposing that the answer to this is yes, which leads to the > policy suggestion that one way to decrease bike-car accidents > (supposing that's one our list of priorities) is to increase driver > awarness. Sometimes motorists misjudge bicyclist speed. Is this a lack of awareness? I don't believe so. Saying that increasing motorist awareness will reduce collisions really implies that motorists will specifically look for bicyclists when they become "aware" that bicyclists exist in the traffic mix. I don't believe this is possible. When I drive, I look for moving things. I don't look for motor vehicles and bicycles as two separate categories. Wayne       Date: 16 Sep 2007 09:20:02 From: (PeteCresswell) Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats Per Wayne Pein: >When I drive, I look for moving things. I don't look for motor vehicles >and bicycles as two separate categories. Around here (southeastern Penna - USA), it's more a matter of looking for *anything* besides a motor vehicle moving at about the same speed. On some roads, the vegetation on the side of the road is worn into roughly the outline of a car - and driver come around curves on the assumption that there's nothing there that they couldn't see in their line of sight entering the curve (i.e. they often cannot see the right edge of the road). And this is routinely happening at speeds 15-20 mph over the posted limit. -- PeteCresswell   Date: 15 Sep 2007 17:09:47 From: Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats On Sep 14, 9:46 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > wrote: > "Wayne Pein" <wp...@nc.rr.com> wrote in message > > > > In theory, according to ..... YOU? > > No. It's something I read in some blog somewhere. I've been reading a lot of > blogs. I haven't written down every address so I can't supply you with the > blog.... "I read it in a blog somewhere..." is an amazingly useless statement. - Frank Krygowski     Date: 15 Sep 2007 15:01:48 From: Greens Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats <frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1189876187.343071.311870@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 14, 9:46 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: >> "Wayne Pein" <wp...@nc.rr.com> wrote in message >> >> >> > In theory, according to ..... YOU? >> >> No. It's something I read in some blog somewhere. I've been reading a lot >> of >> blogs. I haven't written down every address so I can't supply you with >> the >> blog.... > > "I read it in a blog somewhere..." is an amazingly useless > statement. > > - Frank Krygowski > In theory, according to... YOU?   Date: 15 Sep 2007 17:06:57 From: Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats On Sep 14, 1:49 pm, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com > wrote: > ... > Moreover, cyclists take the traffic lanes riding downtown because the > traffic is slow already. You could double the cycling population (put > them five abreast) without any significant increase in car versus > bicycle injuries. The reduction in injury rate would result solely > because of the increased numbers of cyclists without any change in > driver behavior. Jay, you really don't seem to understand the math. Look at the graph at http://www.cyclehelmets.org/ as one source. The data (read off the right side) is per kilometer. If all conditions remain the same, putting five times as many cyclists on the road will not automatically cause the "per km" number to drop. If the number does drop, _something_ must be different. My understanding is that the data is consistent across many countries - both in comparison (as shown above) and in time series. That indicates real effects, whatever they may be, not mathematical artifacts. - Frank Krygowski   Date: 15 Sep 2007 16:58:27 From: Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats On Sep 14, 6:33 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > wrote: > U.S. Bikers Less Safe Than European Counterparts > > In the United States, cyclists are 12 times more likely than people in > cars to die en route to their destinations. On a per-kilometer and per-trip > basis, U.S. cyclists are twice as likely to die on the road as German > cyclists, and more than three times as likely as Dutch cyclists. While > cycling fatalities in all of these countries have fallen in the last 25 > years, U.S. cycling deaths have declined largely because of a drop in > cycling, while in the Netherlands and Germany investments in infrastructure > that make cycling safer account for much of the decline. > I see "Greens" is still intent on scaring people away from bicycling. Such dedication! The numbers quoted are comparing infinitesmals. They are stated specifically to spread fear, without allowing the reader to judge the real level of risk - which is, indeed, infinitesmal. It's true that cycling in the US is more dangerous per mile than in many other countries. (Data varies depending on source, but the graph at http://www.cyclehelmets.org/ shows one set of data.) However, even the US value from that graph - 110 fatalities per billion kilometers of cycling - converts to 15 million miles of bicycling between fatalities. Even if it's five times the German number, it's an infinitesmal risk, too small to worry about. How many miles do you ride in a year? Divide that number into fifteen million. That will tell you how many years you'll need to ride, on average, to reach a 50/50 chance of dying on the bike. Get your calculator out. No, you didn't push the wrong button. Your answer really is measured in thousands of years. If you continue bicycling until the year 3000 A.D. or so, you may wish to begin worrying. Until then, you're just indulging your phobia. - Frank Krygowski     Date: 15 Sep 2007 23:02:27 From: Greens Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats <frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1189875507.745584.265600@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 14, 6:33 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: >> U.S. Bikers Less Safe Than European Counterparts >> >> In the United States, cyclists are 12 times more likely than people in >> cars to die en route to their destinations. On a per-kilometer and >> per-trip >> basis, U.S. cyclists are twice as likely to die on the road as German >> cyclists, and more than three times as likely as Dutch cyclists. While >> cycling fatalities in all of these countries have fallen in the last 25 >> years, U.S. cycling deaths have declined largely because of a drop in >> cycling, while in the Netherlands and Germany investments in >> infrastructure >> that make cycling safer account for much of the decline. >> > > I see "Greens" is still intent on scaring people away from bicycling. > Such dedication! > > The numbers quoted are comparing infinitesmals. They are stated > specifically to spread fear, without allowing the reader to judge the > real level of risk - which is, indeed, infinitesmal. > > It's true that cycling in the US is more dangerous per mile than in > many other countries. (Data varies depending on source, but the graph > at http://www.cyclehelmets.org/ shows one set of data.) However, even > the US value from that graph - 110 fatalities per billion kilometers > of cycling - converts to 15 million miles of bicycling between > fatalities. Even if it's five times the German number, it's an > infinitesmal risk, too small to worry about. > > How many miles do you ride in a year? Divide that number into fifteen > million. That will tell you how many years you'll need to ride, on > average, to reach a 50/50 chance of dying on the bike. > > Get your calculator out. No, you didn't push the wrong button. Your > answer really is measured in thousands of years. > > If you continue bicycling until the year 3000 A.D. or so, you may wish > to begin worrying. Until then, you're just indulging your phobia. > > - Frank Krygowski > How long do I have to live before I'm certain of getting colon cancer? I take precautions against that. Is my doctor fearmongering when he tells me to get a colonoscopy at fifty and every ten years after that? How long do I have to live to die in a car accident? Is the government fear mongering when they insist we wear seat belts and have air bags? When they tell you that you need to ride so many miles before you get killed, they don't just mean you have to ride that far. They mean that everytime all cyclists ride that far someone dies and all cyclists hit those killer mile markers all the time. That's why there are 750 or so dead a year cycling and who knows how many permanently damaged? Yea. I'd like to see a stat for that because death is quite a bit more rare than serious injury like joints that never work right again for 50 years. That's quite a penalty for cycling a few months a year.   Date: 15 Sep 2007 09:57:27 From: Jay Beattie Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats On Sep 14, 8:06 pm, "Clive George" <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk > wrote: > "Jay Beattie" <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote in message > > news:1189822763.366134.86820@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Sep 14, 5:50 pm, "Clive George" <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote: > >> "Jay Beattie" <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote in message > > >>news:1189811597.452914.123230@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... > > >> > All I am getting at is that injury rate falls as a function of > >> > populations and statistics. For example, imagine a chicken coop with > >> > one chicken. A fox gets in to the coop and eats the chicken. The > >> > day's mortality rate is 100% Now, the following day, we put 20 > >> > chickens in the coop. The fox gets in and eats one. The day's > >> > mortality rate is only 5%. Wow, that's a huge decline. It must mean > >> > that the fox has gained respect and understanding for the chickens. > > >> > In our scenario with bikes, some percentage drop will be due to > >> > awareness and traffic calming caused by the presence of bicyclists -- > >> > but some reduction will simply be a "safety in numbers" sort of thing > >> > that results when you increase population. -- Jay Beattie. > > >> Except the exposure to accidents doesn't work in the way you describe. > >> One > >> bike rider on a given journey will have X number of interactions with a > >> car, > >> each with a probability of a crash. Two riders doing the same journey > >> won't > >> have X interactions, they'll have 2X - it's like for your 20 chickens, > >> you've got 20 foxes. > > >> I think you may need to work on some simple probablity theory :-) > > > The 2X interactions is a falacy. Two riders on the same journey at > > different times of the day will have entirely different interactions > > with cars. Two different riders will have different interactions > > Different drivers will have different interactions with bicycles. > > That's the problem with saying awareness accounts for all the drop in > > injury rate. Personally, the number of interactions I have with cars > > is different on a daily basis. Sometimes I go a week without so much > > as a honk. Some days I feel like a chicken with forty foxes. > > Blimey, you're really quite good at misunderstanding probability aren't you. > > You need to understand the difference between one single journey and lots of > journeys. > > It's like throwing a die. Throw it once, I might get a 1 - that's your week > with no honk. Throw it again, a 6 - your day with the chicken and forty > foxes. I can't predict what one individual throw will be if it's a fair > die - that's what randomness is all about. However if I throw it 1000 times, > I can fairly confidentally predict that the sum of all the throws will be > about 3500, give or take a bit. > > You need to think beyond your single cases to get an understanding of > population-level answers - which are the ones under discussion here. Fair enough. I do look at things at the individual level. But the point I was trying to make is still a valid one: you cannot explain the decrease in injury rate based only on driver awareness. I live in a city where bicycles are highly visible, both physically and politically -- and have been for many years. Drivers are aware of bicycles in this city -- very aware. But look at the crash statistics for the main crossings in to the city: http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=156534 The number of riders crossing the Hawthorne Bridge has risen by 300% since 1991, and the crash rate (presumably including crashes with cars) has plummetted. That also corresponds with a huge increase in bicycle facilities. Also, the number of cars crossing the bridge has remained relatively flat -- rising by only 1% since 1991. http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=158297 It seems to me that if the number of foxes remains the same, and the chickens go up by 300%, you are going to get a decrease in the mortality rate regardless of how the foxes feel about the chickens. O.K., cars are not foxes, they are foxes on cell phones drinking coffee. We'll have to control for that in our statistical model. -- Jay Beattie.   Date: 15 Sep 2007 16:37:22 From: Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats On Sep 14, 6:29 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > wrote: > "Wayne Pein" <wp...@nc.rr.com> wrote in message > > news:46eae705$0$32560$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > > > Greens wrote: > > >> "Wayne Pein" <wp...@nc.rr.com> wrote in message > > >>>It sounds as if you were a through bicyclist but riding in the > >>>right-turn-only lane. Such riding sends an ambiguous message and is not > >>>in accordance with the rules of the road. You should use proper > >>>destination positioning. > > >>>Wayne > > >> Do you mean that he should have been in the middle of the road in the > >> lane cars use to go straight as oppossed to the right lane where he feels > >> safer but is designated for right turns only by cars? > > > He should be in the through lane if he is going straight. The right turn > > only lane is for right turns. If you want to send a clear message to > > motorists, ride according to the rules of the road. > > > I think you're right, but > >> then again I've seen motorists so confused that they might just roll > >> right over me when the light turns green not out of avarice, but out of a > >> desire to be courteous to the drivers behind them who are equipped with > >> loud horns that they eagerly use. I'm serious. I bet there are people > >> that would at least nudge you out of the way with their bumpers if you > >> don't move fast enough. > > > Never has that happened to me in 20+ years of everyday riding. > > > Wayne > > Sometimes I have the nerve to do that and sometimes I don't. I had a link to > death not long ago. It was about ghost riders. Some kid was in the road with > his bike and a young guy with an SUV came up behind him. The kid moved out > of the SUV's way, but they think the SUV accelerated to pass out of > impatience and ran right into him from behind killing him. > > If you've never known of drivers to put pressure on other cars by following > very close at high speed, you probably haven't driven much on the highways. > I've seen them do it when I'm in a car. Big rigs do it all the time when > it's hilly. It's a technique called, "Get the fuck out of my way. I'm a big > truck and you're a little shoe box I can squash." You could do bicycling a big favor by hanging out on the driving discussion groups and scaring them with such stories. That would take time away from your fearmongering here. - Frank Krygowski   Date: 15 Sep 2007 16:32:22 From: Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats On Sep 14, 2:57 pm, "joseph.santanie...@gmail.com" <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com > wrote: > > > I'm curious where you ride that has such an unpleasant atmosphere. I > meet with the occasional jerk out on the road, but for the most part > everywhere I've been, most people are ok. The numers of jerks and > incompetents varies widely of course, but they are still always in the > significant minority. I agree entirely. And "where I ride" has included hundreds of cities and almost all states in the US, plus Canada, Britain, Ireland, Italy, Switzerland, Poland, Austria, and the Czech Republic. I think there are a lot of cyclists who are needlessly afraid. I think there are some who's bravery crumples anytime they hear a horn honk. And I think there are lots who just don't know how to ride properly, and who therefore scare themselves. Even with the low level of cyclist competence, the average cyclist would ride many millions of miles before reaching a 50/50 chance of dying on the bike. Ride correctly, and your odds get roughly twice as good. Bicycling is not very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is. - Frank Krygowski     Date: 16 Sep 2007 00:54:40 From: Greens Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats <frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1189873942.785726.238860@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 14, 2:57 pm, "joseph.santanie...@gmail.com" > <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> I'm curious where you ride that has such an unpleasant atmosphere. I >> meet with the occasional jerk out on the road, but for the most part >> everywhere I've been, most people are ok. The numers of jerks and >> incompetents varies widely of course, but they are still always in the >> significant minority. > > I agree entirely. And "where I ride" has included hundreds of cities > and almost all states in the US, plus Canada, Britain, Ireland, Italy, > Switzerland, Poland, Austria, and the Czech Republic. > > I think there are a lot of cyclists who are needlessly afraid. I > think there are some who's bravery crumples anytime they hear a horn > honk. And I think there are lots who just don't know how to ride > properly, and who therefore scare themselves. > > Even with the low level of cyclist competence, the average cyclist > would ride many millions of miles before reaching a 50/50 chance of > dying on the bike. Ride correctly, and your odds get roughly twice as > good. > > Bicycling is not very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is. > > - Frank Krygowski > > The consumer product safety commission says bicycling is "risky". http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/pubs/344.pdf     Date: 16 Sep 2007 00:04:26 From: Greens Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats <frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1189873942.785726.238860@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 14, 2:57 pm, "joseph.santanie...@gmail.com" > <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> I'm curious where you ride that has such an unpleasant atmosphere. I >> meet with the occasional jerk out on the road, but for the most part >> everywhere I've been, most people are ok. The numers of jerks and >> incompetents varies widely of course, but they are still always in the >> significant minority. > > I agree entirely. And "where I ride" has included hundreds of cities > and almost all states in the US, plus Canada, Britain, Ireland, Italy, > Switzerland, Poland, Austria, and the Czech Republic. > > I think there are a lot of cyclists who are needlessly afraid. I > think there are some who's bravery crumples anytime they hear a horn > honk. And I think there are lots who just don't know how to ride > properly, and who therefore scare themselves. > > Even with the low level of cyclist competence, the average cyclist > would ride many millions of miles before reaching a 50/50 chance of > dying on the bike. Ride correctly, and your odds get roughly twice as > good. > > Bicycling is not very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is. > > - Frank Krygowski > > " I enjoyed Mr Wardlaw's article - lots of good solid information - but must agree with Ian Wacogne that I wouldn't go back to not wearing a helmet. I am a commuting cyclist, and cycle 12 miles a day, from Glasgow's West End out to Bishopbriggs (a route Dr Colin Guthrie, whon all urban cyclists in Scotland revere, will be familiar with), and I'm afraid I can't go along with Mr Wardlow's perception of the safety of cycling. Urban cycling is a dangerous activity. Dr Guthrie was recently quoted in a Scottish broadsheet as saying that he woudn't let his daughter cycle in Glasgow, and I don't let my 13-year old daughter cycle either: it's just too dangerous. Apart from near misses with cars and pedestrians, I record at least two assaults on myself a year, the first of this year being only two days ago when three boys hurled a brick at me from a slip road. So far, I have escaped serious injury, mostly through luck but also because I wear a helmet. Before I wore a helmet, there was once incident about 8 years ago when I was hit on the head by an orange thrown at me from a bridge. People generally think this is funny when I describe the incident, an orange ha ha - yet this missile took off my glasses and nearly overturned me in heavy traffic.Wearing a helmet would have saved my glasses and also increased my chances of living. Mr Wardlaw is perfectly right to point the finger at other factors but personal experience says wear the helmets folks. I don't know what to do about the people (mostly young boys)out there who will hurt us given the chance (female cyclists get an even worse reception on the road, as we all know), but helmets are part of the reponse in my experience anyway." http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/321/7276/1582#11854 I think that story is from one of your links, Frank.       Date: 16 Sep 2007 09:25:03 From: (PeteCresswell) Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats Per Greens: >So far, I >have escaped serious injury, mostly through luck but also because I wear a >helmet. Before I wore a helmet, there was once incident about 8 years ago >when I was hit on the head by an orange thrown at me from a bridge. People >generally think this is funny when I describe the incident, an orange ha >ha - yet this missile took off my glasses and nearly overturned me in heavy >traffic. Riding from Philadelphia PA (USA) to the southern tip of Long Beach Island NJ every Sunday while I lived in Philly, it was the occasional partially-filled beverage can thrown from a vehicle doing somewhere between 50 and 70 mph. On that route, (12-foot shoulders, almost no intersections) I took to riding way over on the shoulder against traffic just so I could see what was coming at me. -- PeteCresswell     Date: 15 Sep 2007 23:32:01 From: (PeteCresswell) Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats Per frkrygow@gmail.com: >Even with the low level of cyclist competence, the average cyclist >would ride many millions of miles before reaching a 50/50 chance of >dying on the bike. Ride correctly, and your odds get roughly twice as >good. > >Bicycling is not very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is. Has anybody else read Heinz Stucke's stories? http://www.bikechina.com/ct-heinzstucke1z.html Some of his accounts would seem to contradict that idea. -- PeteCresswell   Date: 15 Sep 2007 15:48:07 From: Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats On Sep 14, 4:33 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > wrote: > U.S. Bikers Less Safe Than European Counterparts > > In the United States, cyclists are 12 times more likely than people in > cars to die en route to their destinations. On a per-kilometer and per-trip > basis, U.S. cyclists are twice as likely to die on the road as German > cyclists, and more than three times as likely as Dutch cyclists. While > cycling fatalities in all of these countries have fallen in the last 25 > years, U.S. cycling deaths have declined largely because of a drop in > cycling, while in the Netherlands and Germany investments in infrastructure > that make cycling safer account for much of the decline. > > http://www.thebicyclebum.com/ Bunk statistics. They may happen to be correct, but through no fault of their own. Robert   Date: 15 Sep 2007 04:36:44 From: joseph.santaniello@gmail.com Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats On Sep 15, 12:58 pm, Donga <idomybestworkonab...@hotmail.com > wrote: > On Sep 15, 7:04 pm, "joseph.santanie...@gmail.com" > > > > <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sep 15, 7:21 am, Donga <idomybestworkonab...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > I visited the US from Australia in February. In a week in Florida, > > > spent in and around Orlando and up to Gainesville. Not counting the > > > latter, where there were a few cyclists on bike lanes around the > > > university, I saw TWO cyclists, that's all. Both were poor looking > > > dudes on poor looking bikes. I saw a billion cars on roads not > > > designed for bikes. That was extremely depressing and the statistic > > > quoted by Greens surprises me not a bit. Elsewhere in the US, I've > > > seen some cycling-friendly areas where people ride a lot, generally > > > other university towns. Otherwise, the roads and drivers seem cycling- > > > hostile. The apples/oranges argument does not devalue the statistic > > > one bit and is crap. > > > > Donga > > > I still think it's apples and oranges. I don't disagree with the > > statistics, I'm just skeptical of what they mean. Sure there are > > miserable places to ride in the US. But comparing the whole US to a > > small select bike friendly area like Holland is not reasonable. Europe > > stretches from Portugal to Latvia. There are more than a few miserable > > places to ride between those two. > > > Joseph > > There couldn't be too many of your friendly places, judging by the > statistic. > > Donga Holland has 0.35% of the land area of the US. The US has milions and millions of kilometers more roads. There are plenty of places that are friendly, and if you hand pick some tiny area, I'm sure you could find some place just as safe as Holland, if not more so. My main point is that to say "in the US" is often a meaningless way to group things. It's like someone saying they know what Europe is like because they have been to Greece, and thus thinking they know what it's like in Ireland as a result. Joseph     Date: 15 Sep 2007 12:54:59 From: A Muzi Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats >>> Donga <idomybestworkonab...