bicycle-forum.net Promoting biking discussion.

Main Date: 26 Aug 2007 12:25:10 From: Greens Subject: The need for high tech traffic detectors While riding along, I often think I wish I had eyes like a deer for bicycling, set on the side of my head so that I could see what's happening to the front, sides and to a much larger extent, the rear. I'm convinced that the cyclist needs this kidn of vision more than a car or pedestrian. Cars don't need to see what's behind them as much because they're about the fastest thing on the road and fender benders aren't usually fatal for motorists. Cyclists are usually the slowest thing on the road. Example 1: Biking down the road, there's a parked car up ahead. I can't tell if someone is in the driver's seat. That might be a headrest and even if it isn't the driver might be bent over. I'd like to steer wide around the parked car, but I can hear a car coming behind me. I look in my side mirror (mounted on my handlebar and way too far to the side if you ask me) and I see the car coming up from behind in my mirror. What I don't see or hear is that there's another car right behind him. The first car passes and I start to move into the main path of traffic behind it to pass the parked car at a safe distance, but at the last moment I notice the second car who has fortunately spotted me. I pass the parked car with inches to spare. As it turns out that's all the second motorist thought I'd want. Luck is with me and nobody throws open the door. The key thing is I made it through this by sheer luck. The second car had me covered to some extent and the parked car didn't door me. I'd much rather have been given an early warning that a second car was coming. Unfortunately, I don't know of any car detecting gadgets, but then there's that guy that did the experiment with wearing helmets. He said that wearing helmets resulted in motorists giving you less space. That's not important right now. The important thing is that in his study he used an ultrasonic gadget to detect cars and their distance from him. That's the kind of thing I want. Some kind of sonar to let me know what's going on behind me. Let me know if there are cars, how many cars, in back, to the side, etc and also if they are veering onto the side of the road. Sometimes your ears will pick up the second car, but often the first car or a lawnmower or just the wind will drown out the sound of cars coming up from behind. I've also had fast moving cyclists pass me with almost no warning and sometimes I do swerve around a little. It's just pure luck that there wasn't a collision. Ultrasound is one way of doing it. Infrared might be better. All cars have hot motors. Couldn't something be made to show how many hot spots there are around me? Maybe a screen to show them closing in? I've also thought of mounting a rear facing video camera and monitor so that I could watch and maybe even record traffic and events. I think the screen may be too small though. There are times when I get into situations where I have to see and monitor cars and peds behind, in front and to the side of me all at the same time. Things just change so fast and people do the strangest things in reaction to cyclists. Women will push a baby carriage right in front of you to make the point that they have the right of way. This is as opposed to slowing down for a couple of seconds. I would think it would be easy to just slow down while pushing a baby carriage, but some women are so intent on pressing their right of way that they'll push that carriage in front of you to make you stop. I've also had a woman walk right into my path with her pack of loose dogs at night. I had a light on, but I guess I wasn't making a car noise. I assumed because she was approaching at 90 degrees, she'd see me, but no. She doesn't look up unless she hears the telltale sound of 3000 pound car on pavement.   Date: 05 Sep 2007 17:18:39 From: Chalo Subject: Re: The need for a recumbent bike.... On Sep 5, 9:57 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > wrote: > > If these incidents are so rare, how did > they ever get footage? Answer; they're not so rare. Elephants and bears are rare and don't attack people often either, but you can find some videos of that on the web too. Despite what you say, many of the rest of us here know you to be an alarmist fool, because we go out into the crowded streets on our bikes every single day and return without incident. Many of us have accumulated hundreds of thousands of kilometers on our bikes without ever having been hit by a car. Almost all of us have been in more automobile accidents than car-bike collisions. Only a very few of us who have been hit by a car while cycling, have ever been hit by an overtaking car. Some drivers are careless. Some drivers are inconsiderate. Some drivers are impaired by various kinds of intoxication. But these cases are exceptions, and even in these cases the drivers are trying _not_ to run into things. If the streets really were as dangerous as you claim, it would be lethal to venture out in a car or on foot, too. As cyclists, we resent like the risk imposed upon us by car drivers, but it isn't a large risk as long as you participate in traffic in a responsible, predictable way. Maybe you don't-- in which case you should probably stay off the road as much as possible. Chalo     Date: 05 Sep 2007 15:51:54 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for a recumbent bike.... "Chalo" <chalo.colina@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1189012719.196812.125400@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 5, 9:57 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: >> >> If these incidents are so rare, how did >> they ever get footage? Answer; they're not so rare. > > Elephants and bears are rare and don't attack people often either, but > you can find some videos of that on the web too. > > Despite what you say, many of the rest of us here know you to be an > alarmist fool, because we go out into the crowded streets on our bikes > every single day and return without incident. Many of us have > accumulated hundreds of thousands of kilometers on our bikes without > ever having been hit by a car. Almost all of us have been in more > automobile accidents than car-bike collisions. Only a very few of us > who have been hit by a car while cycling, have ever been hit by an > overtaking car. > > Some drivers are careless. Some drivers are inconsiderate. Some > drivers are impaired by various kinds of intoxication. But these > cases are exceptions, and even in these cases the drivers are trying > _not_ to run into things. If the streets really were as dangerous as > you claim, it would be lethal to venture out in a car or on foot, > too. > > As cyclists, we resent like the risk imposed upon us by car drivers, > but it isn't a large risk as long as you participate in traffic in a > responsible, predictable way. Maybe you don't-- in which case you > should probably stay off the road as much as possible. > > Chalo > If you have any brains, you have to admit that at any moment when you're on the side of the street, a passing truck can crush you. It's just a fact. If there are moving trucks and you are in or near their path, that is a possibility. There are few bears where I am and most of them stay away from humans. Still they are a risk. A bear was hit by a car within 3 miles of my house this summer right near a bike trail. You need to look at who's ridiculously immoveable here, who's provoking argument, who's the know it all. It's Frank.       Date: 05 Sep 2007 15:46:19 From: A Muzi Subject: Re: The need for a recumbent bike.... -snip impending doom- > "Chalo" <chalo.colina@gmail.com> wrote >> As cyclists, we resent like the risk imposed upon us by car drivers, >> but it isn't a large risk as long as you participate in traffic in a >> responsible, predictable way. Maybe you don't-- in which case you >> should probably stay off the road as much as possible. Greens wrote: > If you have any brains, you have to admit that at any moment when you're on > the side of the street, a passing truck can crush you. It's just a fact. If > there are moving trucks and you are in or near their path, that is a > possibility. A big weight marked "Ten Tons" could fall on my head, too. I saw the cartoon. It's a fact. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971         Date: 06 Sep 2007 18:28:07 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: The need for a recumbent bike.... In article <13du5b8k6e9vr17@corp.supernews.com >, A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org > wrote: > -snip impending doom- > > "Chalo" <chalo.colina@gmail.com> wrote > >> As cyclists, we resent like the risk imposed upon us by car drivers, > >> but it isn't a large risk as long as you participate in traffic in a > >> responsible, predictable way. Maybe you don't-- in which case you > >> should probably stay off the road as much as possible. > > Greens wrote: > > If you have any brains, you have to admit that at any moment when you're on > > the side of the street, a passing truck can crush you. It's just a fact. If > > there are moving trucks and you are in or near their path, that is a > > possibility. > > A big weight marked "Ten Tons" could fall on my head, too. > I saw the cartoon. It's a fact. As Chalo notes, the only responsible advice for Greens: "Get off the road!" -- Michael Press         Date: 05 Sep 2007 17:30:48 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for a recumbent bike.... "A Muzi" <am@yellowjersey.org > wrote in message news:13du5b8k6e9vr17@corp.supernews.com... > -snip impending doom- >> "Chalo" <chalo.colina@gmail.com> wrote >>> As cyclists, we resent like the risk imposed upon us by car drivers, >>> but it isn't a large risk as long as you participate in traffic in a >>> responsible, predictable way. Maybe you don't-- in which case you >>> should probably stay off the road as much as possible. > > Greens wrote: >> If you have any brains, you have to admit that at any moment when you're >> on the side of the street, a passing truck can crush you. It's just a >> fact. If there are moving trucks and you are in or near their path, that >> is a possibility. > > A big weight marked "Ten Tons" could fall on my head, too. > I saw the cartoon. It's a fact. > -- > Andrew Muzi > www.yellowjersey.org > Open every day since 1 April, 1971 The difference is that the truck is real as an example. The safe could happen, but we all know it's less likely to happen in this day of yellow tape and lawyers.           Date: 06 Sep 2007 01:48:22 From: Luke Subject: Re: The need for a recumbent bike.... In article <S4GdneiMEI3NgkLbnZ2dnUVZ_jOdnZ2d@adelphia.com >, Greens <prbj@adelphia.net > wrote: > "A Muzi" <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote in message > news:13du5b8k6e9vr17@corp.supernews.com... > > -snip impending doom- > >> "Chalo" <chalo.colina@gmail.com> wrote > >>> As cyclists, we resent like the risk imposed upon us by car drivers, > >>> but it isn't a large risk as long as you participate in traffic in a > >>> responsible, predictable way. Maybe you don't-- in which case you > >>> should probably stay off the road as much as possible. > > > > Greens wrote: > >> If you have any brains, you have to admit that at any moment when you're > >> on the side of the street, a passing truck can crush you. It's just a > >> fact. If there are moving trucks and you are in or near their path, that > >> is a possibility. > > > > A big weight marked "Ten Tons" could fall on my head, too. > > I saw the cartoon. It's a fact. > > -- No problem though. In the cartoon Wile E. always lives to give chase another day!   Date: 05 Sep 2007 09:34:49 From: Subject: Re: The need for a recumbent bike.... On Sep 5, 10:57 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > wrote: > *Snippage reinserted by Greens* you've gotta wonder why it was snipped. It was snipped because it's standard Usenet protocol to snip what's unnecessary. Otherwise posts grow in length exponentially. (You are only the second person I recall having trouble with that concept.) > > The videos make it obvious that the vehicles behind you are unpredictable > and that auto drivers can be quite crazy and incompetent. sigh. I don't see > that many people filming traffic. If these incidents are so rare, how did > they ever get footage? Answer; they're not so rare. At that point, an intelligent move would have been to provide some data on how common those incidents are. If you could demonstrate with good data that they are, indeed, common, you'd have done something for your side of the argument. As it is, your statement "They're not so rare" is completely worthless. - Frank Krygowski     Date: 06 Sep 2007 18:24:53 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: The need for a recumbent bike.... In article <1189010089.837351.320530@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com > , frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > On Sep 5, 10:57 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: > > *Snippage reinserted by Greens* you've gotta wonder why it was snipped. > > It was snipped because it's standard Usenet protocol to snip what's > unnecessary. Otherwise posts grow in length exponentially. The message length grows linearly. The total line count in the thread increases quadratically, if that matters. -- Michael Press     Date: 05 Sep 2007 13:30:29 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for a recumbent bike.... <frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1189010089.837351.320530@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 5, 10:57 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: >> *Snippage reinserted by Greens* you've gotta wonder why it was snipped. > > It was snipped because it's standard Usenet protocol to snip what's > unnecessary. Otherwise posts grow in length exponentially. (You are > only the second person I recall having trouble with that concept.) > >> >> The videos make it obvious that the vehicles behind you are unpredictable >> and that auto drivers can be quite crazy and incompetent. sigh. I don't >> see >> that many people filming traffic. If these incidents are so rare, how did >> they ever get footage? Answer; they're not so rare. > > At that point, an intelligent move would have been to provide some > data on how common those incidents are. If you could demonstrate with > good data that they are, indeed, common, you'd have done something for > your side of the argument. > > As it is, your statement "They're not so rare" is completely > worthless. > > - Frank Krygowski > It might be okay to snip after awhile, but that was fresh material and it was very pertinent. You're just arrogant and it shows, Frank. If it doesn't suit your purposes, it's "worthless". Try winning your argument fairly. You never answered why inspite of your campaign most people still think cycling is dangerous. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wrJ8p7OLq4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1K2xZ0udRjs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNgnPlVe4_c Cycling is safe http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abhC6ikTXns There's no danger from behind http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcMhbvmjp7E Walking is dangerous http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfeavDg3APM Lunatics in cars are not a problem http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41Re7EiJrVk No danger from behind. No problem. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpaotxQKhas nothing to worry about This one reminds me. This year I was pedaling along and a guy was mowing with a push mower in his yard. He came towards me perpendicularly and he looked right at me, sped up and pushed his mower three feet onto the road right into my path. Then he ran forward and turned it around to go back. In another incident a lady pushed her baby carriage into my path. This is all in one summer. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwGa7OEdU1Y SUVs can fly http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFvuZ1eL2zc Don't worry about people behind you. I know. He's acting like an ass. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Usa4SzC_7U Obey the traffic laws and you'll be fine.       Date: 05 Sep 2007 16:28:25 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for a recumbent bike.... "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net > wrote in message news:BYSdnQsnS6tye0PbnZ2dnUVZ_gidnZ2d@adelphia.com... > > <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1189010089.837351.320530@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com... >> On Sep 5, 10:57 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: >>> *Snippage reinserted by Greens* you've gotta wonder why it was snipped. >> >> It was snipped because it's standard Usenet protocol to snip what's >> unnecessary. Otherwise posts grow in length exponentially. (You are >> only the second person I recall having trouble with that concept.) >> >>> >>> The videos make it obvious that the vehicles behind you are >>> unpredictable >>> and that auto drivers can be quite crazy and incompetent. sigh. I don't >>> see >>> that many people filming traffic. If these incidents are so rare, how >>> did >>> they ever get footage? Answer; they're not so rare. >> >> At that point, an intelligent move would have been to provide some >> data on how common those incidents are. If you could demonstrate with >> good data that they are, indeed, common, you'd have done something for >> your side of the argument. >> >> As it is, your statement "They're not so rare" is completely >> worthless. >> >> - Frank Krygowski >> > It might be okay to snip after awhile, but that was fresh material and it > was very pertinent. You're just arrogant and it shows, Frank. If it > doesn't suit your purposes, it's "worthless". Try winning your argument > fairly. > > You never answered why inspite of your campaign most people still think > cycling is dangerous. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wrJ8p7OLq4 > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1K2xZ0udRjs > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNgnPlVe4_c > Cycling is safe > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abhC6ikTXns > There's no danger from behind > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcMhbvmjp7E > Walking is dangerous > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfeavDg3APM > Lunatics in cars are not a problem > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41Re7EiJrVk > No danger from behind. No problem. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpaotxQKhas > nothing to worry about > This one reminds me. This year I was pedaling along and a guy was mowing > with a push mower in his yard. He came towards me perpendicularly and he > looked right at me, sped up and pushed his mower three feet onto the road > right into my path. Then he ran forward and turned it around to go back. > In > another incident a lady pushed her baby carriage into my path. This is all > in one summer. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwGa7OEdU1Y > SUVs can fly > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFvuZ1eL2zc > Don't worry about people behind you. > I know. He's acting like an ass. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Usa4SzC_7U > Obey the traffic laws and you'll be fine. > > This fellow explains, late in the video, that he feels a lot safer bicycling or walking in Germany because of the way they've arranged things. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xzp0KiYjmM   Date: 05 Sep 2007 13:16:36 From: Subject: Re: The need for a recumbent bike.... On Sep 5, 2:03 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > wrote: > > > The thing about cyling is that you are constantly being passed by heavier, > faster moving traffic. To most people this is unsettling. It may be unsettling to people not used to it. However, it doesn't make it unsafe. > Your well being is > in the hands of drunks, psychos and incompetents. On the other hand > motorists aren't always being passed by heavier vehicles. They go with the > flow of the traffic (at the same pace). If that were the determining factor for safety, motorcycling wouldn't be so much more dangerous than riding in cars, bicycling and walking. Oh, and I find it interesting that you search for "proof" in videos of unusual incidents, not in data. Isn't that like keeping up with the world news by reading the comics page? - Frank Krygowski     Date: 05 Sep 2007 10:57:53 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for a recumbent bike.... *Snippage reinserted by Greens* you've gotta wonder why it was snipped. "DougC" <dcimper@norcom2000.com > wrote in message news:U%eDi.18$Gh4.14@newsfe12.lga... > Greens wrote: >> While riding along, I often think I wish I had eyes like a deer for >> bicycling, set on the side of my head so that I could see what's >> happening to the front, sides and to a much larger extent, the rear. >> ...... >> > > I use a eyeglass-mount rear-view mirror while riding a recumbent bike, and > don't have any problem seeing what's happening behind me. It's very rare > that any cars sneak up behind me anymore. ...Such mirrors don't work real > well on upright bikes, because if you are positioned aggressively all the > mirror shows you is your own shoulder. > > I did have "regular" bikes some years ago, I don't know how anyone gets > any use out of handlebar-mounted mirrors. The couple I've seen vibrated > badly while riding, greatly reducing their usefulness. > > I consider the rear-view mirror to be a far more important accessory to > riding safety than a helmet. I usually ride with no helmet these days but > always have the rear-view mirror. Anyone who tells you that turning your > head to look or "listening for cars behind you" is just as effective as a > good mirror is a simple fool. > > ----- > > As for cars not offering much room, I play the fake out: pretend to be > fumbling with something, and shake the handlebars a bit, wobble a few > inches left and right. It's like Moses parting the Red Sea. > > ----- > > As for signaling rider intent, there are a couple companies making bicycle > turn signals (even with brake lights) and overall I like the concept, but > not the products offered. If I rode much in urban traffic I'd have > probably modified a setup to my liking and be using it. ....The general > advice of taking one hand off the handlebars to signal turns while > bicycling is probably bad, but for most of us there's no other choice > easily available, unless you use left-arm signals and move your front > brake lever to the right side (for US/right-hand-lane traffic). Maybe > BigHa was not so dumb for including turn signals after all? > > ------ > > As far as pedestrians walking dogs in the way, get an AirZound and keep it > pumped up. Scare them so bad they soil their undergarments. > ~ The thing about cyling is that you are constantly being passed by heavier, faster moving traffic. To most people this is unsettling. Your well being is in the hands of drunks, psychos and incompetents. On the other hand motorists aren't always being passed by heavier vehicles. They go with the flow of the traffic (at the same pace). I'm sure most people find this much more reassuring. Whenever I'm in my car with it's massive cage and I pull over on the side of the road, I immediately feel less safe because now heavy vehicles are going past at high speeds. If you ever noticed there's a lot of video of even the extremely well marked and lighted police cars falling victim to passing traffic when they're on the side of the road. Who's the last person you want to crash into? For me it would be a cop and yet a lot of cops get crashed into and quite a few have been killed that way. Your helmet mirror won't do you any good if a car comes up from behind and swerves into you going thirty mph faster than you're going. You might get a nice view of the impact. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wrJ8p7OLq4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1K2xZ0udRjs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNgnPlVe4_c Cycling is safe http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abhC6ikTXns There's no danger from behind http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcMhbvmjp7E Walking is dangerous http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfeavDg3APM Lunatics in cars are not a problem http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41Re7EiJrVk No danger from behind. No problem. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpaotxQKhas nothing to worry about This one reminds me. This year I was pedaling along and a guy was mowing with a push mower in his yard. He came towards me perpendicularly and he looked right at me, sped up and pushed his mower three feet onto the road right into my path. Then he ran forward and turned it around to go back. In another incident a lady pushed her baby carriage into my path. This is all in one summer. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwGa7OEdU1Y SUVs can fly http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFvuZ1eL2zc Don't worry about people behind you. I know. He's acting like an ass. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Usa4SzC_7U Obey the traffic laws and you'll be fine. <frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1188998196.105653.324820@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 5, 2:03 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: >> >> >> The thing about cyling is that you are constantly being passed by >> heavier, >> faster moving traffic. To most people this is unsettling. > > It may be unsettling to people not used to it. However, it doesn't > make it unsafe. > >> Your well being is >> in the hands of drunks, psychos and incompetents. On the other hand >> motorists aren't always being passed by heavier vehicles. They go with >> the >> flow of the traffic (at the same pace). > > If that were the determining factor for safety, motorcycling wouldn't > be so much more dangerous than riding in cars, bicycling and walking. > > Oh, and I find it interesting that you search for "proof" in videos of > unusual incidents, not in data. Isn't that like keeping up with the > world news by reading the comics page? > > - Frank Krygowski > As usual you play dumb and pretend to miss the point, Frank. Clealy I said that people have, by your own clan's admission, shown an unease with traffic coming from behind. You tell them it isn't anything to worry about but that doesn't do anything to help them with their lack of control with things coming up from behind. The videos make it obvious that the vehicles behind you are unpredictable and that auto drivers can be quite crazy and incompetent. sigh. I don't see that many people filming traffic. If these incidents are so rare, how did they ever get footage? Answer; they're not so rare. Maybe what you really mean is that it does no good to worry about the cars behind you. You won't be able to do anything about them. Worry about what's in front of you. At least you've got a decent view of the action in front and you have a chance to avoid accidents to the front.   Date: 05 Sep 2007 06:22:51 From: Chalo Subject: Re: The need for a recumbent bike.... DougC wrote: > > I use a eyeglass-mount rear-view mirror while riding a recumbent bike, > and don't have any problem seeing what's happening behind me. Yeah, that makes up for being helpless before potholes and being unable to remove hands from handlebars, ever. Wait a minute-- no it doesn't. Chalo   Date: 04 Sep 2007 10:41:00 From: DougC Subject: Re: The need for a recumbent bike.... Greens wrote: > While riding along, I often think I wish I had eyes like a deer for > bicycling, set on the side of my head so that I could see what's happening > to the front, sides and to a much larger extent, the rear. > ...... > I use a eyeglass-mount rear-view mirror while riding a recumbent bike, and don't have any problem seeing what's happening behind me. It's very rare that any cars sneak up behind me anymore. ...Such mirrors don't work real well on upright bikes, because if you are positioned aggressively all the mirror shows you is your own shoulder. I did have "regular" bikes some years ago, I don't know how anyone gets any use out of handlebar-mounted mirrors. The couple I've seen vibrated badly while riding, greatly reducing their usefulness. I consider the rear-view mirror to be a far more important accessory to riding safety than a helmet. I usually ride with no helmet these days but always have the rear-view mirror. Anyone who tells you that turning your head to look or "listening for cars behind you" is just as effective as a good mirror is a simple fool. ----- As for cars not offering much room, I play the fake out: pretend to be fumbling with something, and shake the handlebars a bit, wobble a few inches left and right. It's like Moses parting the Red Sea. ----- As for signaling rider intent, there are a couple companies making bicycle turn signals (even with brake lights) and overall I like the concept, but not the products offered. If I rode much in urban traffic I'd have probably modified a setup to my liking and be using it. ....The general advice of taking one hand off the handlebars to signal turns while bicycling is probably bad, but for most of us there's no other choice easily available, unless you use left-arm signals and move your front brake lever to the right side (for US/right-hand-lane traffic). Maybe BigHa was not so dumb for including turn signals after all? ------ As far as pedestrians walking dogs in the way, get an AirZound and keep it pumped up. Scare them so bad they soil their undergarments. ~     Date: 05 Sep 2007 02:03:35 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for a recumbent bike.... "DougC" <dcimper@norcom2000.com > wrote in message news:U%eDi.18$Gh4.14@newsfe12.lga... > Greens wrote: >> While riding along, I often think I wish I had eyes like a deer for >> bicycling, set on the side of my head so that I could see what's >> happening to the front, sides and to a much larger extent, the rear. >> ...... >> > > I use a eyeglass-mount rear-view mirror while riding a recumbent bike, and > don't have any problem seeing what's happening behind me. It's very rare > that any cars sneak up behind me anymore. ...Such mirrors don't work real > well on upright bikes, because if you are positioned aggressively all the > mirror shows you is your own shoulder. > > I did have "regular" bikes some years ago, I don't know how anyone gets > any use out of handlebar-mounted mirrors. The couple I've seen vibrated > badly while riding, greatly reducing their usefulness. > > I consider the rear-view mirror to be a far more important accessory to > riding safety than a helmet. I usually ride with no helmet these days but > always have the rear-view mirror. Anyone who tells you that turning your > head to look or "listening for cars behind you" is just as effective as a > good mirror is a simple fool. > > ----- > > As for cars not offering much room, I play the fake out: pretend to be > fumbling with something, and shake the handlebars a bit, wobble a few > inches left and right. It's like Moses parting the Red Sea. > > ----- > > As for signaling rider intent, there are a couple companies making bicycle > turn signals (even with brake lights) and overall I like the concept, but > not the products offered. If I rode much in urban traffic I'd have > probably modified a setup to my liking and be using it. ....The general > advice of taking one hand off the handlebars to signal turns while > bicycling is probably bad, but for most of us there's no other choice > easily available, unless you use left-arm signals and move your front > brake lever to the right side (for US/right-hand-lane traffic). Maybe > BigHa was not so dumb for including turn signals after all? > > ------ > > As far as pedestrians walking dogs in the way, get an AirZound and keep it > pumped up. Scare them so bad they soil their undergarments. > ~ The thing about cyling is that you are constantly being passed by heavier, faster moving traffic. To most people this is unsettling. Your well being is in the hands of drunks, psychos and incompetents. On the other hand motorists aren't always being passed by heavier vehicles. They go with the flow of the traffic (at the same pace). I'm sure most people find this much more reassuring. Whenever I'm in my car with it's massive cage and I pull over on the side of the road, I immediately feel less safe because now heavy vehicles are going past at high speeds. If you ever noticed there's a lot of video of even the extremely well marked and lighted police cars falling victim to passing traffic when they're on the side of the road. Who's the last person you want to crash into? For me it would be a cop and yet a lot of cops get crashed into and quite a few have been killed that way. Your helmet mirror won't do you any good if a car comes up from behind and swerves into you going thirty mph faster than you're going. You might get a nice view of the impact. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wrJ8p7OLq4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1K2xZ0udRjs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNgnPlVe4_c Cycling is safe http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abhC6ikTXns There's no danger from behind http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcMhbvmjp7E Walking is dangerous http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfeavDg3APM Lunatics in cars are not a problem http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41Re7EiJrVk No danger from behind. No problem. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpaotxQKhas nothing to worry about This one reminds me. This year I was pedaling along and a guy was mowing with a push mower in his yard. He came towards me perpendicularly and he looked right at me, sped up and pushed his mower three feet onto the road right into my path. Then he ran forward and turned it around to go back. In another incident a lady pushed her baby carriage into my path. This is all in one summer. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwGa7OEdU1Y SUVs can fly http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFvuZ1eL2zc Don't worry about people behind you. I know. He's acting like an ass. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Usa4SzC_7U Obey the traffic laws and you'll be fine.   Date: 03 Sep 2007 18:08:21 From: mike.a.schwab@gmail.com Subject: Re: Periscope helmet, was Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors On Aug 27, 12:51 pm, Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com > wrote: > > Does anybody know whatever became of the helmet with a built-in > periscope rearview mirror that was announced a few years ago? That > seemed like potentially a nice enough benefit to justify wearing a > helmet. > > Chalo I have a bicycling version of http://www.reevu.com , they had one production run, then future production was stopped by patent disputes. They do have out a motorcycle version.   Date: 31 Aug 2007 03:05:49 From: Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors On Aug 30, 10:29 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > wrote: > <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > > > Most swimming in the US happens during three months of the year, too. > > And it's much more dangerous than cycling, both in terms of total > > fatalities and in terms of per-hour fatalities. See > >http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/comparat.html > > That stats are per hour. I and most people will spend more time per bike > trip than per swimming trip. I don't think I've ever swum for more than an > hour at a time, but last night I bicycled for three hours straight. Look at their per-hour estimates for riding or driving passenger cars. How much time do you spend driving? You are grasping at straws, hoping to demonstrate that bicycling is very dangerous. But all you're demonstrating is that you don't understand numbers and data. > > Sorry, but no matter how you slice it, cycling is not particularly > > dangerous. > > Sorry, but it is. Last night I was going down the road with my headlight on. > A car pulled up on a side street and waited. I had the feeling they were > confused, probably trying to figure out what I was since all they could see > was the headlight. They waited until I was within a few feet and then they > lurched forward a few feet into my path and stopped. I was going slow even > though I was going downhill, but I still had to swerve around them. A few > more feet and I'd have run into the side of their vehicle. If I'd been going > faster, I'd have run into their vehicle at high speed. If a car had been > coming towards me, I might have swerved into his path. How is any of that > situation not dangerous? > > A few days before that a woman came out of a house on a quiet road. She had > three dogs, one on a leash. The other two dogs put themselves in my path, > barking and growling. The woman trundled after them slowly and barely made > any effort to control them. If i hadn't stopped, I might have hit the dogs > and that can easily lead to a fall. > > Those are just two incidents from the last week. Things like that seldom > happen when I drive and if they do, I know I have an airbag and seatbelts > and a huge cage to protect me. OK, I'll admit this: It is possible for cycling to be dangerous for a certain individual, provided he's bad enough at it. The data I posted gives the average level of danger, but there are always people who are much better than average, and people who are much worse. >From what you've described, you must be one of the latter. Either that, or you are terrified by incidents that don't needlessly worry the rest of us. You should probably find some other hobby. But please, if and when you are scared away from bicycling, don't disparage bicycling itself. Just tell people you don't think you can do it safely, even though the average person can. - Frank Krygowski     Date: 31 Aug 2007 00:06:03 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors <frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1188529549.353655.289290@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 30, 10:29 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: >> <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >> > Most swimming in the US happens during three months of the year, too. >> > And it's much more dangerous than cycling, both in terms of total >> > fatalities and in terms of per-hour fatalities. See >> >http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/comparat.html >> >> That stats are per hour. I and most people will spend more time per bike >> trip than per swimming trip. I don't think I've ever swum for more than >> an >> hour at a time, but last night I bicycled for three hours straight. > > Look at their per-hour estimates for riding or driving passenger > cars. How much time do you spend driving? > That's exactly what I object to. The stats are tabulated to make bicycling look safer. > You are grasping at straws, hoping to demonstrate that bicycling is > very dangerous. But all you're demonstrating is that you don't > understand numbers and data. No. That's what you're doing. I'm a cycling enthusiast. I don't have any interest in making cycling look safer or more dangerous than it is. I'm just interested in the truth. You or one of the other guys here already admitted that I shouldn't stir up the safety issue because "it makes it harder for rest of us." See that? Not interested in the truth. Interested in supressing the truth for the sake of the sport. > >> > Sorry, but no matter how you slice it, cycling is not particularly >> > dangerous. >> >> Sorry, but it is. Last night I was going down the road with my headlight >> on. >> A car pulled up on a side street and waited. I had the feeling they were >> confused, probably trying to figure out what I was since all they could >> see >> was the headlight. They waited until I was within a few feet and then >> they >> lurched forward a few feet into my path and stopped. I was going slow >> even >> though I was going downhill, but I still had to swerve around them. A few >> more feet and I'd have run into the side of their vehicle. If I'd been >> going >> faster, I'd have run into their vehicle at high speed. If a car had been >> coming towards me, I might have swerved into his path. How is any of that >> situation not dangerous? >> >> A few days before that a woman came out of a house on a quiet road. She >> had >> three dogs, one on a leash. The other two dogs put themselves in my path, >> barking and growling. The woman trundled after them slowly and barely >> made >> any effort to control them. If i hadn't stopped, I might have hit the >> dogs >> and that can easily lead to a fall. >> >> Those are just two incidents from the last week. Things like that seldom >> happen when I drive and if they do, I know I have an airbag and seatbelts >> and a huge cage to protect me. > > OK, I'll admit this: It is possible for cycling to be dangerous for a > certain individual, provided he's bad enough at it. The data I posted > gives the average level of danger, but there are always people who are > much better than average, and people who are much worse. > >>From what you've described, you must be one of the latter. Either > that, or you are terrified by incidents that don't needlessly worry > the rest of us. You should probably find some other hobby. > > But please, if and when you are scared away from bicycling, don't > disparage bicycling itself. Just tell people you don't think you can > do it safely, even though the average person can. > > - Frank Krygowski > Again, you're asking me to lie and this crap about it being dangerous for "a certain individual" annoys me. You think you're really something. Do you think people, these powerful anti cycling legislators and cops, are watching this forum and reading my posts and then deciding to pass laws to ban cycling? Ha ha. You probably love those bullshit statistics that make cycling look safer than it is, but maybe you've never considered that's why it hasn't been made safer. You just want things to stay as they are. You don't car enough about your fellow cyclists, who you feel are inferior. It doesn't bother you at all that these inferiors read the happy sounding statistics and take up the sport and then get killed. All you care about is that your sport stays the way it is.       Date: 05 Sep 2007 10:23:48 From: Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors On Sep 5, 11:56 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > wrote: > > > You and your studies ignore the special conditions and situation when you > talk about death by heart disease and walking. Heart disease kills in > greater numbers, but it kills much older people than traffic. Traffic kills > people in their twenties and younger. That age group has little to fear from > death by heart disease. What you're referring to is what's termed "years of life lost." Check the reference to Mayer Hillman's work, that I gave much earlier. He's the British researcher that determined that bicycling causes approximately 20 years of life gained for each year of life lost. IOW, you're wrong once again. > Give some thought to the fact that engineers are regarded as pinheads by > many non engineers. They're useful, but they depend too heavily on stats. > They think they're brilliant even when they're blindied by the short coming > of their own statistics. (See above) I'm aware that there are people who don't respect learning, or logic, or technical knowledge. Those are almost always people who haven't been able to do much with learning, or logic, or technical knowledge. I'm sure you can get by without engineering. Feel free to prove it by developing the high-tech, electronic, infrared, rear-view traffic detection device you whined for when you started the thread. Or hell, just build your own bicycle - using no engineered components! - Frank Krygowski         Date: 05 Sep 2007 15:37:26 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors <frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1189013028.880714.44490@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 5, 11:56 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: >> >> >> You and your studies ignore the special conditions and situation when you >> talk about death by heart disease and walking. Heart disease kills in >> greater numbers, but it kills much older people than traffic. Traffic >> kills >> people in their twenties and younger. That age group has little to fear >> from >> death by heart disease. > > What you're referring to is what's termed "years of life lost." Check > the reference to Mayer Hillman's work, that I gave much earlier. He's > the British researcher that determined that bicycling causes > approximately 20 years of life gained for each year of life lost. > > IOW, you're wrong once again. > >> Give some thought to the fact that engineers are regarded as pinheads by >> many non engineers. They're useful, but they depend too heavily on stats. >> They think they're brilliant even when they're blindied by the short >> coming >> of their own statistics. (See above) > > I'm aware that there are people who don't respect learning, or logic, > or technical knowledge. Those are almost always people who haven't > been able to do much with learning, or logic, or technical knowledge. > > I'm sure you can get by without engineering. Feel free to prove it by > developing the high-tech, electronic, infrared, rear-view traffic > detection device you whined for when you started the thread. > > Or hell, just build your own bicycle - using no engineered components! > > - Frank Krygowski > > It's obvious you only accept concepts that are already accepted. Not all engineers are innovative. Most are like you - hacks without inspiration. Relying excessively on tables and charts and graphs and invariably leaving out important factors. You're one of those accepted experts who doesn't give anything a chance. The devices I mentioned are just concepts, things I've thought of that might be developed. I haven't put time and money into creating them. I'm just saying i would like something that could do that and I know if the military wanted it, they'd get it. You're so maddeningly self important and certain that such a thing could never be developed? Everything is a big threat to you and your beloved cycling.       Date: 05 Sep 2007 10:17:54 From: Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors On Sep 5, 11:36 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > wrote: > > > The only reason why people are blase about the deaths and injuries by motor > vehicle is because motor vehicles have become almost essential. If that were true, we wouldn't have the American phenomenon of people jumping into their cars to travel one block to a store for a pack of cigarettes. Cars are obviously not essential for most short trips - yet people cheerfully accept the minisucule risk of death or injury to save a few seconds, or to avoid a little exercise. Admittedly, avoiding exercise is part of the reason people don't cycle. But fear propagated by people like yourself is another big reason, according to survey data I've seen. > > Your stats don't include the figure for how many times in a month do you > feel you were nearly killed while riding a bicycle. ?? The number of times in a month I feel I was nearly killed is ZERO! That's true for almost everyone posting here! Can you not understand that your phobia is unusual?? > Obviously you turn to your stats for comfort when you feel threatened by > autos. Cyclists who've never met you look to how they feel after a close > call and they realize they're getting regularly shaken up. If a dog comes > charging out at you, you get shaken up. It doesn't matter if the dog bites > or not or if you take a fall. The dog has shaken you up. If a car goes > hurtling past and it's obvious that he's was very close, a sane person is > going to think, "Did he see me? Did he do that on purpose? Did I almost get > killed just now?" You sound like an _amazingly_ fearful individual! No, I do not get "shaken up" when a dog comes charging out at me. I generally get a bit angry, and I usually take the time to scare the dog - to train him to avoid cyclists. I certainly don't get "shaken up" when a car passes too close - at least, if they've given me a foot or more of room. Again, I might get angry. I've sometimes lectured them when I've caught them at a traffic light. But usually, I think the best thing to do is just shake my head at their stupidity. > Your habit of attacking people about what you think are phobias simply shows > your intolerance for the way other's think. You use the word "phobia" as an > accusation of incompetence. By making reasonable fears sound abnormal, you > demonstrate that you are abnormal and intolerant. It's hard to convince a phobic person that their fears are not abnormal! But in general, I don't attack phobic people. I feel sorry for them. It's when they continually disparage cycling, and persist in trying to scare people away from it, that I get irritated. - Frank Krygowski         Date: 05 Sep 2007 15:29:54 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors <frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1189012674.165674.7400@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 5, 11:36 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: >> >> >> The only reason why people are blase about the deaths and injuries by >> motor >> vehicle is because motor vehicles have become almost essential. > > If that were true, we wouldn't have the American phenomenon of people > jumping into their cars to travel one block to a store for a pack of > cigarettes. Cars are obviously not essential for most short trips - > yet people cheerfully accept the minisucule risk of death or injury to > save a few seconds, or to avoid a little exercise. > > Admittedly, avoiding exercise is part of the reason people don't > cycle. But fear propagated by people like yourself is another big > reason, according to survey data I've seen. > >> >> Your stats don't include the figure for how many times in a month do you >> feel you were nearly killed while riding a bicycle. > > ?? The number of times in a month I feel I was nearly killed is > ZERO! That's true for almost everyone posting here! Can you not > understand that your phobia is unusual?? > >> Obviously you turn to your stats for comfort when you feel threatened by >> autos. Cyclists who've never met you look to how they feel after a close >> call and they realize they're getting regularly shaken up. If a dog comes >> charging out at you, you get shaken up. It doesn't matter if the dog >> bites >> or not or if you take a fall. The dog has shaken you up. If a car goes >> hurtling past and it's obvious that he's was very close, a sane person is >> going to think, "Did he see me? Did he do that on purpose? Did I almost >> get >> killed just now?" > > You sound like an _amazingly_ fearful individual! > > No, I do not get "shaken up" when a dog comes charging out at me. I > generally get a bit angry, and I usually take the time to scare the > dog - to train him to avoid cyclists. > > I certainly don't get "shaken up" when a car passes too close - at > least, if they've given me a foot or more of room. Again, I might get > angry. I've sometimes lectured them when I've caught them at a > traffic light. But usually, I think the best thing to do is just > shake my head at their stupidity. > >> Your habit of attacking people about what you think are phobias simply >> shows >> your intolerance for the way other's think. You use the word "phobia" as >> an >> accusation of incompetence. By making reasonable fears sound abnormal, >> you >> demonstrate that you are abnormal and intolerant. > > It's hard to convince a phobic person that their fears are not > abnormal! But in general, I don't attack phobic people. I feel sorry > for them. > > It's when they continually disparage cycling, and persist in trying to > scare people away from it, that I get irritated. > > - Frank Krygowski > > I disparage you, Frank and I disparage the American attitude towards cyclists. I do not disparage cycling nearly as much as you'd like to have us beleive. As usual, you're perceptions are warped. You have to see everyone is with you or against you. It's you that's simplistic. Watch this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QExnRr9VAJw Those crazy Dutch. They actually recognized that bicycling has safety problems and they tried to make it safer with... gadgets among other things. There are bicycle carousels for storing bikes and bicycle trees, but there are also other inventions like, well, their whole system which is designed to discourage motoring and encourage cycling. Even the concept they've finally settled on - accepting bike thievery and using cheap bikes that just aren't worth worrying about is an invention. They live longer, cheaper and have much less obesity and pollution.         Date: 05 Sep 2007 15:02:09 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors <frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1189012674.165674.7400@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 5, 11:36 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: >> >> >> The only reason why people are blase about the deaths and injuries by >> motor >> vehicle is because motor vehicles have become almost essential. > > If that were true, we wouldn't have the American phenomenon of people > jumping into their cars to travel one block to a store for a pack of > cigarettes. Cars are obviously not essential for most short trips - > yet people cheerfully accept the minisucule risk of death or injury to > save a few seconds, or to avoid a little exercise. > > Admittedly, avoiding exercise is part of the reason people don't > cycle. But fear propagated by people like yourself is another big > reason, according to survey data I've seen. > >> >> Your stats don't include the figure for how many times in a month do you >> feel you were nearly killed while riding a bicycle. > > ?? The number of times in a month I feel I was nearly killed is > ZERO! That's true for almost everyone posting here! Can you not > understand that your phobia is unusual?? > >> Obviously you turn to your stats for comfort when you feel threatened by >> autos. Cyclists who've never met you look to how they feel after a close >> call and they realize they're getting regularly shaken up. If a dog comes >> charging out at you, you get shaken up. It doesn't matter if the dog >> bites >> or not or if you take a fall. The dog has shaken you up. If a car goes >> hurtling past and it's obvious that he's was very close, a sane person is >> going to think, "Did he see me? Did he do that on purpose? Did I almost >> get >> killed just now?" > > You sound like an _amazingly_ fearful individual! > > No, I do not get "shaken up" when a dog comes charging out at me. I > generally get a bit angry, and I usually take the time to scare the > dog - to train him to avoid cyclists. > > I certainly don't get "shaken up" when a car passes too close - at > least, if they've given me a foot or more of room. Again, I might get > angry. I've sometimes lectured them when I've caught them at a > traffic light. But usually, I think the best thing to do is just > shake my head at their stupidity. > >> Your habit of attacking people about what you think are phobias simply >> shows >> your intolerance for the way other's think. You use the word "phobia" as >> an >> accusation of incompetence. By making reasonable fears sound abnormal, >> you >> demonstrate that you are abnormal and intolerant. > > It's hard to convince a phobic person that their fears are not > abnormal! But in general, I don't attack phobic people. I feel sorry > for them. > > It's when they continually disparage cycling, and persist in trying to > scare people away from it, that I get irritated. > > - Frank Krygowski > > Frank, one thing you fail to recognize is the sexiness of cars. It's understandable. You're an engineer. You don't know anything about human feelings. People think cars are sexy. Sexy and danger go together. That's why they like dangerous, fast sports cars that are impractical. Bicycles are seen as geeky which is not sexy. It doesn't matter that a cyclist will be in better shape than a motorist. It just isn't sexy like motoring is. For one thing the cycist is in a powerless position compared to motorists who have huge motors and mass. The cyclist pedals along on the side of the road amidst all the road's cast offs. He's fun to harass and an easy victim. It doesn't matter that he could probably win in a fair fight. Motorists aren't going to take him on in a fair fight. His ass is up in the air! He's sweating and grunting! Motorists are cool. Honestly, I wish you success in making cycling more popular. I want the same things you do. More cyclists lead to better cycling facilities. Power in numbers. I hope someday we both cruise on stress free streets with cleaner air amidst hordes of cyclists.       Date: 04 Sep 2007 19:07:48 From: Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors On Sep 4, 4:18 pm, r15...@aol.com wrote: > On Sep 3, 7:24 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > Ah. I compare the safety of cycling to the safety of motoring, a mode > > of transport that essentially everybody accepts as reasonably safe. > > Do you accept it as 'reasonably safe?' Yes, definitely. And so do the vast, vast majority of Americans. Only a few phobic individuals agree with you. > Just wondering, because a few days ago, you wrote: > > "As I said in another post, I had three friends in college who died in > three separate car crashes. Two were members of a club to which I > belonged. One was the brother of a close friend. > > Since then, there have been others I've known who have died riding in > motor vehicles. One of my son's best friends did while he was in > college. One of my daughter's friends did, in his mid-twenties. > > I've known of four family members - that is, grandparents, siblings, > in-laws - who were injured in car crashes seriously enough to warrant > hospital time. One still deals with severely impaired mobility years > after the crash, and will never fully recover. Two of the others had > concussions, as did yet another colleague at work. Another close > friend was saved (he says) by his airbag when his new car was totally > demolished, but I'd have to phone him to recall what injuries he did > sustain." > > Ah, I love the smell of reasonable safety in the morning. You seem to be implying that, because I know people injured or killed while motoring, that motoring must not be reasonably safe. You are "thinking" at the same low level as "Greens" - that is, very, very simplistically. I spent today working with a friend who was once seriously hurt in a fall from a ladder. Does that incident - and many more like it - mean ladders are not reasonably safe? Should the government ban them? Or should it mandate lots of protective gear every time someone uses a ladder? Will you and our other anonymous poster now try to instill a fear of ladders in any readers you can reach? If so, you'd better get busy with my friend. We were working on my roof today. By your standards, he's not sufficiently terrorized! - Frank Krygowski         Date: 05 Sep 2007 12:15:23 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors <frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1188958068.754513.184580@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 4, 4:18 pm, r15...@aol.com wrote: >> On Sep 3, 7:24 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> > Ah. I compare the safety of cycling to the safety of motoring, a mode >> > of transport that essentially everybody accepts as reasonably safe. >> >> Do you accept it as 'reasonably safe?' > > Yes, definitely. And so do the vast, vast majority of Americans. > Only a few phobic individuals agree with you. > >> Just wondering, because a few days ago, you wrote: >> >> "As I said in another post, I had three friends in college who died in >> three separate car crashes. Two were members of a club to which I >> belonged. One was the brother of a close friend. >> >> Since then, there have been others I've known who have died riding in >> motor vehicles. One of my son's best friends did while he was in >> college. One of my daughter's friends did, in his mid-twenties. >> >> I've known of four family members - that is, grandparents, siblings, >> in-laws - who were injured in car crashes seriously enough to warrant >> hospital time. One still deals with severely impaired mobility years >> after the crash, and will never fully recover. Two of the others had >> concussions, as did yet another colleague at work. Another close >> friend was saved (he says) by his airbag when his new car was totally >> demolished, but I'd have to phone him to recall what injuries he did >> sustain." >> >> Ah, I love the smell of reasonable safety in the morning. > > You seem to be implying that, because I know people injured or killed > while motoring, that motoring must not be reasonably safe. > > You are "thinking" at the same low level as "Greens" - that is, very, > very simplistically. > > I spent today working with a friend who was once seriously hurt in a > fall from a ladder. Does that incident - and many more like it - mean > ladders are not reasonably safe? Should the government ban them? Or > should it mandate lots of protective gear every time someone uses a > ladder? Will you and our other anonymous poster now try to instill a > fear of ladders in any readers you can reach? > > If so, you'd better get busy with my friend. We were working on my > roof today. By your standards, he's not sufficiently terrorized! > > - Frank Krygowski > > Ladders are dangerous. Of course what I mean is that using them is dangerous. It's necessary to climb ladders in order to do necessary maintenance. That's why people accept the risk ladders pose. It's either that or live in tents. "terrorized" - ladders are covered with warnings.       Date: 04 Sep 2007 13:18:22 From: Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors On Sep 3, 7:24 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > Ah. I compare the safety of cycling to the safety of motoring, a mode > of transport that essentially everybody accepts as reasonably safe. Do you accept it as 'reasonably safe?' Just wondering, because a few days ago, you wrote: "As I said in another post, I had three friends in college who died in three separate car crashes. Two were members of a club to which I belonged. One was the brother of a close friend. Since then, there have been others I've known who have died riding in motor vehicles. One of my son's best friends did while he was in college. One of my daughter's friends did, in his mid-twenties. I've known of four family members - that is, grandparents, siblings, in-laws - who were injured in car crashes seriously enough to warrant hospital time. One still deals with severely impaired mobility years after the crash, and will never fully recover. Two of the others had concussions, as did yet another colleague at work. Another close friend was saved (he says) by his airbag when his new car was totally demolished, but I'd have to phone him to recall what injuries he did sustain." Ah, I love the smell of reasonable safety in the morning. >The question is this: If a typical American is getting > into a car for a one-hour drive, are they terrified? Depends on who's driving. Robert         Date: 05 Sep 2007 12:02:04 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors <r15757@aol.com > wrote in message news:1188937102.999754.83370@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 3, 7:24 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> Ah. I compare the safety of cycling to the safety of motoring, a mode >> of transport that essentially everybody accepts as reasonably safe. > > Do you accept it as 'reasonably safe?' Just wondering, because a few > days ago, you wrote: > > "As I said in another post, I had three friends in college who died in > three separate car crashes. Two were members of a club to which I > belonged. One was the brother of a close friend. > > Since then, there have been others I've known who have died riding in > motor vehicles. One of my son's best friends did while he was in > college. One of my daughter's friends did, in his mid-twenties. > > I've known of four family members - that is, grandparents, siblings, > in-laws - who were injured in car crashes seriously enough to warrant > hospital time. One still deals with severely impaired mobility years > after the crash, and will never fully recover. Two of the others had > concussions, as did yet another colleague at work. Another close > friend was saved (he says) by his airbag when his new car was totally > demolished, but I'd have to phone him to recall what injuries he did > sustain." > > Ah, I love the smell of reasonable safety in the morning. > > >>The question is this: If a typical American is getting >> into a car for a one-hour drive, are they terrified? > > Depends on who's driving. > > Robert > Our love of automobiles makes us blind to their carnage. Americans would probably put up with a lot more carnage from autos. They like to feel in control. Cars give them that. They like to feel powerful. They like to get places fast and easy. Americans love all those things. Most of all, the infrastructure is set up so that other forms of transport are inferior if not much less acceptable. The huge landscape encourages car ownership.       Date: 03 Sep 2007 18:24:09 From: Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors On Sep 3, 6:58 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > wrote: > <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > > I give the data. How is that "suckering"? > > You warp the data by comparing it to motor vehicle deaths. Ah. I compare the safety of cycling to the safety of motoring, a mode of transport that essentially everybody accepts as reasonably safe. I present data that shows that cycling's safety is roughly the same as motoring. I say that therefore, cycling is also reasonably safe. And that's somehow "warping"? Your mention of cars' speed and carrying capacity are irrelevant distractions. The question is this: If a typical American is getting into a car for a one-hour drive, are they terrified? If not, they should not be terrified of a one-hour bike ride. > You dislike comparing bicycling deaths to other sports like > skiing, football and tennis because comparing to those sports makes it > obvious that cycling is a very dangerous sport. > > 469 traumatic skiing deaths at all american alpine resorts in a thirteen > year period. In the same period of time by your numbers the total bicycle > deaths would be 9750. That's 20 times the death rate of cycling. First, cycling is much more than a sport. In fact, only a tiny percentage of cyclists engage in cycling for competition. Cycling is recreation and transportation much more than "sport." So if you want to look at total numbers of fatalities in any period, why not look at the total number of motoring fatalities? In America, it would be roughly half a million in thirteen years. Tell people to stay out of their cars! How about the total number of drownings? That would be roughly 52,000. Keep people away from water - no swimming, no boating! And, BTW, if you want to scrape the barrel for something that makes cycling look dangerous, why did you not pick knitting? I'm _sure_ the number of knitting fatalities is so small, you could get some comparisons you'd like even more! > > > But I definitely don't think yelling exaggerations about cycling's > > danger is going to help. > > I don't exaggerate. For one simple example, you repeatedly claimed "1000 deaths" when the number is actually about 750. That's exaggerating by 33%. > > > Agencies that promote kids swimming don't > > whine on and on about the thousands of drownings per year, and > > exaggerate how dangerous water is. They find ways to teach kids to > > swim without instilling fear. Agencies that promote hunting use the > > same approach. > > > I don't know what it is about cyclists, that makes them think that > > unjustified terror is a good thing. > > > - Frank Krygowski > > I don't know what you're talking about when you say, "promote unjustified > terror". 