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> I visited the US from Australia in February. In a week in Florida, >>>> spent in and around Orlando and up to Gainesville. Not counting the >>>> latter, where there were a few cyclists on bike lanes around the >>>> university, I saw TWO cyclists, that's all. Both were poor looking >>>> dudes on poor looking bikes. I saw a billion cars on roads not >>>> designed for bikes. That was extremely depressing and the statistic >>>> quoted by Greens surprises me not a bit. Elsewhere in the US, I've >>>> seen some cycling-friendly areas where people ride a lot, generally >>>> other university towns. Otherwise, the roads and drivers seem cycling- >>>> hostile. The apples/oranges argument does not devalue the statistic >>>> one bit and is crap. >> <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> I still think it's apples and oranges. I don't disagree with the >>> statistics, I'm just skeptical of what they mean. Sure there are >>> miserable places to ride in the US. But comparing the whole US to a >>> small select bike friendly area like Holland is not reasonable. Europe >>> stretches from Portugal to Latvia. There are more than a few miserable >>> places to ride between those two. > Donga <idomybestworkonab...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> There couldn't be too many of your friendly places, judging by the >> statistic. joseph.santaniello@gmail.com wrote: > Holland has 0.35% of the land area of the US. The US has milions and > millions of kilometers more roads. There are plenty of places that are > friendly, and if you hand pick some tiny area, I'm sure you could find > some place just as safe as Holland, if not more so. > > My main point is that to say "in the US" is often a meaningless way to > group things. It's like someone saying they know what Europe is like > because they have been to Greece, and thus thinking they know what > it's like in Ireland as a result. Thank you. I was frankly amazed see find Netherlands in only 13082 sq mi, not even double the size of New Jersey. Not just small, amazingly small. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971   Date: 15 Sep 2007 03:58:45 From: Donga Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats On Sep 15, 7:04 pm, "joseph.santanie...@gmail.com" <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com > wrote: > On Sep 15, 7:21 am, Donga <idomybestworkonab...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > I visited the US from Australia in February. In a week in Florida, > > spent in and around Orlando and up to Gainesville. Not counting the > > latter, where there were a few cyclists on bike lanes around the > > university, I saw TWO cyclists, that's all. Both were poor looking > > dudes on poor looking bikes. I saw a billion cars on roads not > > designed for bikes. That was extremely depressing and the statistic > > quoted by Greens surprises me not a bit. Elsewhere in the US, I've > > seen some cycling-friendly areas where people ride a lot, generally > > other university towns. Otherwise, the roads and drivers seem cycling- > > hostile. The apples/oranges argument does not devalue the statistic > > one bit and is crap. > > > Donga > > I still think it's apples and oranges. I don't disagree with the > statistics, I'm just skeptical of what they mean. Sure there are > miserable places to ride in the US. But comparing the whole US to a > small select bike friendly area like Holland is not reasonable. Europe > stretches from Portugal to Latvia. There are more than a few miserable > places to ride between those two. > > Joseph There couldn't be too many of your friendly places, judging by the statistic. Donga   Date: 15 Sep 2007 02:13:51 From: joseph.santaniello@gmail.com Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats On Sep 15, 8:44 am, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com > wrote: > In France, it's probably simply that you've got a culture that grew up with > bicycles. And just look at the effect the Tour de France can have in the US- > can you imagine what it does for France? Towns all over the country bid good > money to have the race come through their town. It's much more than a sports > event; it's a traveling circus/county fair that's 100% free for the > spectators. I think that adds a lot of legitimacy to cycling, especially for > the lycra-clad crowd. I don't doubt that. But another aspect to consider in the general driving competance, is that the safe behavior you noticed in passing, etc is not limited to how they treat bikes. In Italy (and perhaps France, I don't recall) the drivers used their turn signal well in advance because the knew the driver 2m behind them at 120km/h on a country road needed that info, they didn't pass cyclist around blind curves because a motorcycle might be coming the other way, etc. It's a general awareness of the traffic situation, not a special respect for people on bikes. Joseph     Date: 15 Sep 2007 23:18:39 From: (PeteCresswell) Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats Per joseph.santaniello@gmail.com: > It's a >general awareness of the traffic situation, not a special respect for >people on bikes. I wonder what it would do for overall driving competence in the USA if police were empowered/encouraged to write tickets that required not payment of a fine, but satisfactory completion of a course of instruction in driving tb satisfied. -- PeteCresswell       Date: 16 Sep 2007 14:39:53 From: A Muzi Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats > Per joseph.santaniello@gmail.com: >> It's a >> general awareness of the traffic situation, not a special respect for >> people on bikes. (PeteCresswell) wrote: > I wonder what it would do for overall driving competence in the > USA if police were empowered/encouraged to write tickets that > required not payment of a fine, but satisfactory completion of a > course of instruction in driving tb satisfied. Most of my Traffic Safety School courses consisted of reading two newspapers on Tuesday evenings. One course instructor wouldn't allow that, making a boring experience overall. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971   Date: 15 Sep 2007 02:04:26 From: joseph.santaniello@gmail.com Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats On Sep 15, 7:21 am, Donga <idomybestworkonab...@hotmail.com > wrote: > I visited the US from Australia in February. In a week in Florida, > spent in and around Orlando and up to Gainesville. Not counting the > latter, where there were a few cyclists on bike lanes around the > university, I saw TWO cyclists, that's all. Both were poor looking > dudes on poor looking bikes. I saw a billion cars on roads not > designed for bikes. That was extremely depressing and the statistic > quoted by Greens surprises me not a bit. Elsewhere in the US, I've > seen some cycling-friendly areas where people ride a lot, generally > other university towns. Otherwise, the roads and drivers seem cycling- > hostile. The apples/oranges argument does not devalue the statistic > one bit and is crap. > > Donga I still think it's apples and oranges. I don't disagree with the statistics, I'm just skeptical of what they mean. Sure there are miserable places to ride in the US. But comparing the whole US to a small select bike friendly area like Holland is not reasonable. Europe stretches from Portugal to Latvia. There are more than a few miserable places to ride between those two. Joseph   Date: 15 Sep 2007 05:50:22 From: datakoll Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats > Donga us people aren't hostile, they are oblivious and unskilled drivers: only 1 in a 100 have practiced driving the vehicle, 1 in 50 are "paying attention" not only to driving but to everything.   Date: 15 Sep 2007 05:46:42 From: datakoll Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats On Sep 15, 12:08 am, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me > wrote: > vey wrote: > > Bill Sornson wrote: > >> vey wrote: > >>> Bill Sornson wrote: > >>>> vey wrote: > > >>>>> I stopped riding my motorcycle after 18(!) cars pulled out in > >>>>> front of me causing me to slow-down each time on a single twenty > >>>>> mile drive. Yes, my headlight was on, they saw me, and they > >>>>> didn't care. Oy, vey. > > >>> Oy, Sornson. > > >> soy sauce! > > >> Bill "channeling gene" S. > > > Why are you making fun of my name? > > Oh for God's sake. You described some scary motorcycle incidents and I > said, "Oy, vey" as a play on your USER name. (Or is your last name "vey" > with a small 'v'?) > > WHY IS EVERYONE SO THIN-SKINNED NOWADAZE? > > Bill "slightly offended by that 'Oy, Sornson' crack" S.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - he's a PR faggot!   Date: 14 Sep 2007 22:26:33 From: autopi Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats > > Yikes! Was he cited? Or even apprehended? > -- no, the guy didn't stop and i wasn't able to get his license plate # before he sped away. other drivers stopped to see if i was ok, and one even offered to chase the guy down. did file a police report, but i don't suspect that will ever lead to anything.   Date: 14 Sep 2007 22:21:58 From: Donga Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats I visited the US from Australia in February. In a week in Florida, spent in and around Orlando and up to Gainesville. Not counting the latter, where there were a few cyclists on bike lanes around the university, I saw TWO cyclists, that's all. Both were poor looking dudes on poor looking bikes. I saw a billion cars on roads not designed for bikes. That was extremely depressing and the statistic quoted by Greens surprises me not a bit. Elsewhere in the US, I've seen some cycling-friendly areas where people ride a lot, generally other university towns. Otherwise, the roads and drivers seem cycling- hostile. The apples/oranges argument does not devalue the statistic one bit and is crap. Donga   Date: 14 Sep 2007 21:13:59 From: autopi Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats yes, i agree that my more typical bad experience with a motorist involves a motorist who is a space cadet than outright aggressive. once, i was crossing at a crosswalk and a woman came hurtling through (trying to make the red about 3-5 seconds after it changed), she saw me and--get this--flung her hands over her eyes so she wouldn't see me when she turned me into roadkill. fortunately for everyone, i just nipped away in time. but what a response! 2 or 3 similar incidents, and i know it's a stereotype, but all involving women driving large vehicles and either rushing to make a red light or talking on phones or dealing with kids. however, i was hit by a car about 2 weeks ago, and this *was* due to aggressiveness. i was taking the lane at a left turn signal, and the driver essentially came up from behind me and shoved out of the way with his car, knocking me over. we made eye contact as he pulled up, and he knew what was going on (i was yelling)--the jerk didn't even slow down (much less stop) after he knocked me over. fortunately, although i was pretty bruised and sore for about 10-12 days, xrays revealed no serious damage. so anyway, ime while there are lots of space cadets, there are still some aggressive drivers out there.     Date: 14 Sep 2007 23:57:04 From: A Muzi Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats autopi wrote: > yes, i agree that my more typical bad experience with a motorist > involves a motorist who is a space cadet than outright aggressive. > once, i was crossing at a crosswalk and a woman came hurtling through > (trying to make the red about 3-5 seconds after it changed), she saw > me and--get this--flung her hands over her eyes so she wouldn't see me > when she turned me into roadkill. fortunately for everyone, i just > nipped away in time. but what a response! > > 2 or 3 similar incidents, and i know it's a stereotype, but all > involving women driving large vehicles and either rushing to make a > red light or talking on phones or dealing with kids. > > however, i was hit by a car about 2 weeks ago, and this *was* due to > aggressiveness. i was taking the lane at a left turn signal, and the > driver essentially came up from behind me and shoved out of the way > with his car, knocking me over. we made eye contact as he pulled up, > and he knew what was going on (i was yelling)--the jerk didn't even > slow down (much less stop) after he knocked me over. fortunately, > although i was pretty bruised and sore for about 10-12 days, xrays > revealed no serious damage. > > so anyway, ime while there are lots of space cadets, there are still > some aggressive drivers out there. Yikes! Was he cited? Or even apprehended? -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971   Date: 15 Sep 2007 02:49:29 From: datakoll Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats http://www.artdiscount.co.uk/acatalog/Day_Glo_Paper_Rolls.html http://wickedstageact2.typepad.com/life_on_the_wicked_stage_/WindowsLiveWriter/AncientCathedralHeldTogetherWithDuctTape_12787/duct-tape%5B3%5D.jpg http://www.namebadgeproductions.com/$spindb.query.listall3.nbadge.5.Laminating~20Supplies.google.laminating bill sould excercise caution     Date: 15 Sep 2007 08:31:02 From: Ted Bennett Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats datakoll <datakoll@yahoo.com > wrote: > http://www.artdiscount.co.uk/acatalog/Day_Glo_Paper_Rolls.html > > http://wickedstageact2.typepad.com/life_on_the_wicked_stage_/WindowsLiveWriter /AncientCathedralHeldTogetherWithDuctTape_12787/duct-tape%5B3%5D.jpg > > http://www.namebadgeproductions.com/$spindb.query.listall3.nbadge.5.Laminating ~20Supplies.google.laminating > > bill sould excercise caution Wonderfully mystifying. Gene, don't ever change! Ted -- Ted Bennett   Date: 14 Sep 2007 19:19:23 From: Jay Beattie Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats On Sep 14, 5:50 pm, "Clive George" <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk > wrote: > "Jay Beattie" <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote in message > > news:1189811597.452914.123230@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... > > > All I am getting at is that injury rate falls as a function of > > populations and statistics. For example, imagine a chicken coop with > > one chicken. A fox gets in to the coop and eats the chicken. The > > day's mortality rate is 100% Now, the following day, we put 20 > > chickens in the coop. The fox gets in and eats one. The day's > > mortality rate is only 5%. Wow, that's a huge decline. It must mean > > that the fox has gained respect and understanding for the chickens. > > > In our scenario with bikes, some percentage drop will be due to > > awareness and traffic calming caused by the presence of bicyclists -- > > but some reduction will simply be a "safety in numbers" sort of thing > > that results when you increase population. -- Jay Beattie. > > Except the exposure to accidents doesn't work in the way you describe. One > bike rider on a given journey will have X number of interactions with a car, > each with a probability of a crash. Two riders doing the same journey won't > have X interactions, they'll have 2X - it's like for your 20 chickens, > you've got 20 foxes. > > I think you may need to work on some simple probablity theory :-) The 2X interactions is a falacy. Two riders on the same journey at different times of the day will have entirely different interactions with cars. Two different riders will have different interactions Different drivers will have different interactions with bicycles. That's the problem with saying awareness accounts for all the drop in injury rate. Personally, the number of interactions I have with cars is different on a daily basis. Sometimes I go a week without so much as a honk. Some days I feel like a chicken with forty foxes. That's when I hope for more cyclists -- it's the old gag: I don't have to run faster than the bear, I just have to run faster than you. Frankly, with the explosion of riders in PDX, I often feel more imperiled by other bicycles than by cars, or foxes, or what have you. -- Jay Beattie.     Date: 15 Sep 2007 04:06:44 From: Clive George Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats "Jay Beattie" <jbeattie@lindsayhart.com > wrote in message news:1189822763.366134.86820@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 14, 5:50 pm, "Clive George" <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote: >> "Jay Beattie" <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1189811597.452914.123230@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... >> >> > All I am getting at is that injury rate falls as a function of >> > populations and statistics. For example, imagine a chicken coop with >> > one chicken. A fox gets in to the coop and eats the chicken. The >> > day's mortality rate is 100% Now, the following day, we put 20 >> > chickens in the coop. The fox gets in and eats one. The day's >> > mortality rate is only 5%. Wow, that's a huge decline. It must mean >> > that the fox has gained respect and understanding for the chickens. >> >> > In our scenario with bikes, some percentage drop will be due to >> > awareness and traffic calming caused by the presence of bicyclists -- >> > but some reduction will simply be a "safety in numbers" sort of thing >> > that results when you increase population. -- Jay Beattie. >> >> Except the exposure to accidents doesn't work in the way you describe. >> One >> bike rider on a given journey will have X number of interactions with a >> car, >> each with a probability of a crash. Two riders doing the same journey >> won't >> have X interactions, they'll have 2X - it's like for your 20 chickens, >> you've got 20 foxes. >> >> I think you may need to work on some simple probablity theory :-) > > The 2X interactions is a falacy. Two riders on the same journey at > different times of the day will have entirely different interactions > with cars. Two different riders will have different interactions > Different drivers will have different interactions with bicycles. > That's the problem with saying awareness accounts for all the drop in > injury rate. Personally, the number of interactions I have with cars > is different on a daily basis. Sometimes I go a week without so much > as a honk. Some days I feel like a chicken with forty foxes. Blimey, you're really quite good at misunderstanding probability aren't you. You need to understand the difference between one single journey and lots of journeys. It's like throwing a die. Throw it once, I might get a 1 - that's your week with no honk. Throw it again, a 6 - your day with the chicken and forty foxes. I can't predict what one individual throw will be if it's a fair die - that's what randomness is all about. However if I throw it 1000 times, I can fairly confidentally predict that the sum of all the throws will be about 3500, give or take a bit. You need to think beyond your single cases to get an understanding of population-level answers - which are the ones under discussion here. clive   Date: 14 Sep 2007 16:13:17 From: Jay Beattie Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats On Sep 14, 1:01 pm, autopi <iamnetf...@yahoo.com > wrote: > i'm not sure anyone here is disagreeing about anything--but i'm not > sure. certainly i agree that it is NOT true that increasing the # of > cyclists necessarily causes a decrease in # of injuries per cyclist. > as i understand it, that's what your example shows. of course it does > not show that this never happens, only that it does not always happen. > > i am confused as to what it means to say that awareness is an > "individual" vs. a "population" thing? > > i am also confused as to what people mean by "awareness." in jay's > first post, he seemed to be thinking of awareness as "consciousness of > whether there are 1, 2 ... n # of cyclists on the streets in a given > town at a given time." (i agree with clive that that misses the point > of awareness by a country mile; awareness i would have thought meant > that a given driver is more likely to think about looking over his > shoulder before swinging open his door, to not try to squeeze by a > cyclist when there isn't room, etc..) in his later post, jay is > talking about driver behavior--a very different thing. > > and then wayne seems to agree with jay that awareness is not an > important factor in explaining auto-bike collisions, but then says > that he subscribes to the proposition that "the more cyclists the > safer"--which as i understand jay, is exactly what *he* rejects. > > so basically it seems to me that no one is actually talking about the > same thing here, so it's hard to see if there's any point on which > anyone actually disagrees. All I am getting at is that injury rate falls as a function of populations and statistics. For example, imagine a chicken coop with one chicken. A fox gets in to the coop and eats the chicken. The day's mortality rate is 100% Now, the following day, we put 20 chickens in the coop. The fox gets in and eats one. The day's mortality rate is only 5%. Wow, that's a huge decline. It must mean that the fox has gained respect and understanding for the chickens. In our scenario with bikes, some percentage drop will be due to awareness and traffic calming caused by the presence of bicyclists -- but some reduction will simply be a "safety in numbers" sort of thing that results when you increase population. -- Jay Beattie.     Date: 15 Sep 2007 01:50:16 From: Clive George Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats "Jay Beattie" <jbeattie@lindsayhart.com > wrote in message news:1189811597.452914.123230@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... > All I am getting at is that injury rate falls as a function of > populations and statistics. For example, imagine a chicken coop with > one chicken. A fox gets in to the coop and eats the chicken. The > day's mortality rate is 100% Now, the following day, we put 20 > chickens in the coop. The fox gets in and eats one. The day's > mortality rate is only 5%. Wow, that's a huge decline. It must mean > that the fox has gained respect and understanding for the chickens. > > In our scenario with bikes, some percentage drop will be due to > awareness and traffic calming caused by the presence of bicyclists -- > but some reduction will simply be a "safety in numbers" sort of thing > that results when you increase population. -- Jay Beattie. Except the exposure to accidents doesn't work in the way you describe. One bike rider on a given journey will have X number of interactions with a car, each with a probability of a crash. Two riders doing the same journey won't have X interactions, they'll have 2X - it's like for your 20 chickens, you've got 20 foxes. I think you may need to work on some simple probablity theory :-) cheers, clive   Date: 14 Sep 2007 22:42:48 From: datakoll Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats Visibility is life http://www.campmor.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?productId= =3D39293329&memberId=3D12500226 http://www.campmor.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?productId= =3D39297923&memberId=3D12500226 http://www.campmor.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?productId= =3D39172851&memberId=3D12500226 http://www.campmor.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?productId= =3D39199026&memberId=3D12500226 http://www.campmor.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?productId= =3D39270664&memberId=3D12500226 http://www.campmor.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?productId= =3D39217145&memberId=3D12500226 http://www.campmor.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?productId= =3D39279301&memberId=3D12500226 Wigwam Ingenius=99 Hiker Socks Item Number: 19850 in florida, a cyclist can be run over dead in the bike lane and forgetabboutit.   Date: 14 Sep 2007 14:00:19 From: joseph.santaniello@gmail.com Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats On Sep 14, 10:44 pm, "(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid > wrote: > It was one of those "Omygod *what* am I thinking!!!???" moments. I know a guy who sold his motorcycle after a different "OMG what am I thinking!?!!?" moment: He had purchased a few different helmets but all had this problem with the visors getting fogged up when he would ride fast in the mountains of Switzerland where he lived. One day he realized it was fogging up because he was screaming the whole time without knowing it. Joseph     Date: 14 Sep 2007 16:44:44 From: futrino Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats joseph.santaniello@gmail.com wrote: > On Sep 14, 10:44 pm, "(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid> wrote: > > >>It was one of those "Omygod *what* am I thinking!!!???" moments. > > > I know a guy who sold his motorcycle after a different "OMG what am I > thinking!?!!?" moment: He had purchased a few different helmets but > all had this problem with the visors getting fogged up when he would > ride fast in the mountains of Switzerland where he lived. One day he > realized it was fogging up because he was screaming the whole time > without knowing it. > > Joseph > thank you.... I want a motorbike, but as my father put it, "you better have your organ donor card updated."   Date: 14 Sep 2007 13:55:21 From: joseph.santaniello@gmail.com Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats On Sep 14, 10:14 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > wrote: > <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1189796785.771463.176060@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Sep 14, 9:04 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: > >> "bdbafh" <bdb...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > >>news:1189789418.468619.287770@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com... > > >> > On Sep 14, 6:33 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: > >> >> U.S. Bikers Less Safe Than European Counterparts > > >> >> In the United States, cyclists are 12 times more likely than people > >> >> in > >> >> cars to die en route to their destinations. On a per-kilometer and > >> >> per-trip > >> >> basis, U.S. cyclists are twice as likely to die on the road as German > >> >> cyclists, and more than three times as likely as Dutch cyclists. While > >> >> cycling fatalities in all of these countries have fallen in the last > >> >> 25 > >> >> years, U.S. cycling deaths have declined largely because of a drop in > >> >> cycling, while in the Netherlands and Germany investments in > >> >> infrastructure > >> >> that make cycling safer account for much of the decline. > > >> >> http://www.thebicyclebum.com/ > > >> > note: I didn't read the fine article. > > >> > A situation that evoked a honk from a displeased motorist yesterday on > >> > PA State Route 463 west just northwest of where the BicyclePA south > >> > route heads to the north ... > > >> > A right turn lane splits off to the right with no additional lane > >> > striping for bikes. I took the normal action of riding a few inches to > >> > the right of the white stripe that separated the through lane from the > >> > right turn lane. An angry, clueless motorist passes by closely, > >> > honking. This evokes the normal display of a hand signal from me, > >> > along with a "lets go, right now!" with me pointing to the shoulder. > > >> > Obviously the motorist made an unsafe pass. They didn't take me up on > >> > the offer to discuss their infraction after dropping their weapon > >> > (exiting the vehicle). > > >> > Perhaps I'll change my tactic there to just take the lane instead of > >> > splitting the through lane and right turn lane, preventing such an > >> > unsafe pass next time. > > >> > -bdbafh > > >> Yea. They're very arrogant and sure of themselves while they're in their > >> protective cages. And of course it's easier to keep a heavy firearm in a > >> car > >> than it is on a bike so don't be so eager to catch them. > > > But a handgun shoved into some lycra shorts if VERY noticable. I rode > > a few times in Brooklyn with a guy from the West Indies who rode > > around armed. Folks are few and far between who would have dared give > > this guy any shit! > > > Joseph > > True. but in reality it's hard to hit someone on foot with a handgun while > you're on foot. It'd be much harder to hit someone in car while you're > riding a bike or just got knocked off a bike. It's purpose is to give a > false sense of security. The driver can circle around and stealthily come up > from behind with his handgun and pick you off easily if he has a passenger > to do the job. Or just hit you with the car. > > Even if you are successful in shooting a motorist, you'll have to explain > yourself to the law and the law frowns on retribution and shooting at people > on populated streets, especially when the shot are just trying to drive > away. If you get away, you're now wanted and assumed guilty of something. Do > you really want to ride your bike through that neighborhood again? (it might > work in NYC but not my neighborhood. I'm just not anonymous enough here.) > What you need is a big gun and a international teleporter. This guy was a nut-case anyway, and as those sorts are a magnet for problems, I ended up keeping my distance from him. Most confrontations don't happen anyway because the drivers are too scared to stop and get out of their cage, but for the few that do... ;-) Joseph   Date: 14 Sep 2007 13:48:15 From: joseph.santaniello@gmail.com Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats On Sep 14, 10:06 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > wrote: > <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1189796270.375319.50190@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Sep 14, 8:43 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: > >> "Wayne Pein" <wp...@nc.rr.com> wrote in message > > >>news:46eac235$0$32545$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > > >> > bdbafh wrote: > > >> >> A situation that evoked a honk from a displeased motorist yesterday on > >> >> PA State Route 463 west just northwest of where the BicyclePA south > >> >> route heads to the north ... > > >> >> A right turn lane splits off to the right with no additional lane > >> >> striping for bikes. I took the normal action of riding a few inches to > >> >> the right of the white stripe that separated the through lane from the > >> >> right turn lane. An angry, clueless motorist passes by closely, > >> >> honking. This evokes the normal display of a hand signal from me, > >> >> along with a "lets go, right now!" with me pointing to the shoulder. > > >> >> Obviously the motorist made an unsafe pass. They didn't take me up on > >> >> the offer to discuss their infraction after dropping their weapon > >> >> (exiting the vehicle). > > >> >> Perhaps I'll change my tactic there to just take the lane instead of > >> >> splitting the through lane and right turn lane, preventing such an > >> >> unsafe pass next time. > > >> > It sounds as if you were a through bicyclist but riding in the > >> > right-turn-only lane. Such riding sends an ambiguous message and is not > >> > in > >> > accordance with the rules of the road. You should use proper > >> > destination > >> > positioning. > > >> > Wayne > > >> Do you mean that he should have been in the middle of the road in the > >> lane > >> cars use to go straight as oppossed to the right lane where he feels > >> safer > >> but is designated for right turns only by cars? I think you're right, but > >> then again I've seen motorists so confused that they might just roll > >> right > >> over me when the light turns green not out of avarice, but out of a > >> desire > >> to be courteous to the drivers behind them who are equipped with loud > >> horns > >> that they eagerly use. I'm serious. I bet there are people that would at > >> least nudge you out of the way with their bumpers if you don't move fast > >> enough. > > > I'm curious where you ride that has such an unpleasant atmosphere. I > > meet with the occasional jerk out on the road, but for the most part > > everywhere I've been, most people are ok. The numers of jerks and > > incompetents varies widely of course, but they are still always in the > > significant minority. > > > Joseph > > New York In the city? What part? Some parts are surely worse than others, but you also run into other types of prejudice and stereotyping that may be making people treat you extra poorly. > > The majority of people are sane and polite. It only takes one insane driver > in a lifetime to turn you into a stastic or a vegetable and while there > aren't lunatics on every corner, there are more than enough lunatics to go > around. That is of course true. But those wackos are everywhere, and for the most part they pay no heed to laws or fines. There is a stretch of road near my house that was recently changed from a 60km/h zone to a 50km/h zone because it would be safer in theory. In the paper the other day they said that last week the cops had a radar post set up for 24 hours there and caught 2 different drivers going 140 in this 50 zone! Those are the sorts of people to avoid, and those types don't give a shit if it's 50 or 60, they don't give a shit about anything. And no amount of schooling or infrastructure will get rid of those types of people. Those are the people that make riding dangerous. Joseph     Date: 14 Sep 2007 18:23:02 From: Greens Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats <joseph.santaniello@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1189802895.369056.142070@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 14, 10:06 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: >> <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1189796270.375319.50190@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Sep 14, 8:43 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: >> >> "Wayne Pein" <wp...@nc.rr.com> wrote in message >> >> >>news:46eac235$0$32545$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >> >> >> > bdbafh wrote: >> >> >> >> A situation that evoked a honk from a displeased motorist yesterday >> >> >> on >> >> >> PA State Route 463 west just northwest of where the BicyclePA south >> >> >> route heads to the north ... >> >> >> >> A right turn lane splits off to the right with no additional lane >> >> >> striping for bikes. I took the normal action of riding a few inches >> >> >> to >> >> >> the right of the white stripe that separated the through lane from >> >> >> the >> >> >> right turn lane. An angry, clueless motorist passes by closely, >> >> >> honking. This evokes the normal display of a hand signal from me, >> >> >> along with a "lets go, right now!" with me pointing to the >> >> >> shoulder. >> >> >> >> Obviously the motorist made an unsafe pass. They didn't take me up >> >> >> on >> >> >> the offer to discuss their infraction after dropping their weapon >> >> >> (exiting the vehicle). >> >> >> >> Perhaps I'll change my tactic there to just take the lane instead >> >> >> of >> >> >> splitting the through lane and right turn lane, preventing such an >> >> >> unsafe pass next time. >> >> >> > It sounds as if you were a through bicyclist but riding in the >> >> > right-turn-only lane. Such riding sends an ambiguous message and is >> >> > not >> >> > in >> >> > accordance with the rules of the road. You should use proper >> >> > destination >> >> > positioning. >> >> >> > Wayne >> >> >> Do you mean that he should have been in the middle of the road in the >> >> lane >> >> cars use to go straight as oppossed to the right lane where he feels >> >> safer >> >> but is designated for right turns only by cars? I think you're right, >> >> but >> >> then again I've seen motorists so confused that they might just roll >> >> right >> >> over me when the light turns green not out of avarice, but out of a >> >> desire >> >> to be courteous to the drivers behind them who are equipped with loud >> >> horns >> >> that they eagerly use. I'm serious. I bet there are people that would >> >> at >> >> least nudge you out of the way with their bumpers if you don't move >> >> fast >> >> enough. >> >> > I'm curious where you ride that has such an unpleasant atmosphere. I >> > meet with the occasional jerk out on the road, but for the most part >> > everywhere I've been, most people are ok. The numers of jerks and >> > incompetents varies widely of course, but they are still always in the >> > significant minority. >> >> > Joseph >> >> New York > > In the city? What part? Some parts are surely worse than others, but > you also run into other types of prejudice and stereotyping that may > be making people treat you extra poorly. > >> >> The majority of people are sane and polite. It only takes one insane >> driver >> in a lifetime to turn you into a stastic or a vegetable and while there >> aren't lunatics on every corner, there are more than enough lunatics to >> go >> around. > > That is of course true. But those wackos are everywhere, and for the > most part they pay no heed to laws or fines. There is a stretch of > road near my house that was recently changed from a 60km/h zone to a > 50km/h zone because it would be safer in theory. In the paper the > other day they said that last week the cops had a radar post set up > for 24 hours there and caught 2 different drivers going 140 in this 50 > zone! Those are the sorts of people to avoid, and those types don't > give a shit if it's 50 or 60, they don't give a shit about anything. > And no amount of schooling or infrastructure will get rid of those > types of people. Those are the people that make riding dangerous. > > Joseph > I live out in the country. You might think it's safer out here, but I believe cycling is more of a novelty out here than in NYC. Certainly I've never seen anyone but myself in the left hand turn lane at a light. I stopped doing it since one guy behind me kept edging up with his bumper while the light was still red. I had the feeling he was trying to tell me that as soon as it turned green he was going to go as though no one was in front of him. There's a kind of body language to cars sometimes.   Date: 14 Sep 2007 13:38:12 From: joseph.santaniello@gmail.com Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats On Sep 14, 9:47 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > wrote: > <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1189794424.292195.30580@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Sep 14, 8:06 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: > >> "autopi" <iamnetf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > >>news:1189777406.952785.156280@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com... > > >> >i recently read something--i think it was linked off bikesnobnyc-- > >> > about cycling accidents in brooklyn, and the author claimed that in a > >> > large majority of cases, it was the cyclist who was at fault. > >> > certainly this corresponds to what i see on my commute--bikers riding > >> > through busy intersections, going the wrong way down one-way streets, > >> > stopping in the middle of a busy bike lane, etc.. does anyone have > >> > information about this? are cyclists in the US more reckless than > >> > counterparts in europe? > > >> > however, let it be said that in my experience, drivers in france are > >> > much more courteous and competent at sharing the road than their > >> > american brethren. > > >> > i also suspect part of the difference may come down to difference in > >> > attitude. in some locales, cycling is understood as a normal means of > >> > transport. in the US, only crazy people, kids and lycra-wearing > >> > extremists (i.e., crazy people) ride bikes on the road. not that > >> > people are intentionally running bikers off the road for this reason, > >> > but it may mean drivers are less likely to keep in mind the need to > >> > give adequate room to cyclists, look before opening doors or making a > >> > turn, etc.. > > >> Cyclists in the USA have little reason to respect motorists, cops or the > >> law. All of them act as though cyclists are impeding their progress. > >> Cycling > >> is seen as something for children and people who've never grown up and > >> also > >> the aforementioned fitness fanatics. Infrastructure, law enforcement are > >> designed in such a way that they wordlessly shout, "Get off the road with > >> that stupid bicycle, you idiot! Get a car! Get a life! I'm late for my > >> nose > >> piercing! I gotta get my pit bull a new collar and the store closes in > >> five > >> minutes! I can't help it I'm late. I was all caught up in Dr. Phil's > >> show." > > > My cycling experience in the US is in NYC, Chicago, LA, and I've > > ridden in Rockies in Colorado. All those places were vastly more > > pleasant to ride in than the European cities I've ridden in: Paris, > > London, Milan, Oslo, Amsterdam, Barcelona. Those European citeis were > > just too crowded and the drivers drove much faster (when not sitting > > in a jam) and put their cars WAY too close to me. Those drivers seemed > > to know what they were doing, but it was my life they were gambling > > with. In the US I was always given a much wider berth and the driving > > scene is just much more relaxed. Out on country roads, I have been > > most comfortable in Spain and Italy, despite how fast they drivers and > > how many cars as they seem aware of me and the other road users. This > > has nothing to do with infrastructure. Nor enforcement. In Paris I saw > > a guy get hit on his bike right in front of a police officer who did > > nothing other than watch as the driver and the rider argued a bit then > > exchanged info. > > > Again, I'm not arguing against proper infrastructure, nor suggesting > > that riding in some semi-suburban cities in the US is pleasant, I'm > > just saying that the cyclist-motorist relationship isn't made by cops > > or bike paths. > > > Joseph > > WOOOOOOooooo! Thanks for the info, Mister World Traveler. You chose to mock, but direct experience is a valuable thing. Joseph     Date: 14 Sep 2007 17:57:01 From: Greens Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats <joseph.santaniello@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1189802292.569077.256230@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 14, 9:47 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: >> <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1189794424.292195.30580@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Sep 14, 8:06 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: >> >> "autopi" <iamnetf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> >> >>news:1189777406.952785.156280@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >i recently read something--i think it was linked off bikesnobnyc-- >> >> > about cycling accidents in brooklyn, and the author claimed that in >> >> > a >> >> > large majority of cases, it was the cyclist who was at fault. >> >> > certainly this corresponds to what i see on my commute--bikers >> >> > riding >> >> > through busy intersections, going the wrong way down one-way >> >> > streets, >> >> > stopping in the middle of a busy bike lane, etc.. does anyone have >> >> > information about this? are cyclists in the US more reckless than >> >> > counterparts in europe? >> >> >> > however, let it be said that in my experience, drivers in france are >> >> > much more courteous and competent at sharing the road than their >> >> > american brethren. >> >> >> > i also suspect part of the difference may come down to difference in >> >> > attitude. in some locales, cycling is understood as a normal means >> >> > of >> >> > transport. in the US, only crazy people, kids and lycra-wearing >> >> > extremists (i.e., crazy people) ride bikes on the road. not that >> >> > people are intentionally running bikers off the road for this >> >> > reason, >> >> > but it may mean drivers are less likely to keep in mind the need to >> >> > give adequate room to cyclists, look before opening doors or making >> >> > a >> >> > turn, etc.. >> >> >> Cyclists in the USA have little reason to respect motorists, cops or >> >> the >> >> law. All of them act as though cyclists are impeding their progress. >> >> Cycling >> >> is seen as something for children and people who've never grown up and >> >> also >> >> the aforementioned fitness fanatics. Infrastructure, law enforcement >> >> are >> >> designed in such a way that they wordlessly shout, "Get off the road >> >> with >> >> that stupid bicycle, you idiot! Get a car! Get a life! I'm late for my >> >> nose >> >> piercing! I gotta get my pit bull a new collar and the store closes in >> >> five >> >> minutes! I can't help it I'm late. I was all caught up in Dr. Phil's >> >> show." >> >> > My cycling experience in the US is in NYC, Chicago, LA, and I've >> > ridden in Rockies in Colorado. All those places were vastly more >> > pleasant to ride in than the European cities I've ridden in: Paris, >> > London, Milan, Oslo, Amsterdam, Barcelona. Those European citeis were >> > just too crowded and the drivers drove much faster (when not sitting >> > in a jam) and put their cars WAY too close to me. Those drivers seemed >> > to know what they were doing, but it was my life they were gambling >> > with. In the US I was always given a much wider berth and the driving >> > scene is just much more relaxed. Out on country roads, I have been >> > most comfortable in Spain and Italy, despite how fast they drivers and >> > how many cars as they seem aware of me and the other road users. This >> > has nothing to do with infrastructure. Nor enforcement. In Paris I saw >> > a guy get hit on his bike right in front of a police officer who did >> > nothing other than watch as the driver and the rider argued a bit then >> > exchanged info. >> >> > Again, I'm not arguing against proper infrastructure, nor suggesting >> > that riding in some semi-suburban cities in the US is pleasant, I'm >> > just saying that the cyclist-motorist relationship isn't made by cops >> > or bike paths. >> >> > Joseph >> >> WOOOOOOooooo! Thanks for the info, Mister World Traveler. > > You chose to mock, but direct experience is a valuable thing. > > Joseph > Actually I enjoyed your post. It was thoughtful and intelligent. I made the stupid comment for comic relief. Sorry.   Date: 14 Sep 2007 13:36:56 From: joseph.santaniello@gmail.com Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats On Sep 14, 9:42 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > wrote: > <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1189793241.336355.92810@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Sep 14, 7:47 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: > >> <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > >>news:1189776543.879931.218790@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > > >> > On Sep 14, 12:33 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: > >> >> U.S. Bikers Less Safe Than European Counterparts > > >> >> In the United States, cyclists are 12 times more likely than people > >> >> in > >> >> cars to die en route to their destinations. On a per-kilometer and > >> >> per-trip > >> >> basis, U.S. cyclists are twice as likely to die on the road as German > >> >> cyclists, and more than three times as likely as Dutch cyclists. While > >> >> cycling fatalities in all of these countries have fallen in the last > >> >> 25 > >> >> years, U.S. cycling deaths have declined largely because of a drop in > >> >> cycling, while in the Netherlands and Germany investments in > >> >> infrastructure > >> >> that make cycling safer account for much of the decline. > > >> >> http://www.thebicyclebum.com/ > > >> > I'm not saying cycling in the US is safe or anything, but comparing > >> > these countries is like apples and oranges. Holland is as big as New > >> > Jersey but has twice as many people with lots of congested urban areas > >> > jammed full of folks on bikes. Lots of "normal" people too taking > >> > short trips down to the baker, etc. Germany is perhaps a better > >> > comparison, but still isn't really comparable. > > >> > In the US it seems to me bike users are either winos on their way to > >> > the liquour store the wrong way at night, or fitness cyclists out on > >> > relatively long rides on roads with fast car traffic. These are both > >> > more dangerous than putting along basically on the sidewalk in a > >> > congested urban area like millions do in Holland. I'm sure this skews > >> > the numbers at least some. > > >> > Joseph > > >> In other words you don't think the entirely different attitude that > >> authorities and society have towards cycling makes any difference? You > >> blame > >> America's poor stats on the cyclists themselves. They're either drunks or > >> fitness freaks riding on roads where they don't belong. > > > I'm just saying I'm wary of comparing apples and oranges. The numbers > > are skewed by the fact that a huge number of people in Holland and > > Germany use bikes in ways that are not that common in the US. They > > ride them at a leisurely pace in a congested urban environment. If I > > were to take a 100 mile ride on some random American country road I > > don't think I'd be 3x as likely to be hit than if I were to take a 100 > > mile ride in Holland. They are probably reasonably similar in terms of > > risk. But if you want to talk about safety per distance, in the US my > > 100 mile ride on a moderatly dangerous country road also has some > > number of "safe" miles riddden by other cyclists putting around in > > town. Maybe 100. In Holland my 100 mile ride in a moderatly dangerous > > road would be offset by thousdands of safe miles ridden by others. > > This isn't an argument for not having proper infrastructure, just > > pointing out that the populations of bike users are vastly different. > > And it's not just infrastructure that makes it that way. > > > Joseph > > >> In Germany and The Netherlands the motoist almost always gets the > >> majority > >> of the blame in cycling accidents and pedestrian deaths. Instead of > >> encouraging car culture and motorist arrogance in those countries they > >> have > >> a master plan to reduce deaths among cyclists and peds. They have > >> different > >> infrastructure, i.e, cities designed for humans instead of cities > >> designed > >> for cars and so much more. > > That doesn't change the fact that you tend to point to cyclists as the cause > of their own problems. The Krauts spend a lot of time in driving school > learning about what shitheads cyclists are so that they don't hit them. In > America the attitude is "That guy's a shithead (a cyclist has done something > illegal or weird). I now have the right to hit him with my car." > > You're part of that type of thinking. I'm not saying at all that cyclist are the cause of their own problems. Of course the way the motorsist drive has a huge effect on how dangerous it is to ride a bike. I'm just saying that in the US that most bike riding is of the dangerous sort, while in Europe there is riding of the dangerous sort going on, as well as a huge amount of non-dangerous riding, and this means that direct comparisons don't give a clear picture of how safe or not it actually is. Joseph   Date: 14 Sep 2007 13:01:23 From: autopi Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats i'm not sure anyone here is disagreeing about anything--but i'm not sure. certainly i agree that it is NOT true that increasing the # of cyclists necessarily causes a decrease in # of injuries per cyclist. as i understand it, that's what your example shows. of course it does not show that this never happens, only that it does not always happen. i am confused as to what it means to say that awareness is an "individual" vs. a "population" thing? i am also confused as to what people mean by "awareness." in jay's first post, he seemed to be thinking of awareness as "consciousness of whether there are 1, 2 ... n # of cyclists on the streets in a given town at a given time." (i agree with clive that that misses the point of awareness by a country mile; awareness i would have thought meant that a given driver is more likely to think about looking over his shoulder before swinging open his door, to not try to squeeze by a cyclist when there isn't room, etc..) in his later post, jay is talking about driver behavior--a very different thing. and then wayne seems to agree with jay that awareness is not an important factor in explaining auto-bike collisions, but then says that he subscribes to the proposition that "the more cyclists the safer"--which as i understand jay, is exactly what *he* rejects. so basically it seems to me that no one is actually talking about the same thing here, so it's hard to see if there's any point on which anyone actually disagrees.     