750 dead a year isn't a good record. It roughly matches the > American deaths in a war zone. 750 deaths a year is much better than nearly 40,000 deaths per year in motor vehicles. It's much better than roughly 5,000 pedestrian fatalities, or about 4,000 drowning fatalities. It's far better than roughly 700,000 heart-related fatalities, especially since cycling helps prevent heart disease. Cycling's benefits outweigh the risks 20 to one, in terms of years of life gained to years of life lost. Your phobia is not only mistaken, it's harmful. - Frank Krygowski         Date: 05 Sep 2007 11:56:45 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors <frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1188869049.219384.57280@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 3, 6:58 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: >> <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> > I give the data. How is that "suckering"? >> >> You warp the data by comparing it to motor vehicle deaths. > > Ah. I compare the safety of cycling to the safety of motoring, a mode > of transport that essentially everybody accepts as reasonably safe. I > present data that shows that cycling's safety is roughly the same as > motoring. I say that therefore, cycling is also reasonably safe. > > And that's somehow "warping"? > > Your mention of cars' speed and carrying capacity are irrelevant > distractions. The question is this: If a typical American is getting > into a car for a one-hour drive, are they terrified? If not, they > should not be terrified of a one-hour bike ride. > >> You dislike comparing bicycling deaths to other sports like >> skiing, football and tennis because comparing to those sports makes it >> obvious that cycling is a very dangerous sport. >> >> 469 traumatic skiing deaths at all american alpine resorts in a thirteen >> year period. In the same period of time by your numbers the total bicycle >> deaths would be 9750. That's 20 times the death rate of cycling. > > First, cycling is much more than a sport. In fact, only a tiny > percentage of cyclists engage in cycling for competition. Cycling is > recreation and transportation much more than "sport." > > So if you want to look at total numbers of fatalities in any period, > why not look at the total number of motoring fatalities? In America, > it would be roughly half a million in thirteen years. Tell people to > stay out of their cars! > > How about the total number of drownings? That would be roughly > 52,000. Keep people away from water - no swimming, no boating! > > And, BTW, if you want to scrape the barrel for something that makes > cycling look dangerous, why did you not pick knitting? I'm _sure_ the > number of knitting fatalities is so small, you could get some > comparisons you'd like even more! > >> >> > But I definitely don't think yelling exaggerations about cycling's >> > danger is going to help. >> >> I don't exaggerate. > > For one simple example, you repeatedly claimed "1000 deaths" when the > number is actually about 750. That's exaggerating by 33%. > >> >> > Agencies that promote kids swimming don't >> > whine on and on about the thousands of drownings per year, and >> > exaggerate how dangerous water is. They find ways to teach kids to >> > swim without instilling fear. Agencies that promote hunting use the >> > same approach. >> >> > I don't know what it is about cyclists, that makes them think that >> > unjustified terror is a good thing. >> >> > - Frank Krygowski >> >> I don't know what you're talking about when you say, "promote unjustified >> terror". 750 dead a year isn't a good record. It roughly matches the >> American deaths in a war zone. > > 750 deaths a year is much better than nearly 40,000 deaths per year in > motor vehicles. It's much better than roughly 5,000 pedestrian > fatalities, or about 4,000 drowning fatalities. It's far better than > roughly 700,000 heart-related fatalities, especially since cycling > helps prevent heart disease. > > Cycling's benefits outweigh the risks 20 to one, in terms of years of > life gained to years of life lost. Your phobia is not only mistaken, > it's harmful. > > - Frank Krygowski > > You and your studies ignore the special conditions and situation when you talk about death by heart disease and walking. Heart disease kills in greater numbers, but it kills much older people than traffic. Traffic kills people in their twenties and younger. That age group has little to fear from death by heart disease. I already told you that most walking deaths are in big cities like New York. Give some thought to the fact that engineers are regarded as pinheads by many non engineers. They're useful, but they depend too heavily on stats. They think they're brilliant even when they're blindied by the short coming of their own statistics. (See above)         Date: 05 Sep 2007 11:36:29 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors <frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1188869049.219384.57280@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 3, 6:58 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: >> <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> > I give the data. How is that "suckering"? >> >> You warp the data by comparing it to motor vehicle deaths. > > Ah. I compare the safety of cycling to the safety of motoring, a mode > of transport that essentially everybody accepts as reasonably safe. I > present data that shows that cycling's safety is roughly the same as > motoring. I say that therefore, cycling is also reasonably safe. > > And that's somehow "warping"? > > Your mention of cars' speed and carrying capacity are irrelevant > distractions. The question is this: If a typical American is getting > into a car for a one-hour drive, are they terrified? If not, they > should not be terrified of a one-hour bike ride. > >> You dislike comparing bicycling deaths to other sports like >> skiing, football and tennis because comparing to those sports makes it >> obvious that cycling is a very dangerous sport. >> >> 469 traumatic skiing deaths at all american alpine resorts in a thirteen >> year period. In the same period of time by your numbers the total bicycle >> deaths would be 9750. That's 20 times the death rate of cycling. > > First, cycling is much more than a sport. In fact, only a tiny > percentage of cyclists engage in cycling for competition. Cycling is > recreation and transportation much more than "sport." > > So if you want to look at total numbers of fatalities in any period, > why not look at the total number of motoring fatalities? In America, > it would be roughly half a million in thirteen years. Tell people to > stay out of their cars! > > How about the total number of drownings? That would be roughly > 52,000. Keep people away from water - no swimming, no boating! > > And, BTW, if you want to scrape the barrel for something that makes > cycling look dangerous, why did you not pick knitting? I'm _sure_ the > number of knitting fatalities is so small, you could get some > comparisons you'd like even more! > >> >> > But I definitely don't think yelling exaggerations about cycling's >> > danger is going to help. >> >> I don't exaggerate. > > For one simple example, you repeatedly claimed "1000 deaths" when the > number is actually about 750. That's exaggerating by 33%. > >> >> > Agencies that promote kids swimming don't >> > whine on and on about the thousands of drownings per year, and >> > exaggerate how dangerous water is. They find ways to teach kids to >> > swim without instilling fear. Agencies that promote hunting use the >> > same approach. >> >> > I don't know what it is about cyclists, that makes them think that >> > unjustified terror is a good thing. >> >> > - Frank Krygowski >> >> I don't know what you're talking about when you say, "promote unjustified >> terror". 750 dead a year isn't a good record. It roughly matches the >> American deaths in a war zone. > > 750 deaths a year is much better than nearly 40,000 deaths per year in > motor vehicles. It's much better than roughly 5,000 pedestrian > fatalities, or about 4,000 drowning fatalities. It's far better than > roughly 700,000 heart-related fatalities, especially since cycling > helps prevent heart disease. > > Cycling's benefits outweigh the risks 20 to one, in terms of years of > life gained to years of life lost. Your phobia is not only mistaken, > it's harmful. > > - Frank Krygowski > > The only reason why people are blase about the deaths and injuries by motor vehicle is because motor vehicles have become almost essential. Your stats don't include the figure for how many times in a month do you feel you were nearly killed while riding a bicycle. The perception while driving in a car is that you have a good chance to survive or even avoid impacts. The perception while riding a bike is that you have no protection from impact and that you are the smallest thing on the road outside of the squirrels (who are much more agile). Obviously you turn to your stats for comfort when you feel threatened by autos. Cyclists who've never met you look to how they feel after a close call and they realize they're getting regularly shaken up. If a dog comes charging out at you, you get shaken up. It doesn't matter if the dog bites or not or if you take a fall. The dog has shaken you up. If a car goes hurtling past and it's obvious that he's was very close, a sane person is going to think, "Did he see me? Did he do that on purpose? Did I almost get killed just now?" In a car you're more likely to think, "I almost got sideswiped", which is much less threatening if something like that happens, but actually in a car it's much less likely to happen because you move with the flow of the traffic. You're right that cycling makes you feel better about your health from an exercise standpoint, but any sane person knows their health can quickly turn around if they're hit by a car going 30. Chances are they'll be dead. Your habit of attacking people about what you think are phobias simply shows your intolerance for the way other's think. You use the word "phobia" as an accusation of incompetence. By making reasonable fears sound abnormal, you demonstrate that you are abnormal and intolerant. Isn't "phobia" actually a medical term? Do psychologists actually recognize it as a phobia or as something else like a "reasonable fear". Maybe they don't recognize the condition at all. I know they recognize a lot of phobias, usually they're for things that are silly. What's the latin name for your traffic phobia?           Date: 05 Sep 2007 14:31:45 From: A Muzi Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors >>> <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>> I give the data. How is that "suckering"? >> "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: >>> You warp the data by comparing it to motor vehicle deaths. >>> <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> Ah. I compare the safety of cycling to the safety of motoring, a mode >> of transport that essentially everybody accepts as reasonably safe. I >> present data that shows that cycling's safety is roughly the same as >> motoring. I say that therefore, cycling is also reasonably safe. >> And that's somehow "warping"? >> Your mention of cars' speed and carrying capacity are irrelevant >> distractions. The question is this: If a typical American is getting >> into a car for a one-hour drive, are they terrified? If not, they >> should not be terrified of a one-hour bike ride. >> "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: >>> You dislike comparing bicycling deaths to other sports like >>> skiing, football and tennis because comparing to those sports makes it >>> obvious that cycling is a very dangerous sport. >>> >>> 469 traumatic skiing deaths at all american alpine resorts in a thirteen >>> year period. In the same period of time by your numbers the total bicycle >>> deaths would be 9750. That's 20 times the death rate of cycling. >> "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: >> First, cycling is much more than a sport. In fact, only a tiny >> percentage of cyclists engage in cycling for competition. Cycling is >> recreation and transportation much more than "sport." >> >> So if you want to look at total numbers of fatalities in any period, >> why not look at the total number of motoring fatalities? In America, >> it would be roughly half a million in thirteen years. Tell people to >> stay out of their cars! >> >> How about the total number of drownings? That would be roughly >> 52,000. Keep people away from water - no swimming, no boating! >> >> And, BTW, if you want to scrape the barrel for something that makes >> cycling look dangerous, why did you not pick knitting? I'm _sure_ the >> number of knitting fatalities is so small, you could get some >> comparisons you'd like even more! >>> <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>> But I definitely don't think yelling exaggerations about cycling's >>>> danger is going to help. >> "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: >>> I don't exaggerate. >>> <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> For one simple example, you repeatedly claimed "1000 deaths" when the >> number is actually about 750. That's exaggerating by 33%. >>> <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>> Agencies that promote kids swimming don't >>>> whine on and on about the thousands of drownings per year, and >>>> exaggerate how dangerous water is. They find ways to teach kids to >>>> swim without instilling fear. Agencies that promote hunting use the >>>> same approach. >>>> I don't know what it is about cyclists, that makes them think that >>>> unjustified terror is a good thing. >> "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: >>> I don't know what you're talking about when you say, "promote unjustified >>> terror". 750 dead a year isn't a good record. It roughly matches the >>> American deaths in a war zone. > <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote >> 750 deaths a year is much better than nearly 40,000 deaths per year in >> motor vehicles. It's much better than roughly 5,000 pedestrian >> fatalities, or about 4,000 drowning fatalities. It's far better than >> roughly 700,000 heart-related fatalities, especially since cycling >> helps prevent heart disease. >>> <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> Cycling's benefits outweigh the risks 20 to one, in terms of years of >> life gained to years of life lost. Your phobia is not only mistaken, >> it's harmful. Greens wrote: > The only reason why people are blase about the deaths and injuries by motor > vehicle is because motor vehicles have become almost essential. > > Your stats don't include the figure for how many times in a month do you > feel you were nearly killed while riding a bicycle. The perception while > driving in a car is that you have a good chance to survive or even avoid > impacts. The perception while riding a bike is that you have no protection > from impact and that you are the smallest thing on the road outside of the > squirrels (who are much more agile). > > Obviously you turn to your stats for comfort when you feel threatened by > autos. Cyclists who've never met you look to how they feel after a close > call and they realize they're getting regularly shaken up. If a dog comes > charging out at you, you get shaken up. It doesn't matter if the dog bites > or not or if you take a fall. The dog has shaken you up. If a car goes > hurtling past and it's obvious that he's was very close, a sane person is > going to think, "Did he see me? Did he do that on purpose? Did I almost get > killed just now?" In a car you're more likely to think, "I almost got > sideswiped", which is much less threatening if something like that happens, > but actually in a car it's much less likely to happen because you move with > the flow of the traffic. > > You're right that cycling makes you feel better about your health from an > exercise standpoint, but any sane person knows their health can quickly turn > around if they're hit by a car going 30. Chances are they'll be dead. > > Your habit of attacking people about what you think are phobias simply shows > your intolerance for the way other's think. You use the word "phobia" as an > accusation of incompetence. By making reasonable fears sound abnormal, you > demonstrate that you are abnormal and intolerant. > > Isn't "phobia" actually a medical term? Do psychologists actually recognize > it as a phobia or as something else like a "reasonable fear". Maybe they > don't recognize the condition at all. I know they recognize a lot of > phobias, usually they're for things that are silly. What's the latin name > for your traffic phobia? There are people who are terrified of crossing bridges, too. Minneapolis 35W was 'front page news' precisely because it is a rare event. If bridges collapsed randomly on a regular basis or if cycling were truly dangerous, we'd modify our behaviors, culturally and individually, to reduce or avoid those risks. Watching television with a hamburger will kill you too. Everything- life itself - has risk! Cycling just happens not to frighten most riders, including me and I was pushed across a lane by a left-turning idiot last night. If I were dead I might agree with you. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971             Date: 05 Sep 2007 15:54:47 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors "A Muzi" <am@yellowjersey.org > wrote in message news:13du0veicpccu25@corp.supernews.com... >>>> <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>> I give the data. How is that "suckering"? > >>> "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: >>>> You warp the data by comparing it to motor vehicle deaths. > >>>> <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in message >>> Ah. I compare the safety of cycling to the safety of motoring, a mode >>> of transport that essentially everybody accepts as reasonably safe. I >>> present data that shows that cycling's safety is roughly the same as >>> motoring. I say that therefore, cycling is also reasonably safe. >>> And that's somehow "warping"? >>> Your mention of cars' speed and carrying capacity are irrelevant >>> distractions. The question is this: If a typical American is getting >>> into a car for a one-hour drive, are they terrified? If not, they >>> should not be terrified of a one-hour bike ride. > >>> "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: >>>> You dislike comparing bicycling deaths to other sports like >>>> skiing, football and tennis because comparing to those sports makes it >>>> obvious that cycling is a very dangerous sport. >>>> >>>> 469 traumatic skiing deaths at all american alpine resorts in a >>>> thirteen >>>> year period. In the same period of time by your numbers the total >>>> bicycle >>>> deaths would be 9750. That's 20 times the death rate of cycling. > >>> "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: >>> First, cycling is much more than a sport. In fact, only a tiny >>> percentage of cyclists engage in cycling for competition. Cycling is >>> recreation and transportation much more than "sport." >>> >>> So if you want to look at total numbers of fatalities in any period, >>> why not look at the total number of motoring fatalities? In America, >>> it would be roughly half a million in thirteen years. Tell people to >>> stay out of their cars! >>> >>> How about the total number of drownings? That would be roughly >>> 52,000. Keep people away from water - no swimming, no boating! >>> >>> And, BTW, if you want to scrape the barrel for something that makes >>> cycling look dangerous, why did you not pick knitting? I'm _sure_ the >>> number of knitting fatalities is so small, you could get some >>> comparisons you'd like even more! > >>>> <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>> But I definitely don't think yelling exaggerations about cycling's >>>>> danger is going to help. > >>> "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: >>>> I don't exaggerate. > >>>> <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in message >>> For one simple example, you repeatedly claimed "1000 deaths" when the >>> number is actually about 750. That's exaggerating by 33%. > >>>> <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>> Agencies that promote kids swimming don't >>>>> whine on and on about the thousands of drownings per year, and >>>>> exaggerate how dangerous water is. They find ways to teach kids to >>>>> swim without instilling fear. Agencies that promote hunting use the >>>>> same approach. >>>>> I don't know what it is about cyclists, that makes them think that >>>>> unjustified terror is a good thing. > >>> "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: >>>> I don't know what you're talking about when you say, "promote >>>> unjustified >>>> terror". 750 dead a year isn't a good record. It roughly matches the >>>> American deaths in a war zone. > >> <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote >>> 750 deaths a year is much better than nearly 40,000 deaths per year in >>> motor vehicles. It's much better than roughly 5,000 pedestrian >>> fatalities, or about 4,000 drowning fatalities. It's far better than >>> roughly 700,000 heart-related fatalities, especially since cycling >>> helps prevent heart disease. > >>>> <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in message >>> Cycling's benefits outweigh the risks 20 to one, in terms of years of >>> life gained to years of life lost. Your phobia is not only mistaken, >>> it's harmful. > > Greens wrote: >> The only reason why people are blase about the deaths and injuries by >> motor vehicle is because motor vehicles have become almost essential. >> >> Your stats don't include the figure for how many times in a month do you >> feel you were nearly killed while riding a bicycle. The perception while >> driving in a car is that you have a good chance to survive or even avoid >> impacts. The perception while riding a bike is that you have no >> protection from impact and that you are the smallest thing on the road >> outside of the squirrels (who are much more agile). >> >> Obviously you turn to your stats for comfort when you feel threatened by >> autos. Cyclists who've never met you look to how they feel after a close >> call and they realize they're getting regularly shaken up. If a dog comes >> charging out at you, you get shaken up. It doesn't matter if the dog >> bites or not or if you take a fall. The dog has shaken you up. If a car >> goes hurtling past and it's obvious that he's was very close, a sane >> person is going to think, "Did he see me? Did he do that on purpose? Did >> I almost get killed just now?" In a car you're more likely to think, "I >> almost got sideswiped", which is much less threatening if something like >> that happens, but actually in a car it's much less likely to happen >> because you move with the flow of the traffic. >> >> You're right that cycling makes you feel better about your health from an >> exercise standpoint, but any sane person knows their health can quickly >> turn around if they're hit by a car going 30. Chances are they'll be >> dead. >> >> Your habit of attacking people about what you think are phobias simply >> shows your intolerance for the way other's think. You use the word >> "phobia" as an accusation of incompetence. By making reasonable fears >> sound abnormal, you demonstrate that you are abnormal and intolerant. >> >> Isn't "phobia" actually a medical term? Do psychologists actually >> recognize it as a phobia or as something else like a "reasonable fear". >> Maybe they don't recognize the condition at all. I know they recognize a >> lot of phobias, usually they're for things that are silly. What's the >> latin name for your traffic phobia? > > There are people who are terrified of crossing bridges, too. Minneapolis > 35W was 'front page news' precisely because it is a rare event. If bridges > collapsed randomly on a regular basis or if cycling were truly dangerous, > we'd modify our behaviors, culturally and individually, to reduce or avoid > those risks. Watching television with a hamburger will kill you too. > Everything- life itself - has risk! Cycling just happens not to frighten > most riders, including me and I was pushed across a lane by a left-turning > idiot last night. If I were dead I might agree with you. > -- > Andrew Muzi > www.yellowjersey.org > Open every day since 1 April, 1971 Okay, fine. You admit cycling is dangerous. Do you have something against making it less dangerous? If not, then we are in total agreement. It's Frank who insists that cycling is not dangerous. He doesn't want any gadgets to make is safer.           Date: 05 Sep 2007 17:07:43 From: Clive George Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net > wrote in message news:B5-dnUEOE8GMUUPbnZ2dnUVZ_vKunZ2d@adelphia.com... > Your stats don't include the figure for how many times in a month do you > feel you were nearly killed while riding a bicycle. The perception while > driving in a car is that you have a good chance to survive or even avoid > impacts. The perception while riding a bike is that you have no protection > from impact and that you are the smallest thing on the road outside of the > squirrels (who are much more agile). > > Obviously you turn to your stats for comfort when you feel threatened by > autos. Cyclists who've never met you look to how they feel after a close > call and they realize they're getting regularly shaken up. If a dog comes > charging out at you, you get shaken up. It doesn't matter if the dog > bites or not or if you take a fall. The dog has shaken you up. If a car > goes hurtling past and it's obvious that he's was very close, a sane > person is going to think, "Did he see me? Did he do that on purpose? Did I > almost get killed just now?" In a car you're more likely to think, "I > almost got sideswiped", which is much less threatening if something like > that happens, but actually in a car it's much less likely to happen > because you move with the flow of the traffic. Which is why turning to the stats is the thing to do. You've got to overcome your initial gut feeling, because it's wrong. Promoting your "safety" gadget ideas won't actually help - instead, they'll reinforce the idea that it is actually more dangerous than it is, reduce the numbers of those riding, and actually make things worse. Let's get back to the root cause of your problems : you don't ride with sufficient care or anticipation. That's what got you into trouble for the two incidents I've seen you write up in this thread. Forget gadgets, learn to ride better first. clive             Date: 05 Sep 2007 13:24:29 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors "Clive George" <clive@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk > wrote in message news:13dtl4odtcsqv79@corp.supernews.com... > "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net> wrote in message > news:B5-dnUEOE8GMUUPbnZ2dnUVZ_vKunZ2d@adelphia.com... > >> Your stats don't include the figure for how many times in a month do you >> feel you were nearly killed while riding a bicycle. The perception while >> driving in a car is that you have a good chance to survive or even avoid >> impacts. The perception while riding a bike is that you have no >> protection from impact and that you are the smallest thing on the road >> outside of the squirrels (who are much more agile). >> >> Obviously you turn to your stats for comfort when you feel threatened by >> autos. Cyclists who've never met you look to how they feel after a close >> call and they realize they're getting regularly shaken up. If a dog comes >> charging out at you, you get shaken up. It doesn't matter if the dog >> bites or not or if you take a fall. The dog has shaken you up. If a car >> goes hurtling past and it's obvious that he's was very close, a sane >> person is going to think, "Did he see me? Did he do that on purpose? Did >> I almost get killed just now?" In a car you're more likely to think, "I >> almost got sideswiped", which is much less threatening if something like >> that happens, but actually in a car it's much less likely to happen >> because you move with the flow of the traffic. > > Which is why turning to the stats is the thing to do. You've got to > overcome your initial gut feeling, because it's wrong. > > Promoting your "safety" gadget ideas won't actually help - instead, > they'll reinforce the idea that it is actually more dangerous than it is, > reduce the numbers of those riding, and actually make things worse. > > Let's get back to the root cause of your problems : you don't ride with > sufficient care or anticipation. That's what got you into trouble for the > two incidents I've seen you write up in this thread. Forget gadgets, learn > to ride better first. > > clive Pffft...Gadgets won't make the perception of cycling dangerousness worse. You people have a phobia of cycling being percieved as dangerous. Everybody already knows that cycling can be dangerous. Gadgets will be seen as an attempt to fix dangers or as attempts to sell more worthless gadgets. Your car is full of gadgets. Do they make you more aware of driving's dangers? Oops. Actually they do for me, but that doesn't bother me. I already knew driving was dangerous. I appreciate air bags, seat belts, anti lock brakes, foam dashboards, collapsing steering columns, crumple zones. All these gadgets make driving safer. they give me better odds of escaping injury and death. They make me think that people are actually trying to improve highway safety whereas you people have me believing that leaders in cycling are afraid of any change and would rather thousands die than anyone think cycling is dangerous. You're like a convertible driver that just doesn't want a roll bar. You like your open air roadster. You don't care if people's heads get ripped off in roll overs. You don't want pipe behind your head. You don't want seat belts restraining you. It's all up to the driver according to you.               Date: 05 Sep 2007 19:20:25 From: Clive George Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net > wrote in message news:DNOdneJu0L4VeEPbnZ2dnUVZ_gydnZ2d@adelphia.com... > Pffft...Gadgets won't make the perception of cycling dangerousness worse. If they're promoted as "cycling is dangerous without one of these", they will. > You people have a phobia of cycling being percieved as dangerous. > Everybody already knows that cycling can be dangerous. Gadgets will be > seen as an attempt to fix dangers or as attempts to sell more worthless > gadgets. Your car is full of gadgets. Do they make you more aware of > driving's dangers? Oops. Actually they do for me, but that doesn't bother > me. I already knew driving was dangerous. I appreciate air bags, seat > belts, anti lock brakes, foam dashboards, collapsing steering columns, > crumple zones. All these gadgets make driving safer. they give me better > odds of escaping injury and death. And they make somebody outside the car less safe. (FWIW my car has no ABS or air bags.) They increase the danger a cyclist faces. But take care with that statement : it's not the same as saying cycling is dangerous. > It's all up to the driver according to you. At the end of it, it is. Road safety is up to the drivers. Is that such a strange concept for you? clive                 Date: 05 Sep 2007 14:39:55 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors "Clive George" <clive@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk > wrote in message news:13dtsv5l3mrv4a0@corp.supernews.com... > "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net> wrote in message > news:DNOdneJu0L4VeEPbnZ2dnUVZ_gydnZ2d@adelphia.com... > >> Pffft...Gadgets won't make the perception of cycling dangerousness worse. > > If they're promoted as "cycling is dangerous without one of these", they > will. > >> You people have a phobia of cycling being percieved as dangerous. >> Everybody already knows that cycling can be dangerous. Gadgets will be >> seen as an attempt to fix dangers or as attempts to sell more worthless >> gadgets. Your car is full of gadgets. Do they make you more aware of >> driving's dangers? Oops. Actually they do for me, but that doesn't bother >> me. I already knew driving was dangerous. I appreciate air bags, seat >> belts, anti lock brakes, foam dashboards, collapsing steering columns, >> crumple zones. All these gadgets make driving safer. they give me better >> odds of escaping injury and death. > > And they make somebody outside the car less safe. (FWIW my car has no ABS > or air bags.) > They increase the danger a cyclist faces. But take care with that > statement : it's not the same as saying cycling is dangerous. > >> It's all up to the driver according to you. > > At the end of it, it is. Road safety is up to the drivers. Is that such a > strange concept for you? > > clive Yea. Road safety is only partly up to the drivers. Safety devices and better road design make a difference. Is that such a strange concept to you? What a stupid argument you've made! Lol                   Date: 05 Sep 2007 21:45:05 From: Clive George Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net > wrote in message news:O4KdncUhy_67akPbnZ2dnUVZ_sejnZ2d@adelphia.com... > Yea. Road safety is only partly up to the drivers. Safety devices and > better road design make a difference. Is that such a strange concept to > you? Do you know what difference "safety devices" and "better road design" make? Hint : it's more about letting people consume any reduction in risk by taking others instead. clive       Date: 03 Sep 2007 15:13:29 From: Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors On Sep 3, 1:50 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > wrote: > > > > Please. There haven't been 1000 cycling deaths in America for > > decades. Why not give a more accurate number? The average for the > > past 15 or 20 years has been about 750. There's no reason to > > exaggerate - to make cycling sound more dangerous than it is. > > > Let's say we all pretend that cycling is safe... Don't say "pretend." Several people here have been giving hard data proving cycling is safe. You're the one giving either no data, or imaginary data, and _pretending_ cycling is dangerous! > ... that the fear of getting > killed cycling never crosses our minds. Will we get better cycling > facilities? If you need better cycling facilities, there are certainly much better ways to get them than by scaring people away from cycling! > ... No. If we accept things the way they are, things will stay as they are. > You want to sucker more people into cycling with the idea that it's safe. I give the data. How is that "suckering"? > It's pretty apparant that you don't think it's safe. ??? To whom are you writing? That certainly doesn't apply to me! > These people will then > on occasion be killed or badly hurt because of this deception. They'll be > sure to let others know if they're still breathing. Your imagination is truly running wild. Let's review: People are killed or badly hurt about 26 times as often while riding in cars. Why should someone give more credence to a person whining about being hurt on a bike? > You operate like a sociopath. You only think of your own needs and are > willing to sacrifice the lives of others to attain your goals. If bicycling > safety is improved and motorists are charged with considerable fault, more > people will cycle. Your method will just get more cyclists killed. I am entirely in favor of placing more responsibility on motorists. I am also in favor of improved bicycling infrastructure, although I think only detail improvements are needed - like traffic light detectors that recognize bikes, like wider outside lanes in places, and like a few "shortcut" connections between traffic generators and between neighborhoods. But I definitely don't think yelling exaggerations about cycling's danger is going to help. Agencies that promote kids swimming don't whine on and on about the thousands of drownings per year, and exaggerate how dangerous water is. They find ways to teach kids to swim without instilling fear. Agencies that promote hunting use the same approach. I don't know what it is about cyclists, that makes them think that unjustified terror is a good thing. - Frank Krygowski         Date: 03 Sep 2007 18:58:43 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors <frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1188832409.629132.95000@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 3, 1:50 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: >> >> >> > Please. There haven't been 1000 cycling deaths in America for >> > decades. Why not give a more accurate number? The average for the >> > past 15 or 20 years has been about 750. There's no reason to >> > exaggerate - to make cycling sound more dangerous than it is. >> >> >> Let's say we all pretend that cycling is safe... > > Don't say "pretend." Several people here have been giving hard data > proving cycling is safe. You're the one giving either no data, or > imaginary data, and _pretending_ cycling is dangerous! > >> ... that the fear of getting >> killed cycling never crosses our minds. Will we get better cycling >> facilities? > > If you need better cycling facilities, there are certainly much better > ways to get them than by scaring people away from cycling! > >> ... No. If we accept things the way they are, things will stay as they >> are. >> You want to sucker more people into cycling with the idea that it's safe. > > I give the data. How is that "suckering"? You warp the data by comparing it to motor vehicle deaths. Cars travel faster and are much more common. Cars carry bigger payloads and multiple passengers. You dislike comparing bicycling deaths to other sports like skiing, football and tennis because comparing to those sports makes it obvious that cycling is a very dangerous sport. 469 traumatic skiing deaths at all american alpine resorts in a thirteen year period. In the same period of time by your numbers the total bicycle deaths would be 9750. That's 20 times the death rate of cycling. http://www.ski-injury.com/intro.htm#Fatalities > >> It's pretty apparant that you don't think it's safe. > > ??? To whom are you writing? That certainly doesn't apply to me! > "There's no reason to exaggerate - to make cycling sound more dangerous than it is. - Frank Krygowski" You said right there that cycling is dangerous. If it's dangerous, it isn't safe. >> These people will then >> on occasion be killed or badly hurt because of this deception. They'll be >> sure to let others know if they're still breathing. > > Your imagination is truly running wild. Let's review: People are > killed or badly hurt about 26 times as often while riding in cars. > Why should someone give more credence to a person whining about being > hurt on a bike? > >> You operate like a sociopath. You only think of your own needs and are >> willing to sacrifice the lives of others to attain your goals. If >> bicycling >> safety is improved and motorists are charged with considerable fault, >> more >> people will cycle. Your method will just get more cyclists killed. > > I am entirely in favor of placing more responsibility on motorists. I > am also in favor of improved bicycling infrastructure, although I > think only detail improvements are needed - like traffic light > detectors that recognize bikes, like wider outside lanes in places, > and like a few "shortcut" connections between traffic generators and > between neighborhoods. > > But I definitely don't think yelling exaggerations about cycling's I don't exaggerate. > danger is going to help. Agencies that promote kids swimming don't > whine on and on about the thousands of drownings per year, and > exaggerate how dangerous water is. They find ways to teach kids to > swim without instilling fear. Agencies that promote hunting use the > same approach. > > I don't know what it is about cyclists, that makes them think that > unjustified terror is a good thing. > > - Frank Krygowski > > I don't know what you're talking about when you say, "promote unjustified terror". 750 dead a year isn't a good record. It roughly matches the American deaths in a war zone.           Date: 04 Sep 2007 02:18:40 From: A Muzi Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors -snip omigod I'm afraid to ride a bike in traffic- Greens wrote: > I don't know what you're talking about when you say, "promote unjustified > terror". 750 dead a year isn't a good record. It roughly matches the > American deaths in a war zone. Whatever. With 300 million of us, 750 is a regrettable asterisk, not a crisis. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971       Date: 03 Sep 2007 03:25:36 From: Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors On Sep 2, 3:05 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > wrote: > <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in message > ... > > > If you're likely to ride fifteen million miles on your bike before > > getting fatally injured, there's not much to worry about. > > > - Frank Krygowski > > Frank, you seem to think that I am against bicycling because it is so > dangerous. It's you and a few others that have turned this whole thread > into a discussion of whether bicyling is dangerous or not. I understand that you're not literally against cycling. However, you _have_ been complaining that cycling is dangerous. And that is a) wrong, and b) harming cycling and cyclists. In the time I've been cycling as and adult (35 years or so) there's been a shift in the public's attitude toward cycling. People have been told, over and over, that bicycling is very dangerous, and is a significant risk of fatality or serious incapacitation. And people have bought into that fiction. But it _is_ a fiction. Any rational look at the available data proves it. Carl has given us a couple new sources, which confirm what I'm saying. I claim this harms cycling and cyclists. Why? Because when a motorist causes a rare serious crash, cops and courts are too quick to say "He knew the risks. He shouldn't have been out there on a bike." And justice is not served. Because when most people are scared away from cycling, officials have less reason to accommodate cyclists with amenities like bike racks in front of businesses, or on buses; or with traffic light detectors that respond to the presence of a bike. Because when fewer people bike, Amtrak and airlines have less reason to be accommodating when transporting bikes. Because cycling is apparently even safer when more people do it - probably because motorists get better at dealing with cyclists. Discouraging cycling decreases its safety. When you say that cycling is dangerous, you contribute to those problems. And, again, you are demonstrably wrong. > Originally the > thread was about the need to improve cycling's safety record by using high > tech devices. OK, I haven't addressed that. But as an engineer with some experience in sensor systems, I can assure you that your idea is practically impossible for the forseeable future, as well as being unnecessary. There is no technology I know of that will give you the equivalent of rear vision better than a simple eyeglass-mounted mirror. The technical problems are tremendous, and the human interface problems worse. Even if, as you propose, a sensor system could detect the heat from engines (very unlikely, given the insulating bodywork), any screen to display it would distract you into far more crashes. And it's simply not necessary. The vast majority of serious car-bike crashes come from the front of the cyclist, not the rear. Anyone riding in traffic should understand that, for their own good. "Fear from the rear" is a newbie's paranoia. > The German's and the Dutch have instituted programs and > organized their societies to encourage cycling as opposed to motoring and > they have worked to make cycling safer. That's what I think our governement > should do. That's fine. I doubt it will happen - and I doubt even more that it will happen in a way most of us will like - but it's a fine thing to wish for. > It's obvious to any sane person that nearly a thousand deaths a > year a too high a price to pay... Please. There haven't been 1000 cycling deaths in America for decades. Why not give a more accurate number? The average for the past 15 or 20 years has been about 750. There's no reason to exaggerate - to make cycling sound more dangerous than it is. - Frank Krygowski         Date: 03 Sep 2007 01:50:25 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors <frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1188789936.908628.47820@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 2, 3:05 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: >> <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> > ... >> >> > If you're likely to ride fifteen million miles on your bike before >> > getting fatally injured, there's not much to worry about. >> >> > - Frank Krygowski >> >> Frank, you seem to think that I am against bicycling because it is so >> dangerous. It's you and a few others that have turned this whole thread >> into a discussion of whether bicyling is dangerous or not. > > I understand that you're not literally against cycling. However, you > _have_ been complaining that cycling is dangerous. And that is a) > wrong, and b) harming cycling and cyclists. > > In the time I've been cycling as and adult (35 years or so) there's > been a shift in the public's attitude toward cycling. People have > been told, over and over, that bicycling is very dangerous, and is a > significant risk of fatality or serious incapacitation. And people > have bought into that fiction. > > But it _is_ a fiction. Any rational look at the available data proves > it. Carl has given us a couple new sources, which confirm what I'm > saying. > > I claim this harms cycling and cyclists. Why? > > Because when a motorist causes a rare serious crash, cops and courts > are too quick to say "He knew the risks. He shouldn't have been out > there on a bike." And justice is not served. > > Because when most people are scared away from cycling, officials have > less reason to accommodate cyclists with amenities like bike racks in > front of businesses, or on buses; or with traffic light detectors that > respond to the presence of a bike. > > Because when fewer people bike, Amtrak and airlines have less reason > to be accommodating when transporting bikes. > > Because cycling is apparently even safer when more people do it - > probably because motorists get better at dealing with cyclists. > Discouraging cycling decreases its safety. > > When you say that cycling is dangerous, you contribute to those > problems. And, again, you are demonstrably wrong. > >> Originally the >> thread was about the need to improve cycling's safety record by using >> high >> tech devices. > > OK, I haven't addressed that. But as an engineer with some experience > in sensor systems, I can assure you that your idea is practically > impossible for the forseeable future, as well as being unnecessary. > > There is no technology I know of that will give you the equivalent of > rear vision better than a simple eyeglass-mounted mirror. The > technical problems are tremendous, and the human interface problems > worse. Even if, as you propose, a sensor system could detect the heat > from engines (very unlikely, given the insulating bodywork), any > screen to display it would distract you into far more crashes. > > And it's simply not necessary. The vast majority of serious car-bike > crashes come from the front of the cyclist, not the rear. Anyone > riding in traffic should understand that, for their own good. "Fear > from the rear" is a newbie's paranoia. > >> The German's and the Dutch have instituted programs and >> organized their societies to encourage cycling as opposed to motoring and >> they have worked to make cycling safer. That's what I think our >> governement >> should do. > > That's fine. I doubt it will happen - and I doubt even more that it > will happen in a way most of us will like - but it's a fine thing to > wish for. > >> It's obvious to any sane person that nearly a thousand deaths a >> year a too high a price to pay... > > Please. There haven't been 1000 cycling deaths in America for > decades. Why not give a more accurate number? The average for the > past 15 or 20 years has been about 750. There's no reason to > exaggerate - to make cycling sound more dangerous than it is. > > - Frank Krygowski > > Let's say we all pretend that cycling is safe, that the fear of getting killed cycling never crosses our minds. Will we get better cycling facilities? If we don't complain about headlights for bikes and the way they are advertised as "one of our brightest headlights" when they aren't really one third enough bright, are we going to get better headlights offered to us? No. If we accept things the way they are, things will stay as they are. You want to sucker more people into cycling with the idea that it's safe. It's pretty apparant that you don't think it's safe. These people will then on occasion be killed or badly hurt because of this deception. They'll be sure to let others know if they're still breathing. You operate like a sociopath. You only think of your own needs and are willing to sacrifice the lives of others to attain your goals. If bicycling safety is improved and motorists are charged with considerable fault, more people will cycle. Your method will just get more cyclists killed.           Date: 03 Sep 2007 14:57:16 From: Clive George Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net > wrote in message news:YbmdnQ_fr8C_PkbbnZ2dnUVZ_tijnZ2d@adelphia.com... > You operate like a sociopath. You only think of your own needs and are > willing to sacrifice the lives of others to attain your goals. If > bicycling safety is improved and motorists are charged with considerable > fault, more people will cycle. Your method will just get more cyclists > killed. What's the single most effective way of increasing cycling safety? Get more people riding. It's counterinutitive I'll admit, but going around saying cycling is dangerous actually makes it more so. clive             Date: 03 Sep 2007 15:56:15 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors "Clive George" <clive@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk > wrote in message news:13do4o1rb8futed@corp.supernews.com... > "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net> wrote in message > news:YbmdnQ_fr8C_PkbbnZ2dnUVZ_tijnZ2d@adelphia.com... > >> You operate like a sociopath. You only think of your own needs and are >> willing to sacrifice the lives of others to attain your goals. If >> bicycling safety is improved and motorists are charged with considerable >> fault, more people will cycle. Your method will just get more cyclists >> killed. > > What's the single most effective way of increasing cycling safety? Get > more people riding. > > It's counterinutitive I'll admit, but going around saying cycling is > dangerous actually makes it more so. > > clive You assume that people are stupid and that by telling them lies about how safe bicycling is, you're going to get more riders. You'd be better off actually making cycling safer. People aren't as dumb as you think. The press will note it if safety is improved and you'll get more bike riders.               Date: 03 Sep 2007 21:04:59 From: Clive George Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net > wrote in message news:yIydnXlOH8m5-0HbnZ2dnUVZ_gydnZ2d@adelphia.com... > > "Clive George" <clive@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message > news:13do4o1rb8futed@corp.supernews.com... >> "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net> wrote in message >> news:YbmdnQ_fr8C_PkbbnZ2dnUVZ_tijnZ2d@adelphia.com... >> >>> You operate like a sociopath. You only think of your own needs and are >>> willing to sacrifice the lives of others to attain your goals. If >>> bicycling safety is improved and motorists are charged with considerable >>> fault, more people will cycle. Your method will just get more cyclists >>> killed. >> >> What's the single most effective way of increasing cycling safety? Get >> more people riding. >> >> It's counterinutitive I'll admit, but going around saying cycling is >> dangerous actually makes it more so. > > You assume that people are stupid and that by telling them lies about how > safe bicycling is, you're going to get more riders. No, I assume no such thing, and I tell them no such lies. I tell them ride with care and they'll be safe. From your description of your issues when riding, it appears you don't ride with sufficient care, and this makes you feel unsafe. Forget looking for technical solutions, you should be looking at improving the way you ride. I tell people I ride on what were listed as the 2nd and 9th most dangerous sections of road in the UK, I do so most days and I do so safely. > You'd be better off actually making cycling safer. And the best way to do this is to get more people on their bikes. > People aren't as dumb as you think. The press will note it if safety is > improved and you'll get more bike riders. It was noted - the recent increase in cyclists, and commensurate increase in cyclist safety in London wasn't due to magic safety improvements such as you imagine, it was due to the perception of other modes becoming more dangerous/miserable. clive         Date: 02 Sep 2007 23:34:45 From: Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 03:25:36 -0000, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: [snip] >But it _is_ a fiction. Any rational look at the available data proves >it. Carl has given us a couple new sources, which confirm what I'm >saying. [snip] Dear Frank, Here's a link that I couldn't find immediately: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-30/ncsa/STSI/8_CO/2005/Counties/Colorado_Pueblo%20County_2005.HTM Note the goose-eggs for Pueblo County bicycle fatalities 2001-2005. Peter Chisholm up in Boulder is in far more danger: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-30/ncsa/STSI/8_CO/2005/Counties/Colorado_Boulder%20County_2005.HTM You can select grisly details for any state or county. When you first select the state, the state totals are given. Colorado, with about 3 million people, had 3 to 11 bicyclists killed per year from 2001 to 2005. Cheers, Carl Fogel       Date: 02 Sep 2007 15:59:12 From: Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors On Sep 2, 2:56 am, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > > In any case, the claim is a good example of the classic description of > modern epidemiology as the study of extremely rare diseases in > extremely large populations. Or, to rephrase Carl's point: Those wishing to make others afraid of a problem often do it by comparing infinitesmals. And example might be "U.S. deaths from shark attacks tripled from 2000 to 2001!!!" Yes. One death in 2000, three deaths in 2001. You don't need to worry about either - the odds are literally infinitesmal - but we won't let that stand in the way of a good headline. To do a good job of assessing the danger of an activity, you should do two things: Look at the danger relative to other common activities, and look at the danger in an absolute sense. If you're likely to ride fifteen million miles on your bike before getting fatally injured, there's not much to worry about. - Frank Krygowski         Date: 02 Sep 2007 15:05:55 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors <frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1188748752.096764.175260@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 2, 2:56 am, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: >> >> In any case, the claim is a good example of the classic description of >> modern epidemiology as the study of extremely rare diseases in >> extremely large populations. > > > Or, to rephrase Carl's point: Those wishing to make others afraid of > a problem often do it by comparing infinitesmals. > > And example might be "U.S. deaths from shark attacks tripled from 2000 > to 2001!!!" > > Yes. One death in 2000, three deaths in 2001. You don't need to > worry about either - the odds are literally infinitesmal - but we > won't let that stand in the way of a good headline. > > To do a good job of assessing the danger of an activity, you should > do two things: Look at the danger relative to other common > activities, and look at the danger in an absolute sense. > > If you're likely to ride fifteen million miles on your bike before > getting fatally injured, there's not much to worry about. > > - Frank Krygowski > Frank, you seem to think that I am against bicycling because it is so dangerous. It's you and a few others that have turned this whole thread into a discussion of whether bicyling is dangerous or not. Originally the thread was about the need to improve cycling's safety record by using high tech devices. The German's and the Dutch have instituted programs and organized their societies to encourage cycling as opposed to motoring and they have worked to make cycling safer. That's what I think our governement should do. It's obvious to any sane person that nearly a thousand deaths a year a too high a price to pay for the society we live in and it's just the beginning of the costs. Cars are a primary cause of global warming, obesity and polluted air and our continued involvement in the middle east disasters. We'd be better off if cycling was encouraged by a campaign to make it safer and more desirable than our near total reliance on driving in cars.           Date: 02 Sep 2007 15:39:48 From: Ted Bennett Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors In article <9bSdnU0D18yqlEbbnZ2dnUVZ_g2dnZ2d@adelphia.com >, "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net > wrote: > <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1188748752.096764.175260@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com... > > On Sep 2, 2:56 am, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > >> > >> In any case, the claim is a good example of the classic description of > >> modern epidemiology as the study of extremely rare diseases in > >> extremely large populations. > > > > > > Or, to rephrase Carl's point: Those wishing to make others afraid of > > a problem often do it by comparing infinitesmals. > > > > And example might be "U.S. deaths from shark attacks tripled from 2000 > > to 2001!!!" > > > > Yes. One death in 2000, three deaths in 2001. You don't need to > > worry about either - the odds are literally infinitesmal - but we > > won't let that stand in the way of a good headline. > > > > To do a good job of assessing the danger of an activity, you should > > do two things: Look at the danger relative to other common > > activities, and look at the danger in an absolute sense. > > > > If you're likely to ride fifteen million miles on your bike before > > getting fatally injured, there's not much to worry about. > > > > - Frank Krygowski > > > > Frank, you seem to think that I am against bicycling because it is so > dangerous. It's you and a few others that have turned this whole thread > into a discussion of whether bicyling is dangerous or not. No one is disagreeing with the fact that bicycling is dangerous. The disagreement is over how dangerous it is. Your characterization of the activity as very dangerous would also make some other activities, such as bathing, also very dangerous. > Originally the > thread was about the need to improve cycling's safety record by using high > tech devices. The German's and the Dutch have instituted programs and > organized their societies to encourage cycling as opposed to motoring and > they have worked to make cycling safer. That's what I think our governement > should do. It's obvious to any sane person that nearly a thousand deaths a > year a too high a price to pay for the society we live in and it's just the > beginning of the costs. Cars are a primary cause of global warming, obesity > and polluted air and our continued involvement in the middle east disasters. > We'd be better off if cycling was encouraged by a campaign to make it safer > and more desirable than our near total reliance on driving in cars. Laudable goals. However you might want to consider that in places where off-street bike facilities are built, such as Germany and Holland, bicycles are not tolerated on streets nearby. I note a similar effect in the US where departing from a painted bike lane can elicit hostility from drivers. -- Ted Bennett             Date: 02 Sep 2007 19:29:39 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors "Ted Bennett" <tedbennett@earthlink.net > wrote in message news:tedbennett-873953.15394802092007@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net... > In article <9bSdnU0D18yqlEbbnZ2dnUVZ_g2dnZ2d@adelphia.com>, > "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net> wrote: > >> <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:1188748752.096764.175260@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com... >> > On Sep 2, 2:56 am, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: >> >> >> >> In any case, the claim is a good example of the classic description of >> >> modern epidemiology as the study of extremely rare diseases in >> >> extremely large populations. >> > >> > >> > Or, to rephrase Carl's point: Those wishing to make others afraid of >> > a problem often do it by comparing infinitesmals. >> > >> > And example might be "U.S. deaths from shark attacks tripled from 2000 >> > to 2001!!!" >> > >> > Yes. One death in 2000, three deaths in 2001. You don't need to >> > worry about either - the odds are literally infinitesmal - but we >> > won't let that stand in the way of a good headline. >> > >> > To do a good job of assessing the danger of an activity, you should >> > do two things: Look at the danger relative to other common >> > activities, and look at the danger in an absolute sense. >> > >> > If you're likely to ride fifteen million miles on your bike before >> > getting fatally injured, there's not much to worry about. >> > >> > - Frank Krygowski >> > >> >> Frank, you seem to think that I am against bicycling because it is so >> dangerous. It's you and a few others that have turned this whole thread >> into a discussion of whether bicyling is dangerous or not. > > No one is disagreeing with the fact that bicycling is dangerous. The > disagreement is over how dangerous it is. Your characterization of the > activity as very dangerous would also make some other activities, such > as bathing, also very dangerous. > >> Originally the >> thread was about the need to improve cycling's safety record by using >> high >> tech devices. The German's and the Dutch have instituted programs and >> organized their societies to encourage cycling as opposed to motoring and >> they have worked to make cycling safer. That's what I think our >> governement >> should do. It's obvious to any sane person that nearly a thousand deaths >> a >> year a too high a price to pay for the society we live in and it's just >> the >> beginning of the costs. Cars are a primary cause of global warming, >> obesity >> and polluted air and our continued involvement in the middle east >> disasters. >> We'd be better off if cycling was encouraged by a campaign to make it >> safer >> and more desirable than our near total reliance on driving in cars. > > Laudable goals. However you might want to consider that in places where > off-street bike facilities are built, such as Germany and Holland, > bicycles are not tolerated on streets nearby. I note a similar effect > in the US where departing from a painted bike lane can elicit hostility > from drivers. > > -- > Ted Bennett Bathing is likely to injure the old and the very young at much higher rates than those in their prime. For those people without tubmats and handholds bathing is somewhat dangerous, but I don't believe it is very dangerous. Most likely you are comparing a bather's sprained wrist to a cyclist's lost limb or broken bone. Bicycling hits those in their prime and often results in very serious injuries, nearly a thousand deaths each year bicycling. That's dangerous! Bicycling isn't necessary. Mostly it's done for exercise to improve health. That makes it all the more ironic when bicyclists die young. Why would you want to leave the bike lane if the bike lane takes you someplace you want to go? If you read the reports about the German system I linked to, you'd realize that the Germans almost always fault the motorist to some extent in accidents involving cyclists. They also have much more expensive and extensive driver training and pursue people who drive through crosswalks for the slightest infraction. Germans are taught to expect cyclists and pedestrians to break rules. Americans are unintentionally taught that it's okay to kill or harass cyclists and pedestrians if they break the rules. Germany has better marked crosswalks, lanes and lights to make life safer for pedestrians and cyclists. Speed limits in calm zones are much lower - 19mph than American speed limits so that if there are collisions fatalities are less likely. It wouldn't hurt Americans to employ those ideas. Cycling would become more popular, obesity would go down. Fitness would go up. Air pollution would be less severe.               Date: 03 Sep 2007 11:01:21 From: DI Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net > wrote in message news:loadndxGO6t420bbnZ2dnUVZ_veinZ2d@adelphia.com... > > > Bathing is likely to injure the old and the very young at much higher > rates than those in their prime. For those people without tubmats and > handholds bathing is somewhat dangerous, but I don't believe it is very > dangerous. Most likely you are comparing a bather's sprained wrist to a > cyclist's lost limb or broken bone. > > Bicycling hits those in their prime and often results in very serious > injuries, nearly a thousand deaths each year bicycling. That's dangerous! > Bicycling isn't necessary. Mostly it's done for exercise to improve > health. That makes it all the more ironic when bicyclists die young. > > Why would you want to leave the bike lane if the bike lane takes you > someplace you want to go? > > If you read the reports about the German system I linked to, you'd realize > that the Germans almost always fault the motorist to some extent in > accidents involving cyclists. They also have much more expensive and > extensive driver training and pursue people who drive through crosswalks > for the slightest infraction. Germans are taught to expect cyclists and > pedestrians to break rules. Americans are unintentionally taught that > it's okay to kill or harass cyclists and pedestrians if they break the > rules. Germany has better marked crosswalks, lanes and lights to make life > safer for pedestrians and cyclists. Speed limits in calm zones are much > lower - 19mph than American speed limits so that if there are collisions > fatalities are less likely. > > It wouldn't hurt Americans to employ those ideas. Cycling would become > more popular, obesity would go down. Fitness would go up. Air pollution > would be less severe. > Where do you come up with all this crap you've been throwing out. I've never heard so much nonsense from one individual, bike roll cages, auto detection devices, remote operated 50 cal guns, mandatory bike education for car drivers, bla bla bla. Get a life, go ride a normal bike if you even know how.                 