Date: 14 Sep 2007 18:16:21 From: Greens Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats "autopi" <iamnetflix@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1189800083.760741.90720@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > i'm not sure anyone here is disagreeing about anything--but i'm not > sure. certainly i agree that it is NOT true that increasing the # of > cyclists necessarily causes a decrease in # of injuries per cyclist. > as i understand it, that's what your example shows. of course it does > not show that this never happens, only that it does not always happen. > > i am confused as to what it means to say that awareness is an > "individual" vs. a "population" thing? > > i am also confused as to what people mean by "awareness." in jay's > first post, he seemed to be thinking of awareness as "consciousness of > whether there are 1, 2 ... n # of cyclists on the streets in a given > town at a given time." (i agree with clive that that misses the point > of awareness by a country mile; awareness i would have thought meant > that a given driver is more likely to think about looking over his > shoulder before swinging open his door, to not try to squeeze by a > cyclist when there isn't room, etc..) in his later post, jay is > talking about driver behavior--a very different thing. > > and then wayne seems to agree with jay that awareness is not an > important factor in explaining auto-bike collisions, but then says > that he subscribes to the proposition that "the more cyclists the > safer"--which as i understand jay, is exactly what *he* rejects. > > so basically it seems to me that no one is actually talking about the > same thing here, so it's hard to see if there's any point on which > anyone actually disagrees. > "it's hard to see if there's any point on which anyone actually disagrees" That won't keep a huge flame war from breaking out. People pointing out that there is no disagreement will then be told that there is. This infuriating stupidity will eventually set off even the most level headed of posters. At that point the flaming troll's allies will rush to their comrade's defense with allegations that "you said this or that" when you haven't said that or that doesn't have anything to do with anything and so on and on...   Date: 14 Sep 2007 12:06:25 From: joseph.santaniello@gmail.com Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats On Sep 14, 9:04 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > wrote: > "bdbafh" <bdb...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1189789418.468619.287770@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Sep 14, 6:33 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: > >> U.S. Bikers Less Safe Than European Counterparts > > >> In the United States, cyclists are 12 times more likely than people in > >> cars to die en route to their destinations. On a per-kilometer and > >> per-trip > >> basis, U.S. cyclists are twice as likely to die on the road as German > >> cyclists, and more than three times as likely as Dutch cyclists. While > >> cycling fatalities in all of these countries have fallen in the last 25 > >> years, U.S. cycling deaths have declined largely because of a drop in > >> cycling, while in the Netherlands and Germany investments in > >> infrastructure > >> that make cycling safer account for much of the decline. > > >> http://www.thebicyclebum.com/ > > > note: I didn't read the fine article. > > > A situation that evoked a honk from a displeased motorist yesterday on > > PA State Route 463 west just northwest of where the BicyclePA south > > route heads to the north ... > > > A right turn lane splits off to the right with no additional lane > > striping for bikes. I took the normal action of riding a few inches to > > the right of the white stripe that separated the through lane from the > > right turn lane. An angry, clueless motorist passes by closely, > > honking. This evokes the normal display of a hand signal from me, > > along with a "lets go, right now!" with me pointing to the shoulder. > > > Obviously the motorist made an unsafe pass. They didn't take me up on > > the offer to discuss their infraction after dropping their weapon > > (exiting the vehicle). > > > Perhaps I'll change my tactic there to just take the lane instead of > > splitting the through lane and right turn lane, preventing such an > > unsafe pass next time. > > > -bdbafh > > Yea. They're very arrogant and sure of themselves while they're in their > protective cages. And of course it's easier to keep a heavy firearm in a car > than it is on a bike so don't be so eager to catch them. But a handgun shoved into some lycra shorts if VERY noticable. I rode a few times in Brooklyn with a guy from the West Indies who rode around armed. Folks are few and far between who would have dared give this guy any shit! Joseph     Date: 14 Sep 2007 16:44:03 From: (PeteCresswell) Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats Per joseph.santaniello@gmail.com: >But a handgun shoved into some lycra shorts if VERY noticable. I rode >a few times in Brooklyn with a guy from the West Indies who rode >around armed. Folks are few and far between who would have dared give >this guy any shit! That's when I sold my Norton 750 and stopped riding motorcycles: when my bud's practice of carrying a loaded .44 magnum in his gas tank bag started sounding reasonable to me. It was one of those "Omygod *what* am I thinking!!!???" moments. -- PeteCresswell       Date: 14 Sep 2007 19:01:08 From: vey Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats (PeteCresswell) wrote: > > That's when I sold my Norton 750 and stopped riding motorcycles: I stopped riding my motorcycle after 18(!) cars pulled out in front of me causing me to slow-down each time on a single twenty mile drive. Yes, my headlight was on, they saw me, and they didn't care.         Date: 14 Sep 2007 16:24:38 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats vey wrote: > I stopped riding my motorcycle after 18(!) cars pulled out in front of > me causing me to slow-down each time on a single twenty mile drive. > Yes, my headlight was on, they saw me, and they didn't care. Oy, vey.           Date: 14 Sep 2007 20:49:44 From: vey Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats Bill Sornson wrote: > vey wrote: > >> I stopped riding my motorcycle after 18(!) cars pulled out in front of >> me causing me to slow-down each time on a single twenty mile drive. >> Yes, my headlight was on, they saw me, and they didn't care. > > Oy, vey. > > Oy, Sornson.             Date: 14 Sep 2007 19:25:43 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats vey wrote: > Bill Sornson wrote: >> vey wrote: >> >>> I stopped riding my motorcycle after 18(!) cars pulled out in front >>> of me causing me to slow-down each time on a single twenty mile >>> drive. Yes, my headlight was on, they saw me, and they didn't care. >> >> Oy, vey. >> >> > Oy, Sornson. soy sauce! Bill "channeling gene" S.               Date: 14 Sep 2007 22:55:51 From: vey Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats Bill Sornson wrote: > vey wrote: >> Bill Sornson wrote: >>> vey wrote: >>> >>>> I stopped riding my motorcycle after 18(!) cars pulled out in front >>>> of me causing me to slow-down each time on a single twenty mile >>>> drive. Yes, my headlight was on, they saw me, and they didn't care. >>> Oy, vey. >>> >>> >> Oy, Sornson. > > soy sauce! > > Bill "channeling gene" S. > > Why are you making fun of my name?                 Date: 14 Sep 2007 21:08:33 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats vey wrote: > Bill Sornson wrote: >> vey wrote: >>> Bill Sornson wrote: >>>> vey wrote: >>>> >>>>> I stopped riding my motorcycle after 18(!) cars pulled out in >>>>> front of me causing me to slow-down each time on a single twenty >>>>> mile drive. Yes, my headlight was on, they saw me, and they >>>>> didn't care. Oy, vey. >>>> >>>> >>> Oy, Sornson. >> >> soy sauce! >> >> Bill "channeling gene" S. >> >> > > Why are you making fun of my name? Oh for God's sake. You described some scary motorcycle incidents and I said, "Oy, vey" as a play on your USER name. (Or is your last name "vey" with a small 'v'?) WHY IS EVERYONE SO THIN-SKINNED NOWADAZE? Bill "slightly offended by that 'Oy, Sornson' crack" S.     Date: 14 Sep 2007 16:14:21 From: Greens Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats <joseph.santaniello@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1189796785.771463.176060@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 14, 9:04 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: >> "bdbafh" <bdb...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1189789418.468619.287770@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Sep 14, 6:33 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: >> >> U.S. Bikers Less Safe Than European Counterparts >> >> >> In the United States, cyclists are 12 times more likely than people >> >> in >> >> cars to die en route to their destinations. On a per-kilometer and >> >> per-trip >> >> basis, U.S. cyclists are twice as likely to die on the road as German >> >> cyclists, and more than three times as likely as Dutch cyclists. While >> >> cycling fatalities in all of these countries have fallen in the last >> >> 25 >> >> years, U.S. cycling deaths have declined largely because of a drop in >> >> cycling, while in the Netherlands and Germany investments in >> >> infrastructure >> >> that make cycling safer account for much of the decline. >> >> >> http://www.thebicyclebum.com/ >> >> > note: I didn't read the fine article. >> >> > A situation that evoked a honk from a displeased motorist yesterday on >> > PA State Route 463 west just northwest of where the BicyclePA south >> > route heads to the north ... >> >> > A right turn lane splits off to the right with no additional lane >> > striping for bikes. I took the normal action of riding a few inches to >> > the right of the white stripe that separated the through lane from the >> > right turn lane. An angry, clueless motorist passes by closely, >> > honking. This evokes the normal display of a hand signal from me, >> > along with a "lets go, right now!" with me pointing to the shoulder. >> >> > Obviously the motorist made an unsafe pass. They didn't take me up on >> > the offer to discuss their infraction after dropping their weapon >> > (exiting the vehicle). >> >> > Perhaps I'll change my tactic there to just take the lane instead of >> > splitting the through lane and right turn lane, preventing such an >> > unsafe pass next time. >> >> > -bdbafh >> >> Yea. They're very arrogant and sure of themselves while they're in their >> protective cages. And of course it's easier to keep a heavy firearm in a >> car >> than it is on a bike so don't be so eager to catch them. > > But a handgun shoved into some lycra shorts if VERY noticable. I rode > a few times in Brooklyn with a guy from the West Indies who rode > around armed. Folks are few and far between who would have dared give > this guy any shit! > > Joseph > True. but in reality it's hard to hit someone on foot with a handgun while you're on foot. It'd be much harder to hit someone in car while you're riding a bike or just got knocked off a bike. It's purpose is to give a false sense of security. The driver can circle around and stealthily come up from behind with his handgun and pick you off easily if he has a passenger to do the job. Or just hit you with the car. Even if you are successful in shooting a motorist, you'll have to explain yourself to the law and the law frowns on retribution and shooting at people on populated streets, especially when the shot are just trying to drive away. If you get away, you're now wanted and assumed guilty of something. Do you really want to ride your bike through that neighborhood again? (it might work in NYC but not my neighborhood. I'm just not anonymous enough here.) What you need is a big gun and a international teleporter.   Date: 14 Sep 2007 11:57:50 From: joseph.santaniello@gmail.com Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats On Sep 14, 8:43 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > wrote: > "Wayne Pein" <wp...@nc.rr.com> wrote in message > > news:46eac235$0$32545$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > > > > > bdbafh wrote: > > >> A situation that evoked a honk from a displeased motorist yesterday on > >> PA State Route 463 west just northwest of where the BicyclePA south > >> route heads to the north ... > > >> A right turn lane splits off to the right with no additional lane > >> striping for bikes. I took the normal action of riding a few inches to > >> the right of the white stripe that separated the through lane from the > >> right turn lane. An angry, clueless motorist passes by closely, > >> honking. This evokes the normal display of a hand signal from me, > >> along with a "lets go, right now!" with me pointing to the shoulder. > > >> Obviously the motorist made an unsafe pass. They didn't take me up on > >> the offer to discuss their infraction after dropping their weapon > >> (exiting the vehicle). > > >> Perhaps I'll change my tactic there to just take the lane instead of > >> splitting the through lane and right turn lane, preventing such an > >> unsafe pass next time. > > > It sounds as if you were a through bicyclist but riding in the > > right-turn-only lane. Such riding sends an ambiguous message and is not in > > accordance with the rules of the road. You should use proper destination > > positioning. > > > Wayne > > Do you mean that he should have been in the middle of the road in the lane > cars use to go straight as oppossed to the right lane where he feels safer > but is designated for right turns only by cars? I think you're right, but > then again I've seen motorists so confused that they might just roll right > over me when the light turns green not out of avarice, but out of a desire > to be courteous to the drivers behind them who are equipped with loud horns > that they eagerly use. I'm serious. I bet there are people that would at > least nudge you out of the way with their bumpers if you don't move fast > enough. I'm curious where you ride that has such an unpleasant atmosphere. I meet with the occasional jerk out on the road, but for the most part everywhere I've been, most people are ok. The numers of jerks and incompetents varies widely of course, but they are still always in the significant minority. Joseph     Date: 14 Sep 2007 16:06:54 From: Greens Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats <joseph.santaniello@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1189796270.375319.50190@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 14, 8:43 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: >> "Wayne Pein" <wp...@nc.rr.com> wrote in message >> >> news:46eac235$0$32545$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >> >> >> >> > bdbafh wrote: >> >> >> A situation that evoked a honk from a displeased motorist yesterday on >> >> PA State Route 463 west just northwest of where the BicyclePA south >> >> route heads to the north ... >> >> >> A right turn lane splits off to the right with no additional lane >> >> striping for bikes. I took the normal action of riding a few inches to >> >> the right of the white stripe that separated the through lane from the >> >> right turn lane. An angry, clueless motorist passes by closely, >> >> honking. This evokes the normal display of a hand signal from me, >> >> along with a "lets go, right now!" with me pointing to the shoulder. >> >> >> Obviously the motorist made an unsafe pass. They didn't take me up on >> >> the offer to discuss their infraction after dropping their weapon >> >> (exiting the vehicle). >> >> >> Perhaps I'll change my tactic there to just take the lane instead of >> >> splitting the through lane and right turn lane, preventing such an >> >> unsafe pass next time. >> >> > It sounds as if you were a through bicyclist but riding in the >> > right-turn-only lane. Such riding sends an ambiguous message and is not >> > in >> > accordance with the rules of the road. You should use proper >> > destination >> > positioning. >> >> > Wayne >> >> Do you mean that he should have been in the middle of the road in the >> lane >> cars use to go straight as oppossed to the right lane where he feels >> safer >> but is designated for right turns only by cars? I think you're right, but >> then again I've seen motorists so confused that they might just roll >> right >> over me when the light turns green not out of avarice, but out of a >> desire >> to be courteous to the drivers behind them who are equipped with loud >> horns >> that they eagerly use. I'm serious. I bet there are people that would at >> least nudge you out of the way with their bumpers if you don't move fast >> enough. > > I'm curious where you ride that has such an unpleasant atmosphere. I > meet with the occasional jerk out on the road, but for the most part > everywhere I've been, most people are ok. The numers of jerks and > incompetents varies widely of course, but they are still always in the > significant minority. > > Joseph > New York The majority of people are sane and polite. It only takes one insane driver in a lifetime to turn you into a stastic or a vegetable and while there aren't lunatics on every corner, there are more than enough lunatics to go around.       Date: 15 Sep 2007 23:26:41 From: (PeteCresswell) Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats Per Greens: >New York > >The majority of people are sane and polite. It only takes one insane driver >in a lifetime to turn you into a stastic or a vegetable and while there >aren't lunatics on every corner, there are more than enough lunatics to go >around. After putting in seven years as treasurer of a 1,200-member civic association, I reached the conclusion that out of every thousand people three of them are stone crazy at any given moment. One of them is may be the same schizophrenic day-after day, but the other two rotate continually. -- PeteCresswell       Date: 14 Sep 2007 21:58:49 From: A Muzi Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats >>>> bdbafh wrote: >>>>> A situation that evoked a honk from a displeased motorist yesterday on >>>>> PA State Route 463 west just northwest of where the BicyclePA south >>>>> route heads to the north ... >>>>> A right turn lane splits off to the right with no additional lane >>>>> striping for bikes. I took the normal action of riding a few inches to >>>>> the right of the white stripe that separated the through lane from the >>>>> right turn lane. An angry, clueless motorist passes by closely, >>>>> honking. This evokes the normal display of a hand signal from me, >>>>> along with a "lets go, right now!" with me pointing to the shoulder. >>>>> Obviously the motorist made an unsafe pass. They didn't take me up on >>>>> the offer to discuss their infraction after dropping their weapon >>>>> (exiting the vehicle). >>>>> Perhaps I'll change my tactic there to just take the lane instead of >>>>> splitting the through lane and right turn lane, preventing such an >>>>> unsafe pass next time. >>> "Wayne Pein" <wp...@nc.rr.com> wrote >>>> It sounds as if you were a through bicyclist but riding in the >>>> right-turn-only lane. Such riding sends an ambiguous message and is not >>>> in >>>> accordance with the rules of the road. You should use proper >>>> destination >>>> positioning. >> "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: >>> Do you mean that he should have been in the middle of the road in the >>> lane >>> cars use to go straight as oppossed to the right lane where he feels >>> safer >>> but is designated for right turns only by cars? I think you're right, but >>> then again I've seen motorists so confused that they might just roll >>> right >>> over me when the light turns green not out of avarice, but out of a >>> desire >>> to be courteous to the drivers behind them who are equipped with loud >>> horns >>> that they eagerly use. I'm serious. I bet there are people that would at >>> least nudge you out of the way with their bumpers if you don't move fast >>> enough. > <joseph.santaniello@gmail.com> wrote >> I'm curious where you ride that has such an unpleasant atmosphere. I >> meet with the occasional jerk out on the road, but for the most part >> everywhere I've been, most people are ok. The numers of jerks and >> incompetents varies widely of course, but they are still always in the >> significant minority. Greens wrote: > New York > The majority of people are sane and polite. It only takes one insane driver > in a lifetime to turn you into a stastic or a vegetable and while there > aren't lunatics on every corner, there are more than enough lunatics to go > around. In fairness, the usual near-death-experience I've had on the bike this year is more from inattention, cel phone, distraction, incompetence than from animosity. I haven't seen aggression in a good long while. I see more lane drift and running of lights by drivers caught up in a telephone conversation now. YMMV. I'm sure this is situational by neighborhood/time of day. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971         Date: 15 Sep 2007 23:29:12 From: (PeteCresswell) Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats Per A Muzi: >I see >more lane drift and running of lights by drivers caught up in a >telephone conversation now. YMMV. I'm sure this is situational by >neighborhood/time of day. Some months ago I was running the Atlantic City Expressway in the right lane. Out of the corner of my eye, I saw this Jeep Cherokee drifting across the line into me. While taking to the shoulder, I glanced over at the guy - who was holding a cell phone in his left hand and (intently...) punching in a number with his right hand. -- PeteCresswell         Date: 15 Sep 2007 08:26:51 From: Ted Bennett Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org > wrote: > > Greens wrote: > > New York > > The majority of people are sane and polite. It only takes one insane driver > > in a lifetime to turn you into a stastic or a vegetable and while there > > aren't lunatics on every corner, there are more than enough lunatics to go > > around. > > In fairness, the usual near-death-experience I've had on the bike this > year is more from inattention, cel phone, distraction, incompetence than > from animosity. I haven't seen aggression in a good long while. I see > more lane drift and running of lights by drivers caught up in a > telephone conversation now. YMMV. I'm sure this is situational by > neighborhood/time of day. That is a fair reflection of my own experiences. While there are some true homicidal maniacs out there, most drivers have no intention at all of harming anyone. It's heartening to read Greens' comment above, but I regard some of his other comments as evidence of an unreasonable fear or over-reaction to inadvertent driving errors. When drivers do make such errors, it's bound to anger or alarm affected cyclists by reminding them of how vulnerable they are in the company of cars, trucks and busses. I still am at a loss about how to respond to those situations. Example: I was nearly taken out by a car in a classic right-hook maneuver, and promptly followed the driver into the parking lot where I loudly reamed him out, backed up by an excess of adrenaline. His reaction was one of fear and aggression, whacking my bike with some sort of stick he had handy. (Sorta like some of the discussions here.) By this time a crowd had gathered and I had cooled down enough to observe that the driver was a mild-looking banker in a Volvo who was already regretting his attack, so I just informed him that I was calling the police and left the scene. I did not call the police, imagining that a), they would not be helpful and b) the banker would spend an anxious day in his cubicle and the memory of that would stay with him for some time. Ted -- Ted Bennett   Date: 14 Sep 2007 11:27:04 From: joseph.santaniello@gmail.com Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats On Sep 14, 8:06 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > wrote: > "autopi" <iamnetf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:1189777406.952785.156280@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com... > > > > >i recently read something--i think it was linked off bikesnobnyc-- > > about cycling accidents in brooklyn, and the author claimed that in a > > large majority of cases, it was the cyclist who was at fault. > > certainly this corresponds to what i see on my commute--bikers riding > > through busy intersections, going the wrong way down one-way streets, > > stopping in the middle of a busy bike lane, etc.. does anyone have > > information about this? are cyclists in the US more reckless than > > counterparts in europe? > > > however, let it be said that in my experience, drivers in france are > > much more courteous and competent at sharing the road than their > > american brethren. > > > i also suspect part of the difference may come down to difference in > > attitude. in some locales, cycling is understood as a normal means of > > transport. in the US, only crazy people, kids and lycra-wearing > > extremists (i.e., crazy people) ride bikes on the road. not that > > people are intentionally running bikers off the road for this reason, > > but it may mean drivers are less likely to keep in mind the need to > > give adequate room to cyclists, look before opening doors or making a > > turn, etc.. > > Cyclists in the USA have little reason to respect motorists, cops or the > law. All of them act as though cyclists are impeding their progress. Cycling > is seen as something for children and people who've never grown up and also > the aforementioned fitness fanatics. Infrastructure, law enforcement are > designed in such a way that they wordlessly shout, "Get off the road with > that stupid bicycle, you idiot! Get a car! Get a life! I'm late for my nose > piercing! I gotta get my pit bull a new collar and the store closes in five > minutes! I can't help it I'm late. I was all caught up in Dr. Phil's show." My cycling experience in the US is in NYC, Chicago, LA, and I've ridden in Rockies in Colorado. All those places were vastly more pleasant to ride in than the European cities I've ridden in: Paris, London, Milan, Oslo, Amsterdam, Barcelona. Those European citeis were just too crowded and the drivers drove much faster (when not sitting in a jam) and put their cars WAY too close to me. Those drivers seemed to know what they were doing, but it was my life they were gambling with. In the US I was always given a much wider berth and the driving scene is just much more relaxed. Out on country roads, I have been most comfortable in Spain and Italy, despite how fast they drivers and how many cars as they seem aware of me and the other road users. This has nothing to do with infrastructure. Nor enforcement. In Paris I saw a guy get hit on his bike right in front of a police officer who did nothing other than watch as the driver and the rider argued a bit then exchanged info. Again, I'm not arguing against proper infrastructure, nor suggesting that riding in some semi-suburban cities in the US is pleasant, I'm just saying that the cyclist-motorist relationship isn't made by cops or bike paths. Joseph     Date: 14 Sep 2007 15:47:38 From: Greens Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats <joseph.santaniello@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1189794424.292195.30580@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 14, 8:06 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: >> "autopi" <iamnetf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1189777406.952785.156280@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >i recently read something--i think it was linked off bikesnobnyc-- >> > about cycling accidents in brooklyn, and the author claimed that in a >> > large majority of cases, it was the cyclist who was at fault. >> > certainly this corresponds to what i see on my commute--bikers riding >> > through busy intersections, going the wrong way down one-way streets, >> > stopping in the middle of a busy bike lane, etc.. does anyone have >> > information about this? are cyclists in the US more reckless than >> > counterparts in europe? >> >> > however, let it be said that in my experience, drivers in france are >> > much more courteous and competent at sharing the road than their >> > american brethren. >> >> > i also suspect part of the difference may come down to difference in >> > attitude. in some locales, cycling is understood as a normal means of >> > transport. in the US, only crazy people, kids and lycra-wearing >> > extremists (i.e., crazy people) ride bikes on the road. not that >> > people are intentionally running bikers off the road for this reason, >> > but it may mean drivers are less likely to keep in mind the need to >> > give adequate room to cyclists, look before opening doors or making a >> > turn, etc.. >> >> Cyclists in the USA have little reason to respect motorists, cops or the >> law. All of them act as though cyclists are impeding their progress. >> Cycling >> is seen as something for children and people who've never grown up and >> also >> the aforementioned fitness fanatics. Infrastructure, law enforcement are >> designed in such a way that they wordlessly shout, "Get off the road with >> that stupid bicycle, you idiot! Get a car! Get a life! I'm late for my >> nose >> piercing! I gotta get my pit bull a new collar and the store closes in >> five >> minutes! I can't help it I'm late. I was all caught up in Dr. Phil's >> show." > > My cycling experience in the US is in NYC, Chicago, LA, and I've > ridden in Rockies in Colorado. All those places were vastly more > pleasant to ride in than the European cities I've ridden in: Paris, > London, Milan, Oslo, Amsterdam, Barcelona. Those European citeis were > just too crowded and the drivers drove much faster (when not sitting > in a jam) and put their cars WAY too close to me. Those drivers seemed > to know what they were doing, but it was my life they were gambling > with. In the US I was always given a much wider berth and the driving > scene is just much more relaxed. Out on country roads, I have been > most comfortable in Spain and Italy, despite how fast they drivers and > how many cars as they seem aware of me and the other road users. This > has nothing to do with infrastructure. Nor enforcement. In Paris I saw > a guy get hit on his bike right in front of a police officer who did > nothing other than watch as the driver and the rider argued a bit then > exchanged info. > > Again, I'm not arguing against proper infrastructure, nor suggesting > that riding in some semi-suburban cities in the US is pleasant, I'm > just saying that the cyclist-motorist relationship isn't made by cops > or bike paths. > > Joseph > WOOOOOOooooo! Thanks for the info, Mister World Traveler.   Date: 14 Sep 2007 11:07:21 From: joseph.santaniello@gmail.com Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats On Sep 14, 7:47 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > wrote: > <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1189776543.879931.218790@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Sep 14, 12:33 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: > >> U.S. Bikers Less Safe Than European Counterparts > > >> In the United States, cyclists are 12 times more likely than people in > >> cars to die en route to their destinations. On a per-kilometer and > >> per-trip > >> basis, U.S. cyclists are twice as likely to die on the road as German > >> cyclists, and more than three times as likely as Dutch cyclists. While > >> cycling fatalities in all of these countries have fallen in the last 25 > >> years, U.S. cycling deaths have declined largely because of a drop in > >> cycling, while in the Netherlands and Germany investments in > >> infrastructure > >> that make cycling safer account for much of the decline. > > >> http://www.thebicyclebum.com/ > > > I'm not saying cycling in the US is safe or anything, but comparing > > these countries is like apples and oranges. Holland is as big as New > > Jersey but has twice as many people with lots of congested urban areas > > jammed full of folks on bikes. Lots of "normal" people too taking > > short trips down to the baker, etc. Germany is perhaps a better > > comparison, but still isn't really comparable. > > > In the US it seems to me bike users are either winos on their way to > > the liquour store the wrong way at night, or fitness cyclists out on > > relatively long rides on roads with fast car traffic. These are both > > more dangerous than putting along basically on the sidewalk in a > > congested urban area like millions do in Holland. I'm sure this skews > > the numbers at least some. > > > Joseph > > In other words you don't think the entirely different attitude that > authorities and society have towards cycling makes any difference? You blame > America's poor stats on the cyclists themselves. They're either drunks or > fitness freaks riding on roads where they don't belong. I'm just saying I'm wary of comparing apples and oranges. The numbers are skewed by the fact that a huge number of people in Holland and Germany use bikes in ways that are not that common in the US. They ride them at a leisurely pace in a congested urban environment. If I were to take a 100 mile ride on some random American country road I don't think I'd be 3x as likely to be hit than if I were to take a 100 mile ride in Holland. They are probably reasonably similar in terms of risk. But if you want to talk about safety per distance, in the US my 100 mile ride on a moderatly dangerous country road also has some number of "safe" miles riddden by other cyclists putting around in town. Maybe 100. In Holland my 100 mile ride in a moderatly dangerous road would be offset by thousdands of safe miles ridden by others. This isn't an argument for not having proper infrastructure, just pointing out that the populations of bike users are vastly different. And it's not just infrastructure that makes it that way. Joseph > In Germany and The Netherlands the motoist almost always gets the majority > of the blame in cycling accidents and pedestrian deaths. Instead of > encouraging car culture and motorist arrogance in those countries they have > a master plan to reduce deaths among cyclists and peds. They have different > infrastructure, i.e, cities designed for humans instead of cities designed > for cars and so much more.     Date: 14 Sep 2007 14:06:21 From: Mamba Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats <joseph.santaniello@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1189793241.336355.92810@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 14, 7:47 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: >> <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1189776543.879931.218790@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... >> > > I'm just saying I'm wary of comparing apples and oranges. The numbers > are skewed by the fact that a huge number of people in Holland and > Germany use bikes in ways that are not that common in the US. They > ride them at a leisurely pace in a congested urban environment. If I > were to take a 100 mile ride on some random American country road I > don't think I'd be 3x as likely to be hit than if I were to take a 100 > mile ride in Holland. They are probably reasonably similar in terms of > risk. But if you want to talk about safety per distance, in the US my > 100 mile ride on a moderatly dangerous country road also has some > number of "safe" miles riddden by other cyclists putting around in > town. Maybe 100. In Holland my 100 mile ride in a moderatly dangerous > road would be offset by thousdands of safe miles ridden by others. > This isn't an argument for not having proper infrastructure, just > pointing out that the populations of bike users are vastly different. > And it's not just infrastructure that makes it that way. > > Joseph An interesting commentary on both sides. Friends of mine recently returned from a bike tour in Italy. Italian car drivers are reknowned for being somewhat erratic in urban areas and fast on highways. I am told it's a cultural thing. My friends described their tour route as narrow highways and urban roads with zero shoulder, barely wide enough for two cars to pass. On the first day they thought they were dead, as traffic was fairly constant. However they were pleasantly surprised by the consistent actions of the drivers - they would follow closely until a passing gap opened, then pass the bikers quickly. In other words, they did what I would call the right and safe thing. Nobody got squeezed off the road by a driver who was disrespectful of other people's safety. I bike commute somewhere between 50-60 miles per week in Portland, OR, arguably one of the more bike-friendly towns in the US. I am also a safety geek, one of the few bike commuters I know that doesn't ride through red lights or take sidewalk shortcuts. In other words, I'm not the guy a driver wants to run over for pissing him off. However, I am amazed at the number of drivers who are incapable of backing off on the gas pedal to give a cyclist some room in a tight situation. Perhaps another generation of gas price hikes will add enough bikers onto US roads that a new crop of drivers will consider them equals. I think this is where Europe is way ahead of us, they see biking as a legit form of transport for everyday people, unlike in the States where cars are all. Just my $.02       Date: 15 Sep 2007 01:42:27 From: Clive George Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats "Mamba" <gw@nottoday.net > wrote in message news:13eltu8f396tb80@corp.supernews.com... > An interesting commentary on both sides. Friends of mine recently > returned from a bike tour in Italy. Italian car drivers are reknowned for > being somewhat erratic in urban areas and fast on highways. I am told > it's a cultural thing. Put another way, they're a bunch of lunatics when in cars :-) They drive like the stereotype of an urban cyclist. > My friends described their tour route as narrow highways and urban roads > with zero shoulder, barely wide enough for two cars to pass. On the first > day they thought they were dead, as traffic was fairly constant. However > they were pleasantly surprised by the consistent actions of the drivers - > they would follow closely until a passing gap opened, then pass the bikers > quickly. In other words, they did what I would call the right and safe > thing. Nobody got squeezed off the road by a driver who was disrespectful > of other people's safety. Agreed. Despite their lunacy - or possibly because of it? - they seem to be quite good at handling cyclists. I remember a discussion with somebody who'd come back from a holiday here bemoaning the lack of shoulders on the roads. Said he'd never come back because of it. Which is a pity, coz we've got some darn good riding. The drivers aren't as courteous as the mainland Europeans, but on the whole they do a pretty good job of not killing you, especially once you're off the main roads - the experience is normally as described above. Said gentleman has since been on holiday to France I believe, and has discovered that lack of shoulders is nothing to do with safety. Not sure if he's made the link to riding here yet though. cheers, clive     Date: 14 Sep 2007 15:42:01 From: Greens Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats <joseph.santaniello@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1189793241.336355.92810@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 14, 7:47 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: >> <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1189776543.879931.218790@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Sep 14, 12:33 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: >> >> U.S. Bikers Less Safe Than European Counterparts >> >> >> In the United States, cyclists are 12 times more likely than people >> >> in >> >> cars to die en route to their destinations. On a per-kilometer and >> >> per-trip >> >> basis, U.S. cyclists are twice as likely to die on the road as German >> >> cyclists, and more than three times as likely as Dutch cyclists. While >> >> cycling fatalities in all of these countries have fallen in the last >> >> 25 >> >> years, U.S. cycling deaths have declined largely because of a drop in >> >> cycling, while in the Netherlands and Germany investments in >> >> infrastructure >> >> that make cycling safer account for much of the decline. >> >> >> http://www.thebicyclebum.com/ >> >> > I'm not saying cycling in the US is safe or anything, but comparing >> > these countries is like apples and oranges. Holland is as big as New >> > Jersey but has twice as many people with lots of congested urban areas >> > jammed full of folks on bikes. Lots of "normal" people too taking >> > short trips down to the baker, etc. Germany is perhaps a better >> > comparison, but still isn't really comparable. >> >> > In the US it seems to me bike users are either winos on their way to >> > the liquour store the wrong way at night, or fitness cyclists out on >> > relatively long rides on roads with fast car traffic. These are both >> > more dangerous than putting along basically on the sidewalk in a >> > congested urban area like millions do in Holland. I'm sure this skews >> > the numbers at least some. >> >> > Joseph >> >> In other words you don't think the entirely different attitude that >> authorities and society have towards cycling makes any difference? You >> blame >> America's poor stats on the cyclists themselves. They're either drunks or >> fitness freaks riding on roads where they don't belong. > > I'm just saying I'm wary of comparing apples and oranges. The numbers > are skewed by the fact that a huge number of people in Holland and > Germany use bikes in ways that are not that common in the US. They > ride them at a leisurely pace in a congested urban environment. If I > were to take a 100 mile ride on some random American country road I > don't think I'd be 3x as likely to be hit than if I were to take a 100 > mile ride in Holland. They are probably reasonably similar in terms of > risk. But if you want to talk about safety per distance, in the US my > 100 mile ride on a moderatly dangerous country road also has some > number of "safe" miles riddden by other cyclists putting around in > town. Maybe 100. In Holland my 100 mile ride in a moderatly dangerous > road would be offset by thousdands of safe miles ridden by others. > This isn't an argument for not having proper infrastructure, just > pointing out that the populations of bike users are vastly different. > And it's not just infrastructure that makes it that way. > > Joseph > >> In Germany and The Netherlands the motoist almost always gets the >> majority >> of the blame in cycling accidents and pedestrian deaths. Instead of >> encouraging car culture and motorist arrogance in those countries they >> have >> a master plan to reduce deaths among cyclists and peds. They have >> different >> infrastructure, i.e, cities designed for humans instead of cities >> designed >> for cars and so much more. > > > > That doesn't change the fact that you tend to point to cyclists as the cause of their own problems. The Krauts spend a lot of time in driving school learning about what shitheads cyclists are so that they don't hit them. In America the attitude is "That guy's a shithead (a cyclist has done something illegal or weird). I now have the right to hit him with my car." You're part of that type of thinking.   Date: 14 Sep 2007 17:59:04 From: bdbafh Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats On Sep 14, 1:17 pm, Wayne Pein <wp...@nc.rr.com > wrote: > bdbafh wrote: > > > A situation that evoked a honk from a displeased motorist yesterday on > > PA State Route 463 west just northwest of where the BicyclePA south > > route heads to the north ... > > > A right turn lane splits off to the right with no additional lane > > striping for bikes. I took the normal action of riding a few inches to > > the right of the white stripe that separated the through lane from the > > right turn lane. An angry, clueless motorist passes by closely, > > honking. This evokes the normal display of a hand signal from me, > > along with a "lets go, right now!" with me pointing to the shoulder. > > > Obviously the motorist made an unsafe pass. They didn't take me up on > > the offer to discuss their infraction after dropping their weapon > > (exiting the vehicle). > > > Perhaps I'll change my tactic there to just take the lane instead of > > splitting the through lane and right turn lane, preventing such an > > unsafe pass next time. > > It sounds as if you were a through bicyclist but riding in the > right-turn-only lane. Such riding sends an ambiguous message and is not > in accordance with the rules of the road. You should use proper > destination positioning. > > Wayne The section of road was about a 3% climb. I was traveling slower than prevailing traffic. Had I been traveling the other direction (downhill) I would have taken the lane. I usually attempt to ride on the shoulder if at all possible, except when traveling at speed or when I feel that its necessary to take the lane. I'm not saying that I was right or that you were wrong, but that I don't see the law here being quite clear: http://www.dot.state.pa.us/BIKE/WEB/bikelaws.htm "(c) Slower than prevailing speeds.-- A pedalcycle operated at slower than prevailing speed shall be operated in accordance with the provisions of Section 3301(b), unless it is unsafe to do so. [3301(b). Vehicle proceeding at less than normal speed. Upon all roadways, any vehicles proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place under the conditions than existing shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into an alley, private road or driveway. This subsection does not apply to a driver who must necessarily drive in a lane other than the right-hand lane to continue on his intended route.] Comment: Taken together, 3505 (c) and 3301 (b) state that slower vehicles should keep to the right, which is the normal expectation of all road users, while permitting bicyclists to make movements consistent with their intended route." A bike lane stripe between the through lane and the right turn lane is what should be in place. thanks for the comment, anyways. -bdbafh     Date: 14 Sep 2007 15:51:57 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats bdbafh wrote: > On Sep 14, 1:17 pm, Wayne Pein <wp...@nc.rr.com> wrote: > >>bdbafh wrote: >> >> >>>A situation that evoked a honk from a displeased motorist yesterday on >>>PA State Route 463 west just northwest of where the BicyclePA south >>>route heads to the north ... >> >>>A right turn lane splits off to the right with no additional lane >>>striping for bikes. I took the normal action of riding a few inches to >>>the right of the white stripe that separated the through lane from the >>>right turn lane. An angry, clueless motorist passes by closely, >>>honking. This evokes the normal display of a hand signal from me, >>>along with a "lets go, right now!" with me pointing to the shoulder. >> >>>Obviously the motorist made an unsafe pass. They didn't take me up on >>>the offer to discuss their infraction after dropping their weapon >>>(exiting the vehicle). >> >>>Perhaps I'll change my tactic there to just take the lane instead of >>>splitting the through lane and right turn lane, preventing such an >>>unsafe pass next time. >> >>It sounds as if you were a through bicyclist but riding in the >>right-turn-only lane. Such riding sends an ambiguous message and is not >>in accordance with the rules of the road. You should use proper >>destination positioning. >> >>Wayne > > > The section of road was about a 3% climb. > I was traveling slower than prevailing traffic. > Had I been traveling the other direction (downhill) I would have taken > the lane. > I usually attempt to ride on the shoulder if at all possible, except > when traveling at speed or when I feel that its necessary to take the > lane. > I don't know what you mean by "take" the lane. Some people define it as "use full lane," or it seems as if you define it as "use any lane." The rules of the road dictate that vehicle users, ie bicyclists, position themselves according to destination. Since you were in the right turn only lane you appear to be making a right turn. Wayne   Date: 14 Sep 2007 10:49:08 From: Jay Beattie Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats On Sep 14, 10:03 am, "Clive George" <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk > wrote: > "Jay Beattie" <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote in message > > news:1189788168.614942.178280@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > > > I always thought the "awareness" argument was BS. If I am the only > > person on the road, and I get hit by a car, then the injury rate is > > 100%. If there happens to be one person on the road ahead of me (God > > only knows where -- these studies are usually specific to a city and > > not a street), and I get hit, then the injury rate drops to only 50%. > > Huge drop. Now the guy who hit me knows nothing about the other > > cyclist who was, let's say, across town. The notion that the rate was > > halved because of "driver awareness" makes no sense at all. It just > > seems like fun with numbers. -- Jay Beattie. > > Um - that seems to be missing the point about the awareness argument by > really quite some margin. > > The awareness isn't about knowing where one individual cyclist is at one > time, it's about being aware that there's likely to be a cyclist in the > vicinity and modifying one's behaviour to suit - ie by looking out for them. > > With more cyclists out there, people get more used to them being around and > do indeed modify their behaviour in a positive manner. It goes from "eeek, > there's a cyclist there, what do I do, panic!!!!" to "cyclist, ok, do x" > where x is a sensible course of action they've done before or see other > people do. It icludes things like "I always see lots of cyclists here, > better be a bit more wary - oh yes, there's one". Too many assumptions. Let's say there is an increase in bicycle facilities separating the two populations -- as is the case here in PDX. The number of cyclists going over the Hawthorne Bridge, for example, has sky rocketed -- but you would have to jump a high curb in your car to hit anyone. The main routes on and off the bridge have dedicated bicycle lanes. Moreover, due to the number of cyclists commuting to downtown and increased public transportation, the percentage driving cars has actually dropped. See http://tinyurl.com/2da8fe Moreover, cyclists take the traffic lanes riding downtown because the traffic is slow already. You could double the cycling population (put them five abreast) without any significant increase in car versus bicycle injuries. The reduction in injury rate would result solely because of the increased numbers of cyclists without any change in driver behavior. Now, if you are going from an area of zero bicycles or a couple of bicycles to a lot, then there will be a traffic calming effect -- maybe. But the studies that I recall reading used city-wide numbers without reference to bicycle populations in particular areas, which is very important. Where you have any significant, existing population of cyclists, doubling that population does not double driver awareness or account for the reducion in injury statistics. That is simply a function of populations and statistics. -- Jay Beattie.     