Date: 03 Sep 2007 15:46:54 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors "DI" <di9999@cox.net > wrote in message news:idWCi.156728$zz2.63322@newsfe12.phx... > > "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net> wrote in message > news:loadndxGO6t420bbnZ2dnUVZ_veinZ2d@adelphia.com... >> >> >> Bathing is likely to injure the old and the very young at much higher >> rates than those in their prime. For those people without tubmats and >> handholds bathing is somewhat dangerous, but I don't believe it is very >> dangerous. Most likely you are comparing a bather's sprained wrist to a >> cyclist's lost limb or broken bone. >> >> Bicycling hits those in their prime and often results in very serious >> injuries, nearly a thousand deaths each year bicycling. That's dangerous! >> Bicycling isn't necessary. Mostly it's done for exercise to improve >> health. That makes it all the more ironic when bicyclists die young. >> >> Why would you want to leave the bike lane if the bike lane takes you >> someplace you want to go? >> >> If you read the reports about the German system I linked to, you'd >> realize that the Germans almost always fault the motorist to some extent >> in accidents involving cyclists. They also have much more expensive and >> extensive driver training and pursue people who drive through crosswalks >> for the slightest infraction. Germans are taught to expect cyclists and >> pedestrians to break rules. Americans are unintentionally taught that >> it's okay to kill or harass cyclists and pedestrians if they break the >> rules. Germany has better marked crosswalks, lanes and lights to make >> life safer for pedestrians and cyclists. Speed limits in calm zones are >> much lower - 19mph than American speed limits so that if there are >> collisions fatalities are less likely. >> >> It wouldn't hurt Americans to employ those ideas. Cycling would become >> more popular, obesity would go down. Fitness would go up. Air pollution >> would be less severe. >> > Where do you come up with all this crap you've been throwing out. I've > never heard so much nonsense from one individual, bike roll cages, auto > detection devices, remote operated 50 cal guns, mandatory bike education > for car drivers, bla bla bla. Get a life, go ride a normal bike if you > even know how. > Jeez you're small minded. In order to invent things you have to try to imagine new ways and better ways of doing things. The result is what you listed. I've put up links to some of the pages that have inspired me. Do a search if you're curious. I'm not going to waste my time helping out a flamer.                   Date: 03 Sep 2007 19:23:34 From: DI Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net > wrote in message news:wcydnaRGw7do_kHbnZ2dnUVZWhednZ2d@adelphia.com... > > "DI" <di9999@cox.net> wrote in message > news:idWCi.156728$zz2.63322@newsfe12.phx... >> >> "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net> wrote in message >> news:loadndxGO6t420bbnZ2dnUVZ_veinZ2d@adelphia.com... >>> >>> >>> Bathing is likely to injure the old and the very young at much higher >>> rates than those in their prime. For those people without tubmats and >>> handholds bathing is somewhat dangerous, but I don't believe it is very >>> dangerous. Most likely you are comparing a bather's sprained wrist to a >>> cyclist's lost limb or broken bone. >>> >>> Bicycling hits those in their prime and often results in very serious >>> injuries, nearly a thousand deaths each year bicycling. That's >>> dangerous! Bicycling isn't necessary. Mostly it's done for exercise to >>> improve health. That makes it all the more ironic when bicyclists die >>> young. >>> >>> Why would you want to leave the bike lane if the bike lane takes you >>> someplace you want to go? >>> >>> If you read the reports about the German system I linked to, you'd >>> realize that the Germans almost always fault the motorist to some extent >>> in accidents involving cyclists. They also have much more expensive and >>> extensive driver training and pursue people who drive through crosswalks >>> for the slightest infraction. Germans are taught to expect cyclists and >>> pedestrians to break rules. Americans are unintentionally taught that >>> it's okay to kill or harass cyclists and pedestrians if they break the >>> rules. Germany has better marked crosswalks, lanes and lights to make >>> life safer for pedestrians and cyclists. Speed limits in calm zones are >>> much lower - 19mph than American speed limits so that if there are >>> collisions fatalities are less likely. >>> >>> It wouldn't hurt Americans to employ those ideas. Cycling would become >>> more popular, obesity would go down. Fitness would go up. Air pollution >>> would be less severe. >>> >> Where do you come up with all this crap you've been throwing out. I've >> never heard so much nonsense from one individual, bike roll cages, auto >> detection devices, remote operated 50 cal guns, mandatory bike education >> for car drivers, bla bla bla. Get a life, go ride a normal bike if >> you even know how. >> > Jeez you're small minded. In order to invent things you have to try to > imagine new ways and better ways of doing things. The result is what you > listed. I've put up links to some of the pages that have inspired me. Do a > search if you're curious. I'm not going to waste my time helping out a > flamer. The world is full of useless inventions, it doesn't take much innovation to come up with an abortion and call it something. A real inventor will take the useless idea, tweak it, develop it, and "maybe" make something useful from it before telling the world what a great thing he has. Even then most of them are junk, turn the TV on any day of the week, look at the worthless stuff they are pushing for only $19.95, but wait if you order in the next 15 minutes, we'll throw in a second piece of junk free, a $60 value. Hurry, this offer is not available in stores. Not interested in your links.                 Date: 03 Sep 2007 13:38:57 From: Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors On Mon, 3 Sep 2007 11:01:21 -0500, "DI" <di9999@cox.net > wrote: >Where do you come up with all this crap you've been throwing out. I've >never heard so much nonsense from one individual, bike roll cages . . . [snip] Dear DI, Oldreive's bike roll cage: http://users.edpnet.be/drieww/Oude%20Fotos%20New%20Iron%20Horse.htm http://www.elektrischkite.com/Bicycle/Womens/Assets/oldreive_trike.gif http://www.imageenvision.com/md/0003-0702-1421-0815.jpg The odd fan-end spoke arrangement let the rider climb into the cage. Cheers, Carl Fogel                   Date: 03 Sep 2007 17:10:16 From: DI Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors <carlfogel@comcast.net > wrote in message news:qbood3d948aard8r5v1q6eg0grc1219dl7@4ax.com... > On Mon, 3 Sep 2007 11:01:21 -0500, "DI" <di9999@cox.net> wrote: > >>Where do you come up with all this crap you've been throwing out. I've >>never heard so much nonsense from one individual, bike roll cages . . . > > [snip] > > Dear DI, > > Oldreive's bike roll cage: > > http://users.edpnet.be/drieww/Oude%20Fotos%20New%20Iron%20Horse.htm > > http://www.elektrischkite.com/Bicycle/Womens/Assets/oldreive_trike.gif > > http://www.imageenvision.com/md/0003-0702-1421-0815.jpg > > The odd fan-end spoke arrangement let the rider climb into the cage. > > Cheers, > > Carl Fogel Yep, they didn't make sense then, or now. I would hate to see one of these when hit with a car at 40mph.                   Date: 03 Sep 2007 15:52:26 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors <carlfogel@comcast.net > wrote in message news:qbood3d948aard8r5v1q6eg0grc1219dl7@4ax.com... > On Mon, 3 Sep 2007 11:01:21 -0500, "DI" <di9999@cox.net> wrote: > >>Where do you come up with all this crap you've been throwing out. I've >>never heard so much nonsense from one individual, bike roll cages . . . > > [snip] > > Dear DI, > > Oldreive's bike roll cage: > > http://users.edpnet.be/drieww/Oude%20Fotos%20New%20Iron%20Horse.htm > > http://www.elektrischkite.com/Bicycle/Womens/Assets/oldreive_trike.gif > > http://www.imageenvision.com/md/0003-0702-1421-0815.jpg > > The odd fan-end spoke arrangement let the rider climb into the cage. > > Cheers, > > Carl Fogel Interesting design for a trike. Looks like it would be easy to flip end over end after hitting a big bump or ledge.             Date: 02 Sep 2007 19:30:34 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors "Ted Bennett" <tedbennett@earthlink.net > wrote in message news:tedbennett-873953.15394802092007@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net... > In article <9bSdnU0D18yqlEbbnZ2dnUVZ_g2dnZ2d@adelphia.com>, > "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net> wrote: > >> <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:1188748752.096764.175260@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com... >> > On Sep 2, 2:56 am, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: >> >> >> >> In any case, the claim is a good example of the classic description of >> >> modern epidemiology as the study of extremely rare diseases in >> >> extremely large populations. >> > >> > >> > Or, to rephrase Carl's point: Those wishing to make others afraid of >> > a problem often do it by comparing infinitesmals. >> > >> > And example might be "U.S. deaths from shark attacks tripled from 2000 >> > to 2001!!!" >> > >> > Yes. One death in 2000, three deaths in 2001. You don't need to >> > worry about either - the odds are literally infinitesmal - but we >> > won't let that stand in the way of a good headline. >> > >> > To do a good job of assessing the danger of an activity, you should >> > do two things: Look at the danger relative to other common >> > activities, and look at the danger in an absolute sense. >> > >> > If you're likely to ride fifteen million miles on your bike before >> > getting fatally injured, there's not much to worry about. >> > >> > - Frank Krygowski >> > >> >> Frank, you seem to think that I am against bicycling because it is so >> dangerous. It's you and a few others that have turned this whole thread >> into a discussion of whether bicyling is dangerous or not. > > No one is disagreeing with the fact that bicycling is dangerous. The > disagreement is over how dangerous it is. Your characterization of the > activity as very dangerous would also make some other activities, such > as bathing, also very dangerous. > >> Originally the >> thread was about the need to improve cycling's safety record by using >> high >> tech devices. The German's and the Dutch have instituted programs and >> organized their societies to encourage cycling as opposed to motoring and >> they have worked to make cycling safer. That's what I think our >> governement >> should do. It's obvious to any sane person that nearly a thousand deaths >> a >> year a too high a price to pay for the society we live in and it's just >> the >> beginning of the costs. Cars are a primary cause of global warming, >> obesity >> and polluted air and our continued involvement in the middle east >> disasters. >> We'd be better off if cycling was encouraged by a campaign to make it >> safer >> and more desirable than our near total reliance on driving in cars. > > Laudable goals. However you might want to consider that in places where > off-street bike facilities are built, such as Germany and Holland, > bicycles are not tolerated on streets nearby. I note a similar effect > in the US where departing from a painted bike lane can elicit hostility > from drivers. > > -- > Ted Bennett Bathing is likely to injure the old and the very young at much higher rates than those in their prime. For those people without tubmats and handholds bathing is somewhat dangerous, but I don't believe it is very dangerous. Most likely you are comparing a bather's sprained wrist to a cyclist's lost limb or broken bone. Bicycling hits those in their prime and often results in very serious injuries, nearly a thousand deaths each year bicycling. That's dangerous! Bicycling isn't necessary. Mostly it's done for exercise to improve health. That makes it all the more ironic when bicyclists die young. Why would you want to leave the bike lane if the bike lane takes you someplace you want to go? If you read the reports about the German system I linked to, you'd realize that the Germans almost always fault the motorist to some extent in accidents involving cyclists. They also have much more expensive and extensive driver training and pursue people who drive through crosswalks for the slightest infraction. Germans are taught to expect cyclists and pedestrians to break rules. Americans are unintentionally taught that it's okay to kill or harass cyclists and pedestrians if they break the rules. Germany has better marked crosswalks, lanes and lights to make life safer for pedestrians and cyclists. Speed limits in calm zones are much lower - 19mph than American speed limits so that if there are collisions fatalities are less likely. It wouldn't hurt Americans to employ those ideas. Cycling would become more popular, obesity would go down. Fitness would go up. Air pollution would be less severe.   Date: 30 Aug 2007 14:54:13 From: Marz Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors On Aug 30, 9:29 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > wrote: > > Sorry, but no matter how you slice it, cycling is not particularly > > dangerous. > > Sorry, but it is. No it's not. Not the sort of general commute or pop to the shops style riding, very safe and you don't need a helmet or a special cage to protect you. Maybe it's dangerous for you 'cos you lack the skillz and need to practice your cycle craft. Where cycling can get dangerous is when it's taken to the extremes, racing, downhill, trials or jumping, but that could be said for many activities.   Date: 29 Aug 2007 23:22:07 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors Greens who? wrote: > ...Women will push a baby carriage right in front of you to make the > point that they have the right of way. This is as opposed to slowing down > for a couple of seconds. I would think it would be easy to just slow down > while pushing a baby carriage, but some women are so intent on pressing > their right of way that they'll push that carriage in front of you to make > you stop.... That is what the air horn is for. I have had much less of a problem with idiot pedestrians since I switched to a bike like this: <http://www.ransbikes.com/Rocket07/8Rocket.jpg >. The big ol' buzz saw chain ring out front has a certain intimidation factor. :) The recumbent position is much better for ramming, since you will not go over the handlebars in a minor collision. This is the best bike for the baby carriage scenario: <http://www.outsideconnection.com/gallant/hpv/joe/outtaMyWay_1.mpg > and <http://www.outsideconnection.com/gallant/hpv/joe/outtaMyWay_2.mpg >. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com     Date: 30 Aug 2007 10:56:45 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@iinvalid.com > wrote in message news:46d639e4$0$16315$88260bb3@free.teranews.com... > Greens who? wrote: >> ...Women will push a baby carriage right in front of you to make the >> point that they have the right of way. This is as opposed to slowing down >> for a couple of seconds. I would think it would be easy to just slow down >> while pushing a baby carriage, but some women are so intent on pressing >> their right of way that they'll push that carriage in front of you to >> make you stop.... > > That is what the air horn is for. > > I have had much less of a problem with idiot pedestrians since I switched > to a bike like this: <http://www.ransbikes.com/Rocket07/8Rocket.jpg>. Put a three foot iron ram bar in front of that and it would have been handy last night when that car lurched into my path from a side road. I could have slammed into the driver's door and possibly impaled the driver. The big ol' buzz saw > chain ring out front has a certain intimidation factor. :) The recumbent > position is much better for ramming, since you will not go over the > handlebars in a minor collision. > > This is the best bike for the baby carriage scenario: > <http://www.outsideconnection.com/gallant/hpv/joe/outtaMyWay_1.mpg> and > <http://www.outsideconnection.com/gallant/hpv/joe/outtaMyWay_2.mpg>. > Hah. Looks like fun! > -- > Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia > A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom. > > -- > Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >   Date: 30 Aug 2007 03:23:24 From: Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors On Aug 29, 8:22 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > wrote: > <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > > > Meanwhile, why not do some reading to learn what's really dangerous > > and what's not? > > >http://hazmat.dot.gov/riskmgmt/riskcompare.htm > > Most bicycling in the USA happens during three months of the year and in > those three months most of it also happens in the morning or evening. That > should throw some light on your statistics. Most swimming in the US happens during three months of the year, too. And it's much more dangerous than cycling, both in terms of total fatalities and in terms of per-hour fatalities. See http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/comparat.html Sorry, but no matter how you slice it, cycling is not particularly dangerous. > Also, cars travel faster, much > faster. Speed gives them range and they also have payload capacity that > bikes can only dream of. This makes the car practical. Oh, please. Stand near any street and observe what those "practical" cars are doing. The vast majority of those 4,000 pound vehicles are carrying no payload to speak of, except the driver's butt. Most American car trips are short, as well - it would be practical to use a bike. But if you don't want to bike, that's fine. Just quit. > You think I'm scared of bathtubs? If they don't have a non skid surface, > yes. Rightly so. I remember reading about people bashing their heads in > while showering after slipping on the soap. It happened quite a bit before > tub mats. You seem to be an amazingly fearful individual. You are, very literally, the only person I've ever heard express fear of bathtubs. I really think you should stop riding. You're not up to it. And as a side benefit, you won't need to bathe as often, so that horror will be reduced too. ;-) - Frank Krygowski     Date: 30 Aug 2007 10:29:57 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors <frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1188444204.354147.268420@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 29, 8:22 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: >> <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >> > Meanwhile, why not do some reading to learn what's really dangerous >> > and what's not? >> >> >http://hazmat.dot.gov/riskmgmt/riskcompare.htm >> >> Most bicycling in the USA happens during three months of the year and in >> those three months most of it also happens in the morning or evening. >> That >> should throw some light on your statistics. > > Most swimming in the US happens during three months of the year, too. > And it's much more dangerous than cycling, both in terms of total > fatalities and in terms of per-hour fatalities. See > http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/comparat.html That stats are per hour. I and most people will spend more time per bike trip than per swimming trip. I don't think I've ever swum for more than an hour at a time, but last night I bicycled for three hours straight. > > Sorry, but no matter how you slice it, cycling is not particularly > dangerous. Sorry, but it is. Last night I was going down the road with my headlight on. A car pulled up on a side street and waited. I had the feeling they were confused, probably trying to figure out what I was since all they could see was the headlight. They waited until I was within a few feet and then they lurched forward a few feet into my path and stopped. I was going slow even though I was going downhill, but I still had to swerve around them. A few more feet and I'd have run into the side of their vehicle. If I'd been going faster, I'd have run into their vehicle at high speed. If a car had been coming towards me, I might have swerved into his path. How is any of that situation not dangerous? A few days before that a woman came out of a house on a quiet road. She had three dogs, one on a leash. The other two dogs put themselves in my path, barking and growling. The woman trundled after them slowly and barely made any effort to control them. If i hadn't stopped, I might have hit the dogs and that can easily lead to a fall. Those are just two incidents from the last week. Things like that seldom happen when I drive and if they do, I know I have an airbag and seatbelts and a huge cage to protect me. > >> Also, cars travel faster, much >> faster. Speed gives them range and they also have payload capacity that >> bikes can only dream of. This makes the car practical. > > Oh, please. Stand near any street and observe what those "practical" > cars are doing. The vast majority of those 4,000 pound vehicles are > carrying no payload to speak of, except the driver's butt. Most > American car trips are short, as well - it would be practical to use a > bike. You can't see into the trunk. The grocery store parking lots have lots of cars in them. What does that tell you about payloads? > > But if you don't want to bike, that's fine. Just quit. > >> You think I'm scared of bathtubs? If they don't have a non skid surface, >> yes. Rightly so. I remember reading about people bashing their heads in >> while showering after slipping on the soap. It happened quite a bit >> before >> tub mats. > > You seem to be an amazingly fearful individual. You are, very > literally, the only person I've ever heard express fear of bathtubs. > > I really think you should stop riding. You're not up to it. And as a > side benefit, you won't need to bathe as often, so that horror will be > reduced too. ;-) > > - Frank Krygowski > You annoyance. A few years ago I broke my arm rollerblading. I bicycle at night and during the day. I used to drive thousands of miles a week thoughout the east coast. Does any of this sound like I'm unusually fearful? Not to me. Normal people, when they see dangerous situations will fear those situtations. For instance right now I fear that instead of discussing a topic honestly, you will instead attack my character as you have in the past. I fear that you can find statistics that through some skewed logic show standing in front of speeding cars is not dangerous. Do you own a bike shop?       Date: 05 Sep 2007 14:11:48 From: Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors On Sep 5, 12:47 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > wrote: > Please do not distort my words anymore. Given what you posted five minutes previous (putting quotes around something I never said), your complaint is truly bizarre! - Frank Krygowski         Date: 05 Sep 2007 17:29:18 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors <frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1189026708.269667.283580@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 5, 12:47 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: >> Please do not distort my words anymore. > > Given what you posted five minutes previous (putting quotes around > something I never said), your complaint is truly bizarre! > > - Frank Krygowski > > Don't make me hunt, Frank. Which quote? The City 17 thing is roughly a quote from Half Life 2. Is that the one? No. You never said that. Somebody in the game said that. I used it as a reference to a totalitarian civilization. Other "quotes" it should have been obvious, were a parody of your general attitude and not direct quotes.       Date: 02 Sep 2007 16:37:17 From: Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors On Sep 1, 9:00 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > Dear Robert, > > Any survey of the laws and habits in the U.S. will show . . . > > The vast majority of U.S. bicyclists start out riding bicycles as > little children. > > It's not considered dangerous. > > Once the children learn how to ride, the vast majority of them are > allowed to pedal off unsupervised by their parents, just as they are > allowed to walk around the corner. > > It's not considered dangerous. > > No license is required to ride or buy a bicycle. > > They're not considered dangerous. Carl, I think you're confusing the attitudes that were prevalent when we were kids to the attitudes that are prevalent today, which are quite different. Just look at the proliferation of mandatory helmet laws for kids, and the movement toward adult MHLs, if you're still puzzled. How many bicycle helmet laws were there when you were a kid? I think if you asked a random group of people today if they thought riding bikes in traffic was a dangerous activity, the majority would say yes. Virtually all the non-cyclists would say yes I'd bet. You have claimed that 'any survey' would show otherwise. Perhaps then you could cite one. > If you're still puzzled, compare all that to cars. Or hunting, if you > prefer, which has a ridiculously good safety record. Few parents would > let small children drive off alone in the family car with shotguns and > ammunition. Open your eyes, brother. Parents let their drooling semi-retarded teenagers drive off alone every day. It's routine. If those same kids announced that they would start riding their bikes everywhere instead, that would cause a great deal of consternation among the parents. Robert   Date: 30 Aug 2007 02:01:24 From: Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors On Aug 29, 8:06 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > wrote: > > > If 90% of accidents aren't written up by the police there are a lot more > accidents than are indicated by the various statistics. Seems to me cycling > is more dangerous than I think. Oh, good grief! Such fearmongering! Of course 90% or more of bike accidents aren't written up! The same is true of 90+% of walking accidents, 90+% of jogging accidents, 90+% of knife accidents, and 90+% of accidents of all kinds. It's elementary. Most injuries from those (and most other sources) are too minor to bother with! If someone falls off a bike and skins their knee, why would they report it? Only the most obsessive person would feel a need to. And only the most dedicated fearmongers try to scare people with that statistic. - Frank Krygowski   Date: 29 Aug 2007 13:57:07 From: Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors On Aug 29, 12:39 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > wrote: > <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > You can't use one tragic > > accident to label an activity unsafe. If you choose that route, > > you'll have to avoid ever walking on a sidewalk or driving in a car. > > Pedestrians and motorists are killed far, far more often than > > cyclists. Even if you examine data per hour exposure, cycling is > > probably safer than either of those two activities. > > > If cycling scares you so much, and seems so difficult and dangerous to > > you, you probably ought to find some other way of getting around. > > While it's certainly safe for most cyclists, there are people who just > > can't handle it. Perhaps you're one of them. > > > But one request. Whether or not you give it up, please stop whining > > about how dangerous it is. That nonsense makes things worse for the > > rest of us. > > > - Frank Krygowski > > Oh I see. People should be maimed and die thinking they're involved in a > safe, healthy activity because exposing it's dangers makes things > "difficult" for devotees of the sport. I know exactly what you mean. I don't see any evidence you know what I mean. I don't see any evidence you understand much about bicycling or about safety. Over 35,000 motorists die each year in the US, and many, many more are "maimed." Roughly 5,000 pedestrians die each year in the US, and many more are "maimed." And speaking of bathtubs, the number of Americans drowning in their bathtub each year is roughly the same as the number of Americans killed riding bikes. You've demonstrated a fear of bicycling and a fear of bathtubs. Surely, you should be at least as worried about driving and walking! So do us a favor and never mention bicyling's danger without bathtub danger, OK? If you wring your hands and complain about both, fewer people will take you seriously. Meanwhile, why not do some reading to learn what's really dangerous and what's not? http://hazmat.dot.gov/riskmgmt/riskcompare.htm - Frank Krygowski     Date: 29 Aug 2007 20:22:26 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors <frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1188421027.811951.117920@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 29, 12:39 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: >> <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> > You can't use one tragic >> > accident to label an activity unsafe. If you choose that route, >> > you'll have to avoid ever walking on a sidewalk or driving in a car. >> > Pedestrians and motorists are killed far, far more often than >> > cyclists. Even if you examine data per hour exposure, cycling is >> > probably safer than either of those two activities. >> >> > If cycling scares you so much, and seems so difficult and dangerous to >> > you, you probably ought to find some other way of getting around. >> > While it's certainly safe for most cyclists, there are people who just >> > can't handle it. Perhaps you're one of them. >> >> > But one request. Whether or not you give it up, please stop whining >> > about how dangerous it is. That nonsense makes things worse for the >> > rest of us. >> >> > - Frank Krygowski >> >> Oh I see. People should be maimed and die thinking they're involved in a >> safe, healthy activity because exposing it's dangers makes things >> "difficult" for devotees of the sport. I know exactly what you mean. > > I don't see any evidence you know what I mean. I don't see any > evidence you understand much about bicycling or about safety. > > Over 35,000 motorists die each year in the US, and many, many more are > "maimed." > > Roughly 5,000 pedestrians die each year in the US, and many more are > "maimed." > > And speaking of bathtubs, the number of Americans drowning in their > bathtub each year is roughly the same as the number of Americans > killed riding bikes. > > You've demonstrated a fear of bicycling and a fear of bathtubs. > Surely, you should be at least as worried about driving and walking! > > So do us a favor and never mention bicyling's danger without bathtub > danger, OK? If you wring your hands and complain about both, fewer > people will take you seriously. > > Meanwhile, why not do some reading to learn what's really dangerous > and what's not? > > http://hazmat.dot.gov/riskmgmt/riskcompare.htm > > - Frank Krygowski > Most bicycling in the USA happens during three months of the year and in those three months most of it also happens in the morning or evening. That should throw some light on your statistics. Also, cars travel faster, much faster. Speed gives them range and they also have payload capacity that bikes can only dream of. This makes the car practical. For the speeds traveled, the safety is impressive. On a bike speed is almost irrelevant. A truck going 1 mile per hour rolling over a cyclist is just as deadly as a s if the cyclist was going 20 or the truck going 60. You think I'm scared of bathtubs? If they don't have a non skid surface, yes. Rightly so. I remember reading about people bashing their heads in while showering after slipping on the soap. It happened quite a bit before tub mats. Discarded refrigerators used to be a big problem because they were airtight and they couldn't be opened from the inside. Kids would climb in to play hide and seek and they would suffocate or fry in the sun. That problem was solved when they got rid of doors that locked kids in.       Date: 05 Sep 2007 14:11:43 From: Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors On Sep 5, 1:17 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > wrote: > > > You have a total intolerance for any other opinion and you think you're an > expert that couldn't possibly be wrong about anything. IMO you're arrogant. I don't have a total intolerance for opinions that differ from mine. However, I do recognize that some opinions have been proven flat out wrong. I don't have much tolerance for those opinions. There are people who believe the earth is flat, there are people who believe Iraq attacked the World Trade Center, and there are people who believe that bicycling is dangerous without a yet-to-be-invented high- tech electronic rear-view traffic detector device. I don't have much respect for that sort of nonsense. - Frank Krygowski         Date: 05 Sep 2007 12:47:38 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors <frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1189001503.618831.25270@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 5, 1:17 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: >> >> >> You have a total intolerance for any other opinion and you think you're >> an >> expert that couldn't possibly be wrong about anything. IMO you're >> arrogant. > > I don't have a total intolerance for opinions that differ from mine. > However, I do recognize that some opinions have been proven flat out > wrong. I don't have much tolerance for those opinions. > > There are people who believe the earth is flat, there are people who > believe Iraq attacked the World Trade Center, and there are people who > believe that bicycling is dangerous without a yet-to-be-invented high- > tech electronic rear-view traffic detector device. > > I don't have much respect for that sort of nonsense. > > - Frank Krygowski > I never said that my high tech devices would make cycling safe. I said they might make cycling safer and it would behoove us to at least attempt to make cycling safer. Please do not distort my words anymore.       Date: 05 Sep 2007 06:27:19 From: Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors On Sep 4, 7:44 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net > wrote: > This is a collection of ... >appeals to emotion and > imputations of bad character. Uh huh. > unsubstantiated and ill-formed > assertions of facts Nope. Try to substantiate your assertion that my assertion of fact was unsubstantiated, and see where you end up. > Do you ride a bicycle in traffic? Pretty much all day, every day. You? Robert         Date: 05 Sep 2007 08:16:29 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors In article <1188973639.236801.167840@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com > , r15757@aol.com wrote: > On Sep 4, 7:44 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote: > > > This is a collection of ... > > >appeals to emotion and > > imputations of bad character. > > Uh huh. > > > unsubstantiated and ill-formed > > assertions of facts > > Nope. Try to substantiate your assertion that my assertion of fact was > unsubstantiated, and see where you end up. You said: > in fact cyclists are subject to > far more means of injury than pedestrians or drivers > > Do you ride a bicycle in traffic? > > Pretty much all day, every day. You? Why do you engage in such high risk behavior? What is the reward? Activities with higher reward/risk ratios are rock climbing and bridge jumping. Occupations include law enforcement and drug-dealing. You could become a bicycle patrolman. Yes, I ride a bicycle in traffic. -- Michael Press           Date: 05 Sep 2007 14:21:50 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors "Michael Press" <rubrum@pacbell.net > wrote in message news:rubrum-BB82C4.08162805092007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net... > In article > <1188973639.236801.167840@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com> > , > r15757@aol.com wrote: > >> On Sep 4, 7:44 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote: >> >> > This is a collection of ... >> >> >appeals to emotion and >> > imputations of bad character. >> >> Uh huh. >> >> > unsubstantiated and ill-formed >> > assertions of facts >> >> Nope. Try to substantiate your assertion that my assertion of fact was >> unsubstantiated, and see where you end up. > > You said: >> in fact cyclists are subject to >> far more means of injury than pedestrians or drivers > >> > Do you ride a bicycle in traffic? >> >> Pretty much all day, every day. You? > > Why do you engage in such high risk behavior? What is > the reward? Activities with higher reward/risk ratios > are rock climbing and bridge jumping. Occupations > include law enforcement and drug-dealing. You could > become a bicycle patrolman. > > Yes, I ride a bicycle in traffic. > > -- > Michael Press http://www.base1007.ch/joomla/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=30 It's hard to find stats on base jumping. I read somewhere that worldwide there have now been 1000 basejumping deaths since the sport originated in the 80's(?) Many more cyclists have been killed since there have been single years when more than 1000 cyclists have been killed. If base jumping served some practical, common purpose, who knows? Base jumping deaths might surpass cycling fatalities. Then again they might not. Base jumpers don't have to deal with unpredictable motorists or traffic laws much or fatigue necessarily. They pick their spot and they go. If they guess wrong about the wind, they die. I wouldn't take it as a given that base jumping or parachute jumping are more dangerous than cycling without considerable study of stats.             Date: 05 Sep 2007 12:27:53 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors In article <YsCdnRV0bIpwb0PbnZ2dnUVZ_hKdnZ2d@adelphia.com >, "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net > wrote: > "Michael Press" <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote in message > news:rubrum-BB82C4.08162805092007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net... > > In article > > <1188973639.236801.167840@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com> > > , > > r15757@aol.com wrote: > > > >> On Sep 4, 7:44 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote: > >> > >> > This is a collection of ... > >> > >> >appeals to emotion and > >> > imputations of bad character. > >> > >> Uh huh. > >> > >> > unsubstantiated and ill-formed > >> > assertions of facts > >> > >> Nope. Try to substantiate your assertion that my assertion of fact was > >> unsubstantiated, and see where you end up. > > > > You said: > >> in fact cyclists are subject to > >> far more means of injury than pedestrians or drivers > > > >> > Do you ride a bicycle in traffic? > >> > >> Pretty much all day, every day. You? > > > > Why do you engage in such high risk behavior? What is > > the reward? Activities with higher reward/risk ratios > > are rock climbing and bridge jumping. Occupations > > include law enforcement and drug-dealing. You could > > become a bicycle patrolman. > > > > Yes, I ride a bicycle in traffic. > > http://www.base1007.ch/joomla/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=30 > > It's hard to find stats on base jumping. I read somewhere that worldwide > there have now been 1000 basejumping deaths since the sport originated in > the 80's(?) > > Many more cyclists have been killed since there have been single years when > more than 1000 cyclists have been killed. > > If base jumping served some practical, common purpose, who knows? Base > jumping deaths might surpass cycling fatalities. Then again they might not. > Base jumpers don't have to deal with unpredictable motorists or traffic laws > much or fatigue necessarily. They pick their spot and they go. If they guess > wrong about the wind, they die. I wouldn't take it as a given that base > jumping or parachute jumping are more dangerous than cycling without > considerable study of stats. What is the rate of serious injury and death per hour of base jumping? -- Michael Press               Date: 05 Sep 2007 16:06:47 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors "Michael Press" <rubrum@pacbell.net > wrote in message news:rubrum-D640A5.12275305092007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net... > In article > <YsCdnRV0bIpwb0PbnZ2dnUVZ_hKdnZ2d@adelphia.com>, > "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net> wrote: > >> "Michael Press" <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote in message >> news:rubrum-BB82C4.08162805092007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net... >> > In article >> > <1188973639.236801.167840@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com> >> > , >> > r15757@aol.com wrote: >> > >> >> On Sep 4, 7:44 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> > This is a collection of ... >> >> >> >> >appeals to emotion and >> >> > imputations of bad character. >> >> >> >> Uh huh. >> >> >> >> > unsubstantiated and ill-formed >> >> > assertions of facts >> >> >> >> Nope. Try to substantiate your assertion that my assertion of fact was >> >> unsubstantiated, and see where you end up. >> > >> > You said: >> >> in fact cyclists are subject to >> >> far more means of injury than pedestrians or drivers >> > >> >> > Do you ride a bicycle in traffic? >> >> >> >> Pretty much all day, every day. You? >> > >> > Why do you engage in such high risk behavior? What is >> > the reward? Activities with higher reward/risk ratios >> > are rock climbing and bridge jumping. Occupations >> > include law enforcement and drug-dealing. You could >> > become a bicycle patrolman. >> > >> > Yes, I ride a bicycle in traffic. >> >> http://www.base1007.ch/joomla/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=30 >> >> It's hard to find stats on base jumping. I read somewhere that worldwide >> there have now been 1000 basejumping deaths since the sport originated in >> the 80's(?) >> >> Many more cyclists have been killed since there have been single years >> when >> more than 1000 cyclists have been killed. >> >> If base jumping served some practical, common purpose, who knows? Base >> jumping deaths might surpass cycling fatalities. Then again they might >> not. >> Base jumpers don't have to deal with unpredictable motorists or traffic >> laws >> much or fatigue necessarily. They pick their spot and they go. If they >> guess >> wrong about the wind, they die. I wouldn't take it as a given that base >> jumping or parachute jumping are more dangerous than cycling without >> considerable study of stats. > > What is the rate of serious injury and death per hour of base jumping? > > -- > Michael Press I don't have it. I don't know if it exists. There's no law that says somebody has to tabulate that sort of data. All there is is that base fatalities list. I doubt the CDC would even bother with it because the numbers are so low.                 Date: 05 Sep 2007 14:57:22 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors In article <j8KdnfY7QKLtlkLbnZ2dnUVZ_quhnZ2d@adelphia.com >, "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net > wrote: > "Michael Press" <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote in message > news:rubrum-D640A5.12275305092007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net... > > In article > > <YsCdnRV0bIpwb0PbnZ2dnUVZ_hKdnZ2d@adelphia.com>, > > "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net> wrote: > > > >> "Michael Press" <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote in message > >> news:rubrum-BB82C4.08162805092007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net... > >> > In article > >> > <1188973639.236801.167840@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com> > >> > , > >> > r15757@aol.com wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Sep 4, 7:44 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > This is a collection of ... > >> >> > >> >> >appeals to emotion and > >> >> > imputations of bad character. > >> >> > >> >> Uh huh. > >> >> > >> >> > unsubstantiated and ill-formed > >> >> > assertions of facts > >> >> > >> >> Nope. Try to substantiate your assertion that my assertion of fact was > >> >> unsubstantiated, and see where you end up. > >> > > >> > You said: > >> >> in fact cyclists are subject to > >> >> far more means of injury than pedestrians or drivers > >> > > >> >> > Do you ride a bicycle in traffic? > >> >> > >> >> Pretty much all day, every day. You? > >> > > >> > Why do you engage in such high risk behavior? What is > >> > the reward? Activities with higher reward/risk ratios > >> > are rock climbing and bridge jumping. Occupations > >> > include law enforcement and drug-dealing. You could > >> > become a bicycle patrolman. > >> > > >> > Yes, I ride a bicycle in traffic. > >> > >> http://www.base1007.ch/joomla/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=30 > >> > >> It's hard to find stats on base jumping. I read somewhere that worldwide > >> there have now been 1000 basejumping deaths since the sport originated in > >> the 80's(?) > >> > >> Many more cyclists have been killed since there have been single years > >> when > >> more than 1000 cyclists have been killed. > >> > >> If base jumping served some practical, common purpose, who knows? Base > >> jumping deaths might surpass cycling fatalities. Then again they might > >> not. > >> Base jumpers don't have to deal with unpredictable motorists or traffic > >> laws > >> much or fatigue necessarily. They pick their spot and they go. If they > >> guess > >> wrong about the wind, they die. I wouldn't take it as a given that base > >> jumping or parachute jumping are more dangerous than cycling without > >> considerable study of stats. > > > > What is the rate of serious injury and death per hour of base jumping? > > I don't have it. I don't know if it exists. There's no law that says > somebody has to tabulate that sort of data. All there is is that base > fatalities list. I doubt the CDC would even bother with it because the > numbers are so low. You cannot argue base jumping risk versus bicycle risk until you can quote per hour numbers for valid comparison. Quoting raw numbers is misleading. -- Michael Press                   Date: 05 Sep 2007 18:38:44 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors "Michael Press" <rubrum@pacbell.net > wrote in message news:rubrum-A4E7C2.14572205092007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net... > In article > <j8KdnfY7QKLtlkLbnZ2dnUVZ_quhnZ2d@adelphia.com>, > "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net> wrote: > >> "Michael Press" <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote in message >> news:rubrum-D640A5.12275305092007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net... >> > In article >> > <YsCdnRV0bIpwb0PbnZ2dnUVZ_hKdnZ2d@adelphia.com>, >> > "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net> wrote: >> > >> >> "Michael Press" <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote in message >> >> news:rubrum-BB82C4.08162805092007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net... >> >> > In article >> >> > <1188973639.236801.167840@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com> >> >> > , >> >> > r15757@aol.com wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On Sep 4, 7:44 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > This is a collection of ... >> >> >> >> >> >> >appeals to emotion and >> >> >> > imputations of bad character. >> >> >> >> >> >> Uh huh. >> >> >> >> >> >> > unsubstantiated and ill-formed >> >> >> > assertions of facts >> >> >> >> >> >> Nope. Try to substantiate your assertion that my assertion of fact >> >> >> was >> >> >> unsubstantiated, and see where you end up. >> >> > >> >> > You said: >> >> >> in fact cyclists are subject to >> >> >> far more means of injury than pedestrians or drivers >> >> > >> >> >> > Do you ride a bicycle in traffic? >> >> >> >> >> >> Pretty much all day, every day. You? >> >> > >> >> > Why do you engage in such high risk behavior? What is >> >> > the reward? Activities with higher reward/risk ratios >> >> > are rock climbing and bridge jumping. Occupations >> >> > include law enforcement and drug-dealing. You could >> >> > become a bicycle patrolman. >> >> > >> >> > Yes, I ride a bicycle in traffic. >> >> >> >> http://www.base1007.ch/joomla/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=30 >> >> >> >> It's hard to find stats on base jumping. I read somewhere that >> >> worldwide >> >> there have now been 1000 basejumping deaths since the sport originated >> >> in >> >> the 80's(?) >> >> >> >> Many more cyclists have been killed since there have been single years >> >> when >> >> more than 1000 cyclists have been killed. >> >> >> >> If base jumping served some practical, common purpose, who knows? Base >> >> jumping deaths might surpass cycling fatalities. Then again they might >> >> not. >> >> Base jumpers don't have to deal with unpredictable motorists or >> >> traffic >> >> laws >> >> much or fatigue necessarily. They pick their spot and they go. If they >> >> guess >> >> wrong about the wind, they die. I wouldn't take it as a given that >> >> base >> >> jumping or parachute jumping are more dangerous than cycling without >> >> considerable study of stats. >> > >> > What is the rate of serious injury and death per hour of base jumping? >> >> I don't have it. I don't know if it exists. There's no law that says >> somebody has to tabulate that sort of data. All there is is that base >> fatalities list. I doubt the CDC would even bother with it because the >> numbers are so low. > > You cannot argue base jumping risk versus bicycle risk > until you can quote per hour numbers for valid > comparison. Quoting raw numbers is misleading. > > -- > Michael Press I can't get those figures until somebody does a study using those parameters. They won't do the study until enough people get killed that it's worth studying. Can't you figure this out for yourself. Not enough people get killed base jumping for them to do studies and therefore it's not that dangerous. It just looks dangerous and it's probably scary as hell.   Date: 29 Aug 2007 11:33:40 From: Smokey Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors On Aug 28, 5:29 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > wrote: > "Wayne Pein" <wp...@nc.rr.com> wrote in message > > news:46d49cc4$0$16444$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > > > > > > > Greens wrote: > > >>> "Wayne Pein" <wp...@nc.rr.com> wrote in message You falsely believe that > >>> somebody else is responsible for bicyclist safety. YOU and you alone > >>> must be competent to reduce your risk. A basic time honored way to do > >>> that is to never ride in the door zone. By tracking 5 ft from car side, > >>> you ensure this. Riding at this position also compels passing motorists > >>> to be more cautious, and it gives you better sightlines and maneuvering > >>> space at junctions and from peds that may dash out from between parked > >>> cars. > > >> Do seatbelts and airbags put motorist safety in the hands of someone > >> besides the driver? Yea. What's wrong with that? All kinds of safety > >> devices have come into common use. They all enhance safety and take the > >> burden off drivers. Things like stop signs, turn signals, headlights, > >> brake lights. Having a light that warns cyclists of a potential dooring > >> hazard is no worse. > > > A light that gives bicyclists the OK to ride in the door zone is not a > > good idea. Better to use your brain and not ride in the door zone. If you > > do that, then there is no potential dooring hazard. If your idea is so > > good, submit it to NHTSA, the car companies, insurance companies, etc. > > > Further, as I pointed out earlier, riding further away from the parked > > cars gives better sight lines and maneuvering space at junctions and from > > peds. Do you have a bad invention to deal with that as well? > > > Wayne > > It sounds like you're getting really aggravated with me, Wayne. Sometimes > people who consider themselves authorities and "the last word" on subjects > will get that way when I offer suggestions. No. I didn't spend a lot of time > coming up with that idea. It's not fully tested, but has the NHTSA really > given the dooring problem any thought over the last 50 years? Probably not > and they get paid to make highways safer for everybody so I don't see why > you'd be mad at me. > > They could do a lot of things like put up signs reminding motorists that > cyclists have the right to be in the road. They could put PSA's on the tv > and radio offering motorists safety tips that remind them that they're not > the only ones on the road. They could encourage courtesy and understanding > instead of hostility. After all cyclists don't burn gas. That means more > gas, cheaper gas for motorists. They should love us and you should love me, > Wayne, as a brother of the wind and a fellow newsgrouper looking for > solutions to our shared sport.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - "They could do a lot of things like put up signs reminding motorists that cyclists have the right to be in the road." We have share the road signs here in MO on some roads. One that I pass by fairly often is in the town of Fayette on hwy. 240 Smokey     Date: 29 Aug 2007 15:27:27 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors "Smokey" <smokeystrodtman@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:1188412420.180977.312200@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 28, 5:29 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: >> "Wayne Pein" <wp...@nc.rr.com> wrote in message >> >> news:46d49cc4$0$16444$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > Greens wrote: >> >> >>> "Wayne Pein" <wp...@nc.rr.com> wrote in message You falsely believe >> >>> that >> >>> somebody else is responsible for bicyclist safety. YOU and you alone >> >>> must be competent to reduce your risk. A basic time honored way to do >> >>> that is to never ride in the door zone. By tracking 5 ft from car >> >>> side, >> >>> you ensure this. Riding at this position also compels passing >> >>> motorists >> >>> to be more cautious, and it gives you better sightlines and >> >>> maneuvering >> >>> space at junctions and from peds that may dash out from between >> >>> parked >> >>> cars. >> >> >> Do seatbelts and airbags put motorist safety in the hands of someone >> >> besides the driver? Yea. What's wrong with that? All kinds of safety >> >> devices have come into common use. They all enhance safety and take >> >> the >> >> burden off drivers. Things like stop signs, turn signals, headlights, >> >> brake lights. Having a light that warns cyclists of a potential >> >> dooring >> >> hazard is no worse. >> >> > A light that gives bicyclists the OK to ride in the door zone is not a >> > good idea. Better to use your brain and not ride in the door zone. If >> > you >> > do that, then there is no potential dooring hazard. If your idea is so >> > good, submit it to NHTSA, the car companies, insurance companies, etc. >> >> > Further, as I pointed out earlier, riding further away from the parked >> > cars gives better sight lines and maneuvering space at junctions and >> > from >> > peds. Do you have a bad invention to deal with that as well? >> >> > Wayne >> >> It sounds like you're getting really aggravated with me, Wayne. Sometimes >> people who consider themselves authorities and "the last word" on >> subjects >> will get that way when I offer suggestions. No. I didn't spend a lot of >> time >> coming up with that idea. It's not fully tested, but has the NHTSA really >> given the dooring problem any thought over the last 50 years? Probably >> not >> and they get paid to make highways safer for everybody so I don't see why >> you'd be mad at me. >> >> They could do a lot of things like put up signs reminding motorists that >> cyclists have the right to be in the road. They could put PSA's on the tv >> and radio offering motorists safety tips that remind them that they're >> not >> the only ones on the road. They could encourage courtesy and >> understanding >> instead of hostility. After all cyclists don't burn gas. That means more >> gas, cheaper gas for motorists. They should love us and you should love >> me, >> Wayne, as a brother of the wind and a fellow newsgrouper looking for >> solutions to our shared sport.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > "They could do a lot of things like put up signs reminding motorists > that > cyclists have the right to be in the road." > > We have share the road signs here in MO on some roads. One that I pass > by fairly often is in the town of Fayette on hwy. 240 > > Smokey > We'll get the roads back when the cost of flying cars comes down. Think of all those abandoned roads... mmmmm. Around here I'll occasionally see a sign that says "bike route". Usually it'll be way out in the country on a road with a big shoulder. The shoulder is really for broken down cars, but they figure they'll put up those signs and let cyclists feel like they care. Might be nice if they taught courtesy towards cyclists and their bizarre way in school. There are people that think cycling on roads is illegal.   Date: 29 Aug 2007 08:50:12 From: Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors On Aug 29, 11:04 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > wrote: > <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1188394992.528890.218200@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Aug 29, 12:14 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: > > >> The first truck left about three feet of space on the right side of the > >> truck (the shoulder). The second truck, stopped behind the first was a > >> little to the left of him, I think. I passed by going into the oncoming > >> lane. When he opened his driver's door I practically ended up in the > >> oncoming lane's shoulder. That's probably an exageration, but I was way > >> over > >> there. > > > It almost certainly is a gross exaggeration. But in any case, do you > > understand that riding within reach of a vehicle door is something you > > must _not_ do? That was one mistake you made. > > > And if the situation was as hazardous as you claim, another mistake > > was not slowing or stopping to evaluate. > > > You're making it sound harder than it is. I have no such problems > > riding among motor vehicles. Stay alert, learn some skills, follow > > the rules, and grow some... courage. > > > - Frank Krygowski > > If you think that playing by the rules will keep you safe, you're wrong. I > was reading some old guy's huge website. He went on about how he always > followed the traffic rules, stopping for every stop sign and signaling. It > wasn't until I read most of his site that I found out he was deceased. He'd > been hit by a drunk driver who veered into his lane. > > Following the rules might improve your odds, but it doesn't make cycling > safe. About the only thing that will make cycling safe is to get rid of all > the cars. First, I'm not advising that you merely follow the rules. I've talked about watching ahead, paying attention to situations before they develop, etc. You've got to keep awake, and you need _some_ fundamental, easy-to-learn skills. And nothing, NOTHING is _perfectly_ safe. You can't use one tragic accident to label an activity unsafe. If you choose that route, you'll have to avoid ever walking on a sidewalk or driving in a car. Pedestrians and motorists are killed far, far more often than cyclists. Even if you examine data per hour exposure, cycling is probably safer than either of those two activities. If cycling scares you so much, and seems so difficult and dangerous to you, you probably ought to find some other way of getting around. While it's certainly safe for most cyclists, there are people who just can't handle it. Perhaps you're one of them. But one request. Whether or not you give it up, please stop whining about how dangerous it is. That nonsense makes things worse for the rest of us. - Frank Krygowski     Date: 29 Aug 2007 12:39:03 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors <frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1188402612.067367.205710@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 29, 11:04 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: >> <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1188394992.528890.218200@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Aug 29, 12:14 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: >> >> >> The first truck left about three feet of space on the right side of >> >> the >> >> truck (the shoulder). The second truck, stopped behind the first was a >> >> little to the left of him, I think. I passed by going into the >> >> oncoming >> >> lane. When he opened his driver's door I practically ended up in the >> >> oncoming lane's shoulder. That's probably an exageration, but I was >> >> way >> >> over >> >> there. >> >> > It almost certainly is a gross exaggeration. But in any case, do you >> > understand that riding within reach of a vehicle door is something you >> > must _not_ do? That was one mistake you made. >> >> > And if the situation was as hazardous as you claim, another mistake >> > was not slowing or stopping to evaluate. >> >> > You're making it sound harder than it is. I have no such problems >> > riding among motor vehicles. Stay alert, learn some skills, follow >> > the rules, and grow some... courage. >> >> > - Frank Krygowski >> >> If you think that playing by the rules will keep you safe, you're wrong. >> I >> was reading some old guy's huge website. He went on about how he always >> followed the traffic rules, stopping for every stop sign and signaling. >> It >> wasn't until I read most of his site that I found out he was deceased. >> He'd >> been hit by a drunk driver who veered into his lane. >> >> Following the rules might improve your odds, but it doesn't make cycling >> safe. About the only thing that will make cycling safe is to get rid of >> all >> the cars. > > First, I'm not advising that you merely follow the rules. I've talked > about watching ahead, paying attention to situations before they > develop, etc. You've got to keep awake, and you need _some_ > fundamental, easy-to-learn skills. > > And nothing, NOTHING is _perfectly_ safe. You can't use one tragic > accident to label an activity unsafe. If you choose that route, > you'll have to avoid ever walking on a sidewalk or driving in a car. > Pedestrians and motorists are killed far, far more often than > cyclists. Even if you examine data per hour exposure, cycling is > probably safer than either of those two activities. > > If cycling scares you so much, and seems so difficult and dangerous to > you, you probably ought to find some other way of getting around. > While it's certainly safe for most cyclists, there are people who just > can't handle it. Perhaps you're one of them. > > But one request. Whether or not you give it up, please stop whining > about how dangerous it is. That nonsense makes things worse for the > rest of us. > > - Frank Krygowski > Oh I see. People should be maimed and die thinking they're involved in a safe, healthy activity because exposing it's dangers makes things "difficult" for devotees of the sport. I know exactly what you mean. .       Date: 04 Sep 2007 13:11:09 From: Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors On Sep 4, 12:22 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net > wrote: > In article > <1188917577.141407.288...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> > , > > > > r15...@aol.com wrote: > > On Sep 3, 1:34 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote: > > > In article > > > <1188751272.269576.64...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > > > > christie...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Sep 1, 6:05 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > Overall: Bicycling has great benefits that far outweigh it's > > > > > minuscule risks. It deserves to be promoted, not discouraged. > > > > > That is absolutely true. > > > > > OTOH, there are significant risks involved with riding bikes in > > > > traffic, > > > > How do you know this? > > > About a quarter million miles riding in traffic, > > That is a noun phrase that does not answer the question > > > familiarity with the > > experiences of other high-mileage cyclists, analysis of statistical > > evidence. > > Can you convey this experience to us? > > > Are you under the impression that riding a bike in traffic does not > > involve significant risk? > > What do you mean impression? > > > What a horribly dangerous mindset for a cyclist to have. > > Oh, that is a rhetorical question. You do not want an answer. > > -- > Michael Press The answer to the silly stuff from mr. 'greens' is not the far sillier assertion that riding in traffic involves no significant risk. If you lack the experience to understand this, and fall prey easily to statistical shenanigans like those of Frank Krygowski, perhaps then you can simply use your brain to realize that being in traffic involves significant risk, whether you're on foot, on bike or in a car. There is nothing magical about being on a bike which makes you immune to the normal risks of traffic; in fact cyclists are subject to far more means of injury than pedestrians or drivers, which accounts for the poor injury stats of cycling relative to other modes. Robert         Date: 05 Sep 2007 01:44:17 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors In article <1188936669.049813.126570@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com >, r15757@aol.com wrote: > On Sep 4, 12:22 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote: > > In article > > <1188917577.141407.288...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> > > , > > > > > > > > r15...@aol.com wrote: > > > On Sep 3, 1:34 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote: > > > > In article > > > > <1188751272.269576.64...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > christie...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > On Sep 1, 6:05 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > > Overall: Bicycling has great benefits that far outweigh it's > > > > > > minuscule risks. It deserves to be promoted, not discouraged. > > > > > > > That is absolutely true. > > > > > > > OTOH, there are significant risks involved with riding bikes in > > > > > traffic, > > > > > > How do you know this? > > > > > About a quarter million miles riding in traffic, > > > > That is a noun phrase that does not answer the question > > > > > familiarity with the > > > experiences of other high-mileage cyclists, analysis of statistical > > > evidence. > > > > Can you convey this experience to us? > > > > > Are you under the impression that riding a bike in traffic does not > > > involve significant risk? > > > > What do you mean impression? > > > > > What a horribly dangerous mindset for a cyclist to have. > > > > Oh, that is a rhetorical question. You do not want an answer. > > The answer to the silly stuff from mr. 'greens' is not the far sillier > assertion that riding in traffic involves no significant risk. If you > lack the experience to understand this, and fall prey easily to > statistical shenanigans like those of Frank Krygowski, perhaps then > you can simply use your brain to realize that being in traffic > involves significant risk, whether you're on foot, on bike or in a > car. There is nothing magical about being on a bike which makes you > immune to the normal risks of traffic; in fact cyclists are subject to > far more means of injury than pedestrians or drivers, which accounts > for the poor injury stats of cycling relative to other modes. This is a collection of unsubstantiated and ill-formed assertions of facts coupled with appeals to emotion and imputations of bad character. Do you ride a bicycle in traffic? -- Michael Press           Date: 05 Sep 2007 01:24:09 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors "Michael Press" <rubrum@pacbell.net > wrote in message news:rubrum-8453E2.18441704092007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com... > In article > <1188936669.049813.126570@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>, > r15757@aol.com wrote: > >> On Sep 4, 12:22 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote: >> > In article >> > <1188917577.141407.288...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> >> > , >> > >> > >> > >> > r15...@aol.com wrote: >> > > On Sep 3, 1:34 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote: >> > > > In article >> > > > <1188751272.269576.64...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, >> > >> > > > christie...@gmail.com wrote: >> > > > > On Sep 1, 6:05 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: >> > >> > > > > > Overall: Bicycling has great benefits that far outweigh it's >> > > > > > minuscule risks. It deserves to be promoted, not discouraged. >> > >> > > > > That is absolutely true. >> > >> > > > > OTOH, there are significant risks involved with riding bikes in >> > > > > traffic, >> > >> > > > How do you know this? >> > >> > > About a quarter million miles riding in traffic, >> > >> > That is a noun phrase that does not answer the question >> > >> > > familiarity with the >> > > experiences of other high-mileage cyclists, analysis of statistical >> > > evidence. >> > >> > Can you convey this experience to us? >> > >> > > Are you under the impression that riding a bike in traffic does not >> > > involve significant risk? >> > >> > What do you mean impression? >> > >> > > What a horribly dangerous mindset for a cyclist to have. >> > >> > Oh, that is a rhetorical question. You do not want an answer. >> >> The answer to the silly stuff from mr. 'greens' is not the far sillier >> assertion that riding in traffic involves no significant risk. If you >> lack the experience to understand this, and fall prey easily to >> statistical shenanigans like those of Frank Krygowski, perhaps then >> you can simply use your brain to realize that being in traffic >> involves significant risk, whether you're on foot, on bike or in a >> car. There is nothing magical about being on a bike which makes you >> immune to the normal risks of traffic; in fact cyclists are subject to >> far more means of injury than pedestrians or drivers, which accounts >> for the poor injury stats of cycling relative to other modes. > > This is a collection of unsubstantiated and ill-formed > assertions of facts coupled with appeals to emotion and > imputations of bad character. > > Do you ride a bicycle in traffic? > > -- > Michael Press Or in other words, "Dissenting comments will not be tolerated! Guards! Take this man away!"             Date: 05 Sep 2007 08:19:18 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors In article <ldSdnenl2uwNoUPbnZ2dnUVZ_qSonZ2d@adelphia.com >, "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net > wrote: > "Michael Press" <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote in message > news:rubrum-8453E2.18441704092007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com... > > In article > > <1188936669.049813.126570@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>, > > r15757@aol.com wrote: > > > >> On Sep 4, 12:22 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote: > >> > In article > >> > <1188917577.141407.288...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> > >> > , > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > r15...@aol.com wrote: > >> > > On Sep 3, 1:34 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote: > >> > > > In article > >> > > > <1188751272.269576.64...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > >> > > >> > > > christie...@gmail.com wrote: > >> > > > > On Sep 1, 6:05 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > >> > > >> > > > > > Overall: Bicycling has great benefits that far outweigh it's > >> > > > > > minuscule risks. It deserves to be promoted, not discouraged. > >> > > >> > > > > That is absolutely true. > >> > > >> > > > > OTOH, there are significant risks involved with riding bikes in > >> > > > > traffic, > >> > > >> > > > How do you know this? > >> > > >> > > About a quarter million miles riding in traffic, > >> > > >> > That is a noun phrase that does not answer the question > >> > > >> > > familiarity with the > >> > > experiences of other high-mileage cyclists, analysis of statistical > >> > > evidence. > >> > > >> > Can you convey this experience to us? > >> > > >> > > Are you under the impression that riding a bike in traffic does not > >> > > involve significant risk? > >> > > >> > What do you mean impression? > >> > > >> > > What a horribly dangerous mindset for a cyclist to have. > >> > > >> > Oh, that is a rhetorical question. You do not want an answer. > >> > >> The answer to the silly stuff from mr. 'greens' is not the far sillier > >> assertion that riding in traffic involves no significant risk. If you > >> lack the experience to understand this, and fall prey easily to > >> statistical shenanigans like those of Frank Krygowski, perhaps then > >> you can simply use your brain to realize that being in traffic > >> involves significant risk, whether you're on foot, on bike or in a > >> car. There is nothing magical about being on a bike which makes you > >> immune to the normal risks of traffic; in fact cyclists are subject to > >> far more means of injury than pedestrians or drivers, which accounts > >> for the poor injury stats of cycling relative to other modes. > > > > This is a collection of unsubstantiated and ill-formed > > assertions of facts coupled with appeals to emotion and > > imputations of bad character. > > > > Do you ride a bicycle in traffic? > > Or in other words, "Dissenting comments will not be tolerated! Guards! Take > this man away!" Non sequitur. -- Michael Press               Date: 05 Sep 2007 13:36:11 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors "Michael Press" <rubrum@pacbell.net > wrote in message news:rubrum-D78DED.08191805092007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net... > In article > <ldSdnenl2uwNoUPbnZ2dnUVZ_qSonZ2d@adelphia.com>, > "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net> wrote: > >> "Michael Press" <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote in message >> news:rubrum-8453E2.18441704092007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com... >> > In article >> > <1188936669.049813.126570@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>, >> > r15757@aol.com wrote: >> > >> >> On Sep 4, 12:22 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote: >> >> > In article >> >> > <1188917577.141407.288...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> >> >> > , >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > r15...@aol.com wrote: >> >> > > On Sep 3, 1:34 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote: >> >> > > > In article >> >> > > > <1188751272.269576.64...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, >> >> > >> >> > > > christie...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> > > > > On Sep 1, 6:05 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> > >> >> > > > > > Overall: Bicycling has great benefits that far outweigh >> >> > > > > > it's >> >> > > > > > minuscule risks. It deserves to be promoted, not >> >> > > > > > discouraged. >> >> > >> >> > > > > That is absolutely true. >> >> > >> >> > > > > OTOH, there are significant risks involved with riding bikes >> >> > > > > in >> >> > > > > traffic, >> >> > >> >> > > > How do you know this? >> >> > >> >> > > About a quarter million miles riding in traffic, >> >> > >> >> > That is a noun phrase that does not answer the question >> >> > >> >> > > familiarity with the >> >> > > experiences of other high-mileage cyclists, analysis of >> >> > > statistical >> >> > > evidence. >> >> > >> >> > Can you convey this experience to us? >> >> > >> >> > > Are you under the impression that riding a bike in traffic does >> >> > > not >> >> > > involve significant risk? >> >> > >> >> > What do you mean impression? >> >> > >> >> > > What a horribly dangerous mindset for a cyclist to have. >> >> > >> >> > Oh, that is a rhetorical question. You do not want an answer. >> >> >> >> The answer to the silly stuff from mr. 'greens' is not the far sillier >> >> assertion that riding in traffic involves no significant risk. If you >> >> lack the experience to understand this, and fall prey easily to >> >> statistical shenanigans like those of Frank Krygowski, perhaps then >> >> you can simply use your brain to realize that being in traffic >> >> involves significant risk, whether you're on foot, on bike or in a >> >> car. There is nothing magical about being on a bike which makes you >> >> immune to the normal risks of traffic; in fact cyclists are subject to >> >> far more means of injury than pedestrians or drivers, which accounts >> >> for the poor injury stats of cycling relative to other modes. >> > >> > This is a collection of unsubstantiated and ill-formed >> > assertions of facts coupled with appeals to emotion and >> > imputations of bad character. >> > >> > Do you ride a bicycle in traffic? >> >> Or in other words, "Dissenting comments will not be tolerated! Guards! >> Take >> this man away!" > > Non sequitur. > > -- > Michael Press "Non sequitur." That only applies to illogical conclusions.                 Date: 05 Sep 2007 12:29:17 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors In article <ctKdnblSxczZdUPbnZ2dnUVZ_uGknZ2d@adelphia.com >, "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net > wrote: > "Michael Press" <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote in message > news:rubrum-D78DED.08191805092007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net... > > In article > > <ldSdnenl2uwNoUPbnZ2dnUVZ_qSonZ2d@adelphia.com>, > > "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net> wrote: > > > >> "Michael Press" <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote in message > >> news:rubrum-8453E2.18441704092007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com... > >> > In article > >> > <1188936669.049813.126570@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>, > >> > r15757@aol.com wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Sep 4, 12:22 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote: > >> >> > In article > >> >> > <1188917577.141407.288...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> > >> >> > , > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > r15...@aol.com wrote: > >> >> > > On Sep 3, 1:34 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote: > >> >> > > > In article > >> >> > > > <1188751272.269576.64...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > >> >> > > >> >> > > > christie...@gmail.com wrote: > >> >> > > > > On Sep 1, 6:05 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> > > > > > Overall: Bicycling has great benefits that far outweigh > >> >> > > > > > it's > >> >> > > > > > minuscule risks. It deserves to be promoted, not > >> >> > > > > > discouraged. > >> >> > > >> >> > > > > That is absolutely true. > >> >> > > >> >> > > > > OTOH, there are significant risks involved with riding bikes > >> >> > > > > in > >> >> > > > > traffic, > >> >> > > >> >> > > > How do you know this? > >> >> > > >> >> > > About a quarter million miles riding in traffic, > >> >> > > >> >> > That is a noun phrase that does not answer the question > >> >> > > >> >> > > familiarity with the > >> >> > > experiences of other high-mileage cyclists, analysis of > >> >> > > statistical > >> >> > > evidence. > >> >> > > >> >> > Can you convey this experience to us? > >> >> > > >> >> > > Are you under the impression that riding a bike in traffic does > >> >> > > not > >> >> > > involve significant risk? > >> >> > > >> >> > What do you mean impression? > >> >> > > >> >> > > What a horribly dangerous mindset for a cyclist to have. > >> >> > > >> >> > Oh, that is a rhetorical question. You do not want an answer. > >> >> > >> >> The answer to the silly stuff from mr. 'greens' is not the far sillier > >> >> assertion that riding in traffic involves no significant risk. If you > >> >> lack the experience to understand this, and fall prey easily to > >> >> statistical shenanigans like those of Frank Krygowski, perhaps then > >> >> you can simply use your brain to realize that being in traffic > >> >> involves significant risk, whether you're on foot, on bike or in a > >> >> car. There is nothing magical about being on a bike which makes you > >> >> immune to the normal risks of traffic; in fact cyclists are subject to > >> >> far more means of injury than pedestrians or drivers, which accounts > >> >> for the poor injury stats of cycling relative to other modes. > >> > > >> > This is a collection of unsubstantiated and ill-formed > >> > assertions of facts coupled with appeals to emotion and > >> > imputations of bad character. > >> > > >> > Do you ride a bicycle in traffic? > >> > >> Or in other words, "Dissenting comments will not be tolerated! Guards! > >> Take > >> this man away!" > > > > Non sequitur. > > "Non sequitur." > > That only applies to illogical conclusions. Non sequitur is a form of logical fallacy. In this case your comment had nothing to do with what I was saying. -- Michael Press                   Date: 05 Sep 2007 16:04:33 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors "Michael Press" <rubrum@pacbell.net > wrote in message news:rubrum-D629CF.12291705092007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net... > In article > <ctKdnblSxczZdUPbnZ2dnUVZ_uGknZ2d@adelphia.com>, > "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net> wrote: > >> "Michael Press" <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote in message >> news:rubrum-D78DED.08191805092007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net... >> > In article >> > <ldSdnenl2uwNoUPbnZ2dnUVZ_qSonZ2d@adelphia.com>, >> > "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net> wrote: >> > >> >> "Michael Press" <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote in message >> >> news:rubrum-8453E2.18441704092007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com... >> >> > In article >> >> > <1188936669.049813.126570@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>, >> >> > r15757@aol.com wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On Sep 4, 12:22 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote: >> >> >> > In article >> >> >> > <1188917577.141407.288...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> >> >> >> > , >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > r15...@aol.com wrote: >> >> >> > > On Sep 3, 1:34 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote: >> >> >> > > > In article >> >> >> > > > <1188751272.269576.64...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > > christie...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> > > > > On Sep 1, 6:05 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > > > > Overall: Bicycling has great benefits that far outweigh >> >> >> > > > > > it's >> >> >> > > > > > minuscule risks. It deserves to be promoted, not >> >> >> > > > > > discouraged. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > > > That is absolutely true. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > > > OTOH, there are significant risks involved with riding >> >> >> > > > > bikes >> >> >> > > > > in >> >> >> > > > > traffic, >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > > How do you know this? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > About a quarter million miles riding in traffic, >> >> >> > >> >> >> > That is a noun phrase that does not answer the question >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > familiarity with the >> >> >> > > experiences of other high-mileage cyclists, analysis of >> >> >> > > statistical >> >> >> > > evidence. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Can you convey this experience to us? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > Are you under the impression that riding a bike in traffic does >> >> >> > > not >> >> >> > > involve significant risk? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > What do you mean impression? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > What a horribly dangerous mindset for a cyclist to have. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Oh, that is a rhetorical question. You do not want an answer. >> >> >> >> >> >> The answer to the silly stuff from mr. 'greens' is not the far >> >> >> sillier >> >> >> assertion that riding in traffic involves no significant risk. If >> >> >> you >> >> >> lack the experience to understand this, and fall prey easily to >> >> >> statistical shenanigans like those of Frank Krygowski, perhaps then >> >> >> you can simply use your brain to realize that being in traffic >> >> >> involves significant risk, whether you're on foot, on bike or in a >> >> >> car. There is nothing magical about being on a bike which makes you >> >> >> immune to the normal risks of traffic; in fact cyclists are subject >> >> >> to >> >> >> far more means of injury than pedestrians or drivers, which >> >> >> accounts >> >> >> for the poor injury stats of cycling relative to other modes. >> >> > >> >> > This is a collection of unsubstantiated and ill-formed >> >> > assertions of facts coupled with appeals to emotion and >> >> > imputations of bad character. >> >> > >> >> > Do you ride a bicycle in traffic? >> >> >> >> Or in other words, "Dissenting comments will not be tolerated! Guards! >> >> Take >> >> this man away!" >> > >> > Non sequitur. >> >> "Non sequitur." >> >> That only applies to illogical conclusions. > > Non sequitur is a form of logical fallacy. > In this case your comment had nothing to do > with what I was saying. > > -- > Michael Press Yea, I read the definition. You don't get it. The following statement of yours... "This is a collection of unsubstantiated and ill-formed assertions of facts coupled with appeals to emotion and imputations of bad character. Do you ride a bicycle in traffic? -- Michael Press" It a complicated way of saying STFU or "Dissenting comments will not be tolerated! Guards! Take this man away!" Apparantly, you can't see how Frank phrases things and looks at things in his way and only his way. He always talks about cycling deaths in terms of motoring deaths. He then says they're so similar. They're not. The only thing that's similar is that they both occur on roads. He refuses to look at skiing deaths in comparison to cycling deaths or football deaths. He loves the motoring deaths. They're the whole basis for his beliefs that it's all worth it. He fails to recognize that at least the motoring industry tries to make cars safer at this point. Up to the sixties it was just like bicyling. They didn't even try.                     Date: 05 Sep 2007 15:01:52 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors In article <lfednSfQL4htl0LbnZ2dnUVZ_hqdnZ2d@adelphia.com >, "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net > wrote: > > "Michael Press" <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote in message > news:rubrum-D629CF.12291705092007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net... > > In article > > <ctKdnblSxczZdUPbnZ2dnUVZ_uGknZ2d@adelphia.com>, > > "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net> wrote: > > > >> "Michael Press" <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote in message > >> news:rubrum-D78DED.08191805092007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net... > >> > In article > >> > <ldSdnenl2uwNoUPbnZ2dnUVZ_qSonZ2d@adelphia.com>, > >> > "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net> wrote: > >> > > >> >> "Michael Press" <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote in message > >> >> news:rubrum-8453E2.18441704092007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com... > >> >> > In article > >> >> > <1188936669.049813.126570@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>, > >> >> > r15757@aol.com wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> On Sep 4, 12:22 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote: > >> >> >> > In article > >> >> >> > <1188917577.141407.288...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> > >> >> >> > , > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > r15...@aol.com wrote: > >> >> >> > > On Sep 3, 1:34 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote: > >> >> >> > > > In article > >> >> >> > > > <1188751272.269576.64...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > > christie...@gmail.com wrote: > >> >> >> > > > > On Sep 1, 6:05 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > > > > Overall: Bicycling has great benefits that far outweigh > >> >> >> > > > > > it's > >> >> >> > > > > > minuscule risks. It deserves to be promoted, not > >> >> >> > > > > > discouraged. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > > > That is absolutely true. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > > > OTOH, there are significant risks involved with riding > >> >> >> > > > > bikes > >> >> >> > > > > in > >> >> >> > > > > traffic, > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > > How do you know this? > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > About a quarter million miles riding in traffic, > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > That is a noun phrase that does not answer the question > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > familiarity with the > >> >> >> > > experiences of other high-mileage cyclists, analysis of > >> >> >> > > statistical > >> >> >> > > evidence. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Can you convey this experience to us? > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > Are you under the impression that riding a bike in traffic does > >> >> >> > > not > >> >> >> > > involve significant risk? > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > What do you mean impression? > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > What a horribly dangerous mindset for a cyclist to have. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Oh, that is a rhetorical question. You do not want an answer. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> The answer to the silly stuff from mr. 'greens' is not the far > >> >> >> sillier > >> >> >> assertion that riding in traffic involves no significant risk. If > >> >> >> you > >> >> >> lack the experience to understand this, and fall prey easily to > >> >> >> statistical shenanigans like those of Frank Krygowski, perhaps then > >> >> >> you can simply use your brain to realize that being in traffic > >> >> >> involves significant risk, whether you're on foot, on bike or in a > >> >> >> car. There is nothing magical about being on a bike which makes you > >> >> >> immune to the normal risks of traffic; in fact cyclists are subject > >> >> >> to > >> >> >> far more means of injury than pedestrians or drivers, which > >> >> >> accounts > >> >> >> for the poor injury stats of cycling relative to other modes. > >> >> > > >> >> > This is a collection of unsubstantiated and ill-formed > >> >> > assertions of facts coupled with appeals to emotion and > >> >> > imputations of bad character. > >> >> > > >> >> > Do you ride a bicycle in traffic? > >> >> > >> >> Or in other words, "Dissenting comments will not be tolerated! Guards! > >> >> Take > >> >> this man away!" > >> > > >> > Non sequitur. > >> > >> "Non sequitur." > >> > >> That only applies to illogical conclusions. > > > > Non sequitur is a form of logical fallacy. > > In this case your comment had nothing to do > > with what I was saying. > > Yea, I read the definition. You don't get it. The following statement of > yours... > > "This is a collection of unsubstantiated and ill-formed > assertions of facts coupled with appeals to emotion and > imputations of bad character. > > Do you ride a bicycle in traffic? > > It a complicated way of saying STFU or "Dissenting comments will not be > tolerated! Guards! Take > this man away!" You cannot prove that, and I repudiate any such reading. For instance: I have no power nor authority here. -- Michael Press                       Date: 05 Sep 2007 18:36:15 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors "Michael Press" <rubrum@pacbell.net > wrote in message news:rubrum-BB1142.15015205092007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net... > In article > <lfednSfQL4htl0LbnZ2dnUVZ_hqdnZ2d@adelphia.com>, > "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net> wrote: > >> >> "Michael Press" <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote in message >> news:rubrum-D629CF.12291705092007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net... >> > In article >> > <ctKdnblSxczZdUPbnZ2dnUVZ_uGknZ2d@adelphia.com>, >> > "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net> wrote: >> > >> >> "Michael Press" <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote in message >> >> news:rubrum-D78DED.08191805092007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net... >> >> > In article >> >> > <ldSdnenl2uwNoUPbnZ2dnUVZ_qSonZ2d@adelphia.com>, >> >> > "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> "Michael Press" <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote in message >> >> >> news:rubrum-8453E2.18441704092007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com... >> >> >> > In article >> >> >> > <1188936669.049813.126570@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>, >> >> >> > r15757@aol.com wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> On Sep 4, 12:22 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> > In article >> >> >> >> > <1188917577.141407.288...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> >> >> >> >> > , >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > r15...@aol.com wrote: >> >> >> >> > > On Sep 3, 1:34 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> > > > In article >> >> >> >> > > > <1188751272.269576.64...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > > > christie...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> > > > > On Sep 1, 6:05 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > > > > > Overall: Bicycling has great benefits that far >> >> >> >> > > > > > outweigh >> >> >> >> > > > > > it's >> >> >> >> > > > > > minuscule risks. It deserves to be promoted, not >> >> >> >> > > > > > discouraged. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > > > > That is absolutely true. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > > > > OTOH, there are significant risks involved with riding >> >> >> >> > > > > bikes >> >> >> >> > > > > in >> >> >> >> > > > > traffic, >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > > > How do you know this? >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > > About a quarter million miles riding in traffic, >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > That is a noun phrase that does not answer the question >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > > familiarity with the >> >> >> >> > > experiences of other high-mileage cyclists, analysis of >> >> >> >> > > statistical >> >> >> >> > > evidence. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Can you convey this experience to us? >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > > Are you under the impression that riding a bike in traffic >> >> >> >> > > does >> >> >> >> > > not >> >> >> >> > > involve significant risk? >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > What do you mean impression? >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > > What a horribly dangerous mindset for a cyclist to have. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Oh, that is a rhetorical question. You do not want an answer. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The answer to the silly stuff from mr. 'greens' is not the far >> >> >> >> sillier >> >> >> >> assertion that riding in traffic involves no significant risk. >> >> >> >> If >> >> >> >> you >> >> >> >> lack the experience to understand this, and fall prey easily to >> >> >> >> statistical shenanigans like those of Frank Krygowski, perhaps >> >> >> >> then >> >> >> >> you can simply use your brain to realize that being in traffic >> >> >> >> involves significant risk, whether you're on foot, on bike or in >> >> >> >> a >> >> >> >> car. There is nothing magical about being on a bike which makes >> >> >> >> you >> >> >> >> immune to the normal risks of traffic; in fact cyclists are >> >> >> >> subject >> >> >> >> to >> >> >> >> far more means of injury than pedestrians or drivers, which >> >> >> >> accounts >> >> >> >> for the poor injury stats of cycling relative to other modes. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > This is a collection of unsubstantiated and ill-formed >> >> >> > assertions of facts coupled with appeals to emotion and >> >> >> > imputations of bad character. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Do you ride a bicycle in traffic? >> >> >> >> >> >> Or in other words, "Dissenting comments will not be tolerated! >> >> >> Guards! >> >> >> Take >> >> >> this man away!" >> >> > >> >> > Non sequitur. >> >> >> >> "Non sequitur." >> >> >> >> That only applies to illogical conclusions. >> > >> > Non sequitur is a form of logical fallacy. >> > In this case your comment had nothing to do >> > with what I was saying. >> >> Yea, I read the definition. You don't get it. The following statement of >> yours... >> >> "This is a collection of unsubstantiated and ill-formed >> assertions of facts coupled with appeals to emotion and >> imputations of bad character. >> >> Do you ride a bicycle in traffic? >> >> It a complicated way of saying STFU or "Dissenting comments will not be >> tolerated! Guards! Take >> this man away!" > > You cannot prove that, and I repudiate any such reading. > > For instance: I have no power nor authority here. > > -- > Michael Press You have no power, but boy do you wish you did so that you can say that is what I was saying. Pretending to be stupid is not helping your case.       Date: 03 Sep 2007 18:32:44 From: Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors On Sep 3, 7:10 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > wrote: > <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > > > Can you understand that? It really doesn't matter if you can > > visualize 1000 sources of serous injury, if those serious injuries are > > actually rare in the real world. > > Frank, I haven't made a career out of this like you have. <sigh > You let mistakes fly left and right! I have not "made a career out of this." My career has been engineering and technical education. This particular debate is something I do because I have deep knowledge of the subject, and I have a strong aversion to people spouting nonsense, especially about an activity I love. > I don't have ready > sources for every kind of stat and I'm not a professional pro cycling is > dangerous campaigner whereas you are a cycling is safe promoter. I just > don't have shitloads of stats at my fingertips. I do have my own experience > and my own experience tells me walking is safer than cycling. I'm not gonna > bother to look up more stuff right now. What you really mean is, you haven't troubled yourself to actually read and learn about the subject. You're just spouting whatever comes to your mind. You're posting nonsense, from a position of ignorance. > Do you make money promoting cycling? Do you sell bikes or lessons? Nope. I'm nationally certified to teach cycling, but I essentially volunteer that time. Just like I volunteer this time. - Frank Krygowski         Date: 05 Sep 2007 01:17:42 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors <frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1188869564.943989.98470@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 3, 7:10 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: >> <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >> > Can you understand that? It really doesn't matter if you can >> > visualize 1000 sources of serous injury, if those serious injuries are >> > actually rare in the real world. >> >> Frank, I haven't made a career out of this like you have. > > <sigh> You let mistakes fly left and right! > > I have not "made a career out of this." My career has been > engineering and technical education. This particular debate is > something I do because I have deep knowledge of the subject, and I > have a strong aversion to people spouting nonsense, especially about > an activity I love. > >> I don't have ready >> sources for every kind of stat and I'm not a professional pro cycling is >> dangerous campaigner whereas you are a cycling is safe promoter. I just >> don't have shitloads of stats at my fingertips. I do have my own >> experience >> and my own experience tells me walking is safer than cycling. I'm not >> gonna >> bother to look up more stuff right now. > > What you really mean is, you haven't troubled yourself to actually > read and learn about the subject. You're just spouting whatever comes > to your mind. You're posting nonsense, from a position of ignorance. > >> Do you make money promoting cycling? Do you sell bikes or lessons? > > Nope. I'm nationally certified to teach cycling, but I essentially > volunteer that time. Just like I volunteer this time. > > - Frank Krygowski > > You have a total intolerance for any other opinion and you think you're an expert that couldn't possibly be wrong about anything. IMO you're arrogant. Americans have come to accept road deaths (cars) because they love driving, love high speed, love being protected from the wind and etc. They're willing to trade that stuff for 40,000 dead a year, lots of pollution that might just result in the end of life on the planet eventually. (note the word "eventually") You point to these 40,000 dead and say, "See. cycling is almost as safe as that er.... safer!" Your stats aren't that convincing. If they were, I wouldn't argue with you. Normally, you win your argument because there just isn't any point in arguing with you. What incentive does anyone have to try to change your mind, Frank? Will they get the nobel prize if they get you to admit cycling isn't safe? No. Have you convinced hordes of people that they should cycle because it's safe? No. Not many people cycle in the US inspite of your website and volunteer work. Your theme hasn't caught on. Most people are convinced it isn't safe. You hang out here with other people that cycle a lot. They know you're stats and they agree with you that the risks are worth it but they don't really matter in your campaign to convince the world of cycling's safety. They already accept the risks and probably don't think they're worth worrying about. It's the ones that don't think it's safe you need to convince. They don't hang out on cycling newsgroups. You need bigger posters and parades. Get neighbors to inform on other families that say cycling is unsafe. Get a secret police to crack down on the whole "Cycling isn't safe" cult. Put up some heroic statues of yourself on a bicycle, wind in your helmetless hair, pointing at a safe cycling routes in every direction. Maybe another statue of you, huge, and in your huge hands, holding, cradling cyclists. I think cycling needs a lot of improvement safety wise. If we're going to get more people on the road, we're either going to need safer streets and different motorist attitudes or higher gas prices. Gadgets that let you know what's going on behind you, will help. Even if it's an irrational fear, people do worry about what's behind them. It doesn't matter what you think, Frank and fans. It matters what the fearful people think. When they're no longer afraid, they'll ride. You've got that right, but they're just not dumb enough to buy your argument. "City 17. It's safer here."   Date: 29 Aug 2007 13:43:12 From: Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors On Aug 29, 12:14 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > wrote: > > > The first truck left about three feet of space on the right side of the > truck (the shoulder). The second truck, stopped behind the first was a > little to the left of him, I think. I passed by going into the oncoming > lane. When he opened his driver's door I practically ended up in the > oncoming lane's shoulder. That's probably an exageration, but I was way over > there. It almost certainly is a gross exaggeration. But in any case, do you understand that riding within reach of a vehicle door is something you must _not_ do? That was one mistake you made. And if the situation was as hazardous as you claim, another mistake was not slowing or stopping to evaluate. You're making it sound harder than it is. I have no such problems riding among motor vehicles. Stay alert, learn some skills, follow the rules, and grow some... courage. - Frank Krygowski     Date: 03 Sep 2007 12:27:23 From: Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors On Sep 2, 8:17 pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org > wrote: > -snip 'cycling is deadly'- > > Greens wrote: [snip] > > Picture this. There's a hole in the walkway at the local shopping mall. > > Shoppers fall into the hole regularly. [snip] > > ridiculous 'analogy'. > Let's go back to reality and cycling, where crises are rare. > -- > Andrew Muziwww.yellowjersey.org > Open every day since 1 April, 1971- Hide quoted text - Dear Andrew, This isn't a shopping mall, but it is indeed ridiculous: http://www.gocomics.com/inthebleachers/2007/09/03/?uc_full_date=&campid=0& Cheers, Carl Fogel       Date: 04 Sep 2007 02:07:26 From: A Muzi Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors >> -snip 'cycling is deadly'- >> Greens wrote: > [snip] >>> Picture this. There's a hole in the walkway at the local shopping mall. >>> Shoppers fall into the hole regularly. > [snip] > A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >> ridiculous 'analogy'. >> Let's go back to reality and cycling, where crises are rare. carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: > This isn't a shopping mall, but it is indeed ridiculous: > http://www.gocomics.com/inthebleachers/2007/09/03/?uc_full_date=&campid=0& Right. We must ban hurdles! Now, if not yesterday! Someone could be injured or killed by not watching where they land! You never know when some cartoonist will draw a pit right in your lane! It could happen! O, the horror! Or, wait, perhaps we could devise an airbag for runners just large enough to wedge in the pit. . . -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971     Date: 29 Aug 2007 11:04:51 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors <frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1188394992.528890.218200@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 29, 12:14 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: >> >> >> The first truck left about three feet of space on the right side of the >> truck (the shoulder). The second truck, stopped behind the first was a >> little to the left of him, I think. I passed by going into the oncoming >> lane. When he opened his driver's door I practically ended up in the >> oncoming lane's shoulder. That's probably an exageration, but I was way >> over >> there. > > It almost certainly is a gross exaggeration. But in any case, do you > understand that riding within reach of a vehicle door is something you > must _not_ do? That was one mistake you made. > > And if the situation was as hazardous as you claim, another mistake > was not slowing or stopping to evaluate. > > You're making it sound harder than it is. I have no such problems > riding among motor vehicles. Stay alert, learn some skills, follow > the rules, and grow some... courage. > > - Frank Krygowski > > If you think that playing by the rules will keep you safe, you're wrong. I was reading some old guy's huge website. He went on about how he always followed the traffic rules, stopping for every stop sign and signaling. It wasn't until I read most of his site that I found out he was deceased. He'd been hit by a drunk driver who veered into his lane. Following the rules might improve your odds, but it doesn't make cycling safe. About the only thing that will make cycling safe is to get rid of all the cars.       Date: 04 Sep 2007 07:52:57 From: Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors On Sep 3, 1:34 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net > wrote: > In article > <1188751272.269576.64...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > > christie...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Sep 1, 6:05 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > Overall: Bicycling has great benefits that far outweigh it's > > > minuscule risks. It deserves to be promoted, not discouraged. > > > That is absolutely true. > > > OTOH, there are significant risks involved with riding bikes in > > traffic, > > How do you know this? About a quarter million miles riding in traffic, familiarity with the experiences of other high-mileage cyclists, analysis of statistical evidence. Are you under the impression that riding a bike in traffic does not involve significant risk? What a horribly dangerous mindset for a cyclist to have. Robert         Date: 04 Sep 2007 11:22:56 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors In article <1188917577.141407.288680@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com > , r15757@aol.com wrote: > On Sep 3, 1:34 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote: > > In article > > <1188751272.269576.64...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > > > > christie...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Sep 1, 6:05 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > Overall: Bicycling has great benefits that far outweigh it's > > > > minuscule risks. It deserves to be promoted, not discouraged. > > > > > That is absolutely true. > > > > > OTOH, there are significant risks involved with riding bikes in > > > traffic, > > > > How do you know this? > > About a quarter million miles riding in traffic, That is a noun phrase that does not answer the question > familiarity with the > experiences of other high-mileage cyclists, analysis of statistical > evidence. Can you convey this experience to us? > Are you under the impression that riding a bike in traffic does not > involve significant risk? What do you mean impression? > What a horribly dangerous mindset for a cyclist to have. Oh, that is a rhetorical question. You do not want an answer. -- Michael Press       Date: 03 Sep 2007 03:31:28 From: Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors On Sep 2, 4:36 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > wrote: > > Those stats about walking being dangerous are perverse. Most likely walking > in major cities like New York are a large part of the results. Walking in > NYC is dangerous, mostly because cars have been given free reign. See the > ghost bike project for more on that. In country walking on sidewalks in > small town is quite a bit safer in my experience. The comparative data I've seen included data gathered from Western Australia. WA doesn't have much in common with New York City - but the data still showed pedestrian per-hour figures to be worse than cycling's figures. If you have data showing otherwise, please post it. But your simple disbelief doesn't prove my data wrong. Neither does your constant fear of all the _potential_ ways a cyclist might possibly hurt himself. Can you understand that? It really doesn't matter if you can visualize 1000 sources of serous injury, if those serious injuries are actually rare in the real world. - Frank Krygowski         Date: 03 Sep 2007 19:10:53 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors <frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1188790288.466888.35740@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 2, 4:36 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: >> >> Those stats about walking being dangerous are perverse. Most likely >> walking >> in major cities like New York are a large part of the results. Walking in >> NYC is dangerous, mostly because cars have been given free reign. See the >> ghost bike project for more on that. In country walking on sidewalks in >> small town is quite a bit safer in my experience. > > The comparative data I've seen included data gathered from Western > Australia. WA doesn't have much in common with New York City - but > the data still showed pedestrian per-hour figures to be worse than > cycling's figures. > > If you have data showing otherwise, please post it. But your simple > disbelief doesn't prove my data wrong. Neither does your constant > fear of all the _potential_ ways a cyclist might possibly hurt > himself. > > Can you understand that? It really doesn't matter if you can > visualize 1000 sources of serous injury, if those serious injuries are > actually rare in the real world. > > - Frank Krygowski > Frank, I haven't made a career out of this like you have. I don't have ready sources for every kind of stat and I'm not a professional pro cycling is dangerous campaigner whereas you are a cycling is safe promoter. I just don't have shitloads of stats at my fingertips. I do have my own experience and my own experience tells me walking is safer than cycling. I'm not gonna bother to look up more stuff right now. Do you make money promoting cycling? Do you sell bikes or lessons?           Date: 03 Sep 2007 16:42:58 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors Greens wrote: > Frank, I haven't made a career out of this like you have. I don't > have ready sources for every kind of stat and I'm not a professional > pro cycling is dangerous campaigner whereas you are a cycling is safe > promoter. I just don't have shitloads of stats at my fingertips. I do > have my own experience and my own experience tells me walking is > safer than cycling. I'm not gonna bother to look up more stuff right > now. > Do you make money promoting cycling? Do you sell bikes or lessons? No, he's an /anti-helmet zealot/ (an "AHZ"). HTH Bill "oh, and he's afraid of bike lanes, too, for some unknown reason" S.             Date: 05 Sep 2007 00:51:49 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote in message news:46dc9b93$0$6394$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > Greens wrote: > >> Frank, I haven't made a career out of this like you have. I don't >> have ready sources for every kind of stat and I'm not a professional >> pro cycling is dangerous campaigner whereas you are a cycling is safe >> promoter. I just don't have shitloads of stats at my fingertips. I do >> have my own experience and my own experience tells me walking is >> safer than cycling. I'm not gonna bother to look up more stuff right >> now. >> Do you make money promoting cycling? Do you sell bikes or lessons? > > No, he's an /anti-helmet zealot/ (an "AHZ"). HTH > > Bill "oh, and he's afraid of bike lanes, too, for some unknown reason" S. > I'm not that crazy about helmets either, but I wear mine. Wearing helmets cycling seemed ridiculous when I was a kid. Nobody wore them. We all had coaster brakes, fat tires and at most 3 speeds. I had a 2 speed. Lots of people had one speeds. I did know one guy who I was racing got his wheel stuck in one of those long sewer grates and he flipped onto his head and got hurt, but he lived. I think we also were going the wrong way on the road by today's standard. I don't believe there was a wrong way or a right way back then.       Date: 29 Aug 2007 11:02:29 From: Ted Bennett Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors In article <F5ednaSIeua7F0jbnZ2dnUVZ_oGjnZ2d@adelphia.com >, "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net > wrote: > <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1188394992.528890.218200@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > > On Aug 29, 12:14 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: > >> > >> > >> The first truck left about three feet of space on the right side of the > >> truck (the shoulder). The second truck, stopped behind the first was a > >> little to the left of him, I think. I passed by going into the oncoming > >> lane. When he opened his driver's door I practically ended up in the > >> oncoming lane's shoulder. That's probably an exageration, but I was way > >> over > >> there. > > > > It almost certainly is a gross exaggeration. But in any case, do you > > understand that riding within reach of a vehicle door is something you > > must _not_ do? That was one mistake you made. > > > > And if the situation was as hazardous as you claim, another mistake > > was not slowing or stopping to evaluate. > > > > You're making it sound harder than it is. I have no such problems > > riding among motor vehicles. Stay alert, learn some skills, follow > > the rules, and grow some... courage. > > > > - Frank Krygowski > > > > > > If you think that playing by the rules will keep you safe, you're wrong. I > was reading some old guy's huge website. He went on about how he always > followed the traffic rules, stopping for every stop sign and signaling. It > wasn't until I read most of his site that I found out he was deceased. He'd > been hit by a drunk driver who veered into his lane. > > Following the rules might improve your odds, but it doesn't make cycling > safe. About the only thing that will make cycling safe is to get rid of all > the cars. Greens, are you aware that a large proportion of cycling injuries and deaths do not involve cars at all? -- Ted Bennett         Date: 29 Aug 2007 15:30:32 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors "Ted Bennett" <tedbennett@earthlink.net > wrote in message news:tedbennett-CD1541.11022929082007@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net... > In article <F5ednaSIeua7F0jbnZ2dnUVZ_oGjnZ2d@adelphia.com>, > "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net> wrote: > >> <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:1188394992.528890.218200@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... >> > On Aug 29, 12:14 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> The first truck left about three feet of space on the right side of >> >> the >> >> truck (the shoulder). The second truck, stopped behind the first was a >> >> little to the left of him, I think. I passed by going into the >> >> oncoming >> >> lane. When he opened his driver's door I practically ended up in the >> >> oncoming lane's shoulder. That's probably an exageration, but I was >> >> way >> >> over >> >> there. >> > >> > It almost certainly is a gross exaggeration. But in any case, do you >> > understand that riding within reach of a vehicle door is something you >> > must _not_ do? That was one mistake you made. >> > >> > And if the situation was as hazardous as you claim, another mistake >> > was not slowing or stopping to evaluate. >> > >> > You're making it sound harder than it is. I have no such problems >> > riding among motor vehicles. Stay alert, learn some skills, follow >> > the rules, and grow some... courage. >> > >> > - Frank Krygowski >> > >> > >> >> If you think that playing by the rules will keep you safe, you're wrong. >> I >> was reading some old guy's huge website. He went on about how he always >> followed the traffic rules, stopping for every stop sign and signaling. >> It >> wasn't until I read most of his site that I found out he was deceased. >> He'd >> been hit by a drunk driver who veered into his lane. >> >> Following the rules might improve your odds, but it doesn't make cycling >> safe. About the only thing that will make cycling safe is to get rid of >> all >> the cars. > > Greens, are you aware that a large proportion of cycling injuries and > deaths do not involve cars at all? > > -- > Ted Bennett No. I'm not aware of that. I find it hard to believe. Do you have a link? Are you talking about road cycling or mountain biking and bmx cycling as well?           Date: 29 Aug 2007 14:22:29 From: Ted Bennett Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net > wrote: > > Greens, are you aware that a large proportion of cycling injuries and > > deaths do not involve cars at all? > > -- > > Ted Bennett > No. I'm not aware of that. I find it hard to believe. Do you have a link? > Are you talking about road cycling or mountain biking and bmx cycling as > well? It's rather difficult to find useful data, because most bicycing injuries are not reported at all. "However, we know from research into hospital records that only a fraction of bicycle crashes causing injury are ever recorded by the police, possibly as low as ten percent." That is from http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/bc/index.cfm That means that there is no data on up to 90 per cent of cyclist injuries. But it's not hard to find data showing that the majority of all crashes doesn't involve a motor vehicle: http://www.johnforester.com/NatSafCouncil/NSC.htm states: " Type ofaccident (Variable 89) may be categorized into falls and collisions. Using this dichotomy, 33% of the accidents were classified as falls and 67% as collisions. Crashes involving motor vehicles made up 32% of the collisions (21% of all accidents). Considering the activity just before the accident (Variable 84), the largest single category was driving straight ahead (49%), with turns making up another 22%, and getting on, starting, and getting off accounting for 12%. Of all the respondents, 77% were sitting on the bicycle seat (Variable 87) and 48% were attempting some evasive maneuver (Variable 88) as the accident happened. A disproportionate number of adult cycling crashes occur at night and involve some impairment of the cyclist. http://www.iihs.org/research/fatality_facts/bicycles.html "Twenty-three percent of bicyclists killed in 2005 had blood alcohol concentrations (BACs) at or above 0.08 percent." I am not attempting to shift the blame for cyclist deaths and injuries onto cyclists, but you seem to have the idea that they are mostly due to motor vehicle operators' errors. They are not. And fear-mongering reduces the number of cyclists, which reduces the health of the population as a whole. Ted -- Ted Bennett             Date: 29 Aug 2007 20:06:06 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors "Ted Bennett" <tedbennett@earthlink.net > wrote in message news:tedbennett-67A7B4.14222929082007@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net... > "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net> wrote: > >> > Greens, are you aware that a large proportion of cycling injuries and >> > deaths do not involve cars at all? >> > -- >> > Ted Bennett > >> No. I'm not aware of that. I find it hard to believe. Do you have a link? >> Are you talking about road cycling or mountain biking and bmx cycling as >> well? > > It's rather difficult to find useful data, because most bicycing > injuries are not reported at all. > "However, we know from research into hospital records that only a > fraction of bicycle crashes causing injury are ever recorded by the > police, possibly as low as ten percent." That is from > http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/bc/index.cfm That means that there is no > data on up to 90 per cent of cyclist injuries. > > But it's not hard to find data showing that the majority of all crashes > doesn't involve a motor vehicle: > > http://www.johnforester.com/NatSafCouncil/NSC.htm states: " Type > ofaccident (Variable 89) may be categorized into falls and collisions. > Using this dichotomy, 33% of the accidents were classified as falls and > 67% as collisions. Crashes involving motor vehicles made up 32% of the > collisions (21% of all accidents). Considering the activity just before > the accident (Variable 84), the largest single category was driving > straight ahead (49%), with turns making up another 22%, and getting on, > starting, and getting off accounting for 12%. Of all the respondents, > 77% were sitting on the bicycle seat (Variable 87) and 48% were > attempting some evasive maneuver (Variable 88) as the accident happened. > > A disproportionate number of adult cycling crashes occur at night and > involve some impairment of the cyclist. > > http://www.iihs.org/research/fatality_facts/bicycles.html > "Twenty-three percent of bicyclists killed in 2005 had blood alcohol > concentrations (BACs) at or above 0.08 percent." > > I am not attempting to shift the blame for cyclist deaths and injuries > onto cyclists, but you seem to have the idea that they are mostly due to > motor vehicle operators' errors. They are not. And fear-mongering > reduces the number of cyclists, which reduces the health of the > population as a whole. > > Ted > > -- > Ted Bennett If 90% of accidents aren't written up by the police there are a lot more accidents than are indicated by the various statistics. Seems to me cycling is more dangerous than I think. The stats I've found all have info like "most accidents occur between 5 and 9 pm". Woopee! That's when most cyclists ride because it's cooler. They also say that most accidents occur in a three month period. Obviously, most riding occurs during June, July and August. If people continued to ride all year, there'd be a lot more bicycle fatalities. My prediction - 4 times as many at least and maybe more because of slippery roads. On the other hand I think people are walk more than three months out of the year, so what happens if we compare the cycling deaths in the three months with the pedestrian deaths in the same three months. My guess is the cyclists die in much higher numbers. If you're trying to imply that you need to be drunk to get hit, I think you're in error. Do drunk cyclists outnumber, percentagewise, drunk drivers? Some interesting stats I'd like to know - How do pedals in clips affect riding and cyclist behavior at intersections? Do clips make it more likely that a cyclist won't stop? I'm guessing they do. A cyclist that's clipped in will try to roll through whenver possible because it's just a pain to unclip. Another stat I'd like to know about is how high seats affect cyclists stopping at stop signs. I know it bothers my hip a little to stand on one leg and it probably discourages people when they have to lift their leg way up and over the seat to get back on. It's an easy move when you're a kid, but not when you're out of shape at 50 years old. Nobody ever researches this stuff.               Date: 29 Aug 2007 23:46:19 From: A Muzi Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors "Ted Bennett" <tedbennett@earthlink.net > >>>> Greens, are you aware that a large proportion of cycling injuries and >>>> deaths do not involve cars at all? >> "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net> wrote: >>> No. I'm not aware of that. I find it hard to believe. Do you have a link? >>> Are you talking about road cycling or mountain biking and bmx cycling as >>> well? > "Ted Bennett" <tedbennett@earthlink.net> wrote >> It's rather difficult to find useful data, because most bicycing >> injuries are not reported at all. >> "However, we know from research into hospital records that only a >> fraction of bicycle crashes causing injury are ever recorded by the >> police, possibly as low as ten percent." That is from >> http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/bc/index.cfm That means that there is no >> data on up to 90 per cent of cyclist injuries. >> >> But it's not hard to find data showing that the majority of all crashes >> doesn't involve a motor vehicle: >> >> http://www.johnforester.com/NatSafCouncil/NSC.htm states: " Type >> ofaccident (Variable 89) may be categorized into falls and collisions. >> Using this dichotomy, 33% of the accidents were classified as falls and >> 67% as collisions. Crashes involving motor vehicles made up 32% of the >> collisions (21% of all accidents). Considering the activity just before >> the accident (Variable 84), the largest single category was driving >> straight ahead (49%), with turns making up another 22%, and getting on, >> starting, and getting off accounting for 12%. Of all the respondents, >> 77% were sitting on the bicycle seat (Variable 87) and 48% were >> attempting some evasive maneuver (Variable 88) as the accident happened. >> >> A disproportionate number of adult cycling crashes occur at night and >> involve some impairment of the cyclist. >> >> http://www.iihs.org/research/fatality_facts/bicycles.html >> "Twenty-three percent of bicyclists killed in 2005 had blood alcohol >> concentrations (BACs) at or above 0.08 percent." >> >> I am not attempting to shift the blame for cyclist deaths and injuries >> onto cyclists, but you seem to have the idea that they are mostly due to >> motor vehicle operators' errors. They are not. And fear-mongering >> reduces the number of cyclists, which reduces the health of the >> population as a whole. Greens wrote: > If 90% of accidents aren't written up by the police there are a lot more > accidents than are indicated by the various statistics. Seems to me cycling > is more dangerous than I think. > > The stats I've found all have info like "most accidents occur between 5 and > 9 pm". Woopee! That's when most cyclists ride because it's cooler. They also > say that most accidents occur in a three month period. Obviously, most > riding occurs during June, July and August. If people continued to ride all > year, there'd be a lot more bicycle fatalities. My prediction - 4 times as > many at least and maybe more because of slippery roads. On the other hand I > think people are walk more than three months out of the year, so what > happens if we compare the cycling deaths in the three months with the > pedestrian deaths in the same three months. My guess is the cyclists die in > much higher numbers. > > If you're trying to imply that you need to be drunk to get hit, I think > you're in error. Do drunk cyclists outnumber, percentagewise, drunk drivers? > > Some interesting stats I'd like to know - > How do pedals in clips affect riding and cyclist behavior at intersections? > Do clips make it more likely that a cyclist won't stop? I'm guessing they > do. A cyclist that's clipped in will try to roll through whenver possible > because it's just a pain to unclip. > > Another stat I'd like to know about is how high seats affect cyclists > stopping at stop signs. I know it bothers my hip a little to stand on one > leg and it probably discourages people when they have to lift their leg way > up and over the seat to get back on. It's an easy move when you're a kid, > but not when you're out of shape at 50 years old. Nobody ever researches > this stuff. You obviously do not associate with large numbers of cyclists, listening to their post-crash reports, nor have you reviewed the ample literature. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971                 Date: 30 Aug 2007 10:48:29 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors "A Muzi" <am@yellowjersey.org > wrote in message news:13dcirkhr0mup69@corp.supernews.com... > "Ted Bennett" <tedbennett@earthlink.net> >>>>> Greens, are you aware that a large proportion of cycling injuries and >>>>> deaths do not involve cars at all? > >>> "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net> wrote: >>>> No. I'm not aware of that. I find it hard to believe. Do you have a >>>> link? >>>> Are you talking about road cycling or mountain biking and bmx cycling >>>> as >>>> well? > >> "Ted Bennett" <tedbennett@earthlink.net> wrote >>> It's rather difficult to find useful data, because most bicycing >>> injuries are not reported at all. >>> "However, we know from research into hospital records that only a >>> fraction of bicycle crashes causing injury are ever recorded by the >>> police, possibly as low as ten percent." That is from >>> http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/bc/index.cfm That means that there is no >>> data on up to 90 per cent of cyclist injuries. >>> >>> But it's not hard to find data showing that the majority of all crashes >>> doesn't involve a motor vehicle: >>> >>> http://www.johnforester.com/NatSafCouncil/NSC.htm states: " Type >>> ofaccident (Variable 89) may be categorized into falls and collisions. >>> Using this dichotomy, 33% of the accidents were classified as falls and >>> 67% as collisions. Crashes involving motor vehicles made up 32% of the >>> collisions (21% of all accidents). Considering the activity just before >>> the accident (Variable 84), the largest single category was driving >>> straight ahead (49%), with turns making up another 22%, and getting on, >>> starting, and getting off accounting for 12%. Of all the respondents, >>> 77% were sitting on the bicycle seat (Variable 87) and 48% were >>> attempting some evasive maneuver (Variable 88) as the accident happened. >>> >>> A disproportionate number of adult cycling crashes occur at night and >>> involve some impairment of the cyclist. >>> >>> http://www.iihs.org/research/fatality_facts/bicycles.html >>> "Twenty-three percent of bicyclists killed in 2005 had blood alcohol >>> concentrations (BACs) at or above 0.08 percent." >>> >>> I am not attempting to shift the blame for cyclist deaths and injuries >>> onto cyclists, but you seem to have the idea that they are mostly due to >>> motor vehicle operators' errors. They are not. And fear-mongering >>> reduces the number of cyclists, which reduces the health of the >>> population as a whole. > > Greens wrote: >> If 90% of accidents aren't written up by the police there are a lot more >> accidents than are indicated by the various statistics. Seems to me >> cycling is more dangerous than I think. >> >> The stats I've found all have info like "most accidents occur between 5 >> and 9 pm". Woopee! That's when most cyclists ride because it's cooler. >> They also say that most accidents occur in a three month period. >> Obviously, most riding occurs during June, July and August. If people >> continued to ride all year, there'd be a lot more bicycle fatalities. My >> prediction - 4 times as many at least and maybe more because of slippery >> roads. On the other hand I think people are walk more than three months >> out of the year, so what happens if we compare the cycling deaths in the >> three months with the pedestrian deaths in the same three months. My >> guess is the cyclists die in much higher numbers. >> >> If you're trying to imply that you need to be drunk to get hit, I think >> you're in error. Do drunk cyclists outnumber, percentagewise, drunk >> drivers? >> >> Some interesting stats I'd like to know - >> How do pedals in clips affect riding and cyclist behavior at >> intersections? Do clips make it more likely that a cyclist won't stop? >> I'm guessing they do. A cyclist that's clipped in will try to roll >> through whenver possible because it's just a pain to unclip. >> >> Another stat I'd like to know about is how high seats affect cyclists >> stopping at stop signs. I know it bothers my hip a little to stand on one >> leg and it probably discourages people when they have to lift their leg >> way up and over the seat to get back on. It's an easy move when you're a >> kid, but not when you're out of shape at 50 years old. Nobody ever >> researches this stuff. > > You obviously do not associate with large numbers of cyclists, listening > to their post-crash reports, nor have you reviewed the ample literature. > -- > Andrew Muzi > www.yellowjersey.org > Open every day since 1 April, 1971 I've only spent a few days looking at crash reports. What's your point? You don't even say what part of my statements you're attacking.   Date: 29 Aug 2007 13:39:18 From: Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors On Aug 29, 9:35 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > wrote: > "Wayne Pein" <wp...