Date: 14 Sep 2007 15:15:07 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats Jay Beattie wrote: > Now, if you are going from an area of zero bicycles or a couple of > bicycles to a lot, then there will be a traffic calming effect -- > maybe. But the studies that I recall reading used city-wide numbers > without reference to bicycle populations in particular areas, which is > very important. Where you have any significant, existing population > of cyclists, doubling that population does not double driver awareness > or account for the reducion in injury statistics. That is simply a > function of populations and statistics. -- Jay Beattie. > Well there are a lot of variables intertwined, perhaps it's not possible to (dis)prove the "eeek, there's a cyclist" theory. Perhaps I didn't read the studies as closely or critically as you have, but it always seemed to make an intuitive sense, not that intuition is always right. I'll try to look at it further.       Date: 14 Sep 2007 16:02:50 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats Peter Cole wrote: > Jay Beattie wrote: > >> Now, if you are going from an area of zero bicycles or a couple of >> bicycles to a lot, then there will be a traffic calming effect -- >> maybe. But the studies that I recall reading used city-wide numbers >> without reference to bicycle populations in particular areas, which is >> very important. Where you have any significant, existing population >> of cyclists, doubling that population does not double driver awareness >> or account for the reducion in injury statistics. That is simply a >> function of populations and statistics. -- Jay Beattie. >> > > Well there are a lot of variables intertwined, perhaps it's not possible > to (dis)prove the "eeek, there's a cyclist" theory. Perhaps I didn't > read the studies as closely or critically as you have, but it always > seemed to make an intuitive sense, not that intuition is always right. > I'll try to look at it further. One could argue that because cyclists are relatively rare, their uniqueness results in ambiguity and caution on the part of motorists. Wayne         Date: 14 Sep 2007 18:09:24 From: Greens Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats "Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com > wrote in message news:46eae8ea$0$32552$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > Peter Cole wrote: > >> Jay Beattie wrote: >> >>> Now, if you are going from an area of zero bicycles or a couple of >>> bicycles to a lot, then there will be a traffic calming effect -- >>> maybe. But the studies that I recall reading used city-wide numbers >>> without reference to bicycle populations in particular areas, which is >>> very important. Where you have any significant, existing population >>> of cyclists, doubling that population does not double driver awareness >>> or account for the reducion in injury statistics. That is simply a >>> function of populations and statistics. -- Jay Beattie. >>> >> >> Well there are a lot of variables intertwined, perhaps it's not possible >> to (dis)prove the "eeek, there's a cyclist" theory. Perhaps I didn't read >> the studies as closely or critically as you have, but it always seemed to >> make an intuitive sense, not that intuition is always right. I'll try to >> look at it further. > > One could argue that because cyclists are relatively rare, their > uniqueness results in ambiguity and caution on the part of motorists. > > > Wayne > When lots of people cycle, you're more likely to have motorists on the road who also cycle. In theory they will have a better understanding of the cyclist's problems and desires and also have more respect for your right to be on the road. In Holland most of the motorists also cycle. They don't see bicyclists as weirdos or enemies.           Date: 14 Sep 2007 18:40:10 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats Greens wrote: > "Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com> wrote in message >>One could argue that because cyclists are relatively rare, their >>uniqueness results in ambiguity and caution on the part of motorists. >> >> >>Wayne >> > > > When lots of people cycle, you're more likely to have motorists on the road > who also cycle. In theory they will have a better understanding of the > cyclist's problems and desires and also have more respect for your right to > be on the road. In Holland most of the motorists also cycle. They don't see > bicyclists as weirdos or enemies. > > In theory, according to ..... YOU? It seems that only YOU are the one who believes motorists are our enemies. True, there are some who are. But they contribute such a small percentage of the collisions that its practically irrelevant. In Holland, they hate bicyclists who dare use the road. In fact, on many roads you cannot bicycle. The bicycle farcilities are great if you want to go 8 mph. 8 mph is no big time penalty when your trip is only 1/2 mile. Wayne             Date: 15 Sep 2007 12:56:00 From: Ben C Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats On 2007-09-14, Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com > wrote: > Greens wrote: [...] >> When lots of people cycle, you're more likely to have motorists on the road >> who also cycle. In theory they will have a better understanding of the >> cyclist's problems and desires and also have more respect for your right to >> be on the road. In Holland most of the motorists also cycle. They don't see >> bicyclists as weirdos or enemies. [...] > In Holland, they hate bicyclists who dare use the road. In fact, on > many roads you cannot bicycle. The bicycle farcilities are great if > you want to go 8 mph. 8 mph is no big time penalty when your trip is > only 1/2 mile. They're much better than that in Holland, you can go at a good speed on them. I don't mean in cities, but next to main roads in the countryside they have wide, smooth, two-lane bike lanes. I'd use them even if they weren't compulsory (and I usually avoid bike lanes for the death traps that they are).               Date: 15 Sep 2007 21:12:31 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats Ben C wrote: > On 2007-09-14, Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> wrote: > >>Greens wrote: > > [...] > >>>When lots of people cycle, you're more likely to have motorists on the road >>>who also cycle. In theory they will have a better understanding of the >>>cyclist's problems and desires and also have more respect for your right to >>>be on the road. In Holland most of the motorists also cycle. They don't see >>>bicyclists as weirdos or enemies. > > [...] > >>In Holland, they hate bicyclists who dare use the road. In fact, on >>many roads you cannot bicycle. The bicycle farcilities are great if >>you want to go 8 mph. 8 mph is no big time penalty when your trip is >>only 1/2 mile. > > > They're much better than that in Holland, you can go at a good speed on > them. I don't mean in cities, but next to main roads in the countryside > they have wide, smooth, two-lane bike lanes. I'd use them even if they > weren't compulsory (and I usually avoid bike lanes for the death traps > that they are). I'm aware of the rural facilities. That's why my comment included the short distance stipulation. But one has to wonder, if it's rural countryside, what's the point of kicking bicyclists off the road? Must be motorist convenience. Wayne                 Date: 16 Sep 2007 03:40:38 From: Ben C Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats On 2007-09-16, Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com > wrote: > Ben C wrote: [...] >> They're much better than that in Holland, you can go at a good speed on >> them. I don't mean in cities, but next to main roads in the countryside >> they have wide, smooth, two-lane bike lanes. I'd use them even if they >> weren't compulsory (and I usually avoid bike lanes for the death traps >> that they are). > > I'm aware of the rural facilities. That's why my comment included the > short distance stipulation. > > But one has to wonder, if it's rural countryside, what's the point of > kicking bicyclists off the road? Must be motorist convenience. The countryside still contains main roads. It's on those that you get the big compulsory cycle lanes. Quiet rural roads don't have them.             Date: 15 Sep 2007 09:12:53 From: Lou Holtman Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats Wayne Pein wrote: > In Holland, they hate bicyclists who dare use the road. In fact, on many > roads you cannot bicycle. The bicycle farcilities are great if you want > to go 8 mph. 8 mph is no big time penalty when your trip is only 1/2 mile. Huhhh??? Lou, from Holland -- Posted by news://news.nb.nu (http://www.nb.nu)             Date: 15 Sep 2007 02:27:42 From: Greens Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats "Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com > wrote in message news:46eb0dca$0$26418$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > Greens wrote: >> "Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com> wrote in message > >>>One could argue that because cyclists are relatively rare, their >>>uniqueness results in ambiguity and caution on the part of motorists. >>> >>> >>>Wayne >>> >> >> >> When lots of people cycle, you're more likely to have motorists on the >> road who also cycle. In theory they will have a better understanding of >> the cyclist's problems and desires and also have more respect for your >> right to be on the road. In Holland most of the motorists also cycle. >> They don't see bicyclists as weirdos or enemies. > > In theory, according to ..... YOU? > > It seems that only YOU are the one who believes motorists are our enemies. > True, there are some who are. But they contribute such a small percentage > of the collisions that its practically irrelevant. > > In Holland, they hate bicyclists who dare use the road. In fact, on many > roads you cannot bicycle. The bicycle farcilities are great if you want to > go 8 mph. 8 mph is no big time penalty when your trip is only 1/2 mile. > > Wayne > Elsewhere in this topic Autopi wrote... "however, i was hit by a car about 2 weeks ago, and this *was* due to aggressiveness. i was taking the lane at a left turn signal, and the driver essentially came up from behind me and shoved out of the way with his car, knocking me over. we made eye contact as he pulled up, and he knew what was going on (i was yelling)--the jerk didn't even slow down (much less stop) after he knocked me over. fortunately, although i was pretty bruised and sore for about 10-12 days, xrays revealed no serious damage. so anyway, ime while there are lots of space cadets, there are still some aggressive drivers out there."               Date: 15 Sep 2007 21:05:29 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats Greens wrote: > "Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com> wrote in message > news:46eb0dca$0$26418$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > >>Greens wrote: >> >>>"Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com> wrote in message >> >>>>One could argue that because cyclists are relatively rare, their >>>>uniqueness results in ambiguity and caution on the part of motorists. >>>> >>>> >>>>Wayne >>>> >>> >>> >>>When lots of people cycle, you're more likely to have motorists on the >>>road who also cycle. In theory they will have a better understanding of >>>the cyclist's problems and desires and also have more respect for your >>>right to be on the road. In Holland most of the motorists also cycle. >>>They don't see bicyclists as weirdos or enemies. >> >>In theory, according to ..... YOU? >> >>It seems that only YOU are the one who believes motorists are our enemies. >>True, there are some who are. But they contribute such a small percentage >>of the collisions that its practically irrelevant. >> >>In Holland, they hate bicyclists who dare use the road. In fact, on many >>roads you cannot bicycle. The bicycle farcilities are great if you want to >>go 8 mph. 8 mph is no big time penalty when your trip is only 1/2 mile. >> >>Wayne >> > > > Elsewhere in this topic Autopi wrote... > "however, i was hit by a car about 2 weeks ago, and this *was* due to > aggressiveness. i was taking the lane at a left turn signal, and the > driver essentially came up from behind me and shoved out of the way > with his car, knocking me over. we made eye contact as he pulled up, > and he knew what was going on (i was yelling)--the jerk didn't even > slow down (much less stop) after he knocked me over. fortunately, > although i was pretty bruised and sore for about 10-12 days, xrays > revealed no serious damage. > > so anyway, ime while there are lots of space cadets, there are still > some aggressive drivers out there." > > Did you purposefully not notice that I had said that some motorists are hostile? Big deal. Get used to it. There are a few hostile motorists everywhere, probably especially in so-called bicycle friendly places. More bicyclists brings out more hostility. Wayne             Date: 14 Sep 2007 21:46:46 From: Greens Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats "Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com > wrote in message news:46eb0dca$0$26418$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > Greens wrote: >> "Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com> wrote in message > >>>One could argue that because cyclists are relatively rare, their >>>uniqueness results in ambiguity and caution on the part of motorists. >>> >>> >>>Wayne >>> >> >> >> When lots of people cycle, you're more likely to have motorists on the >> road who also cycle. In theory they will have a better understanding of >> the cyclist's problems and desires and also have more respect for your >> right to be on the road. In Holland most of the motorists also cycle. >> They don't see bicyclists as weirdos or enemies. > > In theory, according to ..... YOU? No. It's something I read in some blog somewhere. I've been reading a lot of blogs. I haven't written down every address so I can't supply you with the blog, but I am slightly shocked that you would come up with this shit that this is something I dreamed up. You have no evidence of that and you state it as indisputable, all caps, fact. Why shouldn't you. You love to state all kinds of thing as fact when it's really only opinion. > > It seems that only YOU are the one who believes motorists are our enemies. > True, there are some who are. But they contribute such a small percentage > of the collisions that its practically irrelevant. I'm pretty sure that there are some people here today who've said they've witnessed incidents in which motorists deliberately hit cyclists. Sounds like an enemy to me, but you... well, you might argue otherwise. Maybe you think the cyclist did something to provoke getting hit by a car. Maybe you actually think someone deserves to be run down. Maybe you think something else. We'll have to see what you can come up with Wayne Pein. > > In Holland, they hate bicyclists who dare use the road. In fact, on many > roads you cannot bicycle. The bicycle farcilities are great if you want to > go 8 mph. 8 mph is no big time penalty when your trip is only 1/2 mile. > > Wayne > Why are you so angry and accusatory sounding? I didn't know that. In fact this video led me to believe otherwise. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QExnRr9VAJw               Date: 15 Sep 2007 23:20:57 From: (PeteCresswell) Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats Per Greens: >I'm pretty sure that there are some people here today who've said they've >witnessed incidents in which motorists deliberately hit cyclists. I'm one of those witnesses. But the real zinger was that I flagged down a cop who stopped the driver - and the driver drove away without even getting a ticket. -- PeteCresswell                 Date: 15 Sep 2007 23:47:57 From: Greens Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid > wrote in message news:p68pe3hbcbpna166j022su8npag7p80r9t@4ax.com... > Per Greens: >>I'm pretty sure that there are some people here today who've said they've >>witnessed incidents in which motorists deliberately hit cyclists. > > I'm one of those witnesses. But the real zinger was that I > flagged down a cop who stopped the driver - and the driver drove > away without even getting a ticket. > -- > PeteCresswell Cops are not professionals. They have their own prejudices. They had no interest in the lady that let her dogs walk in front of me while I was cycling and then told one of them to bite me while in a rage and calling me a "bastard" three times, standing so close and slightly behind that I couldn't get off my bike without kicking her. The cop said I was part of it since when the dogs came charging out I said to her, "Get your fucking dog off me!" like I'm supposed to be very calm and civil with her dog's nose two inches from my calf and growling. Really he didn't even want to hear what happned because there were no injuries. He also said he couldn't do anything about the off leash dogs because he didn't witness it, essentially calling me a liar. He said she showed him the leashes they were on. (I got him to talk to her in her hourse after a lot of cajoling) This was in the house thirty minutes later. What shit!               Date: 15 Sep 2007 20:56:30 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats Greens wrote: > "Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com> wrote in message > > No. It's something I read in some blog somewhere. I've been reading a lot of > blogs. I haven't written down every address so I can't supply you with the > blog, but I am slightly shocked that you would come up with this shit that > this is something I dreamed up. You have no evidence of that and you state > it as indisputable, all caps, fact. Why shouldn't you. You love to state all > kinds of thing as fact when it's really only opinion. Ha. Coming from an anomyous poster such as yourself who believes that every motorist is a homocidal maniac is about a 10 of 10 on the irony scale. > > >>It seems that only YOU are the one who believes motorists are our enemies. >>True, there are some who are. But they contribute such a small percentage >>of the collisions that its practically irrelevant. > > > I'm pretty sure that there are some people here today who've said they've > witnessed incidents in which motorists deliberately hit cyclists. Sounds > like an enemy to me, but you... well, you might argue otherwise. So? How many purposeful motorist strikes occurs nationwide annually? > > >>In Holland, they hate bicyclists who dare use the road. In fact, on many >>roads you cannot bicycle. The bicycle farcilities are great if you want to >>go 8 mph. 8 mph is no big time penalty when your trip is only 1/2 mile. >> >>Wayne >> > > > Why are you so angry and accusatory sounding? > I didn't know that. In fact this video led me to believe otherwise. > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QExnRr9VAJw I'm not angry. But I am accussing you of selective reading/understanding. Wayne               Date: 15 Sep 2007 20:52:57 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats Greens wrote: > "Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com> wrote in message > news:46eb0dca$0$26418$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > >>Greens wrote: >> >>>"Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com> wrote in message >> >>>>One could argue that because cyclists are relatively rare, their >>>>uniqueness results in ambiguity and caution on the part of motorists. >>>> >>>> >>>>Wayne >>>> >>> >>> >>>When lots of people cycle, you're more likely to have motorists on the >>>road who also cycle. In theory they will have a better understanding of >>>the cyclist's problems and desires and also have more respect for your >>>right to be on the road. In Holland most of the motorists also cycle. >>>They don't see bicyclists as weirdos or enemies. >> >>In theory, according to ..... YOU? > > > No. It's something I read in some blog somewhere. I've been reading a lot of > blogs. I haven't written down every address so I can't supply you with the > blog, but I am slightly shocked that you would come up with this shit that > this is something I dreamed up. You have no evidence of that and you state > it as indisputable, all caps, fact. Why shouldn't you. You love to state all > kinds of thing as fact when it's really only opinion. > > >>It seems that only YOU are the one who believes motorists are our enemies. >>True, there are some who are. But they contribute such a small percentage >>of the collisions that its practically irrelevant. > > > I'm pretty sure that there are some people here today who've said they've > witnessed incidents in which motorists deliberately hit cyclists. Sounds > like an enemy to me, but you... well, you might argue otherwise. Maybe you > think the cyclist did something to provoke getting hit by a car. Maybe you > actually think someone deserves to be run down. Maybe you think something > else. We'll have to see what you can come up with Wayne Pein. > > >>In Holland, they hate bicyclists who dare use the road. In fact, on many >>roads you cannot bicycle. The bicycle farcilities are great if you want to >>go 8 mph. 8 mph is no big time penalty when your trip is only 1/2 mile. >> >>Wayne >> > > > Why are you so angry and accusatory sounding? > I didn't know that. In fact this video led me to believe otherwise. > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QExnRr9VAJw > >   Date: 14 Sep 2007 17:03:38 From: bdbafh Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats On Sep 14, 6:33 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > wrote: > U.S. Bikers Less Safe Than European Counterparts > > In the United States, cyclists are 12 times more likely than people in > cars to die en route to their destinations. On a per-kilometer and per-trip > basis, U.S. cyclists are twice as likely to die on the road as German > cyclists, and more than three times as likely as Dutch cyclists. While > cycling fatalities in all of these countries have fallen in the last 25 > years, U.S. cycling deaths have declined largely because of a drop in > cycling, while in the Netherlands and Germany investments in infrastructure > that make cycling safer account for much of the decline. > > http://www.thebicyclebum.com/ note: I didn't read the fine article. A situation that evoked a honk from a displeased motorist yesterday on PA State Route 463 west just northwest of where the BicyclePA south route heads to the north ... A right turn lane splits off to the right with no additional lane striping for bikes. I took the normal action of riding a few inches to the right of the white stripe that separated the through lane from the right turn lane. An angry, clueless motorist passes by closely, honking. This evokes the normal display of a hand signal from me, along with a "lets go, right now!" with me pointing to the shoulder. Obviously the motorist made an unsafe pass. They didn't take me up on the offer to discuss their infraction after dropping their weapon (exiting the vehicle). Perhaps I'll change my tactic there to just take the lane instead of splitting the through lane and right turn lane, preventing such an unsafe pass next time. -bdbafh     Date: 14 Sep 2007 15:04:57 From: Greens Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats "bdbafh" <bdbafh@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1189789418.468619.287770@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 14, 6:33 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: >> U.S. Bikers Less Safe Than European Counterparts >> >> In the United States, cyclists are 12 times more likely than people in >> cars to die en route to their destinations. On a per-kilometer and >> per-trip >> basis, U.S. cyclists are twice as likely to die on the road as German >> cyclists, and more than three times as likely as Dutch cyclists. While >> cycling fatalities in all of these countries have fallen in the last 25 >> years, U.S. cycling deaths have declined largely because of a drop in >> cycling, while in the Netherlands and Germany investments in >> infrastructure >> that make cycling safer account for much of the decline. >> >> http://www.thebicyclebum.com/ > > note: I didn't read the fine article. > > A situation that evoked a honk from a displeased motorist yesterday on > PA State Route 463 west just northwest of where the BicyclePA south > route heads to the north ... > > A right turn lane splits off to the right with no additional lane > striping for bikes. I took the normal action of riding a few inches to > the right of the white stripe that separated the through lane from the > right turn lane. An angry, clueless motorist passes by closely, > honking. This evokes the normal display of a hand signal from me, > along with a "lets go, right now!" with me pointing to the shoulder. > > Obviously the motorist made an unsafe pass. They didn't take me up on > the offer to discuss their infraction after dropping their weapon > (exiting the vehicle). > > Perhaps I'll change my tactic there to just take the lane instead of > splitting the through lane and right turn lane, preventing such an > unsafe pass next time. > > -bdbafh > Yea. They're very arrogant and sure of themselves while they're in their protective cages. And of course it's easier to keep a heavy firearm in a car than it is on a bike so don't be so eager to catch them.     