@nc.rr.com> wrote in message > > > > Get thicker skin. Wear hi-viz apparel. Quit telling people how dangerous > > bicycling is. > > > Wayne > > Do you think bicycling is safe or do you want me to pretend it's safe? I > think it's fairly dangerous or to be more accurate, traffic is dangerous. > Riding on a bike trail with no one else, no cars, no people would be very > safe. Riding on the road among cars is very unsafe. Bullshit. Try taking the quiz at http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/SafetyQuiz.htm - Frank Krygowski   Date: 29 Aug 2007 03:04:28 From: Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors On Aug 28, 3:54 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > wrote: > > Today I was on the way home, going downhill about 15 or 20mph. A garbage > truck and a recycling truck were parked facing the wrong way on the other > side. After I went by them, they caught up to me and passed me and then > stopped blocking nearly the whole right lane of a country road rated for 55 > mph. If I took the shoulder I risked getting doored by someone getting out > the passenger side. I chose to go around into oncoming traffic as I had > pretty good visiblility. Had to check behind first, but there wasn't much > time. I had to slow as I passed them and then... sure enough the garbage > man got out the driver's door (probably thinking, "why didn't he go around > the shoulder where I left him room) (answer, I didn't trust him and had > little experience with garbage trucks on this kind of road.). Good thing I > slowed because this was not a careful opening of the door. It was wide open > with him proudly displaying himself. I was practically in the oncoming > shoulder. I blasted past and got back in the proper lane, took the first > side road. I guess I don't get it. You say they blocked nearly the whole right lane of a country road. Are you saying they were straddling the center line, leaving passing room only on the right? Is that why you were "practically on the oncoming shoulder"? If so, how did you nearly get doored? Garbage trucks aren't wide enough to block both lanes of a 55 mph two lane road, even with a door open. I still think you're making it harder than it really is. If you're confused while cycling, ask yourself what you'd do if you were driving a car. Would you have slowed down or stopped for the garbage truck if you were motoring? Then do it while cycling, unless you can see it's a special case for a bike. In other words, obey the same rules of the road. Use the same kind of good judgment. Being reasonably alert, watching ahead for hazards, and following the rules of the road make cycling quite safe. Developing minimal skills (like the ability to ride with one hand, or to look over a shoulder while riding straight) make it even safer. These are what the rest of us do. You can do it too. You don't need any magic traffic detectors. - Frank Krygowski     Date: 29 Aug 2007 00:14:40 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors <frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1188356668.778949.150610@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 28, 3:54 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: >> >> Today I was on the way home, going downhill about 15 or 20mph. A garbage >> truck and a recycling truck were parked facing the wrong way on the other >> side. After I went by them, they caught up to me and passed me and then >> stopped blocking nearly the whole right lane of a country road rated for >> 55 >> mph. If I took the shoulder I risked getting doored by someone getting >> out >> the passenger side. I chose to go around into oncoming traffic as I had >> pretty good visiblility. Had to check behind first, but there wasn't much >> time. I had to slow as I passed them and then... sure enough the garbage >> man got out the driver's door (probably thinking, "why didn't he go >> around >> the shoulder where I left him room) (answer, I didn't trust him and had >> little experience with garbage trucks on this kind of road.). Good thing >> I >> slowed because this was not a careful opening of the door. It was wide >> open >> with him proudly displaying himself. I was practically in the oncoming >> shoulder. I blasted past and got back in the proper lane, took the first >> side road. > > I guess I don't get it. > > You say they blocked nearly the whole right lane of a country road. > Are you saying they were straddling the center line, leaving passing > room only on the right? Is that why you were "practically on the > oncoming shoulder"? If so, how did you nearly get doored? Garbage > trucks aren't wide enough to block both lanes of a 55 mph two lane > road, even with a door open. > > I still think you're making it harder than it really is. > > If you're confused while cycling, ask yourself what you'd do if you > were driving a car. Would you have slowed down or stopped for the > garbage truck if you were motoring? Then do it while cycling, unless > you can see it's a special case for a bike. In other words, obey the > same rules of the road. Use the same kind of good judgment. > > Being reasonably alert, watching ahead for hazards, and following the > rules of the road make cycling quite safe. Developing minimal skills > (like the ability to ride with one hand, or to look over a shoulder > while riding straight) make it even safer. These are what the rest of > us do. You can do it too. You don't need any magic traffic > detectors. > > - Frank Krygowski > The point of my explanation was that situations pop up quickly which give you a lot to think about in a short time even if you are focused on riding your bike. That is, I knew the trucks would stop again, but I didn't know they'd leave space on the right shoulder. I didn't know if that meant they were leaving that space for me or if someone was going to get out. I didn't know the driver was going to get out as I passed. I had expected them to pull far to the right and then I'd be able to pass them on the left without going into the oncoming traffic, but garbage collectors act like they own the road. They don't act like other motorists. They move into oncoming lanes sometimes to stop, facing the wrong way, so they can pick up trash on the left side of the road. Other times they stop on the right just like any motorist in America would because that's the law and most motorists don't want to get a ticket. The first truck left about three feet of space on the right side of the truck (the shoulder). The second truck, stopped behind the first was a little to the left of him, I think. I passed by going into the oncoming lane. When he opened his driver's door I practically ended up in the oncoming lane's shoulder. That's probably an exageration, but I was way over there.       Date: 02 Sep 2007 16:41:12 From: Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors On Sep 1, 6:05 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > Overall: Bicycling has great benefits that far outweigh it's > minuscule risks. It deserves to be promoted, not discouraged. That is absolutely true. OTOH, there are significant risks involved with riding bikes in traffic, and beginners deserve not to have happy smoke blown up their asses. Just tell the truth already. Robert         Date: 06 Sep 2007 13:29:27 From: Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors On Sep 5, 8:42 pm, Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com > wrote: > Frank Krygowski wrote: > > > Here's a link to a table of risks per hour. http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/comparat.html > > > Note that the most dangerous activity listed is skydiving, at 128 > > fatalities per hour of participation. Cycling is rated at 0.26 > > fatalities per hour. > > I think you mean per _million_ hours. Otherwise I think you'd be > making Greens's case for him. Yes, you're right, of course! - Frank Krygowski         Date: 06 Sep 2007 00:42:37 From: Chalo Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors Frank Krygowski wrote: > > Here's a link to a table of risks per hour. http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/comparat.html > > Note that the most dangerous activity listed is skydiving, at 128 > fatalities per hour of participation. Cycling is rated at 0.26 > fatalities per hour. I think you mean per _million_ hours. Otherwise I think you'd be making Greens's case for him. Chalo "beating the odds by not dying every four hours on the bike"         Date: 03 Sep 2007 12:34:29 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors In article <1188751272.269576.64130@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com >, christie133@gmail.com wrote: > On Sep 1, 6:05 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > > Overall: Bicycling has great benefits that far outweigh it's > > minuscule risks. It deserves to be promoted, not discouraged. > > That is absolutely true. > > OTOH, there are significant risks involved with riding bikes in > traffic, How do you know this? > and beginners deserve not to have happy smoke blown up their > asses. Just tell the truth already. The less skilled bicyclists that I see `know' very well that riding in traffic is the most dangerous thing they can do. DANGER: Extreme sarcasm risk present. Handle with care. Wear protective clothing. Do not inhale. Protective lenses must be worn. Risk of shock. -- Michael Press         Date: 02 Sep 2007 11:40:00 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors christie133@gmail.com wrote: > On Sep 1, 6:05 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > >> Overall: Bicycling has great benefits that far outweigh it's >> minuscule risks. It deserves to be promoted, not discouraged. > > That is absolutely true. > > OTOH, there are significant risks involved with riding bikes in > traffic, and beginners deserve not to have happy smoke blown up their > asses. Just tell the truth already. You mean like, "Walking to get around is roughly twice as dangerous as riding a bike."? LOL           Date: 02 Sep 2007 16:36:57 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote in message news:46db030d$0$6440$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > christie133@gmail.com wrote: >> On Sep 1, 6:05 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: >> >>> Overall: Bicycling has great benefits that far outweigh it's >>> minuscule risks. It deserves to be promoted, not discouraged. >> >> That is absolutely true. >> >> OTOH, there are significant risks involved with riding bikes in >> traffic, and beginners deserve not to have happy smoke blown up their >> asses. Just tell the truth already. > > You mean like, "Walking to get around is roughly twice as dangerous as > riding a bike."? > > LOL > > forgot... Like the other guy said, it doesn't help for you to blow smoke up our asses. Just tell the truth.           Date: 02 Sep 2007 16:36:03 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote in message news:46db030d$0$6440$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > christie133@gmail.com wrote: >> On Sep 1, 6:05 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: >> >>> Overall: Bicycling has great benefits that far outweigh it's >>> minuscule risks. It deserves to be promoted, not discouraged. >> >> That is absolutely true. >> >> OTOH, there are significant risks involved with riding bikes in >> traffic, and beginners deserve not to have happy smoke blown up their >> asses. Just tell the truth already. > > You mean like, "Walking to get around is roughly twice as dangerous as > riding a bike."? > > LOL > > Those stats about walking being dangerous are perverse. Most likely walking in major cities like New York are a large part of the results. Walking in NYC is dangerous, mostly because cars have been given free reign. See the ghost bike project for more on that. In country walking on sidewalks in small town is quite a bit safer in my experience. A person on foot has a lot more control than a person on a bike. He travels slower. He brakes to a stop faster. His feet are already on the ground. There's little danger of falling over from having a foot stuck in a clip. The balance issue is neutralized in most cases. It's easier to accelerate when walking by braking into a jog or sprint. A walker can easily turn around on a dime. A cyclist needs twenty feet to turn around if he stays on his bike. (sigh I'm talking about most people on a full size road bike.) It's easier to look behind you when you walk because you can turn your whole upper body and hips. You spend less time in the road than bicycles. Again, the reason why the per hour death rate for walking is higher than the per hour death rate for riding bikes is that most of the walking deaths are from the huge number of people walking in New York City and other cities where cars rules the streets. Walking in smaller towns is a lot safer. Walking would be one of the safest pastimes if there were no cars. I'm certain it would be safer than tennis and maybe even knitting.       Date: 02 Sep 2007 15:42:41 From: Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors On Sep 2, 4:04 am, Ben C <spams...@spam.eggs > wrote: > On 2007-09-01, carlfo...@comcast.net <carlfo...@comcast.net> wrote: > [...] > > > The vast majority of U.S. bicyclists never visit internet bicycling > > sites, rarely discuss bicycles with their friends, and would be amused > > by the notion that bicycling is dangerous. > > I'm not so sure. If I do a rough count of how many friends or family I > know who have had cycling injuries resulting in hospital, it comes to at > least six. I know of only two injury-causing motor accidents out of the > same group (and one of those was in Africa). > > Word gets around and so I should think almost everyone at least knows > someone who knows someone who fell of his bike and broke something. This > kind of thing can easily contribute to a perception that bicycling is > dangerous. Normal people who don't discuss bicycles are however still > quite likely to talk about injuries. > > The incidence of people denting each others' cars is probably about the > same but they don't usually get hurt. I think you're doing some unconscious filtering - or simply forgetting - about motorist injuries. As I said in another post, I had three friends in college who died in three separate car crashes. Two were members of a club to which I belonged. One was the brother of a close friend. Since then, there have been others I've known who have died riding in motor vehicles. One of my son's best friends did while he was in college. One of my daughter's friends did, in his mid-twenties. I've known of four family members - that is, grandparents, siblings, in-laws - who were injured in car crashes seriously enough to warrant hospital time. One still deals with severely impaired mobility years after the crash, and will never fully recover. Two of the others had concussions, as did yet another colleague at work. Another close friend was saved (he says) by his airbag when his new car was totally demolished, but I'd have to phone him to recall what injuries he did sustain. I could go on, discussing injuries to not-so-close friends and acquaintances, but the point is, a certain amount of this is considered so "normal" that it tends to slip from our memory. Bike crashes, OTOH, are considered so unusual that the details tend to be retained. Yes, I've known cyclists who were injured enough to be treated at the hospital, at least briefly. There are about ten I can think of right now. (*See below.) But I've been an active member (and sometimes officer) of a good-sized bike club for over 25 years, so I hear about whatever happens to a _lot_ of cyclists. Still, none of the cyclists were fatally injured, and none had injuries to equal those of my relative who will never recover full mobility. Statistically, what we're discussing now is not odds of injury per hour or per mile. It's best modeled by odds of injury per unit population (the population, in this case, being people we know). _The Book Of Risks_ by Laudan (Wiley, 1994) has a table of population- based risks of fatality. He claims a 1 in 5,000 chance an American will die in a car crash; a 1 in 40,000 chance of dying by being hit by a car while walking; and a 1 in 130,000 chance an American will die while bicycling. So if your acquaintances model average Americans, you're 26 times as likely to know someone killed in a car, rather than on a bike. Given my bike club activity, my acquaintances are heavily weighted toward fellow cyclists. But still, I don't know of anyone who was killed cycling. Again, bike fatalities are _extremely_ rare. Hospital visits are more common, of course, but even most ER visits are for very minor injuries. (*It's interesting to me that of the ten cyclists I know who needed ER treatment or hospital admission, four of the crashes happened on bike trails; yet each of those cyclists rode far, far more on roads than on trails. For them, the trails were far more dangerous.) - Frank Krygowski       Date: 02 Sep 2007 15:05:11 From: Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors On Sep 1, 10:01 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > wrote: > > > Ken Kifer is dead, dead from a horrendous bicycle gets rammed head on by a > drunk motorist accident. During my college years, I had three friends who were killed in car crashes, in three separate incidents. I've had other friends die, and be seriously injured, since then. One tragic tale means nothing. - Frank Krygowski         Date: 03 Sep 2007 12:10:54 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors In article <1188745511.939706.233150@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com >, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > On Sep 1, 10:01 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: > > > > > > Ken Kifer is dead, dead from a horrendous bicycle gets rammed head on by a > > drunk motorist accident. > > During my college years, I had three friends who were killed in car > crashes, in three separate incidents. I've had other friends die, and > be seriously injured, since then. > > One tragic tale means nothing. Particularly when one incident is reported many, many times. -- Michael Press         Date: 02 Sep 2007 15:08:39 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors <frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1188745511.939706.233150@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 1, 10:01 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: >> >> >> Ken Kifer is dead, dead from a horrendous bicycle gets rammed head on by >> a >> drunk motorist accident. > > During my college years, I had three friends who were killed in car > crashes, in three separate incidents. I've had other friends die, and > be seriously injured, since then. > > One tragic tale means nothing. > > - Frank Krygowski > It means something when that one person who died spent his life saying that as long as you follow the rules of good safety you'll be safe as Ken Kifer did.       Date: 02 Sep 2007 00:48:03 From: Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors On Sep 1, 5:19 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > wrote: > ... It'd be nice to read someday that cycling > fatalities are rare. Cycling fatalities are rare, really. Frank doesn't have the data to tell us exactly how rare, but it's pretty clear that per hour of cycling, fatalities are extremely infrequent. Injuries on the other hand. Cycling injuries, minor to serious, cannot be called rare by any stretch of the imagination. The rate of hospitalization is something like 40 times the fatality rate; the rate of ER visits (which Frank will tell us includes a high percentage of trivial injuries) is something like 600 times the fatality rate. The best way, maybe the only way, to avoid injury is to ride smart. > Some things like changing attitudes can be done without improvements to > equipment. There can be mandatory cycling training in schools which > encourage cycling as something practical for life. People can be taught that > they definitely need to watch out for cyclists instead of treating them as > nusisances that slow them down, more of a Dutch attitude. Then gadgets can > be created to help cyclists see behind them, see through noise and confusion > that intersections and changing patterns create. Computer gadgets like that > won't cost much. I'd feel a lot better about bicycling if the death rate per > year in the USA was 200 and that police actually looked to protect cyclists > instead of seeing them as nuisances or people who've never grown up.- Hide quoted text - I agree that there is much that could be improved in our culture in regards to cycling. Don't hold your breath however. I see you looking outward for solutions. Look inward, soldier. The responsibility for one's personal safety is best held in one's own hands. Robert Robert       Date: 01 Sep 2007 17:10:43 From: Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors On Sep 1, 7:19 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > wrote: > > It'd be nice to read someday that cycling > fatalities are rare. How rare do you want them to be? Would you like them to be so rare that the average cycling enthusiast would have to ride for several thousand years to reach a 50/50 chance of dying on the bike? Well, you have that now. Read http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/SafetyQuiz.htm again. Bicycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is. - Frank Krygowski         Date: 02 Sep 2007 02:37:27 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors <frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1188691843.984800.268140@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 1, 7:19 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: >> >> It'd be nice to read someday that cycling >> fatalities are rare. > > How rare do you want them to be? > > Would you like them to be so rare that the average cycling enthusiast > would have to ride for several thousand years to reach a 50/50 chance > of dying on the bike? > > Well, you have that now. Read > http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/SafetyQuiz.htm > again. > > Bicycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is. > > - Frank Krygowski > A crucial aspect of driver training in The Netherlands and Germany is the need to pay special attention to avoiding collisions with pedestrians and cyclists. It is assumed that pedestrians and cyclists will make unsafe (and illegal) moves in traffic. Car drivers are required to anticipate such unsafe moves by carefully noting the presence of pedestrians and cyclists anywhere along their route so that they can react quickly to avoid hitting them. This ability to anticipate potentially dangerous moves by pedestrians and cyclists is actually tested in the driving portion of the license exam and can easily result in failure. http://www.vtpi.org/puchertq.pdf         Date: 02 Sep 2007 01:21:20 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors <frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1188691843.984800.268140@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 1, 7:19 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: >> >> It'd be nice to read someday that cycling >> fatalities are rare. > > How rare do you want them to be? > > Would you like them to be so rare that the average cycling enthusiast > would have to ride for several thousand years to reach a 50/50 chance > of dying on the bike? > > Well, you have that now. Read > http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/SafetyQuiz.htm > again. > > Bicycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is. > > - Frank Krygowski > http://www.ucsfhealth.org/adult/health_library/reuters/2007/07/20070719elin001.html Cycling, walking among most dangerous travel modes July 19, 2007 NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Motorcyclists and bicyclists who weave in and out of traffic may reach their destinations quicker, but passengers on buses are more likely to arrive safely, new study findings show. Riding the bus appears to be even safer than walking, researchers report. However, most bus riders have to take some steps before they reach their destination -- and their risk of injury increases as they become pedestrians. "Measures that prevent crashes and injuries for pedestrians and bicyclists are needed, especially given the recent focus on increasing physical activity through active travel," the researchers report in the American Journal of Epidemiology. "The benefits of physical activity, including prevention of obesity, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and other chronic conditions, must be balanced against the increased injury risks of pedestrians and bicyclists traveling on roadways," lead author Laurie F. Beck, of the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, and her colleagues write. Previous studies have primarily focused on the overall risk of injury from motor vehicle crashes, but not according to mode of travel, Beck and her team note. To investigate, they analyzed data from the 1999 to 2003 and the 2001 National Household Travel Survey. Overall, they found that there were 42,132 fatal traffic injuries and 3,048,000 nonfatal traffic injuries each year during the study period. Similar to previous research, most injuries - fatal and nonfatal - involved occupants of cars, vans, light trucks, and other types of passenger vehicles. Bus riders accounted for the fewest number of injuries. The most fatalities occurred among motorcyclists, the researchers report. In fact, motorcyclists were 58 times more likely to be fatally injured on a trip than were occupants of passenger vehicles. Bicyclists and pedestrians were 2.3 and 1.5 times more likely, respectively, to experience a fatal injury than those who rode in passenger vehicles. In other findings, individuals between the ages of 15 and 24 years old had the highest risk of fatal injury. Seniors 65 years or older also had a high risk of fatal injury, particularly when they traveled as pedestrians or on a bus, the researchers note. Males were also more likely to experience fatal injuries than were females, in most cases. "Effective interventions are available and should be implemented to reduce the burden of traffic injuries in the United States," the researchers conclude. SOURCE: American Journal of Epidemiology, July 15, 2007.           Date: 02 Sep 2007 00:56:07 From: Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 01:21:20 -0400, "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net > wrote: > ><frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote in message >news:1188691843.984800.268140@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... >> On Sep 1, 7:19 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: >>> >>> It'd be nice to read someday that cycling >>> fatalities are rare. >> >> How rare do you want them to be? >> >> Would you like them to be so rare that the average cycling enthusiast >> would have to ride for several thousand years to reach a 50/50 chance >> of dying on the bike? >> >> Well, you have that now. Read >> http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/SafetyQuiz.htm >> again. >> >> Bicycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is. >> >> - Frank Krygowski >> > >http://www.ucsfhealth.org/adult/health_library/reuters/2007/07/20070719elin001.html > >Cycling, walking among most dangerous travel modes > >July 19, 2007 > > >NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Motorcyclists and bicyclists who weave in and >out of traffic may reach their destinations quicker, but passengers on buses >are more likely to arrive safely, new study findings show. > >Riding the bus appears to be even safer than walking, researchers report. >However, most bus riders have to take some steps before they reach their >destination -- and their risk of injury increases as they become >pedestrians. > >"Measures that prevent crashes and injuries for pedestrians and bicyclists >are needed, especially given the recent focus on increasing physical >activity through active travel," the researchers report in the American >Journal of Epidemiology. > >"The benefits of physical activity, including prevention of obesity, >cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and other chronic conditions, must be >balanced against the increased injury risks of pedestrians and bicyclists >traveling on roadways," lead author Laurie F. Beck, of the Centers of >Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, and her colleagues write. > >Previous studies have primarily focused on the overall risk of injury from >motor vehicle crashes, but not according to mode of travel, Beck and her >team note. To investigate, they analyzed data from the 1999 to 2003 and the >2001 National Household Travel Survey. > >Overall, they found that there were 42,132 fatal traffic injuries and >3,048,000 nonfatal traffic injuries each year during the study period. >Similar to previous research, most injuries - fatal and nonfatal - involved >occupants of cars, vans, light trucks, and other types of passenger >vehicles. Bus riders accounted for the fewest number of injuries. > >The most fatalities occurred among motorcyclists, the researchers report. In >fact, motorcyclists were 58 times more likely to be fatally injured on a >trip than were occupants of passenger vehicles. > >Bicyclists and pedestrians were 2.3 and 1.5 times more likely, respectively, >to experience a fatal injury than those who rode in passenger vehicles. > >In other findings, individuals between the ages of 15 and 24 years old had >the highest risk of fatal injury. Seniors 65 years or older also had a high >risk of fatal injury, particularly when they traveled as pedestrians or on a >bus, the researchers note. Males were also more likely to experience fatal >injuries than were females, in most cases. > >"Effective interventions are available and should be implemented to reduce >the burden of traffic injuries in the United States," the researchers >conclude. > >SOURCE: American Journal of Epidemiology, July 15, 2007. Dear G, The study itself is not available without a subscription, but its abstract claims that "The overall fatal traffic injury rate was 10.4 per 100 million person-trips." http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/166/2/212 Assuming an absurd order-of-magnitude risk increase for bicycling, that means 104 bicycle deaths in 100 million "person-trips." In other words, 1 death in 1 million "person-trips." You'll draw a royal flush in 5-card stud considerably sooner. At one trip per day, this assumed fatal accident rate (10 times the claimed overall average transportation risk) will result in death in about 2,740 years. The strange "person-trips" measurement may explain the abstract's claim that "Fatal injury rates were highest for motorcyclists, pedestrians, and bicyclists." In any case, the claim is a good example of the classic description of modern epidemiology as the study of extremely rare diseases in extremely large populations. Cheers, Carl Fogel       Date: 01 Sep 2007 15:33:50 From: Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors On Sep 1, 5:12 pm, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me > wrote: > > > All you have to know about Frank: "Walking to get around is roughly twice > as dangerous as riding a bike." > > ROTFL (Actually, THAT's more dangerous, too!) Bill, I recently promised to let you know if you ever posted anything of value. If you check the thread about the "very slow and undetectable leak," you'll see I fulfilled my promise. Telling the guy with a slow leak to change his inner tube was, by your standards, simply brilliant! But I see that exhausted your supply of good sense. You're back to content-free posts and feeble attempts at wit. Sad. - Frank Krygowski       Date: 01 Sep 2007 15:17:12 From: Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors On Sep 1, 3:19 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote in part: > Unfortunately, self-selected surveys are not very useful. Few people > are willing to fill out whole forms if they can only say no, never, > nope, not at all, uh-uh, not to me and so on. > > What kind of results would you expect from a similar survey about > injuries and accidents on a car site? Would people who've never been > hurt bother to fill out the tedious form? Would they even be visiting > the site? Would you expect the data to provide a wildly inflated > notion of the real risk involved in using cars? Carl, Kifer understood very well the limitations of self-selecting surveys and was careful in trying to avoid those pitfalls. Whether he did or not is of course open to debate. As he wrote in the opening paragraph of his survey: "This survey was a mixture of two kinds of questions: general questions about cyclists and safety questions. I was very hesitant about emphasizing the safety element in this survey as I did not want it to be perceived as an accident survey, thus getting much more attention from those who have busted their heads than from those who have not. Since I wanted the test to have a low profile, I did not advertise the test in newgroups or in mailing lists. This resulted in a lower number taking the survey than I would have preferred, but I feel more comfortable with the results." Also, note that the results of this survey, though they may make cycling look bad in relation to driving, actually show an accident rate that is much lower than that reported for less experienced riders. The average respondent to this survey had about 14 years experience, and, as you noted, was the type of person to go looking around on a touring cycling website, of all things. That is, the survey was also self-selecting in that its respondents were far more experienced at cycling than the general cycling population, and crash far less often. > The vast majority of U.S. bicyclists never visit internet bicycling > sites, rarely discuss bicycles with their friends, and would be amused > by the notion that bicycling is dangerous. Where'd ya get that Carl? ? From a self-selecting survey of one? Robert         Date: 01 Sep 2007 21:00:29 From: Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 15:17:12 -0700, r15757@aol.com wrote: >On Sep 1, 3:19 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote in part: [snip] >> The vast majority of U.S. bicyclists never visit internet bicycling >> sites, rarely discuss bicycles with their friends, and would be amused >> by the notion that bicycling is dangerous. > >Where'd ya get that Carl? ? From a self-selecting survey of one? > >Robert Dear Robert, Any survey of the laws and habits in the U.S. will show . . . The vast majority of U.S. bicyclists start out riding bicycles as little children. It's not considered dangerous. Once the children learn how to ride, the vast majority of them are allowed to pedal off unsupervised by their parents, just as they are allowed to walk around the corner. It's not considered dangerous. No license is required to ride or buy a bicycle. They're not considered dangerous. If you're still puzzled, compare all that to cars. Or hunting, if you prefer, which has a ridiculously good safety record. Few parents would let small children drive off alone in the family car with shotguns and ammunition. Cheers, Carl Fogel   Date: 28 Aug 2007 11:52:23 From: Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors On Aug 28, 10:36 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > top posted: > I have a mirror, but I find that it takes time to scan behind me, to the > sides and front and to be sure that I'm right about what I'm seeing. IMO It > takes more time to scan things behind than it does to scan things to the > front because that's what we're designed to do. > > You've never had to change your plans? You've never been forced to ride next > to a car door because things changed while you were in the middle of doing > something? Maybe you're some kind of super person. What Robin Hood was to > archery, you are to bicycling. You make it sound much harder than it is! I can't promise I've _never_ had to ride in the door zone. But I can't recall the last time that happened, if ever. It's one of those things I Do Not Do, similar to riding facing traffic. If I see parked cars up ahead, I usually do refer to my "high tech traffic detector" - an eyeglass mirror I almost always ride with. Using it generally gives me good awareness of where other vehicles are. But I do crank my head around and scan back before any fairly quick move, like a lane position shift. How do I handle that if I have to suddenly avoid a door zone? The answer is, I don't. That's because I pay attention to what's coming up and plan my moves ahead of time. I'll normally be negotiating my way away from a door zone at least 50 feet ahead of time. Parked cars aren't that hard to notice! And, BTW, I am quite good at scanning behind ("shoulder checking") while riding a 6" white line. I know this because I show others how to do it when I teach cycling classes. You can learn it too, if you practice. > Collision avoidance is not a big deal in nature because other creatures in > nature generally are pretty soft. Fast moving manmade things are very hard. > Just thought I should let people know. No need. I've been bicycling among them for well over 30 years as an adult. I've done just fine, thank you! - Frank Krygowski   Date: 28 Aug 2007 10:27:24 From: Smokey Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors On Aug 28, 11:55 am, Wayne Pein <wp...@nc.rr.com > wrote: > Greens wrote: > > I have a mirror, but I find that it takes time to scan behind me, to the > > sides and front and to be sure that I'm right about what I'm seeing. IMO It > > takes more time to scan things behind than it does to scan things to the > > front because that's what we're designed to do. > > > You've never had to change your plans? You've never been forced to ride next > > to a car door because things changed while you were in the middle of doing > > something? Maybe you're some kind of super person. What Robin Hood was to > > archery, you are to bicycling. > > > Collision avoidance is not a big deal in nature because other creatures in > > nature generally are pretty soft. Fast moving manmade things are very hard. > > Just thought I should let people know. > > If there is parking, even sporadic parking, on the road you should be > tracking 11 ft from the edge of the road at all times. This provides > clearance from the door zone. You shouldn't need to adjust your line. > > Your presence out in the lane induces caution in passing motorists. They > slow and move over. > > Wayne I've only been bike riding for a few years, but have been a motorcyclist for 35 years. In both cases, I believe it's very important to adjust your lane position to suit the traffic conditions. Staying out of the door zone is one of those times. When riding on narrow blacktop roads out here in farm country, I move to the far right when going over hills due to large farm machinery that often can hang over the centerline. That's especially important now that the fall harvest is beginning here in MO. I think it's very important to learn from my experiences when riding. We all make mistakes, the key is to not make the same ones over and over. Smokey     Date: 28 Aug 2007 15:51:19 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors Smokey wrote: >> On Aug 28, 11:55 am, Wayne Pein <wp...@nc.rr.com> wrote: >>If there is parking, even sporadic parking, on the road you should be >>tracking 11 ft from the edge of the road at all times. This provides >>clearance from the door zone. You shouldn't need to adjust your line. >> >>Your presence out in the lane induces caution in passing motorists. They >>slow and move over. >> >>Wayne > > > I've only been bike riding for a few years, but have been a > motorcyclist for 35 years. In both cases, I believe it's very > important to adjust your lane position to suit the traffic conditions. This is true, but bicyclists generally do it wrong. In particular, they are afraid of overtaking traffic, and react by riding as far right as they can. This leads to several negative outcomes. Motorcyclists adjust their lane position, but the default is in the left tire track and they usually get it right. Wayne   Date: 28 Aug 2007 06:54:48 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors On Aug 26, 5:50 pm, Hank Wirtz <h...@wirtznet.net > wrote: > On Aug 26, 2:25 pm, Ozark Bicycle > > > > <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote: > > On Aug 26, 3:53 pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote: > > > > Greens wrote: > > > > While riding along, I often think I wish I had eyes like a deer for > > > > bicycling, set on the side of my head so that I could see what's happening > > > > to the front, sides and to a much larger extent, the rear. I'm convinced > > > > that the cyclist needs this kidn of vision more than a car or pedestrian. > > > > Cars don't need to see what's behind them as much because they're about the > > > > fastest thing on the road and fender benders aren't usually fatal for > > > > motorists. Cyclists are usually the slowest thing on the road. > > > > > Example 1: Biking down the road, there's a parked car up ahead. I can't tell > > > > if someone is in the driver's seat. That might be a headrest and even if it > > > > isn't the driver might be bent over. I'd like to steer wide around the > > > > parked car, but I can hear a car coming behind me. I look in my side mirror > > > > (mounted on my handlebar and way too far to the side if you ask me) and I > > > > see the car coming up from behind in my mirror. What I don't see or hear is > > > > that there's another car right behind him. The first car passes and I start > > > > to move into the main path of traffic behind it to pass the parked car at a > > > > safe distance, but at the last moment I notice the second car who has > > > > fortunately spotted me. I pass the parked car with inches to spare. As it > > > > turns out that's all the second motorist thought I'd want. Luck is with me > > > > and nobody throws open the door. > > > > > The key thing is I made it through this by sheer luck. The second car had me > > > > covered to some extent and the parked car didn't door me. I'd much rather > > > > have been given an early warning that a second car was coming. > > > > Unfortunately, I don't know of any car detecting gadgets, but then there's > > > > that guy that did the experiment with wearing helmets. He said that wearing > > > > helmets resulted in motorists giving you less space. That's not important > > > > right now. The important thing is that in his study he used an ultrasonic > > > > gadget to detect cars and their distance from him. That's the kind of thing > > > > I want. Some kind of sonar to let me know what's going on behind me. Let me > > > > know if there are cars, how many cars, in back, to the side, etc and also if > > > > they are veering onto the side of the road. > > > > > Sometimes your ears will pick up the second car, but often the first car or > > > > a lawnmower or just the wind will drown out the sound of cars coming up from > > > > behind. I've also had fast moving cyclists pass me with almost no warning > > > > and sometimes I do swerve around a little. It's just pure luck that there > > > > wasn't a collision. > > > > > Ultrasound is one way of doing it. Infrared might be better. All cars have > > > > hot motors. Couldn't something be made to show how many hot spots there are > > > > around me? Maybe a screen to show them closing in? > > > > > I've also thought of mounting a rear facing video camera and monitor so that > > > > I could watch and maybe even record traffic and events. I think the screen > > > > may be too small though. > > > > > There are times when I get into situations where I have to see and monitor > > > > cars and peds behind, in front and to the side of me all at the same time. > > > > Things just change so fast and people do the strangest things in reaction to > > > > cyclists. Women will push a baby carriage right in front of you to make the > > > > point that they have the right of way. This is as opposed to slowing down > > > > for a couple of seconds. I would think it would be easy to just slow down > > > > while pushing a baby carriage, but some women are so intent on pressing > > > > their right of way that they'll push that carriage in front of you to make > > > > you stop. I've also had a woman walk right into my path with her pack of > > > > loose dogs at night. I had a light on, but I guess I wasn't making a car > > > > noise. I assumed because she was approaching at 90 degrees, she'd see me, > > > > but no. She doesn't look up unless she hears the telltale sound of 3000 > > > > pound car on pavement. > > > > "I wish I had eyes like a deer" > > > Or a gimlet-eyed lizard, eh? > > > -- > > > The next leap forward in cycling: the genetically modified rider. > > Dick Pound just called. You've been banned from Usenet for the next > two years. IMO, Dick Pound has been genetically modified. He sure ain't human.   Date: 28 Aug 2007 13:44:39 From: Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors On Aug 27, 7:38 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > wrote: > "Michael Press" <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote in message > > news:rubrum-5D1A53.10362327082007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net... > > > > > In article > > <vLqdndyKyJMbNUzbnZ2dnUVZ_o2vn...@adelphia.com>, > > "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: > > >> While riding along, I often think I wish I had eyes like a deer for > >> bicycling, set on the side of my head so that I could see what's > >> happening > >> to the front, sides and to a much larger extent, the rear. I'm convinced > >> that the cyclist needs this kidn of vision more than a car or pedestrian. > >> Cars don't need to see what's behind them as much because they're about > >> the > >> fastest thing on the road and fender benders aren't usually fatal for > >> motorists. Cyclists are usually the slowest thing on the road. > > >> Example 1: Biking down the road, there's a parked car up ahead. I can't > >> tell > >> if someone is in the driver's seat. That might be a headrest and even if > >> it > >> isn't the driver might be bent over. I'd like to steer wide around the > >> parked car, but I can hear a car coming behind me. I look in my side > >> mirror > >> (mounted on my handlebar and way too far to the side if you ask me) and I > >> see the car coming up from behind in my mirror. What I don't see or hear > >> is > >> that there's another car right behind him. The first car passes and I > >> start > >> to move into the main path of traffic behind it to pass the parked car at > >> a > >> safe distance, but at the last moment I notice the second car who has > >> fortunately spotted me. I pass the parked car with inches to spare. As it > >> turns out that's all the second motorist thought I'd want. Luck is with > >> me > >> and nobody throws open the door. > > > Do not ride in the door lane at all. > > Signal your intentions. > > Do not swerve. Ride straight lines. > > Practice to learn how to stay balanced > > and ride the straightest track possible. > > Be predictable around cars. > > > -- > > Michael Press > > Signaling is a good idea, but I find I need my hands on the handlebars. In > practice I signal very, very rarely. Maybe if I had a touring bike or > whatever those things are that have your riding in the upright position. On > a mountain bike I feel like the smallest obstacle could twist the front > wheel. Sounds to me like you need to learn some skills! A competent cyclist certainly ought to be able to ride with one hand! In fact, you should be able to do so without deviating from a one-foot-wide path. Practice! Michael Press gave you good advice. Do not ride in the door zone. Anyone who rides in traffic should be able to ride a straight line while looking over their shoulder. If arthritis or other age-related problems prevent that, I think it's imperative to use an eyeglass mirror or hat- or helmet-mounted mirror. You need to know what's back there! - Frank Krygowski     Date: 28 Aug 2007 10:36:45 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors I have a mirror, but I find that it takes time to scan behind me, to the sides and front and to be sure that I'm right about what I'm seeing. IMO It takes more time to scan things behind than it does to scan things to the front because that's what we're designed to do. You've never had to change your plans? You've never been forced to ride next to a car door because things changed while you were in the middle of doing something? Maybe you're some kind of super person. What Robin Hood was to archery, you are to bicycling. Collision avoidance is not a big deal in nature because other creatures in nature generally are pretty soft. Fast moving manmade things are very hard. Just thought I should let people know. <frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1188308679.718678.26380@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 27, 7:38 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: >> "Michael Press" <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote in message >> >> news:rubrum-5D1A53.10362327082007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net... >> >> >> >> > In article >> > <vLqdndyKyJMbNUzbnZ2dnUVZ_o2vn...@adelphia.com>, >> > "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: >> >> >> While riding along, I often think I wish I had eyes like a deer for >> >> bicycling, set on the side of my head so that I could see what's >> >> happening >> >> to the front, sides and to a much larger extent, the rear. I'm >> >> convinced >> >> that the cyclist needs this kidn of vision more than a car or >> >> pedestrian. >> >> Cars don't need to see what's behind them as much because they're >> >> about >> >> the >> >> fastest thing on the road and fender benders aren't usually fatal for >> >> motorists. Cyclists are usually the slowest thing on the road. >> >> >> Example 1: Biking down the road, there's a parked car up ahead. I >> >> can't >> >> tell >> >> if someone is in the driver's seat. That might be a headrest and even >> >> if >> >> it >> >> isn't the driver might be bent over. I'd like to steer wide around the >> >> parked car, but I can hear a car coming behind me. I look in my side >> >> mirror >> >> (mounted on my handlebar and way too far to the side if you ask me) >> >> and I >> >> see the car coming up from behind in my mirror. What I don't see or >> >> hear >> >> is >> >> that there's another car right behind him. The first car passes and I >> >> start >> >> to move into the main path of traffic behind it to pass the parked car >> >> at >> >> a >> >> safe distance, but at the last moment I notice the second car who has >> >> fortunately spotted me. I pass the parked car with inches to spare. As >> >> it >> >> turns out that's all the second motorist thought I'd want. Luck is >> >> with >> >> me >> >> and nobody throws open the door. >> >> > Do not ride in the door lane at all. >> > Signal your intentions. >> > Do not swerve. Ride straight lines. >> > Practice to learn how to stay balanced >> > and ride the straightest track possible. >> > Be predictable around cars. >> >> > -- >> > Michael Press >> >> Signaling is a good idea, but I find I need my hands on the handlebars. >> In >> practice I signal very, very rarely. Maybe if I had a touring bike or >> whatever those things are that have your riding in the upright position. >> On >> a mountain bike I feel like the smallest obstacle could twist the front >> wheel. > > Sounds to me like you need to learn some skills! A competent cyclist > certainly ought to be able to ride with one hand! In fact, you > should be able to do so without deviating from a one-foot-wide path. > Practice! > > Michael Press gave you good advice. Do not ride in the door zone. > > Anyone who rides in traffic should be able to ride a straight line > while looking over their shoulder. If arthritis or other age-related > problems prevent that, I think it's imperative to use an eyeglass > mirror or hat- or helmet-mounted mirror. You need to know what's back > there! > > - Frank Krygowski >       Date: 01 Sep 2007 02:17:59 From: Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors On Aug 31, 1:44 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > wrote: > > > My claim, as you call it, is that bicycling is pretty dangerous and > unforgiving. Is serving with the US military in Iraq dangerous? Most people > would say it is. In the same period of time as the Iraq war, the same number > of people have been killed here in the USA bicycling. I don't have a number > for how many people bicycle as opposed to how many serve in Iraq, but it > probably would be interesting numbers especially when you consider most > bicycling happens during three months of the year whereas fighting in Iraq > is pretty much all year and cyclists in the USA are a small minority. > > 2) Bicycyles offer no protection in an accident. Cars do. Most people have > at least a few fender benders during their lifetimes driving their cars. On > a bicycle those same fender bender speed accidents can easily turn fatal, > hence bicyling in traffic is unforgiving. > > 3) Cyclists have little control over dangerous conditions. - There's no way > to know when the next drunk or incompetent will come up behind you in a 3000 > pound vehicle. There's no way to know what the drivers of same vehicles will > do. Their actions can seem predictable at times, but there are always > anomalies. It only takes one anomaly to get a bicyclist killed. There's no > way to control the speed of motorists. There's no way to control the > aggression level of motorists. It's easier and more likely that a motorist > will have a weapon like a bat or tire iron on board. Who wants to ride with > a tire iron? The effect of bad drivers on a cyclist can be to aggravate the > cyclist to the point of rage, which can turn verbal sparring into deadly > combat.http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07236/811824-94.stm > > 4) A dog can kill a bicyclist just by running out and getting in the > cyclist's path. A car can also loose control, but if a car runs the animal > over, there's very little chance the motorist will flip out of his > windshield and split his head open on the pavement. The presence of dogs and > actions of dogs are like human actions - usually predictable but > occasionally unpredicatable. Deer can also be a hazard, both live and dead > deer. A dead carcass on the side of the road at night can result in a fall, > death, or unconsciousness. Laying in the road unconscious at night is > definitely very high risk. > > Bicycle design hasn't changed much since 1909. Cars have made a lot of > changes and cars are inspected for safety in most states. Cars have turn > signals and brake lights. Bikes don't. Cars have air bags. Bikes don't. Cars > have good headlights and their candlepower is regulated. Bike shops will > sell you any piece of crap and call it a headlight. > > My girlfriend got hit by a car in broad daylight about 35 years ago. She > almost lost her life and later her leg, but she still rides today. She has > been in constant pain for 35 years though and that situation will never > change. Downhill skiing isn't really possible for her because of knee > damage. Many other activities and actions, quite ordinary things really, are > also prohibited. She's maimed for life at a young age because of a slow > speed accident involving her bike and a car that didn't even stop. The > driver was never caught or charged even though there were a lot of > witnesses. It was a pretty busy intersection at that time of day. > > Fatalities and wheelchairs aren't the whole story. They're ignored in your > stats. Lots of people "recover", but they're in constant pain forever. > Functionality isn't always total functioality and it doesn't cover pain. If > you could quantify the pain suffered by this one girl over 35 years and > compare it to the pain of someone who didn't bicycle, you'd probably have > 10,000 pounds for her and 200 pounds for the non cyclist. I'm wasting my time by mentioning this, but I've known people hurt much worse inside cars. Indeed, there are far, far more of them out there. One tale of woe really doesn't prove anything. > > > ... > > > Then let me repeat: Dig out your own per-hour data and post it > > here. > > > Safety data is not based on how frequently a less-competent individual > > scares himself. Safety data is based on how frequently the average > > person actually gets seriously injured or killed. That fundamental > > difference is tripping you up. > > > Those interested in this issue are welcome to read > >http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/SafetyQuiz.htm > > and to check out the listed sources. > > > - Frank Krygowski > > It only takes one accident, Frank, and then cycling is no longer healthy. > Your stats and the environmental superiority of the bicycle become > irrelevant. (Go ahead and figure out the environmental cost of living in a > wheelchair if you like.) > > I know a close call when I see one and I see a lot more close calls when I > ride my bicycle than when I drive my car. I'm constantly reminded of the > consequences of these close calls every time my woman complains that her > knee is killing her, she can't stand another minute of pain, or she can't do > this or that. What you've done, yet again, is mention several possibilities that scare you. You've described things that _could_ possibly hurt a bicyclist. But you can't seem to understand that they almost always _don't_ hurt cyclists. Perhaps you should figure out why. That is, if cars offer so much more protection than bikes, why is an hour of bike riding not way more dangerous than an hour of motoring? If any car that passes you can contain a drunk that kills you, why are so few cyclists killed in a year? Why don't we hear about all the cyclists who run into dead deer carcasses and are thrown in front of cars that squash them? People hurt themselves in thousands of ways, and some people can imagine even more ways to get hurt. But imagination isn't data. If you want to prove an activity is unusually dangerous, you need data - and the best data is comparative data on a per-hour-exposure basis. If you can't produce such data, you're just venting your own paranoia. And ISTM that everybody here believes that's the case. - Frank Krygowski         Date: 31 Aug 2007 23:00:12 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors <frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1188613079.763622.213050@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 31, 1:44 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: >> >> >> My claim, as you call it, is that bicycling is pretty dangerous and >> unforgiving. Is serving with the US military in Iraq dangerous? Most >> people >> would say it is. In the same period of time as the Iraq war, the same >> number >> of people have been killed here in the USA bicycling. I don't have a >> number >> for how many people bicycle as opposed to how many serve in Iraq, but it >> probably would be interesting numbers especially when you consider most >> bicycling happens during three months of the year whereas fighting in >> Iraq >> is pretty much all year and cyclists in the USA are a small minority. >> >> 2) Bicycyles offer no protection in an accident. Cars do. Most people >> have >> at least a few fender benders during their lifetimes driving their cars. >> On >> a bicycle those same fender bender speed accidents can easily turn fatal, >> hence bicyling in traffic is unforgiving. >> >> 3) Cyclists have little control over dangerous conditions. - There's no >> way >> to know when the next drunk or incompetent will come up behind you in a >> 3000 >> pound vehicle. There's no way to know what the drivers of same vehicles >> will >> do. Their actions can seem predictable at times, but there are always >> anomalies. It only takes one anomaly to get a bicyclist killed. There's >> no >> way to control the speed of motorists. There's no way to control the >> aggression level of motorists. It's easier and more likely that a >> motorist >> will have a weapon like a bat or tire iron on board. Who wants to ride >> with >> a tire iron? The effect of bad drivers on a cyclist can be to aggravate >> the >> cyclist to the point of rage, which can turn verbal sparring into deadly >> combat.http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07236/811824-94.stm >> >> 4) A dog can kill a bicyclist just by running out and getting in the >> cyclist's path. A car can also loose control, but if a car runs the >> animal >> over, there's very little chance the motorist will flip out of his >> windshield and split his head open on the pavement. The presence of dogs >> and >> actions of dogs are like human actions - usually predictable but >> occasionally unpredicatable. Deer can also be a hazard, both live and >> dead >> deer. A dead carcass on the side of the road at night can result in a >> fall, >> death, or unconsciousness. Laying in the road unconscious at night is >> definitely very high risk. >> >> Bicycle design hasn't changed much since 1909. Cars have made a lot of >> changes and cars are inspected for safety in most states. Cars have turn >> signals and brake lights. Bikes don't. Cars have air bags. Bikes don't. >> Cars >> have good headlights and their candlepower is regulated. Bike shops will >> sell you any piece of crap and call it a headlight. >> >> My girlfriend got hit by a car in broad daylight about 35 years ago. She >> almost lost her life and later her leg, but she still rides today. She >> has >> been in constant pain for 35 years though and that situation will never >> change. Downhill skiing isn't really possible for her because of knee >> damage. Many other activities and actions, quite ordinary things really, >> are >> also prohibited. She's maimed for life at a young age because of a slow >> speed accident involving her bike and a car that didn't even stop. The >> driver was never caught or charged even though there were a lot of >> witnesses. It was a pretty busy intersection at that time of day. >> >> Fatalities and wheelchairs aren't the whole story. They're ignored in >> your >> stats. Lots of people "recover", but they're in constant pain forever. >> Functionality isn't always total functioality and it doesn't cover pain. >> If >> you could quantify the pain suffered by this one girl over 35 years and >> compare it to the pain of someone who didn't bicycle, you'd probably have >> 10,000 pounds for her and 200 pounds for the non cyclist. > > I'm wasting my time by mentioning this, but I've known people hurt > much worse inside cars. Indeed, there are far, far more of them out > there. One tale of woe really doesn't prove anything. > >> >> >> ... >> >> > Then let me repeat: Dig out your own per-hour data and post it >> > here. >> >> > Safety data is not based on how frequently a less-competent individual >> > scares himself. Safety data is based on how frequently the average >> > person actually gets seriously injured or killed. That fundamental >> > difference is tripping you up. >> >> > Those interested in this issue are welcome to read >> >http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/SafetyQuiz.htm >> > and to check out the listed sources. >> >> > - Frank Krygowski >> >> It only takes one accident, Frank, and then cycling is no longer healthy. >> Your stats and the environmental superiority of the bicycle become >> irrelevant. (Go ahead and figure out the environmental cost of living in >> a >> wheelchair if you like.) >> >> I know a close call when I see one and I see a lot more close calls when >> I >> ride my bicycle than when I drive my car. I'm constantly reminded of the >> consequences of these close calls every time my woman complains that her >> knee is killing her, she can't stand another minute of pain, or she can't >> do >> this or that. > > What you've done, yet again, is mention several possibilities that > scare you. You've described things that _could_ possibly hurt a > bicyclist. > > But you can't seem to understand that they almost always _don't_ hurt > cyclists. Perhaps you should figure out why. That is, if cars offer > so much more protection than bikes, why is an hour of bike riding not > way more dangerous than an hour of motoring? If any car that passes > you can contain a drunk that kills you, why are so few cyclists killed > in a year? Why don't we hear about all the cyclists who run into dead > deer carcasses and are thrown in front of cars that squash them? > > People hurt themselves in thousands of ways, and some people can > imagine even more ways to get hurt. But imagination isn't data. If > you want to prove an activity is unusually dangerous, you need data - > and the best data is comparative data on a per-hour-exposure basis. > > If you can't produce such data, you're just venting your own > paranoia. And ISTM that everybody here believes that's the case. > > - Frank Krygowski > Here's your stats... http://www.physsportsmed.com/issues/1999/08_99/cantu.htm 2 fatalities playing tennis in the fall between the years of 1982 and 1996. This is out of all the high school students playing tennis on high school teams. Total of 2 fatalities in 14 years. During that same period I think I would be safe in saying 500 bicyclists were killed per year. It was probably a lot more though. I'll just take a quarter, no a fifth of that number since it's just the fall season. That would be 100 fatalities per year cycling. Times 14 = 1400 1400 bicycling vs. 2 playing tennis Bicycling is dangerous.         Date: 31 Aug 2007 22:49:34 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors <frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1188613079.763622.213050@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 31, 1:44 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: >> >> >> My claim, as you call it, is that bicycling is pretty dangerous and >> unforgiving. Is serving with the US military in Iraq dangerous? Most >> people >> would say it is. In the same period of time as the Iraq war, the same >> number >> of people have been killed here in the USA bicycling. I don't have a >> number >> for how many people bicycle as opposed to how many serve in Iraq, but it >> probably would be interesting numbers especially when you consider most >> bicycling happens during three months of the year whereas fighting in >> Iraq >> is pretty much all year and cyclists in the USA are a small minority. >> >> 2) Bicycyles offer no protection in an accident. Cars do. Most people >> have >> at least a few fender benders during their lifetimes driving their cars. >> On >> a bicycle those same fender bender speed accidents can easily turn fatal, >> hence bicyling in traffic is unforgiving. >> >> 3) Cyclists have little control over dangerous conditions. - There's no >> way >> to know when the next drunk or incompetent will come up behind you in a >> 3000 >> pound vehicle. There's no way to know what the drivers of same vehicles >> will >> do. Their actions can seem predictable at times, but there are always >> anomalies. It only takes one anomaly to get a bicyclist killed. There's >> no >> way to control the speed of motorists. There's no way to control the >> aggression level of motorists. It's easier and more likely that a >> motorist >> will have a weapon like a bat or tire iron on board. Who wants to ride >> with >> a tire iron? The effect of bad drivers on a cyclist can be to aggravate >> the >> cyclist to the point of rage, which can turn verbal sparring into deadly >> combat.http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07236/811824-94.stm >> >> 4) A dog can kill a bicyclist just by running out and getting in the >> cyclist's path. A car can also loose control, but if a car runs the >> animal >> over, there's very little chance the motorist will flip out of his >> windshield and split his head open on the pavement. The presence of dogs >> and >> actions of dogs are like human actions - usually predictable but >> occasionally unpredicatable. Deer can also be a hazard, both live and >> dead >> deer. A dead carcass on the side of the road at night can result in a >> fall, >> death, or unconsciousness. Laying in the road unconscious at night is >> definitely very high risk. >> >> Bicycle design hasn't changed much since 1909. Cars have made a lot of >> changes and cars are inspected for safety in most states. Cars have turn >> signals and brake lights. Bikes don't. Cars have air bags. Bikes don't. >> Cars >> have good headlights and their candlepower is regulated. Bike shops will >> sell you any piece of crap and call it a headlight. >> >> My girlfriend got hit by a car in broad daylight about 35 years ago. She >> almost lost her life and later her leg, but she still rides today. She >> has >> been in constant pain for 35 years though and that situation will never >> change. Downhill skiing isn't really possible for her because of knee >> damage. Many other activities and actions, quite ordinary things really, >> are >> also prohibited. She's maimed for life at a young age because of a slow >> speed accident involving her bike and a car that didn't even stop. The >> driver was never caught or charged even though there were a lot of >> witnesses. It was a pretty busy intersection at that time of day. >> >> Fatalities and wheelchairs aren't the whole story. They're ignored in >> your >> stats. Lots of people "recover", but they're in constant pain forever. >> Functionality isn't always total functioality and it doesn't cover pain. >> If >> you could quantify the pain suffered by this one girl over 35 years and >> compare it to the pain of someone who didn't bicycle, you'd probably have >> 10,000 pounds for her and 200 pounds for the non cyclist. > > I'm wasting my time by mentioning this, but I've known people hurt > much worse inside cars. Indeed, there are far, far more of them out > there. One tale of woe really doesn't prove anything. > >> >> >> ... >> >> > Then let me repeat: Dig out your own per-hour data and post it >> > here. >> >> > Safety data is not based on how frequently a less-competent individual >> > scares himself. Safety data is based on how frequently the average >> > person actually gets seriously injured or killed. That fundamental >> > difference is tripping you up. >> >> > Those interested in this issue are welcome to read >> >http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/SafetyQuiz.htm >> > and to check out the listed sources. >> >> > - Frank Krygowski >> >> It only takes one accident, Frank, and then cycling is no longer healthy. >> Your stats and the environmental superiority of the bicycle become >> irrelevant. (Go ahead and figure out the environmental cost of living in >> a >> wheelchair if you like.) >> >> I know a close call when I see one and I see a lot more close calls when >> I >> ride my bicycle than when I drive my car. I'm constantly reminded of the >> consequences of these close calls every time my woman complains that her >> knee is killing her, she can't stand another minute of pain, or she can't >> do >> this or that. > > What you've done, yet again, is mention several possibilities that > scare you. You've described things that _could_ possibly hurt a > bicyclist. > > But you can't seem to understand that they almost always _don't_ hurt > cyclists. Perhaps you should figure out why. That is, if cars offer > so much more protection than bikes, why is an hour of bike riding not > way more dangerous than an hour of motoring? If any car that passes > you can contain a drunk that kills you, why are so few cyclists killed > in a year? Why don't we hear about all the cyclists who run into dead > deer carcasses and are thrown in front of cars that squash them? > > People hurt themselves in thousands of ways, and some people can > imagine even more ways to get hurt. But imagination isn't data. If > you want to prove an activity is unusually dangerous, you need data - > and the best data is comparative data on a per-hour-exposure basis. > > If you can't produce such data, you're just venting your own > paranoia. And ISTM that everybody here believes that's the case. > > - Frank Krygowski > In order to prove that bicycling is dangerous and unforgiving all I need is this. Every year in the USA almost a thousand people are killed bicycling. If it wasn't dangerous, people wouldn't be getting killed doing it. You like to compare it to driving a car. Why don't you compare it to other sports like football or tennis. Do a thousand people a year die playing tennis? No. I don't think so. I'd be surprised if 50 people a year died playing tennis and most of them probably die from heart attacks. Maybe five die slipping on balls and hitting their heads or trying to jump over the net and catching a sneaker. It just isn't a very dangerous sport, but bicycling is.           Date: 01 Sep 2007 14:56:38 From: A Muzi Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors Greens wrote: > <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1188613079.763622.213050@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com... >> On Aug 31, 1:44 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: >>> >>> My claim, as you call it, is that bicycling is pretty dangerous and >>> unforgiving. Is serving with the US military in Iraq dangerous? Most >>> people >>> would say it is. In the same period of time as the Iraq war, the same >>> number >>> of people have been killed here in the USA bicycling. I don't have a >>> number >>> for how many people bicycle as opposed to how many serve in Iraq, but it >>> probably would be interesting numbers especially when you consider most >>> bicycling happens during three months of the year whereas fighting in >>> Iraq >>> is pretty much all year and cyclists in the USA are a small minority. >>> >>> 2) Bicycyles offer no protection in an accident. Cars do. Most people >>> have >>> at least a few fender benders during their lifetimes driving their cars. >>> On >>> a bicycle those same fender bender speed accidents can easily turn fatal, >>> hence bicyling in traffic is unforgiving. >>> >>> 3) Cyclists have little control over dangerous conditions. - There's no >>> way >>> to know when the next drunk or incompetent will come up behind you in a >>> 3000 >>> pound vehicle. There's no way to know what the drivers of same vehicles >>> will >>> do. Their actions can seem predictable at times, but there are always >>> anomalies. It only takes one anomaly to get a bicyclist killed. There's >>> no >>> way to control the speed of motorists. There's no way to control the >>> aggression level of motorists. It's easier and more likely that a >>> motorist >>> will have a weapon like a bat or tire iron on board. Who wants to ride >>> with >>> a tire iron? The effect of bad drivers on a cyclist can be to aggravate >>> the >>> cyclist to the point of rage, which can turn verbal sparring into deadly >>> combat.http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07236/811824-94.stm >>> >>> 4) A dog can kill a bicyclist just by running out and getting in the >>> cyclist's path. A car can also loose control, but if a car runs the >>> animal >>> over, there's very little chance the motorist will flip out of his >>> windshield and split his head open on the pavement. The presence of dogs >>> and >>> actions of dogs are like human actions - usually predictable but >>> occasionally unpredicatable. Deer can also be a hazard, both live and >>> dead >>> deer. A dead carcass on the side of the road at night can result in a >>> fall, >>> death, or unconsciousness. Laying in the road unconscious at night is >>> definitely very high risk. >>> >>> Bicycle design hasn't changed much since 1909. Cars have made a lot of >>> changes and cars are inspected for safety in most states. Cars have turn >>> signals and brake lights. Bikes don't. Cars have air bags. Bikes don't. >>> Cars >>> have good headlights and their candlepower is regulated. Bike shops will >>> sell you any piece of crap and call it a headlight. >>> >>> My girlfriend got hit by a car in broad daylight about 35 years ago. She >>> almost lost her life and later her leg, but she still rides today. She >>> has >>> been in constant pain for 35 years though and that situation will never >>> change. Downhill skiing isn't really possible for her because of knee >>> damage. Many other activities and actions, quite ordinary things really, >>> are >>> also prohibited. She's maimed for life at a young age because of a slow >>> speed accident involving her bike and a car that didn't even stop. The >>> driver was never caught or charged even though there were a lot of >>> witnesses. It was a pretty busy intersection at that time of day. >>> >>> Fatalities and wheelchairs aren't the whole story. They're ignored in >>> your >>> stats. Lots of people "recover", but they're in constant pain forever. >>> Functionality isn't always total functioality and it doesn't cover pain. >>> If >>> you could quantify the pain suffered by this one girl over 35 years and >>> compare it to the pain of someone who didn't bicycle, you'd probably have >>> 10,000 pounds for her and 200 pounds for the non cyclist. >> I'm wasting my time by mentioning this, but I've known people hurt >> much worse inside cars. Indeed, there are far, far more of them out >> there. One tale of woe really doesn't prove anything. >> >>> >>> ... >>> >>>> Then let me repeat: Dig out your own per-hour data and post it >>>> here. >>>> Safety data is not based on how frequently a less-competent individual >>>> scares himself. Safety data is based on how frequently the average >>>> person actually gets seriously injured or killed. That fundamental >>>> difference is tripping you up. >>>> Those interested in this issue are welcome to read >>>> http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/SafetyQuiz.htm >>>> and to check out the listed sources. >>>> - Frank Krygowski >>> It only takes one accident, Frank, and then cycling is no longer healthy. >>> Your stats and the environmental superiority of the bicycle become >>> irrelevant. (Go ahead and figure out the environmental cost of living in >>> a >>> wheelchair if you like.) >>> >>> I know a close call when I see one and I see a lot more close calls when >>> I >>> ride my bicycle than when I drive my car. I'm constantly reminded of the >>> consequences of these close calls every time my woman complains that her >>> knee is killing her, she can't stand another minute of pain, or she can't >>> do >>> this or that. >> What you've done, yet again, is mention several possibilities that >> scare you. You've described things that _could_ possibly hurt a >> bicyclist. >> >> But you can't seem to understand that they almost always _don't_ hurt >> cyclists. Perhaps you should figure out why. That is, if cars offer >> so much more protection than bikes, why is an hour of bike riding not >> way more dangerous than an hour of motoring? If any car that passes >> you can contain a drunk that kills you, why are so few cyclists killed >> in a year? Why don't we hear about all the cyclists who run into dead >> deer carcasses and are thrown in front of cars that squash them? >> >> People hurt themselves in thousands of ways, and some people can >> imagine even more ways to get hurt. But imagination isn't data. If >> you want to prove an activity is unusually dangerous, you need data - >> and the best data is comparative data on a per-hour-exposure basis. >> >> If you can't produce such data, you're just venting your own >> paranoia. And ISTM that everybody here believes that's the case. >> >> - Frank Krygowski >> > > In order to prove that bicycling is dangerous and unforgiving all I need is > this. Every year in the USA almost a thousand people are killed bicycling. > If it wasn't dangerous, people wouldn't be getting killed doing it. > > You like to compare it to driving a car. Why don't you compare it to other > sports like football or tennis. Do a thousand people a year die playing > tennis? No. I don't think so. I'd be surprised if 50 people a year died > playing tennis and most of them probably die from heart attacks. Maybe five > die slipping on balls and hitting their heads or trying to jump over the net > and catching a sneaker. It just isn't a very dangerous sport, but bicycling > is. You are absolutely right. You should sell your bike and stay away from the darned things! There, does that help? -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971             Date: 01 Sep 2007 19:08:07 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors "A Muzi" <am@yellowjersey.org > wrote in message news:13djgul4577d1f2@corp.supernews.com... > Greens wrote: >> <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:1188613079.763622.213050@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com... >>> On Aug 31, 1:44 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> My claim, as you call it, is that bicycling is pretty dangerous and >>>> unforgiving. Is serving with the US military in Iraq dangerous? Most >>>> people >>>> would say it is. In the same period of time as the Iraq war, the same >>>> number >>>> of people have been killed here in the USA bicycling. I don't have a >>>> number >>>> for how many people bicycle as opposed to how many serve in Iraq, but >>>> it >>>> probably would be interesting numbers especially when you consider most >>>> bicycling happens during three months of the year whereas fighting in >>>> Iraq >>>> is pretty much all year and cyclists in the USA are a small minority. >>>> >>>> 2) Bicycyles offer no protection in an accident. Cars do. Most people >>>> have >>>> at least a few fender benders during their lifetimes driving their >>>> cars. On >>>> a bicycle those same fender bender speed accidents can easily turn >>>> fatal, >>>> hence bicyling in traffic is unforgiving. >>>> >>>> 3) Cyclists have little control over dangerous conditions. - There's no >>>> way >>>> to know when the next drunk or incompetent will come up behind you in a >>>> 3000 >>>> pound vehicle. There's no way to know what the drivers of same vehicles >>>> will >>>> do. Their actions can seem predictable at times, but there are always >>>> anomalies. It only takes one anomaly to get a bicyclist killed. There's >>>> no >>>> way to control the speed of motorists. There's no way to control the >>>> aggression level of motorists. It's easier and more likely that a >>>> motorist >>>> will have a weapon like a bat or tire iron on board. Who wants to ride >>>> with >>>> a tire iron? The effect of bad drivers on a cyclist can be to aggravate >>>> the >>>> cyclist to the point of rage, which can turn verbal sparring into >>>> deadly >>>> combat.http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07236/811824-94.stm >>>> >>>> 4) A dog can kill a bicyclist just by running out and getting in the >>>> cyclist's path. A car can also loose control, but if a car runs the >>>> animal >>>> over, there's very little chance the motorist will flip out of his >>>> windshield and split his head open on the pavement. The presence of >>>> dogs and >>>> actions of dogs are like human actions - usually predictable but >>>> occasionally unpredicatable. Deer can also be a hazard, both live and >>>> dead >>>> deer. A dead carcass on the side of the road at night can result in a >>>> fall, >>>> death, or unconsciousness. Laying in the road unconscious at night is >>>> definitely very high risk. >>>> >>>> Bicycle design hasn't changed much since 1909. Cars have made a lot of >>>> changes and cars are inspected for safety in most states. Cars have >>>> turn >>>> signals and brake lights. Bikes don't. Cars have air bags. Bikes don't. >>>> Cars >>>> have good headlights and their candlepower is regulated. Bike shops >>>> will >>>> sell you any piece of crap and call it a headlight. >>>> >>>> My girlfriend got hit by a car in broad daylight about 35 years ago. >>>> She >>>> almost lost her life and later her leg, but she still rides today. She >>>> has >>>> been in constant pain for 35 years though and that situation will never >>>> change. Downhill skiing isn't really possible for her because of knee >>>> damage. Many other activities and actions, quite ordinary things >>>> really, are >>>> also prohibited. She's maimed for life at a young age because of a slow >>>> speed accident involving her bike and a car that didn't even stop. The >>>> driver was never caught or charged even though there were a lot of >>>> witnesses. It was a pretty busy intersection at that time of day. >>>> >>>> Fatalities and wheelchairs aren't the whole story. They're ignored in >>>> your >>>> stats. Lots of people "recover", but they're in constant pain forever. >>>> Functionality isn't always total functioality and it doesn't cover >>>> pain. If >>>> you could quantify the pain suffered by this one girl over 35 years and >>>> compare it to the pain of someone who didn't bicycle, you'd probably >>>> have >>>> 10,000 pounds for her and 200 pounds for the non cyclist. >>> I'm wasting my time by mentioning this, but I've known people hurt >>> much worse inside cars. Indeed, there are far, far more of them out >>> there. One tale of woe really doesn't prove anything. >>> >>>> >>>> ... >>>> >>>>> Then let me repeat: Dig out your own per-hour data and post it >>>>> here. >>>>> Safety data is not based on how frequently a less-competent individual >>>>> scares himself. Safety data is based on how frequently the average >>>>> person actually gets seriously injured or killed. That fundamental >>>>> difference is tripping you up. >>>>> Those interested in this issue are welcome to read >>>>> http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/SafetyQuiz.htm >>>>> and to check out the listed sources. >>>>> - Frank Krygowski >>>> It only takes one accident, Frank, and then cycling is no longer >>>> healthy. >>>> Your stats and the environmental superiority of the bicycle become >>>> irrelevant. (Go ahead and figure out the environmental cost of living >>>> in a >>>> wheelchair if you like.) >>>> >>>> I know a close call when I see one and I see a lot more close calls >>>> when I >>>> ride my bicycle than when I drive my car. I'm constantly reminded of >>>> the >>>> consequences of these close calls every time my woman complains that >>>> her >>>> knee is killing her, she can't stand another minute of pain, or she >>>> can't do >>>> this or that. >>> What you've done, yet again, is mention several possibilities that >>> scare you. You've described things that _could_ possibly hurt a >>> bicyclist. >>> >>> But you can't seem to understand that they almost always _don't_ hurt >>> cyclists. Perhaps you should figure out why. That is, if cars offer >>> so much more protection than bikes, why is an hour of bike riding not >>> way more dangerous than an hour of motoring? If any car that passes >>> you can contain a drunk that kills you, why are so few cyclists killed >>> in a year? Why don't we hear about all the cyclists who run into dead >>> deer carcasses and are thrown in front of cars that squash them? >>> >>> People hurt themselves in thousands of ways, and some people can >>> imagine even more ways to get hurt. But imagination isn't data. If >>> you want to prove an activity is unusually dangerous, you need data - >>> and the best data is comparative data on a per-hour-exposure basis. >>> >>> If you can't produce such data, you're just venting your own >>> paranoia. And ISTM that everybody here believes that's the case. >>> >>> - Frank Krygowski >>> >> >> In order to prove that bicycling is dangerous and unforgiving all I need >> is this. Every year in the USA almost a thousand people are killed >> bicycling. If it wasn't dangerous, people wouldn't be getting killed >> doing it. >> >> You like to compare it to driving a car. Why don't you compare it to >> other sports like football or tennis. Do a thousand people a year die >> playing tennis? No. I don't think so. I'd be surprised if 50 people a >> year died playing tennis and most of them probably die from heart >> attacks. Maybe five die slipping on balls and hitting their heads or >> trying to jump over the net and catching a sneaker. It just isn't a very >> dangerous sport, but bicycling is. > > You are absolutely right. > You should sell your bike and stay away from the darned things! > There, does that help? > -- > Andrew Muzi > www.yellowjersey.org > Open every day since 1 April, 1971 The thread isn't about how much I hate biking. It's about making cycling safer through technology and safety devices. I would quit if I could find something as aesthetically pleasing, addicting and efficient at burning calories and improving stamina. Or if I just felt like quitting. Of course I don't need people on a newsgroup for that.       Date: 28 Aug 2007 15:30:44 From: Luke Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors In article <cLadneTjvM7Ur0nbnZ2dnUVZ_hOdnZ2d@adelphia.com >, Greens <prbj@adelphia.net > wrote: > I have a mirror, but I find that it takes time to scan behind me, to the > sides and front and to be sure that I'm right about what I'm seeing. IMO It > takes more time to scan things behind than it does to scan things to the > front because that's what we're designed to do. > > You've never had to change your plans? You've never been forced to ride next > to a car door because things changed while you were in the middle of doing > something? <snip > What do you mean by 'while you were in the middle of doing something'? Sure unforeseen hazards can quickly arise, requiring evasive action, but you make it sound as if the act of riding is just one of many distractions while astride the bicycle. How about making it the chief preoccupation? Then you'll benefit by fewer surprises when doing something else.         Date: 28 Aug 2007 15:54:16 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors "Luke" <lucasiragusa@rogers.com > wrote in message news:280820071530446521%lucasiragusa@rogers.com... > In article <cLadneTjvM7Ur0nbnZ2dnUVZ_hOdnZ2d@adelphia.com>, Greens > <prbj@adelphia.net> wrote: > >> I have a mirror, but I find that it takes time to scan behind me, to the >> sides and front and to be sure that I'm right about what I'm seeing. IMO >> It >> takes more time to scan things behind than it does to scan things to the >> front because that's what we're designed to do. >> >> You've never had to change your plans? You've never been forced to ride >> next >> to a car door because things changed while you were in the middle of >> doing >> something? > > <snip> > > What do you mean by 'while you were in the middle of doing something'? > Sure unforeseen hazards can quickly arise, requiring evasive action, > but you make it sound as if the act of riding is just one of many > distractions while astride the bicycle. How about making it the chief > preoccupation? Then you'll benefit by fewer surprises when doing > something else. When I talk about doing something else, I'm talking about monitoring some other hazard. Things are constantly changing when you and traffic are moving along. Parked cars are not the only thing to worry about. People can close in from behind very fast, cars can pull up on sidestreets, cracks prove to be a hazard once you near them. Today I was on the way home, going downhill about 15 or 20mph. A garbage truck and a recycling truck were parked facing the wrong way on the other side. After I went by them, they caught up to me and passed me and then stopped blocking nearly the whole right lane of a country road rated for 55 mph. If I took the shoulder I risked getting doored by someone getting out the passenger side. I chose to go around into oncoming traffic as I had pretty good visiblility. Had to check behind first, but there wasn't much time. I had to slow as I passed them and then... sure enough the garbage man got out the driver's door (probably thinking, "why didn't he go around the shoulder where I left him room) (answer, I didn't trust him and had little experience with garbage trucks on this kind of road.). Good thing I slowed because this was not a careful opening of the door. It was wide open with him proudly displaying himself. I was practically in the oncoming shoulder. I blasted past and got back in the proper lane, took the first side road. Must have been half a dozen or more decisions to make in 20 seconds to constantly changing surroundings.           Date: 01 Sep 2007 17:05:22 From: Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors On Sep 1, 4:16 pm, r15...@aol.com wrote: > On Aug 31, 8:17 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > > ... That is, if cars offer > > so much more protection than bikes, why is an hour of bike riding not > > way more dangerous than an hour of motoring? > > www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/survey/sept01.htm > > "...an injury is 33 times more likely to occur from riding a bike as > opposed to driving a car for the same distance." Kifer found 'serious > injury' to be 19 times more likely for cyclists. Per hour numbers are > likely to look not as bad, but still relatively poor for cycling. > > This is a small survey of limited value; it is interesting to note > however that the accident rate recorded therein is corroborated by > that found in Moritz' survey of LAB members. It seems foolish to rehash these points, but after all, it is Usenet. And it is the anonymous r12345678... so at least we're used to it. The accident rate in Moritz's survey was very low. Falls or crashes that actually damaged something averaged only about once every 11 years, or about once every 32,000 miles. And the qualifying threshold of damage was very low. Ken Kifer's self-selected survey responses generated the following: "Based on our previously data about usage, there were 1,600 hours, 23,000 miles, 37,000 kilometers, and 9.9 years between injuries of this degree." That's also very low. But let's look at the degree of injuries, according to Ken: "I was very clear in defining this injury, that it must be a real injury, not just a visit to the doctor, and create problems that would require at least a few days to heal... "When asked about the nature of their most serious cycling-related injury during the last 12 months,161 said there was no accident or no injury that was a problem the next day. 53 said they experienced road rash or other significant abrasions. 4 said they experienced minor concussion resulting in nothing worse than a headache. 9 said they had a puncture wound, simple fracture, or broken bone. 2 said they had a major concussion resulting in loss of consciousness or other short-term brain injury. 2 said they had a compound or skull fracture, and/or multiple broken bones and non-permanent injuries. None said they had a permanent injury or disability of any kind. "Note that this most-serious injury includes injuries less severe than those in question 18. Also note that I said the injury must be a problem the next day. Note that 2/3rds of the cyclists did not have any injury at all. Only 13 claimed injuries as severe as a puncture wound, broken bone, concussion, or multiple injuries. There would be 40,000 miles, 64,000 kilometers, 2,800 hours, and 17.5 years between those kinds of injuries.... "Keep in mind that this is a very small survey, easily affected by small changes in the number of people with accidents." So, despite Ken's hopes to restrict claims of "injuries" to things that were serious, the vast majority of "injuries" were scrapes. Yes, a skinned knee creates problems, and takes more than a few days to heal - but how big of a problem is it, really? I don't know anyone who's denied that there is a greater risk of MINOR injury in riding a bike, compared to driving a car. But how much should we worry about minor injuries? Granted, some people may be terrified of them. For those people, help may be available at http://www.changethatsrightnow.com/problem_detail.asp?SDID=885:1902 More rational people will understand that the benefits of cycling are greater than the detriments of skinned knees. > Note also that Kifer's is a real survey with a clearly stated > methodology, unlike the 'data' that Frank produced (which appeared as > a graphic sidebar to an article about car fires in Design News > magazine from 15 years ago, with no explanation or methodology given > whatsoever.) It's interesting that Frank throws these numbers out and > expects others to prostate themselves in front of the 'data,' but > please don't really look into it or you'll immediately realize how > laughably flimsy it all is. It does not come close to being usable > data. Again, all this has been discussed many, many times. So I'll repeat by noting: There are other data available on the relative safety or danger of cycling. Available data generally shows the following: Bicycling causes minor injuries, mostly when people fall off their bikes. (Anyone shocked?) Major injuries or fatalities from cycling are very rare. There are at least 14 million miles ridden between bike fatalities. This varies by country, of course. (How long will it take you to ride 14 million miles?) Regarding fatalities, bicycling is roughly as safe, per hour, as driving a car. Some data says it's a bit safer, some says it's a bit more dangerous, again, varying by country. But both means of transport are safe enough that nobody need worry about dying. Bicycling fatality rate, per mile, is worse than riding in a car. But this is largely due to the fact that much car travel occurs on freeways, which are unusually safe. In the US, the fatality rate per mile for motoring on rural roads is roughly the same as for riding bikes overall. Bicycling IS safer, both per hour and per mile traveled, than walking near traffic, despite the scoffing from certain know-nothings. BTW, I assume the "near traffic" modifier applies. The documents that produce that data simply refer to fatality rates for "pedestrians." Bicycling is far, far safer than riding motorcycles, both per hour and per mile. Although I enjoy my motorcycle, I know it's a relatively risky way of getting around. If anyone - including r1234567... - has actual data that conflicts with the points I make above, they should post that data. But please note: factoids like "every week, 12345 of the world's children between the ages of 8 and 14 skin their knees in bike accidents" aren't worth much. Discuss serious injuries, not trivial ones; and put them in context by giving comparative data. Overall: Bicycling has great benefits that far outweigh it's minuscule risks. It deserves to be promoted, not discouraged. - Frank Krygowski             Date: 01 Sep 2007 22:01:37 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors <frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1188691522.071645.9130@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 1, 4:16 pm, r15...@aol.com wrote: >> On Aug 31, 8:17 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> > ... That is, if cars offer >> > so much more protection than bikes, why is an hour of bike riding not >> > way more dangerous than an hour of motoring? >> >> www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/survey/sept01.htm >> >> "...an injury is 33 times more likely to occur from riding a bike as >> opposed to driving a car for the same distance." Kifer found 'serious >> injury' to be 19 times more likely for cyclists. Per hour numbers are >> likely to look not as bad, but still relatively poor for cycling. >> >> This is a small survey of limited value; it is interesting to note >> however that the accident rate recorded therein is corroborated by >> that found in Moritz' survey of LAB members. > > It seems foolish to rehash these points, but after all, it is Usenet. > And it is the anonymous r12345678... so at least we're used to it. > > The accident rate in Moritz's survey was very low. Falls or crashes > that actually damaged something averaged only about once every 11 > years, or about once every 32,000 miles. And the qualifying threshold > of damage was very low. > > Ken Kifer's self-selected survey responses generated the following: > "Based on our previously data about usage, there were 1,600 hours, > 23,000 miles, 37,000 kilometers, and 9.9 years between injuries of > this degree." That's also very low. > > But let's look at the degree of injuries, according to Ken: > > "I was very clear in defining this injury, that it must be a real > injury, not just a visit to the doctor, and create problems that would > require at least a few days to heal... > > "When asked about the nature of their most serious cycling-related > injury during the last 12 months,161 said there was no accident or no > injury that was a problem the next day. 53 said they experienced road > rash or other significant abrasions. > 4 said they experienced minor concussion resulting in nothing worse > than a headache. 9 said they had a puncture wound, simple fracture, > or broken bone. > 2 said they had a major concussion resulting in loss of consciousness > or other short-term brain injury. 2 said they had a compound or skull > fracture, and/or multiple broken bones and non-permanent injuries. > None said they had a permanent injury or disability of any kind. > > "Note that this most-serious injury includes injuries less severe than > those in question 18. Also note that I said the injury must be a > problem the next day. Note that 2/3rds of the cyclists did not have > any injury at all. Only 13 claimed injuries as severe as a puncture > wound, broken bone, concussion, or multiple injuries. There would be > 40,000 miles, 64,000 kilometers, 2,800 hours, and 17.5 years between > those kinds of injuries.... > > "Keep in mind that this is a very small survey, easily affected by > small changes in the number of people with accidents." > > So, despite Ken's hopes to restrict claims of "injuries" to things > that were serious, the vast majority of "injuries" were scrapes. Yes, > a skinned knee creates problems, and takes more than a few days to > heal - but how big of a problem is it, really? > > I don't know anyone who's denied that there is a greater risk of MINOR > injury in riding a bike, compared to driving a car. But how much > should we worry about minor injuries? Granted, some people may be > terrified of them. For those people, help may be available at > http://www.changethatsrightnow.com/problem_detail.asp?SDID=885:1902 > More rational people will understand that the benefits of cycling are > greater than the detriments of skinned knees. > >> Note also that Kifer's is a real survey with a clearly stated >> methodology, unlike the 'data' that Frank produced (which appeared as >> a graphic sidebar to an article about car fires in Design News >> magazine from 15 years ago, with no explanation or methodology given >> whatsoever.) It's interesting that Frank throws these numbers out and >> expects others to prostate themselves in front of the 'data,' but >> please don't really look into it or you'll immediately realize how >> laughably flimsy it all is. It does not come close to being usable >> data. > > Again, all this has been discussed many, many times. So I'll repeat > by noting: > > There are other data available on the relative safety or danger of > cycling. Available data generally shows the following: Bicycling > causes minor injuries, mostly when people fall off their bikes. > (Anyone shocked?) > > Major injuries or fatalities from cycling are very rare. > > There are at least 14 million miles ridden between bike fatalities. > This varies by country, of course. (How long will it take you to ride > 14 million miles?) > > Regarding fatalities, bicycling is roughly as safe, per hour, as > driving a car. Some data says it's a bit safer, some says it's a bit > more dangerous, again, varying by country. But both means of > transport are safe enough that nobody need worry about dying. > > Bicycling fatality rate, per mile, is worse than riding in a car. But > this is largely due to the fact that much car travel occurs on > freeways, which are unusually safe. In the US, the fatality rate per > mile for motoring on rural roads is roughly the same as for riding > bikes overall. > > Bicycling IS safer, both per hour and per mile traveled, than walking > near traffic, despite the scoffing from certain know-nothings. BTW, I > assume the "near traffic" modifier applies. The documents that > produce that data simply refer to fatality rates for "pedestrians." > > Bicycling is far, far safer than riding motorcycles, both per hour and > per mile. Although I enjoy my motorcycle, I know it's a relatively > risky way of getting around. > > If anyone - including r1234567... - has actual data that conflicts > with the points I make above, they should post that data. But please > note: factoids like "every week, 12345 of the world's children > between the ages of 8 and 14 skin their knees in bike accidents" > aren't worth much. Discuss serious injuries, not trivial ones; and > put them in context by giving comparative data. > > Overall: Bicycling has great benefits that far outweigh it's > minuscule risks. It deserves to be promoted, not discouraged. > > - Frank Krygowski > Ken Kifer is dead, dead from a horrendous bicycle gets rammed head on by a drunk motorist accident. Picture this. There's a hole in the walkway at the local shopping mall. Shoppers fall into the hole regularly. Many of them die as the hole drops them from the second floor to the first floor tiles thirty feet below. Of those that survive, many are permanently crippled, some become paraplegic. Let's assign Frank the job of straightening this situation out. If he were to handle it like he handles bicycle safety issues he'd build a website telling shoppers that shopping at the mall is not dangerous. He'd cite statistics showing that per hour, it's more dangerous to drive your car than it is to shop at the mall with a hole in the floor. If anyone complained that the hole was a serious hazard, he'd tell them to quit shopping if they're such a baby, but first please remember not to go around telling other people that shopping is dangerous because it isn't and that telling people it is dangerous just makes it harder for other shoppers who enjoy shopping at the mall with the hole in the floor. I would fix the hole... or at least put up some warning cones.               Date: 02 Sep 2007 21:17:25 From: A Muzi Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors -snip 'cycling is deadly'- Greens wrote: > Ken Kifer is dead, dead from a horrendous bicycle gets rammed head on by a > drunk motorist accident. > > Picture this. There's a hole in the walkway at the local shopping mall. > Shoppers fall into the hole regularly. Many of them die as the hole drops > them from the second floor to the first floor tiles thirty feet below. Of > those that survive, many are permanently crippled, some become paraplegic. > > Let's assign Frank the job of straightening this situation out. If he were > to handle it like he handles bicycle safety issues he'd build a website > telling shoppers that shopping at the mall is not dangerous. He'd cite > statistics showing that per hour, it's more dangerous to drive your car than > it is to shop at the mall with a hole in the floor. If anyone complained > that the hole was a serious hazard, he'd tell them to quit shopping if > they're such a baby, but first please remember not to go around telling > other people that shopping is dangerous because it isn't and that telling > people it is dangerous just makes it harder for other shoppers who enjoy > shopping at the mall with the hole in the floor. > > I would fix the hole... or at least put up some warning cones. ridiculous 'analogy'. Let's go back to reality and cycling, where crises are rare. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971                 Date: 02 Sep 2007 22:46:29 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors "A Muzi" <am@yellowjersey.org > wrote in message news:13dmrkngn42sf26@corp.supernews.com... > -snip 'cycling is deadly'- > Greens wrote: >> Ken Kifer is dead, dead from a horrendous bicycle gets rammed head on by >> a drunk motorist accident. >> >> Picture this. There's a hole in the walkway at the local shopping mall. >> Shoppers fall into the hole regularly. Many of them die as the hole drops >> them from the second floor to the first floor tiles thirty feet below. Of >> those that survive, many are permanently crippled, some become >> paraplegic. >> >> Let's assign Frank the job of straightening this situation out. If he >> were to handle it like he handles bicycle safety issues he'd build a >> website telling shoppers that shopping at the mall is not dangerous. He'd >> cite statistics showing that per hour, it's more dangerous to drive your >> car than it is to shop at the mall with a hole in the floor. If anyone >> complained that the hole was a serious hazard, he'd tell them to quit >> shopping if they're such a baby, but first please remember not to go >> around telling other people that shopping is dangerous because it isn't >> and that telling people it is dangerous just makes it harder for other >> shoppers who enjoy shopping at the mall with the hole in the floor. >> >> I would fix the hole... or at least put up some warning cones. > > ridiculous 'analogy'. > Let's go back to reality and cycling, where crises are rare. > -- > Andrew Muzi > www.yellowjersey.org > Open every day since 1 April, 1971 Funny, but not all that absurd.                 Date: 03 Sep 2007 03:39:24 From: Clive George Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors "A Muzi" <am@yellowjersey.org > wrote in message news:13dmrkngn42sf26@corp.supernews.com... > -snip 'cycling is deadly'- > Greens wrote: >> Picture this. There's a hole in the walkway at the local shopping mall. >> Shoppers fall into the hole regularly. Many of them die as the hole drops >> them from the second floor to the first floor tiles thirty feet below. Of >> those that survive, many are permanently crippled, some become >> paraplegic. > > ridiculous 'analogy'. > Let's go back to reality and cycling, where crises are rare. Andy's right here. Your analogy is bogus, because the numbers for the two situations are vastly different and the remedial action required is vastly different. (checks thread history - blimey, it all started because you're not terribly good at anticipation or patience and scared yourself. Looks to me like you could do with a bit of critical thinking about your riding style.) clive                   Date: 03 Sep 2007 19:05:45 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors "Clive George" <clive@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk > wrote in message news:13dmsuuotitgj5e@corp.supernews.com... > "A Muzi" <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote in message > news:13dmrkngn42sf26@corp.supernews.com... >> -snip 'cycling is deadly'- >> Greens wrote: > >>> Picture this. There's a hole in the walkway at the local shopping mall. >>> Shoppers fall into the hole regularly. Many of them die as the hole >>> drops them from the second floor to the first floor tiles thirty feet >>> below. Of those that survive, many are permanently crippled, some become >>> paraplegic. >> >> ridiculous 'analogy'. >> Let's go back to reality and cycling, where crises are rare. > > Andy's right here. Your analogy is bogus, because the numbers for the two > situations are vastly different and the remedial action required is vastly > different. > > (checks thread history - blimey, it all started because you're not > terribly good at anticipation or patience and scared yourself. Looks to me > like you could do with a bit of critical thinking about your riding > style.) > > clive You don't like the analogy because it works to defeat your silly friend's argument.                     Date: 04 Sep 2007 00:21:22 From: Clive George Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net > wrote in message news:p62dncRvGs34D0HbnZ2dnUVZ_qGknZ2d@adelphia.com... > You don't like the analogy because it works to defeat your silly friend's > argument. No, I don't like the analogy because it isn't analogous. It's bogus. clive           Date: 01 Sep 2007 14:19:03 From: Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors On Sep 1, 2:16 pm, r15...@aol.com wrote: > On Aug 31, 8:17 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > > ... That is, if cars offer > > so much more protection than bikes, why is an hour of bike riding not > > way more dangerous than an hour of motoring? > > www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/survey/sept01.htm > > "...an injury is 33 times more likely to occur from riding a bike as > opposed to driving a car for the same distance." Kifer found 'serious > injury' to be 19 times more likely for cyclists. Per hour numbers are > likely to look not as bad, but still relatively poor for cycling. > > This is a small survey of limited value; it is interesting to note > however that the accident rate recorded therein is corroborated by > that found in Moritz' survey of LAB members. Respondents to both > surveys reported avg. of about 14 years cycling experience, so the > rates found can not be said to represent the bulk of cyclists. > > Note also that Kifer's is a real survey with a clearly stated > methodology, unlike the 'data' that Frank produced (which appeared as > a graphic sidebar to an article about car fires in Design News > magazine from 15 years ago, with no explanation or methodology given > whatsoever.) It's interesting that Frank throws these numbers out and > expects others to prostate themselves in front of the 'data,' but > please don't really look into it or you'll immediately realize how > laughably flimsy it all is. It does not come close to being usable > data. > > ... > > > People hurt themselves in thousands of ways, and some people can > > imagine even more ways to get hurt. But imagination isn't data. If > > you want to prove an activity is unusually dangerous, you need data - > > and the best data is comparative data on a per-hour-exposure basis. > > > If you can't produce such data, you're just venting your own > > paranoia. And ISTM that everybody here believes that's the case. > > "...it's interesting to look at the numbers. Just don't take them very > seriously." --Ken Kifer > > It's also interesting to look at Frank, just don't take him very > seriously. > > Robert Dear Robert, Kifer tabulated responses about bicycling injuries from a total of 231 self-selected bicyclists who happened to log in to his internet site, noticed his survey, and felt like spending the time to respond to his lengthy questionnaire: www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/survey/sept01.htm Unfortunately, self-selected surveys are not very useful. Few people are willing to fill out whole forms if they can only say no, never, nope, not at all, uh-uh, not to me and so on. What kind of results would you expect from a similar survey about injuries and accidents on a car site? Would people who've never been hurt bother to fill out the tedious form? Would they even be visiting the site? Would you expect the data to provide a wildly inflated notion of the real risk involved in using cars? The vast majority of U.S. bicyclists never visit internet bicycling sites, rarely discuss bicycles with their friends, and would be amused by the notion that bicycling is dangerous. Cheers, Carl Fogel             Date: 02 Sep 2007 03:04:05 From: Ben C Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors On 2007-09-01, carlfogel@comcast.net <carlfogel@comcast.net > wrote: [...] > The vast majority of U.S. bicyclists never visit internet bicycling > sites, rarely discuss bicycles with their friends, and would be amused > by the notion that bicycling is dangerous. I'm not so sure. If I do a rough count of how many friends or family I know who have had cycling injuries resulting in hospital, it comes to at least six. I know of only two injury-causing motor accidents out of the same group (and one of those was in Africa). Word gets around and so I should think almost everyone at least knows someone who knows someone who fell of his bike and broke something. This kind of thing can easily contribute to a perception that bicycling is dangerous. Normal people who don't discuss bicycles are however still quite likely to talk about injuries. The incidence of people denting each others' cars is probably about the same but they don't usually get hurt.               Date: 02 Sep 2007 13:53:39 From: Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 03:04:05 -0500, Ben C <spamspam@spam.eggs > wrote: >On 2007-09-01, carlfogel@comcast.net <carlfogel@comcast.net> wrote: >[...] >> The vast majority of U.S. bicyclists never visit internet bicycling >> sites, rarely discuss bicycles with their friends, and would be amused >> by the notion that bicycling is dangerous. > >I'm not so sure. If I do a rough count of how many friends or family I >know who have had cycling injuries resulting in hospital, it comes to at >least six. I know of only two injury-causing motor accidents out of the >same group (and one of those was in Africa). > >Word gets around and so I should think almost everyone at least knows >someone who knows someone who fell of his bike and broke something. This >kind of thing can easily contribute to a perception that bicycling is >dangerous. Normal people who don't discuss bicycles are however still >quite likely to talk about injuries. > >The incidence of people denting each others' cars is probably about the >same but they don't usually get hurt. Dear Ben, Like Frank, I think that you're doing the kind of unconscious filtering that pervades RBT--we think that everyone rides bicycles as much as we do. It's a bit like the famous comment by Pauline Kael, who said that she didn't know _anyone_ who voted for Nixon when he won 49 states in 1972. Partly, she preferred to know people who indeed didn't vote for Nixon, but partly she assumed that everyone agreed with her. If I do a rough count of my friends, I'd assume that all men over 50 still have thick heads of hair and have graduated from college. One of those misconceptions is just random luck, while the other is due to my background. In any case, I'll repeat my point--bicycles are so safe that parents routinely let little children pedal off. No state has an age limit or training requirement for bicycles. It's so safe that we let little kids do it, unsupervised. Yes, some children (and adults) do hurt themselves on bicycles--but once again, we're filtering because we're concentrating on bicycles. For every child (and adult) who scrapes, cuts, or breaks something on a bicycle, how many children (and adults) do the same or worse just running around doing other things? Go to a hospital and count how many patients are admitted for serious injuries during a week. As for counting injuries in our circle of friends, rec.swimming.tech will discover that swimming is terribly dangerous, rec.hiking.misc will find that trudging up mountain trails deserves combat pay, and rec.gardening.com will prove that a surprising number of people hurt themselves trimming rose bushes. Any group tends to over-emphasize its own interests and to exaggerate its adventures by selective memory. If you go here: http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10.html You can ask for the top 20 causes of death by unintentional injuries (no attacks, no suicides) in the U.S from 1999 to 2004 for ages 1 to 85+. Here's the result: Rank 1-85 1 Unintentional MV Traffic 255,190 2 Unintentional Poisoning 96,825 3 Unintentional Fall 93,686 4 Unintentional Unspecified 40,564 5 Unintentional Suffocation 30,100 6 Unintentional Fire/burn 20,166 7 Unintentional Drowning 19,803 8 Unintentional Natural/Environment 9,126 9 Unintentional Other Land Transport 8,589 10 Unintentional Other Transport 8,164 11 Unintentional Other Spec., classifiable 8,087 12 Unintentional Pedestrian, Other 7,201 13 Unintentional Other Spec., NEC 5,959 14 Unintentional Struck by or Against 5,287 15 Unintentional Firearm 4,538 16 Unintentional Machinery 4,031 17 Unintentional Pedal cyclist, Other 1,170 18 Unintentional Cut/pierce 559 19 Unintentional Overexertion 78 20 [blank--no data group that small] (NEC means not elsewhere classifiable, meaning a cause so peculiar that it didn't fit any ordinary category.) Cheers, Carl Fogel                 Date: 02 Sep 2007 15:22:28 From: Ben C Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors On 2007-09-02, carlfogel@comcast.net <carlfogel@comcast.net > wrote: > On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 03:04:05 -0500, Ben C <spamspam@spam.eggs> wrote: > >>On 2007-09-01, carlfogel@comcast.net <carlfogel@comcast.net> wrote: >>[...] >>> The vast majority of U.S. bicyclists never visit internet bicycling >>> sites, rarely discuss bicycles with their friends, and would be amused >>> by the notion that bicycling is dangerous. >> >>I'm not so sure. If I do a rough count of how many friends or family I >>know who have had cycling injuries resulting in hospital, it comes to at >>least six. I know of only two injury-causing motor accidents out of the >>same group (and one of those was in Africa). >> >>Word gets around and so I should think almost everyone at least knows >>someone who knows someone who fell of his bike and broke something. This >>kind of thing can easily contribute to a perception that bicycling is >>dangerous. Normal people who don't discuss bicycles are however still >>quite likely to talk about injuries. >> >>The incidence of people denting each others' cars is probably about the >>same but they don't usually get hurt. > > Dear Ben, > > Like Frank, I think that you're doing the kind of unconscious > filtering that pervades RBT--we think that everyone rides bicycles as > much as we do. [...] > If you go here: > > http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10.html > > You can ask for the top 20 causes of death by unintentional injuries > (no attacks, no suicides) in the U.S from 1999 to 2004 for ages 1 to > 85+. Here's the result: > > Rank 1-85 > > 1 Unintentional MV Traffic 255,190 > 2 Unintentional Poisoning 96,825 > 3 Unintentional Fall 93,686 > 4 Unintentional Unspecified 40,564 > 5 Unintentional Suffocation 30,100 > 6 Unintentional Fire/burn 20,166 > 7 Unintentional Drowning 19,803 > 8 Unintentional Natural/Environment 9,126 > 9 Unintentional Other Land Transport 8,589 > 10 Unintentional Other Transport 8,164 > 11 Unintentional Other Spec., classifiable 8,087 > 12 Unintentional Pedestrian, Other 7,201 > 13 Unintentional Other Spec., NEC 5,959 > 14 Unintentional Struck by or Against 5,287 > 15 Unintentional Firearm 4,538 > 16 Unintentional Machinery 4,031 > 17 Unintentional Pedal cyclist, Other 1,170 > 18 Unintentional Cut/pierce 559 > 19 Unintentional Overexertion 78 > 20 [blank--no data group that small] It is encouraging to see that relatively few people die unintentionally on bicycles. But are these absolute numbers? How much pedal cycling do people do in the US compared to motor vehicle driving? Keep up the good work, I want to believe cycling is safe :)                   Date: 02 Sep 2007 19:06:46 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors "Ben C" <spamspam@spam.eggs > wrote in message news:slrnfdm6rl.6op.spamspam@bowser.marioworld... > On 2007-09-02, carlfogel@comcast.net <carlfogel@comcast.net> wrote: >> On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 03:04:05 -0500, Ben C <spamspam@spam.eggs> wrote: >> >>>On 2007-09-01, carlfogel@comcast.net <carlfogel@comcast.net> wrote: >>>[...] >>>> The vast majority of U.S. bicyclists never visit internet bicycling >>>> sites, rarely discuss bicycles with their friends, and would be amused >>>> by the notion that bicycling is dangerous. >>> >>>I'm not so sure. If I do a rough count of how many friends or family I >>>know who have had cycling injuries resulting in hospital, it comes to at >>>least six. I know of only two injury-causing motor accidents out of the >>>same group (and one of those was in Africa). >>> >>>Word gets around and so I should think almost everyone at least knows >>>someone who knows someone who fell of his bike and broke something. This >>>kind of thing can easily contribute to a perception that bicycling is >>>dangerous. Normal people who don't discuss bicycles are however still >>>quite likely to talk about injuries. >>> >>>The incidence of people denting each others' cars is probably about the >>>same but they don't usually get hurt. >> >> Dear Ben, >> >> Like Frank, I think that you're doing the kind of unconscious >> filtering that pervades RBT--we think that everyone rides bicycles as >> much as we do. > [...] >> If you go here: >> >> http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10.html >> >> You can ask for the top 20 causes of death by unintentional injuries >> (no attacks, no suicides) in the U.S from 1999 to 2004 for ages 1 to >> 85+. Here's the result: >> >> Rank 1-85 >> >> 1 Unintentional MV Traffic 255,190 >> 2 Unintentional Poisoning 96,825 >> 3 Unintentional Fall 93,686 >> 4 Unintentional Unspecified 40,564 >> 5 Unintentional Suffocation 30,100 >> 6 Unintentional Fire/burn 20,166 >> 7 Unintentional Drowning 19,803 >> 8 Unintentional Natural/Environment 9,126 >> 9 Unintentional Other Land Transport 8,589 >> 10 Unintentional Other Transport 8,164 >> 11 Unintentional Other Spec., classifiable 8,087 >> 12 Unintentional Pedestrian, Other 7,201 >> 13 Unintentional Other Spec., NEC 5,959 >> 14 Unintentional Struck by or Against 5,287 >> 15 Unintentional Firearm 4,538 >> 16 Unintentional Machinery 4,031 >> 17 Unintentional Pedal cyclist, Other 1,170 >> 18 Unintentional Cut/pierce 559 >> 19 Unintentional Overexertion 78 >> 20 [blank--no data group that small] > > It is encouraging to see that relatively few people die unintentionally > on bicycles. But are these absolute numbers? How much pedal cycling do > people do in the US compared to motor vehicle driving? > > Keep up the good work, I want to believe cycling is safe :) You don't want the truth? You're blatantly asking to be told exactly what you want to hear. I've always suspected that people like to hear what they already believe, but people don't usually admit that want to hear lies, lol. It's pathetic. Wouldn't you be better off being aware of the dangers? You'll be more careful if you're always aware of just how dangerous, how quickly a happy ride can turn into a life sentence to a wheelchair or death.                   Date: 02 Sep 2007 16:33:16 From: Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 15:22:28 -0500, Ben C <spamspam@spam.eggs > wrote: >On 2007-09-02, carlfogel@comcast.net <carlfogel@comcast.net> wrote: >> On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 03:04:05 -0500, Ben C <spamspam@spam.eggs> wrote: >> >>>On 2007-09-01, carlfogel@comcast.net <carlfogel@comcast.net> wrote: >>>[...] >>>> The vast majority of U.S. bicyclists never visit internet bicycling >>>> sites, rarely discuss bicycles with their friends, and would be amused >>>> by the notion that bicycling is dangerous. >>> >>>I'm not so sure. If I do a rough count of how many friends or family I >>>know who have had cycling injuries resulting in hospital, it comes to at >>>least six. I know of only two injury-causing motor accidents out of the >>>same group (and one of those was in Africa). >>> >>>Word gets around and so I should think almost everyone at least knows >>>someone who knows someone who fell of his bike and broke something. This >>>kind of thing can easily contribute to a perception that bicycling is >>>dangerous. Normal people who don't discuss bicycles are however still >>>quite likely to talk about injuries. >>> >>>The incidence of people denting each others' cars is probably about the >>>same but they don't usually get hurt. >> >> Dear Ben, >> >> Like Frank, I think that you're doing the kind of unconscious >> filtering that pervades RBT--we think that everyone rides bicycles as >> much as we do. >[...] >> If you go here: >> >> http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10.html >> >> You can ask for the top 20 causes of death by unintentional injuries >> (no attacks, no suicides) in the U.S from 1999 to 2004 for ages 1 to >> 85+. Here's the result: >> >> Rank 1-85 >> >> 1 Unintentional MV Traffic 255,190 >> 2 Unintentional Poisoning 96,825 >> 3 Unintentional Fall 93,686 >> 4 Unintentional Unspecified 40,564 >> 5 Unintentional Suffocation 30,100 >> 6 Unintentional Fire/burn 20,166 >> 7 Unintentional Drowning 19,803 >> 8 Unintentional Natural/Environment 9,126 >> 9 Unintentional Other Land Transport 8,589 >> 10 Unintentional Other Transport 8,164 >> 11 Unintentional Other Spec., classifiable 8,087 >> 12 Unintentional Pedestrian, Other 7,201 >> 13 Unintentional Other Spec., NEC 5,959 >> 14 Unintentional Struck by or Against 5,287 >> 15 Unintentional Firearm 4,538 >> 16 Unintentional Machinery 4,031 >> 17 Unintentional Pedal cyclist, Other 1,170 >> 18 Unintentional Cut/pierce 559 >> 19 Unintentional Overexertion 78 >> 20 [blank--no data group that small] > >It is encouraging to see that relatively few people die unintentionally >on bicycles. But are these absolute numbers? How much pedal cycling do >people do in the US compared to motor vehicle driving? > >Keep up the good work, I want to believe cycling is safe :) Dear Ben, They're absolute raw numbers of deaths from 1999 to 2004, a six-year span. It could be argued that enormous numbers of bicycle deaths are hidden in the first category, MV traffic. Or that so few people ride bicycles in the U.S. that the carnage is actually appallingly high. But such arguments tend to be wishful thinking. If you go here: http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/scripts/htmsql.exe/cohid/injurycustom.hsql You can ask for a report of all hospitalizations in Pueblo County (~120,000 population, well-isolated from other counties--if you get hurt in Pueblo County, you're taken to a Pueblo hospital) from 1995 to 2004 from hospital codes, which specifically identify bicyclists as opposed to drivers of cars or passengers in cars or people injured while riding or being drawn in vehicles by animals. First pick transportation mode "All transportation" and choose "pedal cyclist" from the list of "injured person type." Then page down and select Pueblo from the county list. The defaults will include all years, gender, age, etc. Then you wait for a long time while the government database grinds away. There were 149 pedal cyclists injured enough to show up on the hospital records in ten years, which worked out to an average of 10.6 bicycle-related hospital admissions per 100,000 population per year. That's less than one bicycle-related hospitalization per month in my neck of the woods. Other areas may well have higher rates, but bicycle-mad countries like Holland seem to have much lower rates. For fun, you can run the report for patients who were injured while riding or being drawn by animals. It turns out that 97 Luddites were hospitalized in those ten years, about 6.9 per 100,000 population per year, roughly the same raw number of injuries as with bicycles. But since scarcely anyone rides horses compared to bicycles, the danger invovled in animal transport must be much higher, so RBT's more easily frightened posters should be clamoring for insurance companies to refuse to issue policies to people who wear Stetsons or use buggy whips. Falls from chair or furniture, not including beds, accounted for 172 hospitalizations in that period. Falls from beds hospitalized 229 victims. (I include a few other kinds of falls below, to suggest how such things are broken down.) But getting rid of the animals, furniture, and mattresses won't save us. Just falling on the stairs led to 483 hospitalizations in that period. Pueblo County hospitalizations 1995-2004 36 falls from commode 55 falls from wheelchairs 97 animal transport 147 pedal cyclists 172 falls from chair or furniture 229 falls from beds 483 falls on stairs For those fascinated by the details, there were 13,639 (969 per 100,000 population per year) hospitalizations for injuries in that 10-year period, 12,974 of them with the specific cause mentioned, 10,622 of them unintentional. So bicyclists accounted for 147 / 10,622 of unintentional injuries leading to hospitalization in Pueblo County in ten years, about 1.4%. Cheers, Carl Fogel             Date: 02 Sep 2007 04:25:42 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors In article <1188681543.447497.133070@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com > , carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: >On Sep 1, 2:16 pm, r15...