Date: 14 Sep 2007 13:17:40 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats bdbafh wrote: > > A situation that evoked a honk from a displeased motorist yesterday on > PA State Route 463 west just northwest of where the BicyclePA south > route heads to the north ... > > A right turn lane splits off to the right with no additional lane > striping for bikes. I took the normal action of riding a few inches to > the right of the white stripe that separated the through lane from the > right turn lane. An angry, clueless motorist passes by closely, > honking. This evokes the normal display of a hand signal from me, > along with a "lets go, right now!" with me pointing to the shoulder. > > Obviously the motorist made an unsafe pass. They didn't take me up on > the offer to discuss their infraction after dropping their weapon > (exiting the vehicle). > > Perhaps I'll change my tactic there to just take the lane instead of > splitting the through lane and right turn lane, preventing such an > unsafe pass next time. > It sounds as if you were a through bicyclist but riding in the right-turn-only lane. Such riding sends an ambiguous message and is not in accordance with the rules of the road. You should use proper destination positioning. Wayne       Date: 14 Sep 2007 14:43:46 From: Greens Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats "Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com > wrote in message news:46eac235$0$32545$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > bdbafh wrote: > >> >> A situation that evoked a honk from a displeased motorist yesterday on >> PA State Route 463 west just northwest of where the BicyclePA south >> route heads to the north ... >> >> A right turn lane splits off to the right with no additional lane >> striping for bikes. I took the normal action of riding a few inches to >> the right of the white stripe that separated the through lane from the >> right turn lane. An angry, clueless motorist passes by closely, >> honking. This evokes the normal display of a hand signal from me, >> along with a "lets go, right now!" with me pointing to the shoulder. >> >> Obviously the motorist made an unsafe pass. They didn't take me up on >> the offer to discuss their infraction after dropping their weapon >> (exiting the vehicle). >> >> Perhaps I'll change my tactic there to just take the lane instead of >> splitting the through lane and right turn lane, preventing such an >> unsafe pass next time. >> > > It sounds as if you were a through bicyclist but riding in the > right-turn-only lane. Such riding sends an ambiguous message and is not in > accordance with the rules of the road. You should use proper destination > positioning. > > Wayne > Do you mean that he should have been in the middle of the road in the lane cars use to go straight as oppossed to the right lane where he feels safer but is designated for right turns only by cars? I think you're right, but then again I've seen motorists so confused that they might just roll right over me when the light turns green not out of avarice, but out of a desire to be courteous to the drivers behind them who are equipped with loud horns that they eagerly use. I'm serious. I bet there are people that would at least nudge you out of the way with their bumpers if you don't move fast enough.         Date: 14 Sep 2007 16:41:45 From: (PeteCresswell) Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats Per Greens: >I'm serious. I bet there are people that would at >least nudge you out of the way with their bumpers if you don't move fast >enough. There are people out there that will intentionally hit you - without a second thought. I've seen it done - once definitely, and once probably. -- PeteCresswell         Date: 14 Sep 2007 15:54:46 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats Greens wrote: > "Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com> wrote in message >>It sounds as if you were a through bicyclist but riding in the >>right-turn-only lane. Such riding sends an ambiguous message and is not in >>accordance with the rules of the road. You should use proper destination >>positioning. >> >>Wayne >> > > > Do you mean that he should have been in the middle of the road in the lane > cars use to go straight as oppossed to the right lane where he feels safer > but is designated for right turns only by cars? He should be in the through lane if he is going straight. The right turn only lane is for right turns. If you want to send a clear message to motorists, ride according to the rules of the road. I think you're right, but > then again I've seen motorists so confused that they might just roll right > over me when the light turns green not out of avarice, but out of a desire > to be courteous to the drivers behind them who are equipped with loud horns > that they eagerly use. I'm serious. I bet there are people that would at > least nudge you out of the way with their bumpers if you don't move fast > enough. > Never has that happened to me in 20+ years of everyday riding. Wayne           Date: 14 Sep 2007 18:29:31 From: Greens Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats "Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com > wrote in message news:46eae705$0$32560$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > Greens wrote: > >> "Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com> wrote in message > >>>It sounds as if you were a through bicyclist but riding in the >>>right-turn-only lane. Such riding sends an ambiguous message and is not >>>in accordance with the rules of the road. You should use proper >>>destination positioning. >>> >>>Wayne >>> >> >> >> Do you mean that he should have been in the middle of the road in the >> lane cars use to go straight as oppossed to the right lane where he feels >> safer but is designated for right turns only by cars? > > He should be in the through lane if he is going straight. The right turn > only lane is for right turns. If you want to send a clear message to > motorists, ride according to the rules of the road. > > > I think you're right, but >> then again I've seen motorists so confused that they might just roll >> right over me when the light turns green not out of avarice, but out of a >> desire to be courteous to the drivers behind them who are equipped with >> loud horns that they eagerly use. I'm serious. I bet there are people >> that would at least nudge you out of the way with their bumpers if you >> don't move fast enough. > > Never has that happened to me in 20+ years of everyday riding. > > Wayne > Sometimes I have the nerve to do that and sometimes I don't. I had a link to death not long ago. It was about ghost riders. Some kid was in the road with his bike and a young guy with an SUV came up behind him. The kid moved out of the SUV's way, but they think the SUV accelerated to pass out of impatience and ran right into him from behind killing him. If you've never known of drivers to put pressure on other cars by following very close at high speed, you probably haven't driven much on the highways. I've seen them do it when I'm in a car. Big rigs do it all the time when it's hilly. It's a technique called, "Get the fuck out of my way. I'm a big truck and you're a little shoe box I can squash."             Date: 15 Sep 2007 23:33:27 From: (PeteCresswell) Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats Per Greens: >f you've never known of drivers to put pressure on other cars by following >very close at high speed, you probably haven't driven much on the highways. >I've seen them do it when I'm in a car. Big rigs do it all the time when >it's hilly. It's a technique called, "Get the fuck out of my way. I'm a big >truck and you're a little shoe box I can squash." I always thought it was the rig driver trying to maximize his momentum going into the hill. -- PeteCresswell             Date: 14 Sep 2007 18:42:19 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats Greens wrote: > "Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com> wrote in message > news:46eae705$0$32560$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > >>Greens wrote: >> >> >>>"Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com> wrote in message >> >>>>It sounds as if you were a through bicyclist but riding in the >>>>right-turn-only lane. Such riding sends an ambiguous message and is not >>>>in accordance with the rules of the road. You should use proper >>>>destination positioning. >>>> >>>>Wayne >>>> >>> >>> >>>Do you mean that he should have been in the middle of the road in the >>>lane cars use to go straight as oppossed to the right lane where he feels >>>safer but is designated for right turns only by cars? >> >>He should be in the through lane if he is going straight. The right turn >>only lane is for right turns. If you want to send a clear message to >>motorists, ride according to the rules of the road. >> >> >>I think you're right, but >> >>>then again I've seen motorists so confused that they might just roll >>>right over me when the light turns green not out of avarice, but out of a >>>desire to be courteous to the drivers behind them who are equipped with >>>loud horns that they eagerly use. I'm serious. I bet there are people >>>that would at least nudge you out of the way with their bumpers if you >>>don't move fast enough. >> >>Never has that happened to me in 20+ years of everyday riding. >> >>Wayne >> > > Sometimes I have the nerve to do that and sometimes I don't. I had a link to > death not long ago. It was about ghost riders. Some kid was in the road with > his bike and a young guy with an SUV came up behind him. The kid moved out > of the SUV's way, but they think the SUV accelerated to pass out of > impatience and ran right into him from behind killing him. > > If you've never known of drivers to put pressure on other cars by following > very close at high speed, you probably haven't driven much on the highways. > I've seen them do it when I'm in a car. Big rigs do it all the time when > it's hilly. It's a technique called, "Get the fuck out of my way. I'm a big > truck and you're a little shoe box I can squash." > > I think bicycling is much too scary for you. Wayne               Date: 14 Sep 2007 21:54:21 From: Greens Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats "Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com > wrote in message news:46eb0e4b$0$26418$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > Greens wrote: > >> "Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com> wrote in message >> news:46eae705$0$32560$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >> >>>Greens wrote: >>> >>> >>>>"Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com> wrote in message >>> >>>>>It sounds as if you were a through bicyclist but riding in the >>>>>right-turn-only lane. Such riding sends an ambiguous message and is not >>>>>in accordance with the rules of the road. You should use proper >>>>>destination positioning. >>>>> >>>>>Wayne >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>Do you mean that he should have been in the middle of the road in the >>>>lane cars use to go straight as oppossed to the right lane where he >>>>feels safer but is designated for right turns only by cars? >>> >>>He should be in the through lane if he is going straight. The right turn >>>only lane is for right turns. If you want to send a clear message to >>>motorists, ride according to the rules of the road. >>> >>> >>>I think you're right, but >>> >>>>then again I've seen motorists so confused that they might just roll >>>>right over me when the light turns green not out of avarice, but out of >>>>a desire to be courteous to the drivers behind them who are equipped >>>>with loud horns that they eagerly use. I'm serious. I bet there are >>>>people that would at least nudge you out of the way with their bumpers >>>>if you don't move fast enough. >>> >>>Never has that happened to me in 20+ years of everyday riding. >>> >>>Wayne >>> >> >> Sometimes I have the nerve to do that and sometimes I don't. I had a link >> to death not long ago. It was about ghost riders. Some kid was in the >> road with his bike and a young guy with an SUV came up behind him. The >> kid moved out of the SUV's way, but they think the SUV accelerated to >> pass out of impatience and ran right into him from behind killing him. >> >> If you've never known of drivers to put pressure on other cars by >> following very close at high speed, you probably haven't driven much on >> the highways. I've seen them do it when I'm in a car. Big rigs do it all >> the time when it's hilly. It's a technique called, "Get the fuck out of >> my way. I'm a big truck and you're a little shoe box I can squash." > > I think bicycling is much too scary for you. > > Wayne > Is that your way of saying I'm a pussy? What's the point of doing that? Do you like to hammer people out of "your" newsgroup with insults when you disagree with them? Or is that some kind of compliment? Let me know.                 Date: 15 Sep 2007 20:59:21 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats Greens wrote: > "Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com> wrote in message > news:46eb0e4b$0$26418$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > >>Greens wrote: >>>If you've never known of drivers to put pressure on other cars by >>>following very close at high speed, you probably haven't driven much on >>>the highways. I've seen them do it when I'm in a car. Big rigs do it all >>>the time when it's hilly. It's a technique called, "Get the fuck out of >>>my way. I'm a big truck and you're a little shoe box I can squash." >> >>I think bicycling is much too scary for you. >> >>Wayne >> > > > Is that your way of saying I'm a pussy? What's the point of doing that? Do > you like to hammer people out of "your" newsgroup with insults when you > disagree with them? Or is that some kind of compliment? Let me know. > > I think bicycling is too scary for you. Take it how you like. You keep bringing up how horribly dangerous it is (in your opinion). Wayne                   Date: 15 Sep 2007 23:31:42 From: Greens Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats "Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com > wrote in message news:46ec7fe9$0$24262$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > Greens wrote: > >> "Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com> wrote in message >> news:46eb0e4b$0$26418$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >> >>>Greens wrote: >>>>If you've never known of drivers to put pressure on other cars by >>>>following very close at high speed, you probably haven't driven much on >>>>the highways. I've seen them do it when I'm in a car. Big rigs do it all >>>>the time when it's hilly. It's a technique called, "Get the fuck out of >>>>my way. I'm a big truck and you're a little shoe box I can squash." >>> >>>I think bicycling is much too scary for you. >>> >>>Wayne >>> >> >> >> Is that your way of saying I'm a pussy? What's the point of doing that? >> Do you like to hammer people out of "your" newsgroup with insults when >> you disagree with them? Or is that some kind of compliment? Let me know. > > I think bicycling is too scary for you. Take it how you like. You keep > bringing up how horribly dangerous it is (in your opinion). > > Wayne > I'd quit in a second if there was an aerobic exercise, low impact, as cheap, that kept me interested for hours at a time, something that wouldn't have me watching the clock every second. I think cycling is great exercise, some fun, rewarding in ways and easier to achieve high levels of exertion, but it is playing in traffic.   Date: 14 Sep 2007 09:48:28 From: andresmuro@aol.com Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats On Sep 14, 4:33 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > wrote: > U.S. Bikers Less Safe Than European Counterparts > > In the United States, cyclists are 12 times more likely than people in > cars to die en route to their destinations. On a per-kilometer and per-trip > basis, U.S. cyclists are twice as likely to die on the road as German > cyclists, and more than three times as likely as Dutch cyclists. While > cycling fatalities in all of these countries have fallen in the last 25 > years, U.S. cycling deaths have declined largely because of a drop in > cycling, while in the Netherlands and Germany investments in infrastructure > that make cycling safer account for much of the decline. > > http://www.thebicyclebum.com/ So what, we are still the number one country in the world. Who cares if our infant mortality is higher, if the rate of people w/o health insurance is higher, the number of people in jail is higher, if the educational achievement is lower, if the cyclist death rate is higher and if environmental abuse is higher. We are number one, numero uno EZE! Kings of the road! More macho. We are free! We have more guns! We have better, faster, more macho airplanes and bombs that can kill more people. Those European countries that you mention are all wussy communists countries. We are free Americans and we kick ass. Plus the people that die on bike accidents are probably wimpy environment loving commies that got what they deserved. God took care of them in a Hummer! Andres     Date: 18 Sep 2007 13:29:37 From: mitosis Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats andresmuro@aol.com Wrote: > On Sep 14, 4:33 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: > > U.S. Bikers Less Safe Than European Counterparts > > > > In the United States, cyclists are 12 times more likely than peopl > in > > cars to die en route to their destinations. On a per-kilometer an > per-trip > > basis, U.S. cyclists are twice as likely to die on the road a > German > > cyclists, and more than three times as likely as Dutch cyclists > While > > cycling fatalities in all of these countries have fallen in the las > 25 > > years, U.S. cycling deaths have declined largely because of a dro > in > > cycling, while in the Netherlands and Germany investments i > infrastructure > > that make cycling safer account for much of the decline. > > > > http://www.thebicyclebum.com/ > > So what, we are still the number one country in the world. Who cares > if our infant mortality is higher, if the rate of people w/o health > insurance is higher, the number of people in jail is higher, if the > educational achievement is lower, if the cyclist death rate is higher > and if environmental abuse is higher. > > We are number one, numero uno EZE! Kings of the road! More macho. We > are free! We have more guns! We have better, faster, more macho > airplanes and bombs that can kill more people. > > Those European countries that you mention are all wussy communists > countries. We are free Americans and we kick ass. Plus the people that > die on bike accidents are probably wimpy environment loving commies > that got what they deserved. God took care of them in a Hummer! > > Andres So why don't you go and blow someone away right now to celebrate you freedom. Hopefully your post was laced with sarcasm. : -- mitosis     Date: 14 Sep 2007 14:35:03 From: Greens Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats <andresmuro@aol.com > wrote in message news:1189788508.116406.149160@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 14, 4:33 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: >> U.S. Bikers Less Safe Than European Counterparts >> >> In the United States, cyclists are 12 times more likely than people in >> cars to die en route to their destinations. On a per-kilometer and >> per-trip >> basis, U.S. cyclists are twice as likely to die on the road as German >> cyclists, and more than three times as likely as Dutch cyclists. While >> cycling fatalities in all of these countries have fallen in the last 25 >> years, U.S. cycling deaths have declined largely because of a drop in >> cycling, while in the Netherlands and Germany investments in >> infrastructure >> that make cycling safer account for much of the decline. >> >> http://www.thebicyclebum.com/ > > So what, we are still the number one country in the world. Who cares > if our infant mortality is higher, if the rate of people w/o health > insurance is higher, the number of people in jail is higher, if the > educational achievement is lower, if the cyclist death rate is higher > and if environmental abuse is higher. > > We are number one, numero uno EZE! Kings of the road! More macho. We > are free! We have more guns! We have better, faster, more macho > airplanes and bombs that can kill more people. > > Those European countries that you mention are all wussy communists > countries. We are free Americans and we kick ass. Plus the people that > die on bike accidents are probably wimpy environment loving commies > that got what they deserved. God took care of them in a Hummer! > > Andres > Yer gad-dang right we are. We could roll over those Oidy Boidy people in half an hour and walk right up to their Oidy Boidy King and say, "Gimme the keys to your filthy clean air Kingdom now, Lord Arsewipe. We're bringin you people capitalism and freedom right fuckin now like it or not!"   Date: 14 Sep 2007 09:42:48 From: Jay Beattie Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats On Sep 14, 8:36 am, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net > wrote: > Greens wrote: > > U.S. Bikers Less Safe Than European Counterparts > > > In the United States, cyclists are 12 times more likely than people in > > cars to die en route to their destinations. On a per-kilometer and per-trip > > basis, U.S. cyclists are twice as likely to die on the road as German > > cyclists, and more than three times as likely as Dutch cyclists. While > > cycling fatalities in all of these countries have fallen in the last 25 > > years, U.S. cycling deaths have declined largely because of a drop in > > cycling, while in the Netherlands and Germany investments in infrastructure > > that make cycling safer account for much of the decline. > > > http://www.thebicyclebum.com/ > > It's very difficult to reach these statistics easily because of the > unknowns in cyclist mileage, as a result estimates vary wildly. > > One thing that seems to have been firmly established is that as the > biking population goes up the rate of car-bike crashes goes down. I'd be > cautious about comparing locales where bikes are common to those where > bikes are rare and concluding that the differences were other than just > the greater awareness due to greater presence. I always thought the "awareness" argument was BS. If I am the only person on the road, and I get hit by a car, then the injury rate is 100%. If there happens to be one person on the road ahead of me (God only knows where -- these studies are usually specific to a city and not a street), and I get hit, then the injury rate drops to only 50%. Huge drop. Now the guy who hit me knows nothing about the other cyclist who was, let's say, across town. The notion that the rate was halved because of "driver awareness" makes no sense at all. It just seems like fun with numbers. -- Jay Beattie.     