@aol.com wrote: >> On Aug 31, 8:17 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: >>> ... That is, if cars offer >>> so much more protection than bikes, why is an hour of bike riding not >>> way more dangerous than an hour of motoring? >> >> www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/survey/sept01.htm >> >> "...an injury is 33 times more likely to occur from riding a bike as >> opposed to driving a car for the same distance." Kifer found 'serious >> injury' to be 19 times more likely for cyclists. Per hour numbers are >> likely to look not as bad, but still relatively poor for cycling. >> >> This is a small survey of limited value; it is interesting to note >> however that the accident rate recorded therein is corroborated by >> that found in Moritz' survey of LAB members. Respondents to both >> surveys reported avg. of about 14 years cycling experience, so the >> rates found can not be said to represent the bulk of cyclists. >> >> Note also that Kifer's is a real survey with a clearly stated >> methodology, unlike the 'data' that Frank produced (which appeared as >> a graphic sidebar to an article about car fires in Design News >> magazine from 15 years ago, with no explanation or methodology given >> whatsoever.) It's interesting that Frank throws these numbers out and >> expects others to prostate themselves in front of the 'data,' but >> please don't really look into it or you'll immediately realize how >> laughably flimsy it all is. It does not come close to being usable >> data. >> ... >> >> > People hurt themselves in thousands of ways, and some people can >> > imagine even more ways to get hurt. But imagination isn't data. If >> > you want to prove an activity is unusually dangerous, you need data - >> > and the best data is comparative data on a per-hour-exposure basis. >> >> > If you can't produce such data, you're just venting your own >> > paranoia. And ISTM that everybody here believes that's the case. >> >> "...it's interesting to look at the numbers. Just don't take them very >> seriously." --Ken Kifer >> >> It's also interesting to look at Frank, just don't take him very >> seriously. > > Kifer tabulated responses about bicycling injuries from a total of 231 > self-selected bicyclists who happened to log in to his internet site, > noticed his survey, and felt like spending the time to respond to his > lengthy questionnaire: > > www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/survey/sept01.htm > > Unfortunately, self-selected surveys are not very useful. Few people > are willing to fill out whole forms if they can only say no, never, > nope, not at all, uh-uh, not to me and so on. > > What kind of results would you expect from a similar survey about > injuries and accidents on a car site? Would people who've never been > hurt bother to fill out the tedious form? Would they even be visiting > the site? Would you expect the data to provide a wildly inflated > notion of the real risk involved in using cars? > > The vast majority of U.S. bicyclists never visit internet bicycling > sites, rarely discuss bicycles with their friends, and would be amused > by the notion that bicycling is dangerous. Awright! Thanks for writing this up. -- Michael Press           Date: 01 Sep 2007 13:16:36 From: Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors On Aug 31, 8:17 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > ... That is, if cars offer > so much more protection than bikes, why is an hour of bike riding not > way more dangerous than an hour of motoring? www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/survey/sept01.htm "...an injury is 33 times more likely to occur from riding a bike as opposed to driving a car for the same distance." Kifer found 'serious injury' to be 19 times more likely for cyclists. Per hour numbers are likely to look not as bad, but still relatively poor for cycling. This is a small survey of limited value; it is interesting to note however that the accident rate recorded therein is corroborated by that found in Moritz' survey of LAB members. Respondents to both surveys reported avg. of about 14 years cycling experience, so the rates found can not be said to represent the bulk of cyclists. Note also that Kifer's is a real survey with a clearly stated methodology, unlike the 'data' that Frank produced (which appeared as a graphic sidebar to an article about car fires in Design News magazine from 15 years ago, with no explanation or methodology given whatsoever.) It's interesting that Frank throws these numbers out and expects others to prostate themselves in front of the 'data,' but please don't really look into it or you'll immediately realize how laughably flimsy it all is. It does not come close to being usable data. ... > People hurt themselves in thousands of ways, and some people can > imagine even more ways to get hurt. But imagination isn't data. If > you want to prove an activity is unusually dangerous, you need data - > and the best data is comparative data on a per-hour-exposure basis. > > If you can't produce such data, you're just venting your own > paranoia. And ISTM that everybody here believes that's the case. "...it's interesting to look at the numbers. Just don't take them very seriously." --Ken Kifer It's also interesting to look at Frank, just don't take him very seriously. Robert             Date: 05 Sep 2007 17:26:52 From: Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors On Sep 5, 6:38 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > wrote: > > > > You cannot argue base jumping risk versus bicycle risk > > until you can quote per hour numbers for valid > > comparison. Quoting raw numbers is misleading. > > > I can't get those figures until somebody does a study using those > parameters. They won't do the study until enough people get killed that it's > worth studying. > > Can't you figure this out for yourself. Not enough people get killed base > jumping for them to do studies and therefore it's not that dangerous. It > just looks dangerous and it's probably scary as hell. "Greens" is, yet again, posting from a position of ignorance. Here's a link to a table of risks per hour. http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/comparat.html Note that the most dangerous activity listed is skydiving, at 128 fatalities per hour of participation. Cycling is rated at 0.26 fatalities per hour. Base jumping is reckoned to be much more dangerous than ordinary skydiving, but I think we can use 128 fatalities per hour as a very conservative estimate. Obviously, its danger completely eclipses the tiny danger of bicycling, by a 500-to-1 margin. Not that there's much point to this. The anonymous "Greens" is absolutely intent on ignoring any and all data, and on mocking anyone who knows more than he does - which, it seems, is a huge number of people. I'm going to suggest, once again, that "Greens" simply give up cycling. It's something he's afraid of, something he's not very good at, and something he's hurting by his continued whining. I'm also going to suggest he stop reading these discussions. He's obviously not willing to learn anything, and I think we've reached the point where even the lurkers have decided he's a complete waste of time. "Greens," if you want to discuss something more substantial than your phobias and your weird videos, let me know. Until then, I'm hoping to bow out. Oh, and good luck on designing your odd little gizmo. Let us know when you've got it working. ;-) - Frank Krygowski               Date: 06 Sep 2007 00:17:39 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors <frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1189038412.616932.147980@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 5, 6:38 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: >> >> >> > You cannot argue base jumping risk versus bicycle risk >> > until you can quote per hour numbers for valid >> > comparison. Quoting raw numbers is misleading. >> >> >> I can't get those figures until somebody does a study using those >> parameters. They won't do the study until enough people get killed that >> it's >> worth studying. >> >> Can't you figure this out for yourself. Not enough people get killed base >> jumping for them to do studies and therefore it's not that dangerous. It >> just looks dangerous and it's probably scary as hell. > > "Greens" is, yet again, posting from a position of ignorance. > > Here's a link to a table of risks per hour. > http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/comparat.html > > Note that the most dangerous activity listed is skydiving, at 128 > fatalities per hour of participation. Cycling is rated at 0.26 > fatalities per hour. > > Base jumping is reckoned to be much more dangerous than ordinary > skydiving, but I think we can use 128 fatalities per hour as a very > conservative estimate. Obviously, its danger completely eclipses the > tiny danger of bicycling, by a 500-to-1 margin. > > Not that there's much point to this. The anonymous "Greens" is > absolutely intent on ignoring any and all data, and on mocking anyone > who knows more than he does - which, it seems, is a huge number of > people. > > I'm going to suggest, once again, that "Greens" simply give up > cycling. It's something he's afraid of, something he's not very good > at, and something he's hurting by his continued whining. > > I'm also going to suggest he stop reading these discussions. He's > obviously not willing to learn anything, and I think we've reached the > point where even the lurkers have decided he's a complete waste of > time. > > "Greens," if you want to discuss something more substantial than your > phobias and your weird videos, let me know. Until then, I'm hoping to > bow out. > > Oh, and good luck on designing your odd little gizmo. Let us know > when you've got it working. ;-) > > - Frank Krygowski > 128 dead per million hours of sky diving. Sky diving is done for very brief periods. Probably 2 minutes from jumping out of the plane to touching down. Bicycling can and is done for up to 8 hours a day or up to 240 times longer per incident. Look at it another way. I would think a lifetime skydiver might have a thousand jumps. At 2 minutes each that means 2000 minutes. That's 33.333 hours of skydiving in his whole life and he's a prolific sky diver. A cyclist is probably going to go for at least a 2 hour ride per event. In one 3 month summer period he might rack up 180 hours on the bike. In 40 years of riding that would be 7200 hours of cycling in an active cylist's lifetime. It would take the cyclist about 555.555 lifetimes of riding that way to get killed. Of course they don't mention how Failure analysis associates came to those numbers and I'm suspicious of them as they're not from a university or government agency. The skydiver would have to live 30,000 lifetimes to get a million hours of skydiving. He only has to skydive 7769 hours to die skydiving. That would be 233 lifetimes to die skydiving and that makes skydiving a little more than twice as dangerous as cycling. Of course all these numbers go to shit if the skydiving period per jump is more or less than 2 minutes and I'd need to know how that engineering firm came up with those numbers.             Date: 05 Sep 2007 14:00:54 From: Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors On Sep 5, 3:05 am, r15...@aol.com wrote: > On Sep 4, 8:07 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > > You are "thinking" at the same low level as "Greens" - that is, very, > > very simplistically. > > > I spent today working with a friend who was once seriously hurt in a > > fall from a ladder. Does that incident - and many more like it - mean > > ladders are not reasonably safe? Should the government ban them? Or > > should it mandate lots of protective gear every time someone uses a > > ladder? Will you and our other anonymous poster now try to instill a > > fear of ladders in any readers you can reach? > > Anybody working on a ladder should do so with a respect for the > dangers that are involved with doing that, if they want to avoid being > seriously hurt. The same goes for riding a bike in traffic. Wow, this > is really advanced stuff, isn't it. That's not at all different from what I've said. Our disagreement is about how much to frighten people before they work on ladders or ride bikes in traffic. I don't think fear is the same thing as respect. You apparently do - or at least, you think a person can't have respect without being afraid. > > If so, you'd better get busy with my friend. We were working on my > > roof today. By your standards, he's not sufficiently terrorized! > > Brilliant example, professor! > > Ask any tradesman who routinely climbs ladders at work, even those who > use torches or nail guns, etc., and they'll tell you that using the > ladder is the most dangerous part of their job. These guys all have a > healthy respect for the risks involved. But, at the same time, those tradesmen use ladders. Therefore, they believe them to be reasonably safe. How can this be difficult to understand? > Will you tell them they are > 'terrorized' and 'silly,' that they are irrational loons because using > a ladder is 'reasonably safe?' I don't need to tell them that. It's _you_, not I, that seem to think that "reasonably safe" is totally incompatible with "has caused injury in the past." To spell it out once again: Yes, people are injured or killed using ladders, and I've known several of those people. People are injured and killed using cars, and that includes people I know, too. People are sometimes injured or killed riding bikes, or walking. But none of that is sufficient to "prove" that those activities are not reasonably safe. > I think you're best confining your > arguments to people who don't routinely use ladders, or bikes. I think you're best confining your arguments to people who are prone to phobias! - Frank Krygowski               Date: 05 Sep 2007 15:17:46 From: Clive George Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors <frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1189000854.839070.301850@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... >> I think you're best confining your >> arguments to people who don't routinely use ladders, or bikes. > > I think you're best confining your arguments to people who are prone > to phobias! And who don't understand the difference between hazard, risk and danger. Risk assessments don't just take account of the potential outcome of an activity, they also take account of the probablility. Otherwise they'd all fail at the "Event : 747 falls out of the sky onto your head while doing X. Outcome : death. Conclusion : activity X is too dangerous, don't do it" stage. cheers, clive             Date: 05 Sep 2007 13:43:12 From: Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors On Sep 5, 2:31 am, r15...@aol.com wrote: > On Sep 4, 8:07 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > You seem to be implying that, because I know people injured or killed > > while motoring, that motoring must not be reasonably safe. > > > You are "thinking" at the same low level as "Greens" - that is, very, > > very simplistically. > > > I spent today working with a friend who was once seriously hurt in a > > fall from a ladder. Does that incident - and many more like it - mean > > ladders are not reasonably safe? Should the government ban them? Or > > should it mandate lots of protective gear every time someone uses a > > ladder? Will you and our other anonymous poster now try to instill a > > fear of ladders in any readers you can reach? > > > If so, you'd better get busy with my friend. We were working on my > > roof today. By your standards, he's not sufficiently terrorized! > > > What exactly does that mean, 'reasonably safe?' > > Are you saying that there is no risk worth worrying about when driving > a car? Are you saying that people understand the risks but drive > anyway? Are you saying that anybody who gets nervous behind the wheel > is unreasonable? Are you saying that people don't understand the risks > but drive anyway? > > Please explain. I'll try, although your past responses tell me you'll refuse to understand. (I'm surprised you even _pretend_ this is confusing!) Fortunately, you're not the only reader. I've never said there is "no risk worth worrying about when driving a car." And indeed, "no risk" is NOT part of the definition of "reasonably safe." Perhaps a definition would be this: An activity is reasonably safe if the vast majority of participants have only a very small risk of significant injury, when using reasonable care. Are people who get nervous behind the wheel unreasonable? Not necessarily. Some individuals lack the skills or reflexes or other attributes to drive with reasonable safety. Those people should not drive. (It's regrettable that American society often leaves them no alternative.) But a small percentage of nervous people doesn't condemn an activity as generally dangerous. And I'm not saying that people _don't_ understand the risks, but drive anyway. Most people do understand the tiny risks, and they do drive. They reasonably judge that the risks of driving are acceptably small. And that's how it should be for cycling, because cycling's risks are of a similar, tiny, magnitude. - Frank Krygowski               Date: 05 Sep 2007 12:42:27 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors <frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1188999792.010796.218160@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 5, 2:31 am, r15...@aol.com wrote: >> On Sep 4, 8:07 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> > You seem to be implying that, because I know people injured or killed >> > while motoring, that motoring must not be reasonably safe. >> >> > You are "thinking" at the same low level as "Greens" - that is, very, >> > very simplistically. >> >> > I spent today working with a friend who was once seriously hurt in a >> > fall from a ladder. Does that incident - and many more like it - mean >> > ladders are not reasonably safe? Should the government ban them? Or >> > should it mandate lots of protective gear every time someone uses a >> > ladder? Will you and our other anonymous poster now try to instill a >> > fear of ladders in any readers you can reach? >> >> > If so, you'd better get busy with my friend. We were working on my >> > roof today. By your standards, he's not sufficiently terrorized! >> >> >> What exactly does that mean, 'reasonably safe?' >> >> Are you saying that there is no risk worth worrying about when driving >> a car? Are you saying that people understand the risks but drive >> anyway? Are you saying that anybody who gets nervous behind the wheel >> is unreasonable? Are you saying that people don't understand the risks >> but drive anyway? >> >> Please explain. > > I'll try, although your past responses tell me you'll refuse to > understand. (I'm surprised you even _pretend_ this is confusing!) > Fortunately, you're not the only reader. > > I've never said there is "no risk worth worrying about when driving a > car." And indeed, "no risk" is NOT part of the definition of > "reasonably safe." Perhaps a definition would be this: An activity > is reasonably safe if the vast majority of participants have only a > very small risk of significant injury, when using reasonable care. > > Are people who get nervous behind the wheel unreasonable? Not > necessarily. Some individuals lack the skills or reflexes or other > attributes to drive with reasonable safety. Those people should not > drive. (It's regrettable that American society often leaves them no > alternative.) But a small percentage of nervous people doesn't > condemn an activity as generally dangerous. > > And I'm not saying that people _don't_ understand the risks, but drive > anyway. Most people do understand the tiny risks, and they do drive. > They reasonably judge that the risks of driving are acceptably > small. > > And that's how it should be for cycling, because cycling's risks are > of a similar, tiny, magnitude. > > - Frank Krygowski > The definition of magnitude is "greatness of size or amount" so you think cycling's risks are of a "tiny greatness of size or amount". "The risks of cycling are of a tiny greatness." - Frank Not really a quote, but I think you've shown that subliminally you know the risks are pretty high with your bizarre choice of words.             Date: 01 Sep 2007 19:19:26 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors <r15757@aol.com > wrote in message news:1188677796.941424.119200@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 31, 8:17 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > >> ... That is, if cars offer >> so much more protection than bikes, why is an hour of bike riding not >> way more dangerous than an hour of motoring? > > > www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/survey/sept01.htm > > "...an injury is 33 times more likely to occur from riding a bike as > opposed to driving a car for the same distance." Kifer found 'serious > injury' to be 19 times more likely for cyclists. Per hour numbers are > likely to look not as bad, but still relatively poor for cycling. > > This is a small survey of limited value; it is interesting to note > however that the accident rate recorded therein is corroborated by > that found in Moritz' survey of LAB members. Respondents to both > surveys reported avg. of about 14 years cycling experience, so the > rates found can not be said to represent the bulk of cyclists. > > Note also that Kifer's is a real survey with a clearly stated > methodology, unlike the 'data' that Frank produced (which appeared as > a graphic sidebar to an article about car fires in Design News > magazine from 15 years ago, with no explanation or methodology given > whatsoever.) It's interesting that Frank throws these numbers out and > expects others to prostate themselves in front of the 'data,' but > please don't really look into it or you'll immediately realize how > laughably flimsy it all is. It does not come close to being usable > data. > > ... >> People hurt themselves in thousands of ways, and some people can >> imagine even more ways to get hurt. But imagination isn't data. If >> you want to prove an activity is unusually dangerous, you need data - >> and the best data is comparative data on a per-hour-exposure basis. >> >> If you can't produce such data, you're just venting your own >> paranoia. And ISTM that everybody here believes that's the case. > > "...it's interesting to look at the numbers. Just don't take them very > seriously." --Ken Kifer > > It's also interesting to look at Frank, just don't take him very > seriously. > > Robert > I hate to say it, but Frank fits the mold that spammer, Vandeman talks about. Frank's so into cycling he doesn't want to face the obvious. He doesn't like others to talk about the obvious and he's not alone on this newsgroup. There's a lot of fear that by talking about the problem changes will happen and they won't be changes that the "group" will like. They might be right, but they might be wrong too. Things could change for the better if effort was put into the problem. It'd be nice to read someday that cycling fatalities are rare. Some things like changing attitudes can be done without improvements to equipment. There can be mandatory cycling training in schools which encourage cycling as something practical for life. People can be taught that they definitely need to watch out for cyclists instead of treating them as nusisances that slow them down, more of a Dutch attitude. Then gadgets can be created to help cyclists see behind them, see through noise and confusion that intersections and changing patterns create. Computer gadgets like that won't cost much. I'd feel a lot better about bicycling if the death rate per year in the USA was 200 and that police actually looked to protect cyclists instead of seeing them as nuisances or people who've never grown up.               Date: 03 Sep 2007 13:13:29 From: Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors On Sep 3, 3:52 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > wrote: > <carlfo...@comcast.net> wrote in message > > > Oldreive's bike roll cage: > > >http://users.edpnet.be/drieww/Oude%20Fotos%20New%20Iron%20Horse.htm > > Interesting design for a trike. Looks like it would be easy to flip end over > end after hitting a big bump or ledge. :-) In other words: "DANGER!! DANGER!!" - Frank Krygowski                 Date: 03 Sep 2007 19:40:22 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors <frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1188850409.457191.183920@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 3, 3:52 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: >> <carlfo...@comcast.net> wrote in message >> >> > Oldreive's bike roll cage: >> >> >http://users.edpnet.be/drieww/Oude%20Fotos%20New%20Iron%20Horse.htm >> >> Interesting design for a trike. Looks like it would be easy to flip end >> over >> end after hitting a big bump or ledge. > > :-) In other words: "DANGER!! DANGER!!" > > - Frank Krygowski > > That's why the high wheeler design became obsolete - too many people split their heads open. They were replaced with the new "safety" bikes. They haven't changed much since then.               Date: 02 Sep 2007 21:08:13 From: A Muzi Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors >> frkry...@gmail.com wrote: >>> ... That is, if cars offer >>> so much more protection than bikes, why is an hour of bike riding not >>> way more dangerous than an hour of motoring? > <r15757@aol.com> wrote >> www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/survey/sept01.htm >> "...an injury is 33 times more likely to occur from riding a bike as >> opposed to driving a car for the same distance." Kifer found 'serious >> injury' to be 19 times more likely for cyclists. Per hour numbers are >> likely to look not as bad, but still relatively poor for cycling. >> >> This is a small survey of limited value; it is interesting to note >> however that the accident rate recorded therein is corroborated by >> that found in Moritz' survey of LAB members. Respondents to both >> surveys reported avg. of about 14 years cycling experience, so the >> rates found can not be said to represent the bulk of cyclists. >> >> Note also that Kifer's is a real survey with a clearly stated >> methodology, unlike the 'data' that Frank produced (which appeared as >> a graphic sidebar to an article about car fires in Design News >> magazine from 15 years ago, with no explanation or methodology given >> whatsoever.) It's interesting that Frank throws these numbers out and >> expects others to prostate themselves in front of the 'data,' but >> please don't really look into it or you'll immediately realize how >> laughably flimsy it all is. It does not come close to being usable >> data. >> ... >> frkry...@gmail.com wrote: >>> People hurt themselves in thousands of ways, and some people can >>> imagine even more ways to get hurt. But imagination isn't data. If >>> you want to prove an activity is unusually dangerous, you need data - >>> and the best data is comparative data on a per-hour-exposure basis. >>> If you can't produce such data, you're just venting your own >>> paranoia. And ISTM that everybody here believes that's the case. >> "...it's interesting to look at the numbers. Just don't take them very >> seriously." --Ken Kifer >> It's also interesting to look at Frank, just don't take him very >> seriously. Greens wrote: > I hate to say it, but Frank fits the mold that spammer, Vandeman talks > about. Frank's so into cycling he doesn't want to face the obvious. He > doesn't like others to talk about the obvious and he's not alone on this > newsgroup. There's a lot of fear that by talking about the problem changes > will happen and they won't be changes that the "group" will like. They might > be right, but they might be wrong too. Things could change for the better if > effort was put into the problem. It'd be nice to read someday that cycling > fatalities are rare. > > Some things like changing attitudes can be done without improvements to > equipment. There can be mandatory cycling training in schools which > encourage cycling as something practical for life. People can be taught that > they definitely need to watch out for cyclists instead of treating them as > nusisances that slow them down, more of a Dutch attitude. Then gadgets can > be created to help cyclists see behind them, see through noise and confusion > that intersections and changing patterns create. Computer gadgets like that > won't cost much. I'd feel a lot better about bicycling if the death rate per > year in the USA was 200 and that police actually looked to protect cyclists > instead of seeing them as nuisances or people who've never grown up. When it comes to things like "mandatory training" or a cage around my bike or electronic geegaws I'll just quit cycling. Yeccchh. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971                 Date: 02 Sep 2007 22:45:11 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors "A Muzi" <am@yellowjersey.org > wrote in message news:13dmr3glgdd37b@corp.supernews.com... >>> frkry...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> ... That is, if cars offer >>>> so much more protection than bikes, why is an hour of bike riding not >>>> way more dangerous than an hour of motoring? > > >> <r15757@aol.com> wrote >>> www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/survey/sept01.htm >>> "...an injury is 33 times more likely to occur from riding a bike as >>> opposed to driving a car for the same distance." Kifer found 'serious >>> injury' to be 19 times more likely for cyclists. Per hour numbers are >>> likely to look not as bad, but still relatively poor for cycling. >>> >>> This is a small survey of limited value; it is interesting to note >>> however that the accident rate recorded therein is corroborated by >>> that found in Moritz' survey of LAB members. Respondents to both >>> surveys reported avg. of about 14 years cycling experience, so the >>> rates found can not be said to represent the bulk of cyclists. >>> >>> Note also that Kifer's is a real survey with a clearly stated >>> methodology, unlike the 'data' that Frank produced (which appeared as >>> a graphic sidebar to an article about car fires in Design News >>> magazine from 15 years ago, with no explanation or methodology given >>> whatsoever.) It's interesting that Frank throws these numbers out and >>> expects others to prostate themselves in front of the 'data,' but >>> please don't really look into it or you'll immediately realize how >>> laughably flimsy it all is. It does not come close to being usable >>> data. >>> ... > >>> frkry...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> People hurt themselves in thousands of ways, and some people can >>>> imagine even more ways to get hurt. But imagination isn't data. If >>>> you want to prove an activity is unusually dangerous, you need data - >>>> and the best data is comparative data on a per-hour-exposure basis. >>>> If you can't produce such data, you're just venting your own >>>> paranoia. And ISTM that everybody here believes that's the case. > >>> "...it's interesting to look at the numbers. Just don't take them very >>> seriously." --Ken Kifer >>> It's also interesting to look at Frank, just don't take him very >>> seriously. > > Greens wrote: >> I hate to say it, but Frank fits the mold that spammer, Vandeman talks >> about. Frank's so into cycling he doesn't want to face the obvious. He >> doesn't like others to talk about the obvious and he's not alone on this >> newsgroup. There's a lot of fear that by talking about the problem >> changes will happen and they won't be changes that the "group" will like. >> They might be right, but they might be wrong too. Things could change for >> the better if effort was put into the problem. It'd be nice to read >> someday that cycling fatalities are rare. >> >> Some things like changing attitudes can be done without improvements to >> equipment. There can be mandatory cycling training in schools which >> encourage cycling as something practical for life. People can be taught >> that they definitely need to watch out for cyclists instead of treating >> them as nusisances that slow them down, more of a Dutch attitude. Then >> gadgets can be created to help cyclists see behind them, see through >> noise and confusion that intersections and changing patterns create. >> Computer gadgets like that won't cost much. I'd feel a lot better about >> bicycling if the death rate per year in the USA was 200 and that police >> actually looked to protect cyclists instead of seeing them as nuisances >> or people who've never grown up. > > When it comes to things like "mandatory training" or a cage around my bike > or electronic geegaws I'll just quit cycling. Yeccchh. > -- > Andrew Muzi > www.yellowjersey.org > Open every day since 1 April, 1971 The training would be for motorists mostly. Motorists should be taught to expect cyclists to do odd things and things that are against the rules. Of course kids should learn the rules when they're in school too. Dont see why you'd be against an electronic gadget if it can save you some of that neck swiveling you have to do all the time.             Date: 01 Sep 2007 14:12:28 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors r15757@aol.com wrote: > On Aug 31, 8:17 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > >> ... That is, if cars offer >> so much more protection than bikes, why is an hour of bike riding not >> way more dangerous than an hour of motoring? > > > www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/survey/sept01.htm > > "...an injury is 33 times more likely to occur from riding a bike as > opposed to driving a car for the same distance." Kifer found 'serious > injury' to be 19 times more likely for cyclists. Per hour numbers are > likely to look not as bad, but still relatively poor for cycling. > > This is a small survey of limited value; it is interesting to note > however that the accident rate recorded therein is corroborated by > that found in Moritz' survey of LAB members. Respondents to both > surveys reported avg. of about 14 years cycling experience, so the > rates found can not be said to represent the bulk of cyclists. > > Note also that Kifer's is a real survey with a clearly stated > methodology, unlike the 'data' that Frank produced (which appeared as > a graphic sidebar to an article about car fires in Design News > magazine from 15 years ago, with no explanation or methodology given > whatsoever.) It's interesting that Frank throws these numbers out and > expects others to prostate themselves in front of the 'data,' but > please don't really look into it or you'll immediately realize how > laughably flimsy it all is. It does not come close to being usable > data. All you have to know about Frank: "Walking to get around is roughly twice as dangerous as riding a bike." ROTFL (Actually, THAT's more dangerous, too!) > ... >> People hurt themselves in thousands of ways, and some people can >> imagine even more ways to get hurt. But imagination isn't data. If >> you want to prove an activity is unusually dangerous, you need data - >> and the best data is comparative data on a per-hour-exposure basis. >> >> If you can't produce such data, you're just venting your own >> paranoia. And ISTM that everybody here believes that's the case. > > "...it's interesting to look at the numbers. Just don't take them very > seriously." --Ken Kifer > > It's also interesting to look at Frank, just don't take him very > seriously. "Walking to get around is roughly twice as dangerous as riding a bike." -- Frank's Folly               Date: 01 Sep 2007 19:21:12 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote in message news:46d9d547$0$18793$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > r15757@aol.com wrote: >> On Aug 31, 8:17 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: >> >>> ... That is, if cars offer >>> so much more protection than bikes, why is an hour of bike riding not >>> way more dangerous than an hour of motoring? >> >> >> www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/survey/sept01.htm >> >> "...an injury is 33 times more likely to occur from riding a bike as >> opposed to driving a car for the same distance." Kifer found 'serious >> injury' to be 19 times more likely for cyclists. Per hour numbers are >> likely to look not as bad, but still relatively poor for cycling. >> >> This is a small survey of limited value; it is interesting to note >> however that the accident rate recorded therein is corroborated by >> that found in Moritz' survey of LAB members. Respondents to both >> surveys reported avg. of about 14 years cycling experience, so the >> rates found can not be said to represent the bulk of cyclists. >> >> Note also that Kifer's is a real survey with a clearly stated >> methodology, unlike the 'data' that Frank produced (which appeared as >> a graphic sidebar to an article about car fires in Design News >> magazine from 15 years ago, with no explanation or methodology given >> whatsoever.) It's interesting that Frank throws these numbers out and >> expects others to prostate themselves in front of the 'data,' but >> please don't really look into it or you'll immediately realize how >> laughably flimsy it all is. It does not come close to being usable >> data. > > All you have to know about Frank: "Walking to get around is roughly twice > as dangerous as riding a bike." > > ROTFL (Actually, THAT's more dangerous, too!) > >> ... >>> People hurt themselves in thousands of ways, and some people can >>> imagine even more ways to get hurt. But imagination isn't data. If >>> you want to prove an activity is unusually dangerous, you need data - >>> and the best data is comparative data on a per-hour-exposure basis. >>> >>> If you can't produce such data, you're just venting your own >>> paranoia. And ISTM that everybody here believes that's the case. >> >> "...it's interesting to look at the numbers. Just don't take them very >> seriously." --Ken Kifer >> >> It's also interesting to look at Frank, just don't take him very >> seriously. > > "Walking to get around is roughly twice as dangerous as riding a bike." > -- Frank's Folly > Hah. Yea. I've walked for years on roads and sidewalks. I have more white knuckle experinces cycling in two weeks than I do in ten years walking.           Date: 01 Sep 2007 10:45:51 From: Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors On Aug 31, 11:00 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > wrote: > <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > > > What you've done, yet again, is mention several possibilities that > > scare you. You've described things that _could_ possibly hurt a > > bicyclist. > > > But you can't seem to understand that they almost always _don't_ hurt > > cyclists. Perhaps you should figure out why. That is, if cars offer > > so much more protection than bikes, why is an hour of bike riding not > > way more dangerous than an hour of motoring? If any car that passes > > you can contain a drunk that kills you, why are so few cyclists killed > > in a year? Why don't we hear about all the cyclists who run into dead > > deer carcasses and are thrown in front of cars that squash them? > > > People hurt themselves in thousands of ways, and some people can > > imagine even more ways to get hurt. But imagination isn't data. If > > you want to prove an activity is unusually dangerous, you need data - > > and the best data is comparative data on a per-hour-exposure basis. > > > If you can't produce such data, you're just venting your own > > paranoia. And ISTM that everybody here believes that's the case. > > > - Frank Krygowski > > Here's your stats...http://www.physsportsmed.com/issues/1999/08_99/cantu.htm > > 2 fatalities playing tennis in the fall between the years of 1982 and 1996. > This is out of all the high school students playing tennis on high school > teams. Total of 2 fatalities in 14 years. > > During that same period I think I would be safe in saying 500 bicyclists > were killed per year. It was probably a lot more though. I'll just take a > quarter, no a fifth of that number since it's just the fall season. That > would be 100 fatalities per year cycling. Times 14 = 1400 > > 1400 bicycling vs. 2 playing tennis > Bicycling is dangerous. What you mean to say is, perhaps, "bicycling is dangerous compared to playing tennis under high school or college supervision." Your source is not including _all_ tennis playing, only that done on scholastic teams and clubs. A fair comparison would thus be with high school and college bicycle teams and clubs. Still, I'm willing to accept that bicycling is more dangerous than playing tennis. In another news flash, bicycling can probably be shown to be more dangerous than knitting. But that does not prove bicycling is dangerous, in any absolute sense. How do we define "dangerous" in an absolute sense? There is no simple definition. First, "danger" usually implies either fatality or serious injury, but how do we equate those? How many broken hips are equivalent to a quadriplegia, and how many count as one fatality? Skydiving causes mostly nice, clean deaths, while motoring causes lots more messy near-fatalities with permanent disabilities. We'd need a way to compare the two. If we could settle that, and if we had perfect data for every conceivable activity, we might be able to rank every activity in increasing order of "danger." But at what level would you apply the label "dangerous"? Would you say one fatality (or its equivalent) per hundred thousand hours activity is "safe enough," but 1.1 fatalities per hundred thousand is "dangerous"? Or should the boundary be one fatality per million hours activity? Whatever you'd choose, you should be consistent. That is, if one activity caused (say) one fatality for every 2 million hours, and another caused one fatality in only one million hours, you shouldn't whine about the first without whining twice as loud about the second. And that's where you are. Walking to get around is roughly twice as dangerous as riding a bike. You can find different estimates of the specific numbers, but per-hour rates for pedestrians are always worse than those for cyclists, from what I can tell. Per hour rates for motorists are, very roughly, about equal to that for bicyclists. So whine about how dangerous walking is. Whine about how dangerous driving is. If you have time left over, I suppose you can whine about bicycling. And then you can use your tennis playing to get yourself to work, to school, to the store... because we all know how useful tennis playing is! Heck, it's almost as useful as knitting! - Frank Krygowski             Date: 01 Sep 2007 15:31:57 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors <frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1188668751.933305.201130@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 31, 11:00 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: >> <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >> > What you've done, yet again, is mention several possibilities that >> > scare you. You've described things that _could_ possibly hurt a >> > bicyclist. >> >> > But you can't seem to understand that they almost always _don't_ hurt >> > cyclists. Perhaps you should figure out why. That is, if cars offer >> > so much more protection than bikes, why is an hour of bike riding not >> > way more dangerous than an hour of motoring? If any car that passes >> > you can contain a drunk that kills you, why are so few cyclists killed >> > in a year? Why don't we hear about all the cyclists who run into dead >> > deer carcasses and are thrown in front of cars that squash them? >> >> > People hurt themselves in thousands of ways, and some people can >> > imagine even more ways to get hurt. But imagination isn't data. If >> > you want to prove an activity is unusually dangerous, you need data - >> > and the best data is comparative data on a per-hour-exposure basis. >> >> > If you can't produce such data, you're just venting your own >> > paranoia. And ISTM that everybody here believes that's the case. >> >> > - Frank Krygowski >> >> Here's your >> stats...http://www.physsportsmed.com/issues/1999/08_99/cantu.htm >> >> 2 fatalities playing tennis in the fall between the years of 1982 and >> 1996. >> This is out of all the high school students playing tennis on high school >> teams. Total of 2 fatalities in 14 years. >> >> During that same period I think I would be safe in saying 500 bicyclists >> were killed per year. It was probably a lot more though. I'll just take a >> quarter, no a fifth of that number since it's just the fall season. That >> would be 100 fatalities per year cycling. Times 14 = 1400 >> >> 1400 bicycling vs. 2 playing tennis >> Bicycling is dangerous. > > What you mean to say is, perhaps, "bicycling is dangerous compared to > playing tennis under high school or college supervision." Your source > is not including _all_ tennis playing, only that done on scholastic > teams and clubs. A fair comparison would thus be with high school and > college bicycle teams and clubs. > > Still, I'm willing to accept that bicycling is more dangerous than > playing tennis. In another news flash, bicycling can probably be > shown to be more dangerous than knitting. But that does not prove > bicycling is dangerous, in any absolute sense. > > How do we define "dangerous" in an absolute sense? There is no simple > definition. First, "danger" usually implies either fatality or > serious injury, but how do we equate those? How many broken hips are > equivalent to a quadriplegia, and how many count as one fatality? > Skydiving causes mostly nice, clean deaths, while motoring causes lots > more messy near-fatalities with permanent disabilities. We'd need a > way to compare the two. > > If we could settle that, and if we had perfect data for every > conceivable activity, we might be able to rank every activity in > increasing order of "danger." But at what level would you apply the > label "dangerous"? Would you say one fatality (or its equivalent) per > hundred thousand hours activity is "safe enough," but 1.1 fatalities > per hundred thousand is "dangerous"? Or should the boundary be one > fatality per million hours activity? > > Whatever you'd choose, you should be consistent. That is, if one > activity caused (say) one fatality for every 2 million hours, and > another caused one fatality in only one million hours, you shouldn't > whine about the first without whining twice as loud about the second. > > And that's where you are. Walking to get around is roughly twice as > dangerous as riding a bike. You can find different estimates of the > specific numbers, but per-hour rates for pedestrians are always worse > than those for cyclists, from what I can tell. Per hour rates for > motorists are, very roughly, about equal to that for bicyclists. > > So whine about how dangerous walking is. Whine about how dangerous > driving is. If you have time left over, I suppose you can whine about > bicycling. > > And then you can use your tennis playing to get yourself to work, to > school, to the store... because we all know how useful tennis playing > is! Heck, it's almost as useful as knitting! > > - Frank Krygowski > You would need more data to prove that it is hazardous to fly into the sun because in an "absolute sense" you are just an annoying, childish idiot on this topic. STFU and go play tennis on a busy road.           Date: 29 Aug 2007 23:37:19 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors Greens ??? wrote: > ...Good thing I > slowed because this was not a careful opening of the door. It was wide open > with him proudly displaying himself.... Did you yell "small"? -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com             Date: 30 Aug 2007 10:49:54 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@iinvalid.com > wrote in message news:46d63d74$0$16315$88260bb3@free.teranews.com... > Greens ??? wrote: >> ...Good thing I slowed because this was not a careful opening of the >> door. It was wide open with him proudly displaying himself.... > > Did you yell "small"? What? Is your comment supposed to make sense to me or is it some kind of inside joke? > > -- > Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia > A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom. > > -- > Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >           Date: 28 Aug 2007 16:24:13 From: Luke Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors In article <WvSdnW_0iYAy4UnbnZ2dnUVZ_oimnZ2d@adelphia.com >, Greens <prbj@adelphia.net > wrote: > "Luke" <lucasiragusa@rogers.com> wrote in message > news:280820071530446521%lucasiragusa@rogers.com... > > In article <cLadneTjvM7Ur0nbnZ2dnUVZ_hOdnZ2d@adelphia.com>, Greens > > <prbj@adelphia.net> wrote: > > > >> I have a mirror, but I find that it takes time to scan behind me, to the > >> sides and front and to be sure that I'm right about what I'm seeing. IMO > >> It > >> takes more time to scan things behind than it does to scan things to the > >> front because that's what we're designed to do. > >> > >> You've never had to change your plans? You've never been forced to ride > >> next > >> to a car door because things changed while you were in the middle of > >> doing > >> something? > > > > <snip> > > > > What do you mean by 'while you were in the middle of doing something'? > > Sure unforeseen hazards can quickly arise, requiring evasive action, > > but you make it sound as if the act of riding is just one of many > > distractions while astride the bicycle. How about making it the chief > > preoccupation? Then you'll benefit by fewer surprises when doing > > something else. > > When I talk about doing something else, I'm talking about monitoring some > other hazard. Things are constantly changing when you and traffic are moving > along. Parked cars are not the only thing to worry about. People can close > in from behind very fast, cars can pull up on sidestreets, cracks prove to > be a hazard once you near them. > > Today I was on the way home, going downhill about 15 or 20mph. A garbage > truck and a recycling truck were parked facing the wrong way on the other > side. After I went by them, they caught up to me and passed me and then > stopped blocking nearly the whole right lane of a country road rated for 55 > mph. If I took the shoulder I risked getting doored by someone getting out > the passenger side. I chose to go around into oncoming traffic as I had > pretty good visiblility. Had to check behind first, but there wasn't much > time. I had to slow as I passed them and then... sure enough the garbage > man got out the driver's door (probably thinking, "why didn't he go around > the shoulder where I left him room) (answer, I didn't trust him and had > little experience with garbage trucks on this kind of road.). Good thing I > slowed because this was not a careful opening of the door. It was wide open > with him proudly displaying himself. I was practically in the oncoming > shoulder. I blasted past and got back in the proper lane, took the first > side road. > > Must have been half a dozen or more decisions to make in 20 seconds to > constantly changing surroundings. A typical scenario for urban cyclists -- and rarely is there a situation that isn't instructional. From my understanding of your account there was another option available to you -- one too rarely exercised by motorists and cyclists alike: you could've stopped. Now the decision on how to proceed is no longer time critical so take the time you need. Making eye contact with the driver of the truck via his rear view mirror and signalling your intent or he signalling his would've avoided the near door prize. If mute communication was not possible for whatever reason you could've simply waited for further developments; after a few moments the driver exiting from his cab would've removed the potentially hazardous variable your consideration.             Date: 28 Aug 2007 17:14:38 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors "Luke" <lucasiragusa@rogers.com > wrote in message news:280820071624139042%lucasiragusa@rogers.com... > In article <WvSdnW_0iYAy4UnbnZ2dnUVZ_oimnZ2d@adelphia.com>, Greens > <prbj@adelphia.net> wrote: > >> "Luke" <lucasiragusa@rogers.com> wrote in message >> news:280820071530446521%lucasiragusa@rogers.com... >> > In article <cLadneTjvM7Ur0nbnZ2dnUVZ_hOdnZ2d@adelphia.com>, Greens >> > <prbj@adelphia.net> wrote: >> > >> >> I have a mirror, but I find that it takes time to scan behind me, to >> >> the >> >> sides and front and to be sure that I'm right about what I'm seeing. >> >> IMO >> >> It >> >> takes more time to scan things behind than it does to scan things to >> >> the >> >> front because that's what we're designed to do. >> >> >> >> You've never had to change your plans? You've never been forced to >> >> ride >> >> next >> >> to a car door because things changed while you were in the middle of >> >> doing >> >> something? >> > >> > <snip> >> > >> > What do you mean by 'while you were in the middle of doing something'? >> > Sure unforeseen hazards can quickly arise, requiring evasive action, >> > but you make it sound as if the act of riding is just one of many >> > distractions while astride the bicycle. How about making it the chief >> > preoccupation? Then you'll benefit by fewer surprises when doing >> > something else. >> >> When I talk about doing something else, I'm talking about monitoring some >> other hazard. Things are constantly changing when you and traffic are >> moving >> along. Parked cars are not the only thing to worry about. People can >> close >> in from behind very fast, cars can pull up on sidestreets, cracks prove >> to >> be a hazard once you near them. >> >> Today I was on the way home, going downhill about 15 or 20mph. A garbage >> truck and a recycling truck were parked facing the wrong way on the other >> side. After I went by them, they caught up to me and passed me and then >> stopped blocking nearly the whole right lane of a country road rated for >> 55 >> mph. If I took the shoulder I risked getting doored by someone getting >> out >> the passenger side. I chose to go around into oncoming traffic as I had >> pretty good visiblility. Had to check behind first, but there wasn't much >> time. I had to slow as I passed them and then... sure enough the garbage >> man got out the driver's door (probably thinking, "why didn't he go >> around >> the shoulder where I left him room) (answer, I didn't trust him and had >> little experience with garbage trucks on this kind of road.). Good thing >> I >> slowed because this was not a careful opening of the door. It was wide >> open >> with him proudly displaying himself. I was practically in the oncoming >> shoulder. I blasted past and got back in the proper lane, took the first >> side road. >> >> Must have been half a dozen or more decisions to make in 20 seconds to >> constantly changing surroundings. > > A typical scenario for urban cyclists -- and rarely is there a > situation that isn't instructional. > > From my understanding of your account there was another option > available to you -- one too rarely exercised by motorists and cyclists > alike: you could've stopped. > > Now the decision on how to proceed is no longer time critical so take > the time you need. Making eye contact with the driver of the truck via > his rear view mirror and signalling your intent or he signalling his > would've avoided the near door prize. If mute communication was not > possible for whatever reason you could've simply waited for further > developments; after a few moments the driver exiting from his cab > would've removed the potentially hazardous variable your consideration. I did consider stopping. If I did, there were probably half a dozen other times during the day I could have stopped and studied the situation. There's also a bit of daredevil in most people. There's an exhileration you get from making a fast decision and carrying it out. You don't get that by stopping and most cyclists hate stopping. I sure hating stopping for every intersection and light. I prefer to slowly roll through while sizing things up rather than stand there and bake. Also, cars will just take whatever you don't take. Don't expect them to see you as a vehicle once you've stopped. If you're standing there, you're a pedestrian and an idiot in the middle of the road. Get out of the way is all they're going to think. If you blast past them, it lets them know you're not as dumb and sluggish as they are. Pffft, tell me you've never thought of it that way.               Date: 28 Aug 2007 17:29:04 From: Luke Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors In article <442dnRplV_joEknbnZ2dnUVZ_qWtnZ2d@adelphia.com >, Greens <prbj@adelphia.net > wrote: > "Luke" <lucasiragusa@rogers.com> wrote in message > news:280820071624139042%lucasiragusa@rogers.com... > > In article <WvSdnW_0iYAy4UnbnZ2dnUVZ_oimnZ2d@adelphia.com>, Greens > > <prbj@adelphia.net> wrote: > > > >> "Luke" <lucasiragusa@rogers.com> wrote in message > >> news:280820071530446521%lucasiragusa@rogers.com... > >> > In article <cLadneTjvM7Ur0nbnZ2dnUVZ_hOdnZ2d@adelphia.com>, Greens > >> > <prbj@adelphia.net> wrote: > >> > > >> >> I have a mirror, but I find that it takes time to scan behind me, to > >> >> the > >> >> sides and front and to be sure that I'm right about what I'm seeing. > >> >> IMO > >> >> It > >> >> takes more time to scan things behind than it does to scan things to > >> >> the > >> >> front because that's what we're designed to do. > >> >> > >> >> You've never had to change your plans? You've never been forced to > >> >> ride > >> >> next > >> >> to a car door because things changed while you were in the middle of > >> >> doing > >> >> something? > >> > > >> > <snip> > >> > > >> > What do you mean by 'while you were in the middle of doing something'? > >> > Sure unforeseen hazards can quickly arise, requiring evasive action, > >> > but you make it sound as if the act of riding is just one of many > >> > distractions while astride the bicycle. How about making it the chief > >> > preoccupation? Then you'll benefit by fewer surprises when doing > >> > something else. > >> > >> When I talk about doing something else, I'm talking about monitoring some > >> other hazard. Things are constantly changing when you and traffic are > >> moving > >> along. Parked cars are not the only thing to worry about. People can > >> close > >> in from behind very fast, cars can pull up on sidestreets, cracks prove > >> to > >> be a hazard once you near them. > >> > >> Today I was on the way home, going downhill about 15 or 20mph. A garbage > >> truck and a recycling truck were parked facing the wrong way on the other > >> side. After I went by them, they caught up to me and passed me and then > >> stopped blocking nearly the whole right lane of a country road rated for > >> 55 > >> mph. If I took the shoulder I risked getting doored by someone getting > >> out > >> the passenger side. I chose to go around into oncoming traffic as I had > >> pretty good visiblility. Had to check behind first, but there wasn't much > >> time. I had to slow as I passed them and then... sure enough the garbage > >> man got out the driver's door (probably thinking, "why didn't he go > >> around > >> the shoulder where I left him room) (answer, I didn't trust him and had > >> little experience with garbage trucks on this kind of road.). Good thing > >> I > >> slowed because this was not a careful opening of the door. It was wide > >> open > >> with him proudly displaying himself. I was practically in the oncoming > >> shoulder. I blasted past and got back in the proper lane, took the first > >> side road. > >> > >> Must have been half a dozen or more decisions to make in 20 seconds to > >> constantly changing surroundings. > > > > A typical scenario for urban cyclists -- and rarely is there a > > situation that isn't instructional. > > > > From my understanding of your account there was another option > > available to you -- one too rarely exercised by motorists and cyclists > > alike: you could've stopped. > > > > Now the decision on how to proceed is no longer time critical so take > > the time you need. Making eye contact with the driver of the truck via > > his rear view mirror and signalling your intent or he signalling his > > would've avoided the near door prize. If mute communication was not > > possible for whatever reason you could've simply waited for further > > developments; after a few moments the driver exiting from his cab > > would've removed the potentially hazardous variable your consideration. > > I did consider stopping. If I did, there were probably half a dozen other > times during the day I could have stopped and studied the situation. There's > also a bit of daredevil in most people. There's an exhileration you get from > making a fast decision and carrying it out. You don't get that by stopping > and most cyclists hate stopping. I sure hating stopping for every > intersection and light. So do I and often I don't. But even more I hate ending up as a hood ornament or embedding myself in the open door of a truck's cab. > I prefer to slowly roll through while sizing things > up rather than stand there and bake. Also, cars will just take whatever you > don't take. Don't expect them to see you as a vehicle once you've stopped. I do expect them to see me as a vehicle once I'm stopped. In your case, with the sanitation engineers parked in front, do you really expect the motorists behind to 'take' what's yours, i.e., your space? In order to do what exactly, perform a four wheeled colonoscopy up the ass end of garbage truck? > If you're standing there, you're a pedestrian and an idiot in the middle of > the road. Get out of the way is all they're going to think. If you blast > past them, it lets them know you're not as dumb and sluggish as they are. > Pffft, tell me you've never thought of it that way. Sure, I've thought that, and many other foolish things besides.                 Date: 28 Aug 2007 17:56:08 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors "Luke" <lucasiragusa@rogers.com > wrote in message news:280820071729042419%lucasiragusa@rogers.com... > In article <442dnRplV_joEknbnZ2dnUVZ_qWtnZ2d@adelphia.com>, Greens > <prbj@adelphia.net> wrote: > >> "Luke" <lucasiragusa@rogers.com> wrote in message >> news:280820071624139042%lucasiragusa@rogers.com... >> > In article <WvSdnW_0iYAy4UnbnZ2dnUVZ_oimnZ2d@adelphia.com>, Greens >> > <prbj@adelphia.net> wrote: >> > >> >> "Luke" <lucasiragusa@rogers.com> wrote in message >> >> news:280820071530446521%lucasiragusa@rogers.com... >> >> > In article <cLadneTjvM7Ur0nbnZ2dnUVZ_hOdnZ2d@adelphia.com>, Greens >> >> > <prbj@adelphia.net> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> I have a mirror, but I find that it takes time to scan behind me, >> >> >> to >> >> >> the >> >> >> sides and front and to be sure that I'm right about what I'm >> >> >> seeing. >> >> >> IMO >> >> >> It >> >> >> takes more time to scan things behind than it does to scan things >> >> >> to >> >> >> the >> >> >> front because that's what we're designed to do. >> >> >> >> >> >> You've never had to change your plans? You've never been forced to >> >> >> ride >> >> >> next >> >> >> to a car door because things changed while you were in the middle >> >> >> of >> >> >> doing >> >> >> something? >> >> > >> >> > <snip> >> >> > >> >> > What do you mean by 'while you were in the middle of doing >> >> > something'? >> >> > Sure unforeseen hazards can quickly arise, requiring evasive action, >> >> > but you make it sound as if the act of riding is just one of many >> >> > distractions while astride the bicycle. How about making it the >> >> > chief >> >> > preoccupation? Then you'll benefit by fewer surprises when doing >> >> > something else. >> >> >> >> When I talk about doing something else, I'm talking about monitoring >> >> some >> >> other hazard. Things are constantly changing when you and traffic are >> >> moving >> >> along. Parked cars are not the only thing to worry about. People can >> >> close >> >> in from behind very fast, cars can pull up on sidestreets, cracks >> >> prove >> >> to >> >> be a hazard once you near them. >> >> >> >> Today I was on the way home, going downhill about 15 or 20mph. A >> >> garbage >> >> truck and a recycling truck were parked facing the wrong way on the >> >> other >> >> side. After I went by them, they caught up to me and passed me and >> >> then >> >> stopped blocking nearly the whole right lane of a country road rated >> >> for >> >> 55 >> >> mph. If I took the shoulder I risked getting doored by someone getting >> >> out >> >> the passenger side. I chose to go around into oncoming traffic as I >> >> had >> >> pretty good visiblility. Had to check behind first, but there wasn't >> >> much >> >> time. I had to slow as I passed them and then... sure enough the >> >> garbage >> >> man got out the driver's door (probably thinking, "why didn't he go >> >> around >> >> the shoulder where I left him room) (answer, I didn't trust him and >> >> had >> >> little experience with garbage trucks on this kind of road.). Good >> >> thing >> >> I >> >> slowed because this was not a careful opening of the door. It was wide >> >> open >> >> with him proudly displaying himself. I was practically in the oncoming >> >> shoulder. I blasted past and got back in the proper lane, took the >> >> first >> >> side road. >> >> >> >> Must have been half a dozen or more decisions to make in 20 seconds to >> >> constantly changing surroundings. >> > >> > A typical scenario for urban cyclists -- and rarely is there a >> > situation that isn't instructional. >> > >> > From my understanding of your account there was another option >> > available to you -- one too rarely exercised by motorists and cyclists >> > alike: you could've stopped. >> > >> > Now the decision on how to proceed is no longer time critical so take >> > the time you need. Making eye contact with the driver of the truck via >> > his rear view mirror and signalling your intent or he signalling his >> > would've avoided the near door prize. If mute communication was not >> > possible for whatever reason you could've simply waited for further >> > developments; after a few moments the driver exiting from his cab >> > would've removed the potentially hazardous variable your consideration. >> >> I did consider stopping. If I did, there were probably half a dozen other >> times during the day I could have stopped and studied the situation. >> There's >> also a bit of daredevil in most people. There's an exhileration you get >> from >> making a fast decision and carrying it out. You don't get that by >> stopping >> and most cyclists hate stopping. I sure hating stopping for every >> intersection and light. > > So do I and often I don't. But even more I hate ending up as a hood > ornament or embedding myself in the open door of a truck's cab. > >> I prefer to slowly roll through while sizing things >> up rather than stand there and bake. Also, cars will just take whatever >> you >> don't take. Don't expect them to see you as a vehicle once you've >> stopped. > > I do expect them to see me as a vehicle once I'm stopped. In your case, > with the sanitation engineers parked in front, do you really expect the > motorists behind to 'take' what's yours, i.e., your space? In order to > do what exactly, perform a four wheeled colonoscopy up the ass end of > garbage truck? > >> If you're standing there, you're a pedestrian and an idiot in the middle >> of >> the road. Get out of the way is all they're going to think. If you blast >> past them, it lets them know you're not as dumb and sluggish as they are. >> Pffft, tell me you've never thought of it that way. > > Sure, I've thought that, and many other foolish things besides. So you would have stopped as in complete stop and get off the bike behind the last garbage truck, give it some thought and then... what? By then they would have started up again and you'd have to repeat the next time they stopped. Or do you mean slow way down, size things up and pass on the left like I did? I didn't want to get too close. I can't see when I'm behind them and I wanted to pass before they started going again so I slowed.                   Date: 28 Aug 2007 18:19:37 From: Luke Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 17:56:08 -0400, "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net > wrote: >So you would have stopped as in complete stop and get off the bike behind >the last garbage truck, give it some thought and then... what? By then they >would have started up again and you'd have to repeat the next time they >stopped. I would've stopped and while still astride the bike tried to make eye contact with the drive to determine his and/or signal my intent. Failing that, once the driver exited the vehicle and the way was clear I would've passed the truck. I don't anticipate a repetition of the routine is required; my experience is that even a leisurely cyclist can stay ahead of a garbage truck making pickups.             Date: 28 Aug 2007 20:49:01 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors In article <280820071624139042%lucasiragusa@rogers.com >, Luke <lucasiragusa@rogers.com > wrote: > In article <WvSdnW_0iYAy4UnbnZ2dnUVZ_oimnZ2d@adelphia.com>, Greens > <prbj@adelphia.net> wrote: > > > "Luke" <lucasiragusa@rogers.com> wrote in message > > news:280820071530446521%lucasiragusa@rogers.com... > > > In article <cLadneTjvM7Ur0nbnZ2dnUVZ_hOdnZ2d@adelphia.com>, Greens > > > <prbj@adelphia.net> wrote: > > > > > >> I have a mirror, but I find that it takes time to scan behind me, to the > > >> sides and front and to be sure that I'm right about what I'm seeing. IMO > > >> It > > >> takes more time to scan things behind than it does to scan things to the > > >> front because that's what we're designed to do. > > >> > > >> You've never had to change your plans? You've never been forced to ride > > >> next > > >> to a car door because things changed while you were in the middle of > > >> doing > > >> something? > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > What do you mean by 'while you were in the middle of doing something'? > > > Sure unforeseen hazards can quickly arise, requiring evasive action, > > > but you make it sound as if the act of riding is just one of many > > > distractions while astride the bicycle. How about making it the chief > > > preoccupation? Then you'll benefit by fewer surprises when doing > > > something else. > > > > When I talk about doing something else, I'm talking about monitoring some > > other hazard. Things are constantly changing when you and traffic are moving > > along. Parked cars are not the only thing to worry about. People can close > > in from behind very fast, cars can pull up on sidestreets, cracks prove to > > be a hazard once you near them. > > > > Today I was on the way home, going downhill about 15 or 20mph. A garbage > > truck and a recycling truck were parked facing the wrong way on the other > > side. After I went by them, they caught up to me and passed me and then > > stopped blocking nearly the whole right lane of a country road rated for 55 > > mph. If I took the shoulder I risked getting doored by someone getting out > > the passenger side. I chose to go around into oncoming traffic as I had > > pretty good visiblility. Had to check behind first, but there wasn't much > > time. I had to slow as I passed them and then... sure enough the garbage > > man got out the driver's door (probably thinking, "why didn't he go around > > the shoulder where I left him room) (answer, I didn't trust him and had > > little experience with garbage trucks on this kind of road.). Good thing I > > slowed because this was not a careful opening of the door. It was wide open > > with him proudly displaying himself. I was practically in the oncoming > > shoulder. I blasted past and got back in the proper lane, took the first > > side road. > > > > Must have been half a dozen or more decisions to make in 20 seconds to > > constantly changing surroundings. > > A typical scenario for urban cyclists -- and rarely is there a > situation that isn't instructional. > > From my understanding of your account there was another option > available to you -- one too rarely exercised by motorists and cyclists > alike: you could've stopped. > > Now the decision on how to proceed is no longer time critical so take > the time you need. Making eye contact with the driver of the truck via > his rear view mirror and signalling your intent or he signalling his > would've avoided the near door prize. If mute communication was not > possible for whatever reason you could've simply waited for further > developments; after a few moments the driver exiting from his cab > would've removed the potentially hazardous variable your consideration. Excellent advice on stopping. I will reiterate. In confusing situations, pull over and stop. You then have an opportunity to assess and re-assess the situation. Then you can make a good decision. In future, that good decision will be available to you. -- Michael Press       Date: 28 Aug 2007 12:55:17 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors Greens wrote: > I have a mirror, but I find that it takes time to scan behind me, to the > sides and front and to be sure that I'm right about what I'm seeing. IMO It > takes more time to scan things behind than it does to scan things to the > front because that's what we're designed to do. > > You've never had to change your plans? You've never been forced to ride next > to a car door because things changed while you were in the middle of doing > something? Maybe you're some kind of super person. What Robin Hood was to > archery, you are to bicycling. > > Collision avoidance is not a big deal in nature because other creatures in > nature generally are pretty soft. Fast moving manmade things are very hard. > Just thought I should let people know. If there is parking, even sporadic parking, on the road you should be tracking 11 ft from the edge of the road at all times. This provides clearance from the door zone. You shouldn't need to adjust your line. Your presence out in the lane induces caution in passing motorists. They slow and move over. Wayne         Date: 28 Aug 2007 14:23:54 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors Wayne Pein wrote: > If there is parking, even sporadic parking, on the road you should be > tracking 11 ft from the edge of the road at all times. Damn! Wish I'd read this before today's 30-mile ride. I FORGOT TO BRING A TAPE MEASURE! ROTFL           Date: 28 Aug 2007 18:09:37 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors Bill Sornson wrote: > Wayne Pein wrote: > > >>If there is parking, even sporadic parking, on the road you should be >>tracking 11 ft from the edge of the road at all times. > > > Damn! Wish I'd read this before today's 30-mile ride. I FORGOT TO BRING A > TAPE MEASURE! > > ROTFL > > Stalking Ignoramus, 11 ft provides clearance from the door zone. It is not an absolute. Wayne             Date: 28 Aug 2007 15:42:54 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors Wayne "What-a" Pein wrote: > Bill Sornson wrote: >> Wayne Pein wrote: >>> If there is parking, even sporadic parking, on the road you should >>> be tracking 11 ft from the edge of the road at all times. >> Damn! Wish I'd read this before today's 30-mile ride. I FORGOT TO >> BRING A TAPE MEASURE! >> >> ROTFL > Stalking Ignoramus, > > 11 ft provides clearance from the door zone. It is not an absolute. Then you should stop making categorical statements. Absolutely.               