Date: 14 Sep 2007 18:03:48 From: Clive George Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats "Jay Beattie" <jbeattie@lindsayhart.com > wrote in message news:1189788168.614942.178280@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > I always thought the "awareness" argument was BS. If I am the only > person on the road, and I get hit by a car, then the injury rate is > 100%. If there happens to be one person on the road ahead of me (God > only knows where -- these studies are usually specific to a city and > not a street), and I get hit, then the injury rate drops to only 50%. > Huge drop. Now the guy who hit me knows nothing about the other > cyclist who was, let's say, across town. The notion that the rate was > halved because of "driver awareness" makes no sense at all. It just > seems like fun with numbers. -- Jay Beattie. Um - that seems to be missing the point about the awareness argument by really quite some margin. The awareness isn't about knowing where one individual cyclist is at one time, it's about being aware that there's likely to be a cyclist in the vicinity and modifying one's behaviour to suit - ie by looking out for them. With more cyclists out there, people get more used to them being around and do indeed modify their behaviour in a positive manner. It goes from "eeek, there's a cyclist there, what do I do, panic!!!!" to "cyclist, ok, do x" where x is a sensible course of action they've done before or see other people do. It icludes things like "I always see lots of cyclists here, better be a bit more wary - oh yes, there's one". clive       Date: 14 Sep 2007 14:28:48 From: Greens Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats "Clive George" <clive@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk > wrote in message news:13elfpfgl6ugvd0@corp.supernews.com... > "Jay Beattie" <jbeattie@lindsayhart.com> wrote in message > news:1189788168.614942.178280@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > >> I always thought the "awareness" argument was BS. If I am the only >> person on the road, and I get hit by a car, then the injury rate is >> 100%. If there happens to be one person on the road ahead of me (God >> only knows where -- these studies are usually specific to a city and >> not a street), and I get hit, then the injury rate drops to only 50%. >> Huge drop. Now the guy who hit me knows nothing about the other >> cyclist who was, let's say, across town. The notion that the rate was >> halved because of "driver awareness" makes no sense at all. It just >> seems like fun with numbers. -- Jay Beattie. > > Um - that seems to be missing the point about the awareness argument by > really quite some margin. > > The awareness isn't about knowing where one individual cyclist is at one > time, it's about being aware that there's likely to be a cyclist in the > vicinity and modifying one's behaviour to suit - ie by looking out for > them. > > With more cyclists out there, people get more used to them being around > and do indeed modify their behaviour in a positive manner. It goes from > "eeek, there's a cyclist there, what do I do, panic!!!!" to "cyclist, ok, > do x" where x is a sensible course of action they've done before or see > other people do. It icludes things like "I always see lots of cyclists > here, better be a bit more wary - oh yes, there's one". > > clive > > I'm with you. I think cyclists do all gain safety when there are lots of cyclists. Motorists start thinking a cyclist can be anywhere and also they start to understand some of the crazy moves that cyclists might make. There are limits to this benefit though. The Dutch have nearly a million cyclists on their streets on an ordinary day and they still have a lot of cycling deaths. It's just a matter of human bodies slamming, unprotected into fixed objects or at least large, relatively immoveable masses. Roads and roadside objects could be nerfed, i.e, made into soft, energy absorbing materials. They put padding on ski lift poles. Same can be done for objects that cyclists might run into in crowded cycling areas. Assume that falls will happen. The Dutch ride without helmets by the way. They're not safety nuts. I think we Americans get a charge out of taking risks. The helmet in a way tells everyone we're doing something "extreme". The Dutch don't see it as extreme. When I was a kid in the sixties USA, I didn't see bicycling as extreme.       Date: 14 Sep 2007 13:27:35 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats Clive George wrote: > Um - that seems to be missing the point about the awareness argument by > really quite some margin. > > The awareness isn't about knowing where one individual cyclist is at one > time, it's about being aware that there's likely to be a cyclist in the > vicinity and modifying one's behaviour to suit - ie by looking out for > them. > > With more cyclists out there, people get more used to them being around > and do indeed modify their behaviour in a positive manner. It goes from > "eeek, there's a cyclist there, what do I do, panic!!!!" to "cyclist, > ok, do x" where x is a sensible course of action they've done before or > see other people do. It icludes things like "I always see lots of > cyclists here, better be a bit more wary - oh yes, there's one". > I don't subscribe to the awareness argument either. Your "eeek-panic" scenario implies that that is a reason why collisions happen. I don't believe that is what happens. I believe that the "more cyclists the safer" scenario is a population, rather than individual, based phenomenom and is likely attributable to slow speed locations. The slower the motor vehicle typical speed due to congestion the more likely cycling is attractive and the less likely are collisions. The more congestion the more people also have to be aware of their surroundings. Wayne         Date: 14 Sep 2007 19:57:53 From: Clive George Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats "Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com > wrote in message news:46eac488$0$18941$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > I believe that the "more cyclists the safer" scenario is a population, > rather than individual, based phenomenom and is likely attributable to > slow speed locations. The slower the motor vehicle typical speed due to > congestion the more likely cycling is attractive and the less likely are > collisions. The more congestion the more people also have to be aware of > their surroundings. The recent London experience belies those claims. A massive increase in cycling and at the same time IIRC car speeds went up since there was less congestion. I agree it's a population thing, and I think it's reasonably simply attributable to people just being more used to being around cyclists. cheers, clive           Date: 14 Sep 2007 15:58:19 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats Clive George wrote: > "Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com> wrote in message > news:46eac488$0$18941$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > >> I believe that the "more cyclists the safer" scenario is a population, >> rather than individual, based phenomenom and is likely attributable to >> slow speed locations. The slower the motor vehicle typical speed due >> to congestion the more likely cycling is attractive and the less >> likely are collisions. The more congestion the more people also have >> to be aware of their surroundings. > > > The recent London experience belies those claims. A massive increase in > cycling and at the same time IIRC car speeds went up since there was > less congestion. > > I agree it's a population thing, and I think it's reasonably simply > attributable to people just being more used to being around cyclists. > > cheers, > clive Since I don't live in London I am only guessing, but since London is a big city it already had slow speeds. Increased speed due to less congestion is likely relatively miniscule. The increase in cyclists was due to the prohibitive cost of motoring. Wayne             Date: 14 Sep 2007 21:02:59 From: Clive George Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats "Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com > wrote in message news:46eae7dc$0$17053$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > Since I don't live in London I am only guessing, but since London is a big > city it already had slow speeds. Increased speed due to less congestion is > likely relatively miniscule. The increase in cyclists was due to the > prohibitive cost of motoring. The "Congestion Charge" had something to do with it - but another factor was the 7/7 bombings, which scared people off public transport. This happened in summer, so conditions were ideal for people to try cycling. And some of them kept at it. cheers, clive           Date: 14 Sep 2007 15:50:34 From: Greens Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats "Clive George" <clive@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk > wrote in message news:13elmg8637vkcf2@corp.supernews.com... > "Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com> wrote in message > news:46eac488$0$18941$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > >> I believe that the "more cyclists the safer" scenario is a population, >> rather than individual, based phenomenom and is likely attributable to >> slow speed locations. The slower the motor vehicle typical speed due to >> congestion the more likely cycling is attractive and the less likely are >> collisions. The more congestion the more people also have to be aware of >> their surroundings. > > The recent London experience belies those claims. A massive increase in > cycling and at the same time IIRC car speeds went up since there was less > congestion. > > I agree it's a population thing, and I think it's reasonably simply > attributable to people just being more used to being around cyclists. > > cheers, > clive Here's another stat for you. The more congestion and traffic there is, the "more crazier the motorists gets" unless the law comes in and steps on it frequently and regularly. Road rage is more common when people are bottled up than when they're moving freely.   Date: 14 Sep 2007 11:36:54 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats Greens wrote: > U.S. Bikers Less Safe Than European Counterparts > > > In the United States, cyclists are 12 times more likely than people in > cars to die en route to their destinations. On a per-kilometer and per-trip > basis, U.S. cyclists are twice as likely to die on the road as German > cyclists, and more than three times as likely as Dutch cyclists. While > cycling fatalities in all of these countries have fallen in the last 25 > years, U.S. cycling deaths have declined largely because of a drop in > cycling, while in the Netherlands and Germany investments in infrastructure > that make cycling safer account for much of the decline. > > http://www.thebicyclebum.com/ It's very difficult to reach these statistics easily because of the unknowns in cyclist mileage, as a result estimates vary wildly. One thing that seems to have been firmly established is that as the biking population goes up the rate of car-bike crashes goes down. I'd be cautious about comparing locales where bikes are common to those where bikes are rare and concluding that the differences were other than just the greater awareness due to greater presence.     Date: 14 Sep 2007 14:15:32 From: Greens Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats "Peter Cole" <peter_cole@comcast.net > wrote in message news:p-6dnfCC6PMKN3fbnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@comcast.com... > Greens wrote: >> U.S. Bikers Less Safe Than European Counterparts >> >> >> In the United States, cyclists are 12 times more likely than people in >> cars to die en route to their destinations. On a per-kilometer and >> per-trip basis, U.S. cyclists are twice as likely to die on the road as >> German cyclists, and more than three times as likely as Dutch cyclists. >> While cycling fatalities in all of these countries have fallen in the >> last 25 years, U.S. cycling deaths have declined largely because of a >> drop in cycling, while in the Netherlands and Germany investments in >> infrastructure that make cycling safer account for much of the decline. >> >> http://www.thebicyclebum.com/ > > It's very difficult to reach these statistics easily because of the > unknowns in cyclist mileage, as a result estimates vary wildly. > > One thing that seems to have been firmly established is that as the biking > population goes up the rate of car-bike crashes goes down. I'd be cautious > about comparing locales where bikes are common to those where bikes are > rare and concluding that the differences were other than just the greater > awareness due to greater presence. Fix the public's attitude (mostly the motoring public's attitude), fix the infrastructure so that it welcomes cyclists and you'll get more cyclists and safety... but there are limits. Even the Dutch have fatalities. Cars and bikes or at least what they do is inheirently dangerous. The human body was designed to survive unscathed impacts of very low speed. Cycling and motoring result in impacts of considerably higher speed, motoring especially. The Germans did some studies. They found that impacts of 30 mph have few survivors when the impacted are unprotected by cages and bags. Impacts at 20mph are much more surviveable. As a result the roads in Germany have been designed so that when bikes and cars mix there isn't more than 20mph in their speeds.   Date: 14 Sep 2007 14:10:19 From: landotter Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats On Sep 14, 5:33 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > wrote: > U.S. Bikers Less Safe Than European Counterparts > > In the United States, cyclists are 12 times more likely than people in > cars to die en route to their destinations. And that's mainly because people in the US ride overwhelmingly like morons. You reap what you sow, eh? Being a Euro-'merican should have my ass covered, now hand me my jaunty cap, it's ridin' time!   Date: 14 Sep 2007 06:43:26 From: autopi Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats i recently read something--i think it was linked off bikesnobnyc-- about cycling accidents in brooklyn, and the author claimed that in a large majority of cases, it was the cyclist who was at fault. certainly this corresponds to what i see on my commute--bikers riding through busy intersections, going the wrong way down one-way streets, stopping in the middle of a busy bike lane, etc.. does anyone have information about this? are cyclists in the US more reckless than counterparts in europe? however, let it be said that in my experience, drivers in france are much more courteous and competent at sharing the road than their american brethren. i also suspect part of the difference may come down to difference in attitude. in some locales, cycling is understood as a normal means of transport. in the US, only crazy people, kids and lycra-wearing extremists (i.e., crazy people) ride bikes on the road. not that people are intentionally running bikers off the road for this reason, but it may mean drivers are less likely to keep in mind the need to give adequate room to cyclists, look before opening doors or making a turn, etc..     Date: 15 Sep 2007 06:44:40 From: Mike Jacoubowsky Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats >i recently read something--i think it was linked off bikesnobnyc-- > about cycling accidents in brooklyn, and the author claimed that in a > large majority of cases, it was the cyclist who was at fault. > certainly this corresponds to what i see on my commute--bikers riding > through busy intersections, going the wrong way down one-way streets, > stopping in the middle of a busy bike lane, etc.. does anyone have > information about this? are cyclists in the US more reckless than > counterparts in europe? From personal experience, I'd say it's a mixed bag. European cyclists, or at least those riding in France, tend to mix it up with the cars a lot more readily than we do in the US. It's quite common to be riding down the middle of a two-lane road if traffic's slow, in-between cars going opposite directions. Something no right-thinking person would consider in the US, and something which the gendarmes allow in France but I think you'd be inviting a ticket and a lot of anger here (in the US). > however, let it be said that in my experience, drivers in france are > much more courteous and competent at sharing the road than their > american brethren. I'm not sure it's so much being "courteous" as it is "competent." One of the things that initially scares you a bit in France is when cars overtake you to make a right-hand turn. They do so without a whole lot of extra room, but they do so in a consistent manner and, while close, it's never scary. They know what they're doing; they seem far more adept at figuring out how fast you're going than people in the US. > i also suspect part of the difference may come down to difference in > attitude. in some locales, cycling is understood as a normal means of > transport. in the US, only crazy people, kids and lycra-wearing > extremists (i.e., crazy people) ride bikes on the road. not that > people are intentionally running bikers off the road for this reason, > but it may mean drivers are less likely to keep in mind the need to > give adequate room to cyclists, look before opening doors or making a > turn, etc.. In France, it's probably simply that you've got a culture that grew up with bicycles. And just look at the effect the Tour de France can have in the US- can you imagine what it does for France? Towns all over the country bid good money to have the race come through their town. It's much more than a sports event; it's a traveling circus/county fair that's 100% free for the spectators. I think that adds a lot of legitimacy to cycling, especially for the lycra-clad crowd. --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReactionBicycles.com     Date: 14 Sep 2007 14:06:42 From: Greens Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats "autopi" <iamnetflix@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1189777406.952785.156280@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com... >i recently read something--i think it was linked off bikesnobnyc-- > about cycling accidents in brooklyn, and the author claimed that in a > large majority of cases, it was the cyclist who was at fault. > certainly this corresponds to what i see on my commute--bikers riding > through busy intersections, going the wrong way down one-way streets, > stopping in the middle of a busy bike lane, etc.. does anyone have > information about this? are cyclists in the US more reckless than > counterparts in europe? > > however, let it be said that in my experience, drivers in france are > much more courteous and competent at sharing the road than their > american brethren. > > i also suspect part of the difference may come down to difference in > attitude. in some locales, cycling is understood as a normal means of > transport. in the US, only crazy people, kids and lycra-wearing > extremists (i.e., crazy people) ride bikes on the road. not that > people are intentionally running bikers off the road for this reason, > but it may mean drivers are less likely to keep in mind the need to > give adequate room to cyclists, look before opening doors or making a > turn, etc.. > Cyclists in the USA have little reason to respect motorists, cops or the law. All of them act as though cyclists are impeding their progress. Cycling is seen as something for children and people who've never grown up and also the aforementioned fitness fanatics. Infrastructure, law enforcement are designed in such a way that they wordlessly shout, "Get off the road with that stupid bicycle, you idiot! Get a car! Get a life! I'm late for my nose piercing! I gotta get my pit bull a new collar and the store closes in five minutes! I can't help it I'm late. I was all caught up in Dr. Phil's show."       Date: 14 Sep 2007 16:33:55 From: (PeteCresswell) Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats Per Greens: >they wordlessly shout, "Get off the road with >that stupid bicycle, you idiot! Get a car! Get a life! I'm late for my nose >piercing! I gotta get my pit bull a new collar and the store closes in five >minutes! I can't help it I'm late. I was all caught up in Dr. Phil's show." The one that almost nailed me a couple years back was obviously hurrying because she was late for an appearance on Jerry Springer. -- PeteCresswell   Date: 14 Sep 2007 06:29:03 From: joseph.santaniello@gmail.com Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats On Sep 14, 12:33 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > wrote: > U.S. Bikers Less Safe Than European Counterparts > > In the United States, cyclists are 12 times more likely than people in > cars to die en route to their destinations. On a per-kilometer and per-trip > basis, U.S. cyclists are twice as likely to die on the road as German > cyclists, and more than three times as likely as Dutch cyclists. While > cycling fatalities in all of these countries have fallen in the last 25 > years, U.S. cycling deaths have declined largely because of a drop in > cycling, while in the Netherlands and Germany investments in infrastructure > that make cycling safer account for much of the decline. > > http://www.thebicyclebum.com/ I'm not saying cycling in the US is safe or anything, but comparing these countries is like apples and oranges. Holland is as big as New Jersey but has twice as many people with lots of congested urban areas jammed full of folks on bikes. Lots of "normal" people too taking short trips down to the baker, etc. Germany is perhaps a better comparison, but still isn't really comparable. In the US it seems to me bike users are either winos on their way to the liquour store the wrong way at night, or fitness cyclists out on relatively long rides on roads with fast car traffic. These are both more dangerous than putting along basically on the sidewalk in a congested urban area like millions do in Holland. I'm sure this skews the numbers at least some. Joseph     Date: 14 Sep 2007 13:47:31 From: Greens Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats <joseph.santaniello@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1189776543.879931.218790@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 14, 12:33 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: >> U.S. Bikers Less Safe Than European Counterparts >> >> In the United States, cyclists are 12 times more likely than people in >> cars to die en route to their destinations. On a per-kilometer and >> per-trip >> basis, U.S. cyclists are twice as likely to die on the road as German >> cyclists, and more than three times as likely as Dutch cyclists. While >> cycling fatalities in all of these countries have fallen in the last 25 >> years, U.S. cycling deaths have declined largely because of a drop in >> cycling, while in the Netherlands and Germany investments in >> infrastructure >> that make cycling safer account for much of the decline. >> >> http://www.thebicyclebum.com/ > > I'm not saying cycling in the US is safe or anything, but comparing > these countries is like apples and oranges. Holland is as big as New > Jersey but has twice as many people with lots of congested urban areas > jammed full of folks on bikes. Lots of "normal" people too taking > short trips down to the baker, etc. Germany is perhaps a better > comparison, but still isn't really comparable. > > In the US it seems to me bike users are either winos on their way to > the liquour store the wrong way at night, or fitness cyclists out on > relatively long rides on roads with fast car traffic. These are both > more dangerous than putting along basically on the sidewalk in a > congested urban area like millions do in Holland. I'm sure this skews > the numbers at least some. > > Joseph > In other words you don't think the entirely different attitude that authorities and society have towards cycling makes any difference? You blame America's poor stats on the cyclists themselves. They're either drunks or fitness freaks riding on roads where they don't belong. In Germany and The Netherlands the motoist almost always gets the majority of the blame in cycling accidents and pedestrian deaths. Instead of encouraging car culture and motorist arrogance in those countries they have a master plan to reduce deaths among cyclists and peds. They have different infrastructure, i.e, cities designed for humans instead of cities designed for cars and so much more. Maybe you just didn't know.       Date: 14 Sep 2007 16:31:16 From: (PeteCresswell) Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats Per Greens: >In Germany and The Netherlands the motoist almost always gets the majority... Anybody seen any numbers on the relative percentage of drivers talking on cell phones, text messaging, and/or doing email while driving in the USA vs other countries? -- PeteCresswell         Date: 14 Sep 2007 17:56:04 From: Greens Subject: Re: Some grim cycling stats "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid > wrote in message news:rqrle39ppmliag6m3vrjjr31ds3gbo41pa@4ax.com... > Per Greens: >>In Germany and The Netherlands the motoist almost always gets the >>majority... > > Anybody seen any numbers on the relative percentage of drivers > talking on cell phones, text messaging, and/or doing email while > driving in the USA vs other countries? > -- > PeteCresswell Hah! I had an appointment with a podiatrist recently. He came in for my visit still talking and laughing with someone outside in the hall or in another room. I got pissed and told him I wanted my 18 seconds of full attention per doctor visit. (That's how long a doctor listens to a patient before coming up with some sort of plan to treat them according to a book I read called "How Doctors Think" or something like that.) At that point he pulled out some kind of gadget and started texting. He spent the whole appointment texting to his correspondent while defiantly staring at me. You bet your ass they're all on their phones texting while driving. at most you've got the full attention of a third of their brain.