Date: 29 Aug 2007 08:22:45 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors Bill Sornson wrote: >> Wayne Pein wrote: >>Stalking Ignoramus, >> >>11 ft provides clearance from the door zone. It is not an absolute. > > > Then you should stop making categorical statements. Absolutely. Stalking Ignoramus, Everyone, except you, recognizes I meant at least 11 feet. Wayne                 Date: 29 Aug 2007 08:32:22 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors Wayne Pein wrote: > Bill Sornson wrote: >>> Wayne Pein wrote: >>> 11 ft provides clearance from the door zone. It is not an absolute. >> Then you should stop making categorical statements. Absolutely. > Stalking Ignoramus, > > Everyone, except you, recognizes I meant at least 11 feet. Which is why you've carefully DELETED your incorrect /directive/. LOL "If there is parking, even sporadic parking, on the road you should be tracking 11 ft from the edge of the road at all times." -- Wayne "What a" Pein If you meant "at least" 11 feet, then you should have said it. After all, you seem to be a nitpricker, so at least be CONSISTENT. HTH Bill "happy to not live in 'Pein's World of Paranoia'" S.                   Date: 29 Aug 2007 12:00:06 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors Bill Sornson wrote: > Wayne Pein wrote: > > >>Stalking Ignoramus, >> >>Everyone, except you, recognizes I meant at least 11 feet. > > > Which is why you've carefully DELETED your incorrect /directive/. LOL Stalking Ignoramus, Here's a directive for you alone. Bite me. Wayne                     Date: 29 Aug 2007 09:41:00 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors Wayne "What An Incredible" Pein wrote: > Bill Sornson wrote: >> Wayne Pein wrote: >>> Stalking Ignoramus, >>> >>> Everyone, except you, recognizes I meant at least 11 feet. >> Which is why you've carefully DELETED your incorrect /directive/. LOL > Stalking Ignoramus, I love how a whiner will accuse someone of stalking who's merely calling them on their bullshit. It's like Hillary: anyone who takes issue with something she says or proposes is "attacking" her. It's comical...in a sad sorta way. > Here's a directive for you alone. > > Bite me. Why must you say such hurtful things? ROTFL "If there is parking, even sporadic parking, on the road you should be tracking 11 ft from the edge of the road at all times." -- Wayne "PARANOID" Pein Bill "new invention: lightweight tape-measure" S.                       Date: 29 Aug 2007 15:59:14 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors When I wrote, "If there is parking, even sporadic parking, on the road you should be tracking 11 ft from the edge of the road at all times" it was self evident to me and everyone else, except Bill Sornson, that the 11 ft was a minimum, and the "at all times" meant to keep a consistent line and not weave in and out of sporadically parked cars. For those who would like further explanation of riding a bike next to parking, I refer you to the following articles I've written. http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/AASHTO_DZBL.pdf http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/door_zone.pdf Wayne                         Date: 29 Aug 2007 16:23:26 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors Wayne Pein wrote: > When I wrote, "If there is parking, even sporadic parking, on the road > you should be tracking 11 ft from the edge of the road at all times" > it was self evident to me and everyone else, except Bill Sornson, > that the 11 ft was a minimum, and the "at all times" meant to keep a > consistent line and not weave in and out of sporadically parked cars. Hire an editor.                           Date: 29 Aug 2007 19:33:37 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors Bill Sornson wrote: > Wayne Pein wrote: > >>When I wrote, "If there is parking, even sporadic parking, on the road >>you should be tracking 11 ft from the edge of the road at all times" >>it was self evident to me and everyone else, except Bill Sornson, >>that the 11 ft was a minimum, and the "at all times" meant to keep a >>consistent line and not weave in and out of sporadically parked cars. > > > Hire an editor. > > Why is it only YOU who has a problem with comprehension? Visit the Wizard of Oz for a brain. Wayne                             Date: 29 Aug 2007 17:41:41 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors Wayne Pein wrote (lazy formatting cleaned up): > Bill Sornson wrote: >> Wayne Pein wrote: >>> When I wrote, "If there is parking, even sporadic parking, on the >>> road you should be tracking 11 ft from the edge of the road at all >>> times" it was self evident to me and everyone else, except Bill >>> Sornson, that the 11 ft was a minimum, and the "at all times" meant >>> to keep a consistent line and not weave in and out of sporadically >>> parked cars. >> Hire an editor. > Why is it only YOU who has a problem with comprehension? "If there is parking, even sporadic parking, on the road you should be tracking 11 ft from the edge of the road at all times." -- Peni's (hey, nice typo!) World of Paranoia What's not to comprehend? I already promised to take a tape measure along on all my rides from now on; what more do ya want?!? Bill "pesky apostrophe" S.                               Date: 30 Aug 2007 14:50:34 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors Bill Sornson wrote: > What's not to comprehend? I already promised to take a tape measure along > on all my rides from now on; what more do ya want?!? > Stalking Ignoramus, There apparently is alot for you to not comprehend. "Everybody gets it except Sornson." Wayne                                 Date: 30 Aug 2007 14:33:24 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors Pein's World o' Paranoia wrote: > Bill Sornson wrote: (about WHAT?!?) >> What's not to comprehend? I already promised to take a tape measure >> along on all my rides from now on; what more do ya want?!? > Stalking Ignoramus, Simple Solution: stop replying to my every post! > There apparently is alot for you to not comprehend. Just got back from yet another ride (this one a shade under 30). Pretty soon my right arm will be longer than my left due to constantly throwing out the tape measure and staying exactly 11 feet from the curb! Maybe I'll get a hand weight for the left side to keep things even... Bill "plan to sue if distraction causes me to crash" S.                                   Date: 30 Aug 2007 18:05:23 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors Bill Sornson wrote: > Just got back from yet another ride (this one a shade under 30). Pretty > soon my right arm will be longer than my left due to constantly throwing out > the tape measure and staying exactly 11 feet from the curb! Maybe I'll get > a hand weight for the left side to keep things even... > Ignoramus, Even though I explictly explained to you my meaning, you STILL don't get it, and are intent on trying a gain a smidgen of credibility by "calling me out." Well, you can't call me out when you are the only ignoramus who misinterprets (purposefully?) my writing. Besides, nobody listens to your constant wimpering. Twinky, I bet a cry baby like you rode your K-Mart mountain bike in bike lanes the whole way. Wayne                                     Date: 30 Aug 2007 16:09:51 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors Wayne Pein wrote: > Bill Sornson wrote: {Hey, there's some missing stuff. AS ALWAYS.} >> Just got back from yet another ride (this one a shade under 30). Pretty >> soon my right arm will be longer than my left due to >> constantly throwing out the tape measure and staying exactly 11 feet >> from the curb! Maybe I'll get a hand weight for the left side to >> keep things even... > Ignoramus, > > Even though I explictly explained to you my meaning, you STILL don't > get it, and are intent on trying a gain a smidgen of credibility by > "calling me out." Well, you can't call me out when you are the only > ignoramus who misinterprets (purposefully?) my writing. Besides, > nobody listens to your constant wimpering. > > Twinky, I bet a cry baby like you rode your K-Mart mountain bike in > bike lanes the whole way. K-MART! (Slaps head.) That would have been a good place to stock up on tape measures. THANKS, PENI'S WORLD!!! -- "If there is parking, even sporadic parking, on the road you should be tracking 11 ft from the edge of the road at all times." -- Wayne "PARANOID" Pein         Date: 28 Aug 2007 14:55:28 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors Why havn't car manufacturers invented some sort of device to let cyclist know that someone is in the front seat of a parked car? A parked car isn't going to open it's door unless someone is sitting in the seat. Sounds like it would be easy to rig up something to let passing cyclists know that this particular car posses some danger of dooring them. Even better would be a gadget that shows the door handle is being touched on the inside. "Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com > wrote in message news:46d4536f$0$19589$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > Greens wrote: > >> I have a mirror, but I find that it takes time to scan behind me, to the >> sides and front and to be sure that I'm right about what I'm seeing. IMO >> It takes more time to scan things behind than it does to scan things to >> the front because that's what we're designed to do. >> >> You've never had to change your plans? You've never been forced to ride >> next to a car door because things changed while you were in the middle of >> doing something? Maybe you're some kind of super person. What Robin Hood >> was to archery, you are to bicycling. >> >> Collision avoidance is not a big deal in nature because other creatures >> in nature generally are pretty soft. Fast moving manmade things are very >> hard. Just thought I should let people know. > > If there is parking, even sporadic parking, on the road you should be > tracking 11 ft from the edge of the road at all times. This provides > clearance from the door zone. You shouldn't need to adjust your line. > > Your presence out in the lane induces caution in passing motorists. They > slow and move over. > > Wayne >           Date: 28 Aug 2007 22:41:36 From: Road Man Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors Being an automotive electronics engineer, I can tell you it's mainly market, driven customer demand. If enough people say they want it, and this apparent demand is backed up by willingness to buy the feature on a personal vehicle, it has a good chance of getting built. Now how much good will it do? Often this is measured in terms of the crash problem size. Pedestrian and cycle ("pedalcyclists" as we are known to the traffic safety community) crashes are much lower in volume than forward vehicle collisions, run-off-road collisions, and intersection collisions. Currently available federal and corporate research money is going to develop and validate solutions to these problems first. Europe is as usual a bit ahead of the USA, but frequency of occurrence is similar globally: as much as we would like attention from the active safety and intelligent transportation communities, bike crashes are but a small part of the traffic safety picture. As cyclists with a different perspective, we can address NHTSA, state DOTs, and OEMs to show them what the "real" demand is. But keep in mind, that we are but a small part of the population, and don't let your expectations get out of perspective. Ken "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net > wrote in message news:psudnZC3Xdwp80nbnZ2dnUVZ_v-hnZ2d@adelphia.com... > Why havn't car manufacturers invented some sort of device to let > cyclist know that someone is in the front seat of a parked car? A > parked car isn't going to open it's door unless someone is sitting > in the seat. Sounds like it would be easy to rig up something to let > passing cyclists know that this particular car posses some danger of > dooring them. > > Even better would be a gadget that shows the door handle is being > touched on the inside.             Date: 29 Aug 2007 00:50:05 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors "Road Man" <kenfreeman1@comcast.net > wrote in message news:bImdndLP74x5QUnbnZ2dnUVZ_vGinZ2d@comcast.com... > Being an automotive electronics engineer, I can tell you it's mainly > market, driven customer demand. If enough people say they want it, and > this apparent demand is backed up by willingness to buy the feature on a > personal vehicle, it has a good chance of getting built. > > Now how much good will it do? Often this is measured in terms of the > crash problem size. Pedestrian and cycle ("pedalcyclists" as we are known > to the traffic safety community) crashes are much lower in volume than > forward vehicle collisions, run-off-road collisions, and intersection > collisions. Currently available federal and corporate research money is > going to develop and validate solutions to these problems first. Europe > is as usual a bit ahead of the USA, but frequency of occurrence is similar > globally: as much as we would like attention from the active safety and > intelligent transportation communities, bike crashes are but a small part > of the traffic safety picture. > > As cyclists with a different perspective, we can address NHTSA, state > DOTs, and OEMs to show them what the "real" demand is. But keep in mind, > that we are but a small part of the population, and don't let your > expectations get out of perspective. > > Ken > > > "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net> wrote in message > news:psudnZC3Xdwp80nbnZ2dnUVZ_v-hnZ2d@adelphia.com... >> Why havn't car manufacturers invented some sort of device to let cyclist >> know that someone is in the front seat of a parked car? A parked car >> isn't going to open it's door unless someone is sitting in the seat. >> Sounds like it would be easy to rig up something to let passing cyclists >> know that this particular car posses some danger of dooring them. >> >> Even better would be a gadget that shows the door handle is being touched >> on the inside. > > Bicycle fatalities are only as low as they are because cars greatly outnumber cyclists. If more people cycled and the police and motorists didn't change their attitude and behavior towards cyclists, many more cyclists would die and then we might get stricter rules protecting cyclists. Of course a lot of people don't ride because they think cycling is too dangerous so there's not much chance of that happening.           Date: 28 Aug 2007 16:00:49 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors Greens wrote: > Why havn't car manufacturers invented some sort of device to let cyclist > know that someone is in the front seat of a parked car? A parked car isn't > going to open it's door unless someone is sitting in the seat. Sounds like > it would be easy to rig up something to let passing cyclists know that this > particular car posses some danger of dooring them. > > Even better would be a gadget that shows the door handle is being touched on > the inside. > You falsely believe that somebody else is responsible for bicyclist safety. YOU and you alone must be competent to reduce your risk. A basic time honored way to do that is to never ride in the door zone. By tracking 5 ft from car side, you ensure this. Riding at this position also compels passing motorists to be more cautious, and it gives you better sightlines and maneuvering space at junctions and from peds that may dash out from between parked cars. Unfortunately, moronic bike lane planners sometimes put bike lanes in the door zone. This is gross negligence at the least. Wayne             Date: 29 Aug 2007 23:23:57 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors Wayne Pein wrote: > ... > Unfortunately, moronic bike lane planners... Please stop being redundant. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com               Date: 29 Aug 2007 21:37:10 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: > Wayne Pein wrote: >> ... >> Unfortunately, moronic bike lane planners... > > Please stop being redundant. You misspelled repetitive. (Or was it ridiculous?) HTH             Date: 28 Aug 2007 17:20:04 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors "Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com > wrote in message news:46d47eec$0$11099$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > Greens wrote: > >> Why havn't car manufacturers invented some sort of device to let cyclist >> know that someone is in the front seat of a parked car? A parked car >> isn't going to open it's door unless someone is sitting in the seat. >> Sounds like it would be easy to rig up something to let passing cyclists >> know that this particular car posses some danger of dooring them. >> >> Even better would be a gadget that shows the door handle is being touched >> on the inside. >> > > You falsely believe that somebody else is responsible for bicyclist > safety. YOU and you alone must be competent to reduce your risk. A basic > time honored way to do that is to never ride in the door zone. By tracking > 5 ft from car side, you ensure this. Riding at this position also compels > passing motorists to be more cautious, and it gives you better sightlines > and maneuvering space at junctions and from peds that may dash out from > between parked cars. > > Unfortunately, moronic bike lane planners sometimes put bike lanes in the > door zone. This is gross negligence at the least. > > Wayne > Do seatbelts and airbags put motorist safety in the hands of someone besides the driver? Yea. What's wrong with that? All kinds of safety devices have come into common use. They all enhance safety and take the burden off drivers. Things like stop signs, turn signals, headlights, brake lights. Having a light that warns cyclists of a potential dooring hazard is no worse.               Date: 28 Aug 2007 18:07:42 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors Greens wrote: >> "Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com> wrote in message >>You falsely believe that somebody else is responsible for bicyclist >>safety. YOU and you alone must be competent to reduce your risk. A basic >>time honored way to do that is to never ride in the door zone. By tracking >>5 ft from car side, you ensure this. Riding at this position also compels >>passing motorists to be more cautious, and it gives you better sightlines >>and maneuvering space at junctions and from peds that may dash out from >>between parked cars. >> > Do seatbelts and airbags put motorist safety in the hands of someone besides > the driver? Yea. What's wrong with that? All kinds of safety devices have > come into common use. They all enhance safety and take the burden off > drivers. Things like stop signs, turn signals, headlights, brake lights. > Having a light that warns cyclists of a potential dooring hazard is no > worse. A light that gives bicyclists the OK to ride in the door zone is not a good idea. Better to use your brain and not ride in the door zone. If you do that, then there is no potential dooring hazard. If your idea is so good, submit it to NHTSA, the car companies, insurance companies, etc. Further, as I pointed out earlier, riding further away from the parked cars gives better sight lines and maneuvering space at junctions and from peds. Do you have a bad invention to deal with that as well? Wayne                 Date: 28 Aug 2007 22:53:22 From: Road Man Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors "Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com > wrote in message news:46d49cc4$0$16444$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > Greens wrote: > >>> "Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com> wrote in message You falsely >>> believe that somebody else is responsible for bicyclist safety. >>> YOU and you alone must be competent to reduce your risk. A basic >>> time honored way to do that is to never ride in the door zone. By >>> tracking 5 ft from car side, you ensure this. Riding at this >>> position also compels passing motorists to be more cautious, and >>> it gives you better sightlines and maneuvering space at junctions >>> and from peds that may dash out from between parked cars. >>> > >> Do seatbelts and airbags put motorist safety in the hands of >> someone besides the driver? Yea. What's wrong with that? All kinds >> of safety devices have come into common use. They all enhance >> safety and take the burden off drivers. Things like stop signs, >> turn signals, headlights, brake lights. Having a light that warns >> cyclists of a potential dooring hazard is no worse. > > A light that gives bicyclists the OK to ride in the door zone is not > a good idea. Better to use your brain and not ride in the door zone. > If you do that, then there is no potential dooring hazard. If your > idea is so good, submit it to NHTSA, the car companies, insurance > companies, etc. > > Further, as I pointed out earlier, riding further away from the > parked cars gives better sight lines and maneuvering space at > junctions and from peds. Do you have a bad invention to deal with > that as well? > > Wayne > > This from Wayne is certainly true! The sensor might be degraded (dirty camera or laser), bent (sensor not aimed right, or just broken. The fielded fleet of vehicles will not all be new enough to be equipped with this new system, and of the models for which its available, only a small percentage (tthe "take rate") will buy it at first - trust me! So you the cyclist who thinks he's gonna get help will only rarely encounter a car that has this "ok" light. How will you know if a car is equipped? How will you know if a light indication or non-indication is actually valid? If the system is wrong and you are doored, is it the car company's fault, the car owner's, or yours? If you don't know the car is equipped and it gives you no light, should you think it's ok to be in the door zone? Now you are back to what Forester, Hurst, most of the groupies, and Wayne (and I) would say: watch out for yourself!! Should NHTSA standardize it? They will only standardize systems that solve an EXTREMELY high-profile problem, and that only after a great deal of work has gone into convincing NHTSA that there is a true win-win. Think 3 to 10 years of research before the (typically) three-year automotive procurement cycle begins.                   Date: 29 Aug 2007 00:45:37 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors "Road Man" <kenfreeman1@comcast.net > wrote in message news:FLKdnRlZfqzWfEnbnZ2dnUVZ_sKqnZ2d@comcast.com... > > "Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com> wrote in message > news:46d49cc4$0$16444$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >> Greens wrote: >> >>>> "Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com> wrote in message You falsely believe >>>> that somebody else is responsible for bicyclist safety. YOU and you >>>> alone must be competent to reduce your risk. A basic time honored way >>>> to do that is to never ride in the door zone. By tracking 5 ft from car >>>> side, you ensure this. Riding at this position also compels passing >>>> motorists to be more cautious, and it gives you better sightlines and >>>> maneuvering space at junctions and from peds that may dash out from >>>> between parked cars. >>>> >> >>> Do seatbelts and airbags put motorist safety in the hands of someone >>> besides the driver? Yea. What's wrong with that? All kinds of safety >>> devices have come into common use. They all enhance safety and take the >>> burden off drivers. Things like stop signs, turn signals, headlights, >>> brake lights. Having a light that warns cyclists of a potential dooring >>> hazard is no worse. >> >> A light that gives bicyclists the OK to ride in the door zone is not a >> good idea. Better to use your brain and not ride in the door zone. If you >> do that, then there is no potential dooring hazard. If your idea is so >> good, submit it to NHTSA, the car companies, insurance companies, etc. >> >> Further, as I pointed out earlier, riding further away from the parked >> cars gives better sight lines and maneuvering space at junctions and from >> peds. Do you have a bad invention to deal with that as well? >> >> Wayne >> >> > > This from Wayne is certainly true! The sensor might be degraded (dirty > camera or laser), bent (sensor not aimed right, or just broken. The > fielded fleet of vehicles will not all be new enough to be equipped with > this new system, and of the models for which its available, only a small > percentage (tthe "take rate") will buy it at first - trust me! So you the > cyclist who thinks he's gonna get help will only rarely encounter a car > that has this "ok" light. > > How will you know if a car is equipped? How will you know if a light > indication or non-indication is actually valid? If the system is wrong > and you are doored, is it the car company's fault, the car owner's, or > yours? If you don't know the car is equipped and it gives you no light, > should you think it's ok to be in the door zone? Now you are back to what > Forester, Hurst, most of the groupies, and Wayne (and I) would say: watch > out for yourself!! > > Should NHTSA standardize it? They will only standardize systems that > solve an EXTREMELY high-profile problem, and that only after a great deal > of work has gone into convincing NHTSA that there is a true win-win. > Think 3 to 10 years of research before the (typically) three-year > automotive procurement cycle begins. > > Keep in mind it's just something I thought of quickly. Dooring fatalities are significant to cyclists even if they aren't to federal organizations. People hit doors, and get thrown under the wheels of oncoming traffic with horrific results. Dooring still occurs. I guess you could be happy with the way things are or you can apply pressure to appropriate organizations to come up with solutions. The government is supposed to concerned with this type of thing. Steering wide around cars to avoid doors works, but it puts you way out there and it aggravates impatient drivers behind you who may not expect you to be that far out there or understand why you're out there. There is some evidence that young male drivers are the primary killers of cyclists. They tend to be hot heads and riding around in what they consider to "their lane" is going to get them hot. They may not consciously be trying to kill cyclists but when they gun their engines and blast past in a rage, they do and sometimes they don't even lose their license if they're caught if what I read is to believed at some of the organizations in New York. See ghost bicycles at http://visualresistance.org http://www.rockawave.com/news/2005/0930/Front_Page/003.html To make cycling safer I think it will take government involvement. Some people here act like WW1 fighter pilots. They're in love with the romance of the sport, the wind in your hair, the sun and the stars and they figure they know how to cycle safely. They probably don't even see the mistakes they make during a month, any of which can cost them their lives. They don't want to see it that way. If you think you know what you're doing and you do it, you'll be alright is what they're thinking, but the truth is it's very unforgiving being out there without a big cage. The lights could be mandatory and part of annual inspections. A law could be passed making it illegal to drive without the light working and making it the fault of the driver who does the dooring. The light could be recessed so that it doesn't get dirty and is visible even in the day to cyclists behind the car. A lot of cycling deaths could be avoided if the drivers were faulted instead of the cyclists. It's just the way things are done here. Autos rule in America.                     Date: 29 Aug 2007 08:41:36 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors Greens wrote: > > Keep in mind it's just something I thought of quickly. That is apparent. Dooring fatalities > are significant to cyclists even if they aren't to federal organizations. > People hit doors, and get thrown under the wheels of oncoming traffic with > horrific results. Dooring still occurs. I guess you could be happy with the > way things are or you can apply pressure to appropriate organizations to > come up with solutions. The government is supposed to concerned with this > type of thing. The solution is to ride outside the door zone. Another solution is for government to stop striping door zone bike lanes. Another solution is for government to mark the limits of the door zone. But the problem simply isn't big enough for there to be a rule for a car light. And like Road Man said, not every car will have it even if it was a rule. > > Steering wide around cars to avoid doors works, but it puts you way out > there and it aggravates impatient drivers behind you who may not expect you > to be that far out there or understand why you're out there. Get thicker skin. Wear hi-viz apparel. Quit telling people how dangerous bicycling is. Wayne                       Date: 29 Aug 2007 09:35:56 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors "Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com > wrote in message news:46d56980$0$28838$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > Greens wrote: > > >> >> Keep in mind it's just something I thought of quickly. > > That is apparent. > > > Dooring fatalities >> are significant to cyclists even if they aren't to federal organizations. >> People hit doors, and get thrown under the wheels of oncoming traffic >> with horrific results. Dooring still occurs. I guess you could be happy >> with the way things are or you can apply pressure to appropriate >> organizations to come up with solutions. The government is supposed to >> concerned with this type of thing. > > The solution is to ride outside the door zone. Another solution is for > government to stop striping door zone bike lanes. Another solution is for > government to mark the limits of the door zone. But the problem simply > isn't big enough for there to be a rule for a car light. And like Road Man > said, not every car will have it even if it was a rule. > > >> >> Steering wide around cars to avoid doors works, but it puts you way out >> there and it aggravates impatient drivers behind you who may not expect >> you to be that far out there or understand why you're out there. > > Get thicker skin. Wear hi-viz apparel. Quit telling people how dangerous > bicycling is. > > Wayne > Do you think bicycling is safe or do you want me to pretend it's safe? I think it's fairly dangerous or to be more accurate, traffic is dangerous. Riding on a bike trail with no one else, no cars, no people would be very safe. Riding on the road among cars is very unsafe.                         Date: 29 Aug 2007 11:56:31 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors Greens wrote: > Do you think bicycling is safe or do you want me to pretend it's safe? I > think it's fairly dangerous or to be more accurate, traffic is dangerous. > Riding on a bike trail with no one else, no cars, no people would be very > safe. Riding on the road among cars is very unsafe. > I think a competent bicyclist is very safe. An average typical bicyclist pretty much following the rules is moderately safe. A buffoon-on-wheels is unsafe. Wayne, 44 years of riding a bicycle (20 of it 7 days a week) and never a collision with a motor vehicle.                           Date: 29 Aug 2007 12:29:34 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors "Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com > wrote in message news:46d59730$0$31885$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > Greens wrote: > > >> Do you think bicycling is safe or do you want me to pretend it's safe? I >> think it's fairly dangerous or to be more accurate, traffic is dangerous. >> Riding on a bike trail with no one else, no cars, no people would be very >> safe. Riding on the road among cars is very unsafe. > > I think a competent bicyclist is very safe. An average typical bicyclist > pretty much following the rules is moderately safe. A buffoon-on-wheels is > unsafe. > > Wayne, 44 years of riding a bicycle (20 of it 7 days a week) and never a > collision with a motor vehicle. > > Are you as proud of your tub safety record? Probably not. That's because tub mats and plastic shampoo bottles have made showering a lot safer. It hardly takes any effort to be safe in the tub now, but you were probably against unecessary tub safety gadgets when the tub mat was proposed. "Real men don't need shatterproof bottles and tub mats to take a bath safely" Pein said, "Tub safety should be left up to the individual bather. By following a few simple rules like never moving my feet and never stepping on soap, I've showered safely for 55 years. Dammit! I wouldn't have it any other way! These tub activists.... I dunno, they just piss me off! It's unamerican. That's what it is."                             Date: 29 Aug 2007 15:41:40 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors Greens wrote: > "Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com> wrote in message >>I think a competent bicyclist is very safe. An average typical bicyclist >>pretty much following the rules is moderately safe. A buffoon-on-wheels is >>unsafe. >> >>Wayne, 44 years of riding a bicycle (20 of it 7 days a week) and never a >>collision with a motor vehicle. >> >> > > > Are you as proud of your tub safety record? Probably not. That's because tub > mats and plastic shampoo bottles have made showering a lot safer. It hardly > takes any effort to be safe in the tub now, but you were probably against > unecessary tub safety gadgets when the tub mat was proposed. > > "Real men don't need shatterproof bottles and tub mats to take a bath > safely" Pein said, "Tub safety should be left up to the individual bather. > By following a few simple rules like never moving my feet and never stepping > on soap, I've showered safely for 55 years. Dammit! I wouldn't have it any > other way! These tub activists.... I dunno, they just piss me off! It's > unamerican. That's what it is." > You're spiraling down the drain to buffoonery. \ Wayne                 Date: 28 Aug 2007 18:29:57 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors "Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com > wrote in message news:46d49cc4$0$16444$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > Greens wrote: > >>> "Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com> wrote in message You falsely believe that >>> somebody else is responsible for bicyclist safety. YOU and you alone >>> must be competent to reduce your risk. A basic time honored way to do >>> that is to never ride in the door zone. By tracking 5 ft from car side, >>> you ensure this. Riding at this position also compels passing motorists >>> to be more cautious, and it gives you better sightlines and maneuvering >>> space at junctions and from peds that may dash out from between parked >>> cars. >>> > >> Do seatbelts and airbags put motorist safety in the hands of someone >> besides the driver? Yea. What's wrong with that? All kinds of safety >> devices have come into common use. They all enhance safety and take the >> burden off drivers. Things like stop signs, turn signals, headlights, >> brake lights. Having a light that warns cyclists of a potential dooring >> hazard is no worse. > > A light that gives bicyclists the OK to ride in the door zone is not a > good idea. Better to use your brain and not ride in the door zone. If you > do that, then there is no potential dooring hazard. If your idea is so > good, submit it to NHTSA, the car companies, insurance companies, etc. > > Further, as I pointed out earlier, riding further away from the parked > cars gives better sight lines and maneuvering space at junctions and from > peds. Do you have a bad invention to deal with that as well? > > Wayne > > It sounds like you're getting really aggravated with me, Wayne. Sometimes people who consider themselves authorities and "the last word" on subjects will get that way when I offer suggestions. No. I didn't spend a lot of time coming up with that idea. It's not fully tested, but has the NHTSA really given the dooring problem any thought over the last 50 years? Probably not and they get paid to make highways safer for everybody so I don't see why you'd be mad at me. They could do a lot of things like put up signs reminding motorists that cyclists have the right to be in the road. They could put PSA's on the tv and radio offering motorists safety tips that remind them that they're not the only ones on the road. They could encourage courtesy and understanding instead of hostility. After all cyclists don't burn gas. That means more gas, cheaper gas for motorists. They should love us and you should love me, Wayne, as a brother of the wind and a fellow newsgrouper looking for solutions to our shared sport.                   Date: 29 Aug 2007 08:25:38 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors Greens wrote: > It sounds like you're getting really aggravated with me, Wayne. Sometimes > people who consider themselves authorities and "the last word" on subjects > will get that way when I offer suggestions. No. I didn't spend a lot of time > coming up with that idea. It's not fully tested, but has the NHTSA really > given the dooring problem any thought over the last 50 years? Probably not > and they get paid to make highways safer for everybody so I don't see why > you'd be mad at me. I'm not mad at you. > > They could do a lot of things like put up signs reminding motorists that > cyclists have the right to be in the road. They could put PSA's on the tv > and radio offering motorists safety tips that remind them that they're not > the only ones on the road. They could encourage courtesy and understanding > instead of hostility. After all cyclists don't burn gas. That means more > gas, cheaper gas for motorists. They should love us and you should love me, > Wayne, as a brother of the wind and a fellow newsgrouper looking for > solutions to our shared sport. I never said NHTSA or other organizations can't do more. I just said I thought your light idea was not good. That is my opinion. Wayne                   Date: 28 Aug 2007 23:10:05 From: Road Man Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net > wrote in message ..... It's not fully tested, but has the NHTSA really > given the dooring problem any thought over the last 50 years? > Probably not and they get paid to make highways safer for everybody > so I don't see why you'd be mad at me. > > They could do a lot of things like put up signs reminding motorists > that cyclists have the right to be in the road. They could put PSA's > on the tv and radio offering motorists safety tips that remind them > that they're not the only ones on the road. They could encourage > courtesy and understanding instead of hostility. After all cyclists > don't burn gas. That means more gas, cheaper gas for motorists. They > should love us and you should love me, Wayne, as a brother of the > wind and a fellow newsgrouper looking for solutions to our shared > sport. > "They" is not NHTSA or even Federal Highway Administration, but the local and state authorities who decide on the actual selection, design, installation, and location of signage. Local road authorities also decide on the inclusion and the design of bike lanes ("bicycling facilities"), whether there will or won't be MUPs, how crossings will be done, if traffic is calmed, cycle friendly signalling, road surface markings, et cetera. So Green, I don't think Wayne or anyone's really pissed at you, but you should find the right tree to bark up! If you want safer cycling facilities, see if there is a citizen group lobbying or discussing such matters with your local governents, at the town, township, and county levels. That's where, in the United States, this sort of leverage is located. As a model of this sort of organization you could check the website of the Washtenaw Walking and Biking Coalition, here in Ann Arbor. Google around, you'll find it. Also google "michigan cycling" for a long list of starting points. Ken                   Date: 28 Aug 2007 18:55:32 From: Luke Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors In article <weadnQHN4sKQPEnbnZ2dnUVZ_t-gnZ2d@adelphia.com >, Greens <prbj@adelphia.net > wrote: > They could do a lot of things like put up signs reminding motorists that > cyclists have the right to be in the road. What good are they if cyclists are so concerned with irritating motorists they decline to exercise that right. > They could put PSA's on the tv > and radio offering motorists safety tips that remind them that they're not > the only ones on the road. They could encourage courtesy and understanding > instead of hostility. After all cyclists don't burn gas. That means more > gas, cheaper gas for motorists. They should love us and you should love me, > Wayne, as a brother of the wind ... A fellow flatulator? Being one, a brother that is, I can attest: no one fights like 'em -- with the exception of sisters of course. As a citizen of the city of brotherly love I'm certain you agree. > ... and a fellow newsgrouper looking for > solutions to our shared sport. The solution exists: if you don't want get a door prize don't ride in the door zone.             Date: 28 Aug 2007 17:06:44 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors "Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com > wrote in message news:46d47eec$0$11099$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > Greens wrote: > >> Why havn't car manufacturers invented some sort of device to let cyclist >> know that someone is in the front seat of a parked car? A parked car >> isn't going to open it's door unless someone is sitting in the seat. >> Sounds like it would be easy to rig up something to let passing cyclists >> know that this particular car posses some danger of dooring them. >> >> Even better would be a gadget that shows the door handle is being touched >> on the inside. >> > > You falsely believe that somebody else is responsible for bicyclist > safety. YOU and you alone must be competent to reduce your risk. A basic > time honored way to do that is to never ride in the door zone. By tracking > 5 ft from car side, you ensure this. Riding at this position also compels > passing motorists to be more cautious, and it gives you better sightlines > and maneuvering space at junctions and from peds that may dash out from > between parked cars. > > Unfortunately, moronic bike lane planners sometimes put bike lanes in the > door zone. This is gross negligence at the least. > > Wayne > "Tracking five feet from the door zone" I'm guessing that practically means riding down the centerline of the road will get motorists pissed at you. Not always the safest option. Legally, they can't run you down but...               Date: 30 Aug 2007 09:21:06 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors In article <DYWdnRnga9gAEEnbnZ2dnUVZ_vumnZ2d@adelphia.com >, "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net > wrote: > "Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com> wrote in message > news:46d47eec$0$11099$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > > Greens wrote: > > > >> Why havn't car manufacturers invented some sort of device to let cyclist > >> know that someone is in the front seat of a parked car? A parked car > >> isn't going to open it's door unless someone is sitting in the seat. > >> Sounds like it would be easy to rig up something to let passing cyclists > >> know that this particular car posses some danger of dooring them. > >> > >> Even better would be a gadget that shows the door handle is being touched > >> on the inside. > >> > > > > You falsely believe that somebody else is responsible for bicyclist > > safety. YOU and you alone must be competent to reduce your risk. A basic > > time honored way to do that is to never ride in the door zone. By tracking > > 5 ft from car side, you ensure this. Riding at this position also compels > > passing motorists to be more cautious, and it gives you better sightlines > > and maneuvering space at junctions and from peds that may dash out from > > between parked cars. > > > > Unfortunately, moronic bike lane planners sometimes put bike lanes in the > > door zone. This is gross negligence at the least. > > > > Wayne > > > > "Tracking five feet from the door zone" I'm guessing that practically means > riding down the centerline of the road will get motorists pissed at you. Not > always the safest option. Legally, they can't run you down but... Positive attitude. A positive attitude will neutralize much ill will. Many good replies to your concerns. Have you read them closely? Have you tried any recommendations? A confrontational approach is good in some situations not so good in others. You need not cringe nor be confrontational on the road. -- Michael Press                 Date: 30 Aug 2007 12:34:08 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors "Michael Press" <rubrum@pacbell.net > wrote in message news:rubrum-2C09F9.09210630082007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net... > In article > <DYWdnRnga9gAEEnbnZ2dnUVZ_vumnZ2d@adelphia.com>, > "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net> wrote: > >> "Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com> wrote in message >> news:46d47eec$0$11099$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >> > Greens wrote: >> > >> >> Why havn't car manufacturers invented some sort of device to let >> >> cyclist >> >> know that someone is in the front seat of a parked car? A parked car >> >> isn't going to open it's door unless someone is sitting in the seat. >> >> Sounds like it would be easy to rig up something to let passing >> >> cyclists >> >> know that this particular car posses some danger of dooring them. >> >> >> >> Even better would be a gadget that shows the door handle is being >> >> touched >> >> on the inside. >> >> >> > >> > You falsely believe that somebody else is responsible for bicyclist >> > safety. YOU and you alone must be competent to reduce your risk. A >> > basic >> > time honored way to do that is to never ride in the door zone. By >> > tracking >> > 5 ft from car side, you ensure this. Riding at this position also >> > compels >> > passing motorists to be more cautious, and it gives you better >> > sightlines >> > and maneuvering space at junctions and from peds that may dash out from >> > between parked cars. >> > >> > Unfortunately, moronic bike lane planners sometimes put bike lanes in >> > the >> > door zone. This is gross negligence at the least. >> > >> > Wayne >> > >> >> "Tracking five feet from the door zone" I'm guessing that practically >> means >> riding down the centerline of the road will get motorists pissed at you. >> Not >> always the safest option. Legally, they can't run you down but... > > Positive attitude. A positive attitude will neutralize much ill will. > > Many good replies to your concerns. > Have you read them closely? > Have you tried any recommendations? > > A confrontational approach is good in some situations > not so good in others. You need not cringe nor be > confrontational on the road. > > -- > Michael Press I've always steered clear of the door zone. Once they open the door and hang out, I've got to steer clear of the "wherever they might jump out of the truck to" zone which is practically on the front lawn adjacent to the opposite lane. Have you really read this thread?                   Date: 30 Aug 2007 11:17:46 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors In article <Ir-dna0GN8AWbUvbnZ2dnUVZ_t-gnZ2d@adelphia.com >, "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net > wrote: > "Michael Press" <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote in message > news:rubrum-2C09F9.09210630082007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net... > > In article > > <DYWdnRnga9gAEEnbnZ2dnUVZ_vumnZ2d@adelphia.com>, > > "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net> wrote: [...] > >> "Tracking five feet from the door zone" I'm guessing that practically > >> means > >> riding down the centerline of the road will get motorists pissed at you. > >> Not > >> always the safest option. Legally, they can't run you down but... > > > > Positive attitude. A positive attitude will neutralize much ill will. > > > > Many good replies to your concerns. > > Have you read them closely? > > Have you tried any recommendations? > > > > A confrontational approach is good in some situations > > not so good in others. You need not cringe nor be > > confrontational on the road. > > I've always steered clear of the door zone. Once they open the door and hang > out, I've got to steer clear of the "wherever they might jump out of the > truck to" zone which is practically on the front lawn adjacent to the > opposite lane. > > Have you really read this thread? I asked first. Have you tried any of the recommendations? -- Michael Press                     Date: 30 Aug 2007 15:05:04 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors "Michael Press" <rubrum@pacbell.net > wrote in message news:rubrum-D48FAA.11174630082007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net... > In article > <Ir-dna0GN8AWbUvbnZ2dnUVZ_t-gnZ2d@adelphia.com>, > "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net> wrote: > >> "Michael Press" <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote in message >> news:rubrum-2C09F9.09210630082007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net... >> > In article >> > <DYWdnRnga9gAEEnbnZ2dnUVZ_vumnZ2d@adelphia.com>, >> > "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net> wrote: > > [...] > >> >> "Tracking five feet from the door zone" I'm guessing that practically >> >> means >> >> riding down the centerline of the road will get motorists pissed at >> >> you. >> >> Not >> >> always the safest option. Legally, they can't run you down but... >> > >> > Positive attitude. A positive attitude will neutralize much ill will. >> > >> > Many good replies to your concerns. >> > Have you read them closely? >> > Have you tried any recommendations? >> > >> > A confrontational approach is good in some situations >> > not so good in others. You need not cringe nor be >> > confrontational on the road. >> >> I've always steered clear of the door zone. Once they open the door and >> hang >> out, I've got to steer clear of the "wherever they might jump out of the >> truck to" zone which is practically on the front lawn adjacent to the >> opposite lane. >> >> Have you really read this thread? > > I asked first. > Have you tried any of the recommendations? > > -- > Michael Press I just told you I stay out of the door zone and I've read the thread. Have you read the whole thread?                       Date: 31 Aug 2007 10:42:25 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors In article <Gt6dnTglHMOWiUrbnZ2dnUVZ_q6hnZ2d@adelphia.com >, "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net > wrote: > "Michael Press" <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote in message > news:rubrum-D48FAA.11174630082007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net... > > In article > > <Ir-dna0GN8AWbUvbnZ2dnUVZ_t-gnZ2d@adelphia.com>, > > "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net> wrote: > > > >> "Michael Press" <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote in message > >> news:rubrum-2C09F9.09210630082007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net... > >> > In article > >> > <DYWdnRnga9gAEEnbnZ2dnUVZ_vumnZ2d@adelphia.com>, > >> > "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net> wrote: > > > > [...] > > > >> >> "Tracking five feet from the door zone" I'm guessing that practically > >> >> means > >> >> riding down the centerline of the road will get motorists pissed at > >> >> you. > >> >> Not > >> >> always the safest option. Legally, they can't run you down but... > >> > > >> > Positive attitude. A positive attitude will neutralize much ill will. > >> > > >> > Many good replies to your concerns. > >> > Have you read them closely? > >> > Have you tried any recommendations? > >> > > >> > A confrontational approach is good in some situations > >> > not so good in others. You need not cringe nor be > >> > confrontational on the road. > >> > >> I've always steered clear of the door zone. Once they open the door and > >> hang > >> out, I've got to steer clear of the "wherever they might jump out of the > >> truck to" zone which is practically on the front lawn adjacent to the > >> opposite lane. > >> > >> Have you really read this thread? > > > > I asked first. > > Have you tried any of the recommendations? > > > > -- > > Michael Press > > I just told you I stay out of the door zone and I've read the thread. Have > you read the whole thread? This is a quotation from you: > Example 1: Biking down the road, there's a parked car up ahead. I can't tell > if someone is in the driver's seat. That might be a headrest and even if it > isn't the driver might be bent over. I'd like to steer wide around the > parked car, but I can hear a car coming behind me. You do not stay out of the door lane. This is an example of how well I read this thread. -- Michael Press                         Date: 31 Aug 2007 16:00:53 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors "Michael Press" <rubrum@pacbell.net > wrote in message news:rubrum-93B641.10422531082007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net... > In article > <Gt6dnTglHMOWiUrbnZ2dnUVZ_q6hnZ2d@adelphia.com>, > "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net> wrote: > >> "Michael Press" <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote in message >> news:rubrum-D48FAA.11174630082007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net... >> > In article >> > <Ir-dna0GN8AWbUvbnZ2dnUVZ_t-gnZ2d@adelphia.com>, >> > "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net> wrote: >> > >> >> "Michael Press" <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote in message >> >> news:rubrum-2C09F9.09210630082007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net... >> >> > In article >> >> > <DYWdnRnga9gAEEnbnZ2dnUVZ_vumnZ2d@adelphia.com>, >> >> > "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net> wrote: >> > >> > [...] >> > >> >> >> "Tracking five feet from the door zone" I'm guessing that >> >> >> practically >> >> >> means >> >> >> riding down the centerline of the road will get motorists pissed at >> >> >> you. >> >> >> Not >> >> >> always the safest option. Legally, they can't run you down but... >> >> > >> >> > Positive attitude. A positive attitude will neutralize much ill >> >> > will. >> >> > >> >> > Many good replies to your concerns. >> >> > Have you read them closely? >> >> > Have you tried any recommendations? >> >> > >> >> > A confrontational approach is good in some situations >> >> > not so good in others. You need not cringe nor be >> >> > confrontational on the road. >> >> >> >> I've always steered clear of the door zone. Once they open the door >> >> and >> >> hang >> >> out, I've got to steer clear of the "wherever they might jump out of >> >> the >> >> truck to" zone which is practically on the front lawn adjacent to the >> >> opposite lane. >> >> >> >> Have you really read this thread? >> > >> > I asked first. >> > Have you tried any of the recommendations? >> > >> > -- >> > Michael Press >> >> I just told you I stay out of the door zone and I've read the thread. >> Have >> you read the whole thread? > > This is a quotation from you: > >> Example 1: Biking down the road, there's a parked car up ahead. I can't >> tell >> if someone is in the driver's seat. That might be a headrest and even if >> it >> isn't the driver might be bent over. I'd like to steer wide around the >> parked car, but I can hear a car coming behind me. > > You do not stay out of the door lane. This is an example > of how well I read this thread. > > -- > Michael Press You actually need clarification?!!!! I stay clear of the door zone, but if my sensors suggest I'm going to get hit by a fast approaching car from behind, I will reluctantly ride in the door zone after slowing as much as is safely possible. I'm not going to stay out in the way of a passing car and assert my rights. I don't know if the approaching driver recognizes those rights. I don't even know if the police recognize those rights. The guy behind me might be drunk or senile or stoned like that lady that dragged a pedestrian all the way home a few years ago. You read the thread, not to discuss, but like an auditor or investigator. You don't read. You uncover evidence. "AHAAAA! I FOUND YOUR LIES!" Like that. Typical newsgroup asshole.               Date: 28 Aug 2007 17:59:13 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors Greens wrote: > > > "Tracking five feet from the door zone" I'm guessing that practically means > riding down the centerline of the road will get motorists pissed at you. Not > always the safest option. Legally, they can't run you down but... > OK. I give up. Ride however you want. Wayne                 Date: 28 Aug 2007 15:40:25 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors Wayne Pein wrote: > Greens wrote: > > >> >> >> "Tracking five feet from the door zone" I'm guessing that >> practically means riding down the centerline of the road will get >> motorists pissed at you. Not always the safest option. Legally, they >> can't run you down but... > > OK. I give up. Ride however you want. FINALLY! LOL   Date: 27 Aug 2007 19:51:59 From: Chalo Subject: Re: Periscope helmet, was Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors Carl Fogel wrote: > > On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 17:51:55 -0000, Chalo wrote: > > > >Does anybody know whatever became of the helmet with a built-in > >periscope rearview mirror that was announced a few years ago? > > You can become a distributor! > > http://www.reevu.com/index.asp That's the company, but it's not the foam-hat kind of bicycle helmet they were originally flogging. If they made a half cap, I might consider one for use on my motorbike and my pushbike (in cold weather). Chalo     Date: 28 Aug 2007 09:06:41 From: Greens Subject: Re: Periscope helmet, was Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors "Chalo" <chalo.colina@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1188244319.181612.164910@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... > Carl Fogel wrote: >> >> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 17:51:55 -0000, Chalo wrote: >> > >> >Does anybody know whatever became of the helmet with a built-in >> >periscope rearview mirror that was announced a few years ago? >> >> You can become a distributor! >> >> http://www.reevu.com/index.asp > > That's the company, but it's not the foam-hat kind of bicycle helmet > they were originally flogging. > > If they made a half cap, I might consider one for use on my motorbike > and my pushbike (in cold weather). > > Chalo > I like that rear view helmet, but it doesn't seem to be available in the less encapsulating bicycle helmet style. I don't even like wearing sunglasses or clear lenses. Auditory beeps similar to the sounds radar detectors make might be a nice way for an infrared detector to tell me car hazards were closing in. These could be followed up with a display of some sort showing locations of the hazards in relation to myself, but probably my brain would be too slow to react to all this info. I'd need a computer to take control of my bike's brakes and turning ability. Very Star Warsy or in other words - impossible. How about an operation to give me an owl neck? Cyclists need to swivel their heads around almost 360 degrees without blurring.   Date: 27 Aug 2007 17:51:55 From: Chalo Subject: Periscope helmet, was Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors Greens wrote: > > While riding along, I often think I wish I had eyes like a deer for > bicycling, set on the side of my head so that I could see what's happening > to the front, sides and to a much larger extent, the rear. I'm convinced > that the cyclist needs this kidn of vision more than a car or pedestrian. Does anybody know whatever became of the helmet with a built-in periscope rearview mirror that was announced a few years ago? That seemed like potentially a nice enough benefit to justify wearing a helmet. Chalo     Date: 27 Aug 2007 12:03:03 From: Subject: Re: Periscope helmet, was Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 17:51:55 -0000, Chalo <chalo.colina@gmail.com > wrote: >Greens wrote: >> >> While riding along, I often think I wish I had eyes like a deer for >> bicycling, set on the side of my head so that I could see what's happening >> to the front, sides and to a much larger extent, the rear. I'm convinced >> that the cyclist needs this kidn of vision more than a car or pedestrian. > >Does anybody know whatever became of the helmet with a built-in >periscope rearview mirror that was announced a few years ago? That >seemed like potentially a nice enough benefit to justify wearing a >helmet. > >Chalo Dear Chalo, You can become a distributor! http://www.reevu.com/index.asp Cheers, Carl Fogel   Date: 27 Aug 2007 10:36:23 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors In article <vLqdndyKyJMbNUzbnZ2dnUVZ_o2vnZ2d@adelphia.com >, "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net > wrote: > While riding along, I often think I wish I had eyes like a deer for > bicycling, set on the side of my head so that I could see what's happening > to the front, sides and to a much larger extent, the rear. I'm convinced > that the cyclist needs this kidn of vision more than a car or pedestrian. > Cars don't need to see what's behind them as much because they're about the > fastest thing on the road and fender benders aren't usually fatal for > motorists. Cyclists are usually the slowest thing on the road. > > Example 1: Biking down the road, there's a parked car up ahead. I can't tell > if someone is in the driver's seat. That might be a headrest and even if it > isn't the driver might be bent over. I'd like to steer wide around the > parked car, but I can hear a car coming behind me. I look in my side mirror > (mounted on my handlebar and way too far to the side if you ask me) and I > see the car coming up from behind in my mirror. What I don't see or hear is > that there's another car right behind him. The first car passes and I start > to move into the main path of traffic behind it to pass the parked car at a > safe distance, but at the last moment I notice the second car who has > fortunately spotted me. I pass the parked car with inches to spare. As it > turns out that's all the second motorist thought I'd want. Luck is with me > and nobody throws open the door. > Do not ride in the door lane at all. Signal your intentions. Do not swerve. Ride straight lines. Practice to learn how to stay balanced and ride the straightest track possible. Be predictable around cars. -- Michael Press     Date: 27 Aug 2007 19:38:28 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors "Michael Press" <rubrum@pacbell.net > wrote in message news:rubrum-5D1A53.10362327082007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net... > In article > <vLqdndyKyJMbNUzbnZ2dnUVZ_o2vnZ2d@adelphia.com>, > "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net> wrote: > >> While riding along, I often think I wish I had eyes like a deer for >> bicycling, set on the side of my head so that I could see what's >> happening >> to the front, sides and to a much larger extent, the rear. I'm convinced >> that the cyclist needs this kidn of vision more than a car or pedestrian. >> Cars don't need to see what's behind them as much because they're about >> the >> fastest thing on the road and fender benders aren't usually fatal for >> motorists. Cyclists are usually the slowest thing on the road. >> >> Example 1: Biking down the road, there's a parked car up ahead. I can't >> tell >> if someone is in the driver's seat. That might be a headrest and even if >> it >> isn't the driver might be bent over. I'd like to steer wide around the >> parked car, but I can hear a car coming behind me. I look in my side >> mirror >> (mounted on my handlebar and way too far to the side if you ask me) and I >> see the car coming up from behind in my mirror. What I don't see or hear >> is >> that there's another car right behind him. The first car passes and I >> start >> to move into the main path of traffic behind it to pass the parked car at >> a >> safe distance, but at the last moment I notice the second car who has >> fortunately spotted me. I pass the parked car with inches to spare. As it >> turns out that's all the second motorist thought I'd want. Luck is with >> me >> and nobody throws open the door. >> > > Do not ride in the door lane at all. > Signal your intentions. > Do not swerve. Ride straight lines. > Practice to learn how to stay balanced > and ride the straightest track possible. > Be predictable around cars. > > -- > Michael Press Signaling is a good idea, but I find I need my hands on the handlebars. In practice I signal very, very rarely. Maybe if I had a touring bike or whatever those things are that have your riding in the upright position. On a mountain bike I feel like the smallest obstacle could twist the front wheel.       Date: 31 Aug 2007 13:24:34 From: Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors On Aug 31, 12:06 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > wrote: > <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1188529549.353655.289290@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Aug 30, 10:29 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: > >> <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > >> > Most swimming in the US happens during three months of the year, too. > >> > And it's much more dangerous than cycling, both in terms of total > >> > fatalities and in terms of per-hour fatalities. See > >> >http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/comparat.html > > >> That stats are per hour. I and most people will spend more time per bike > >> trip than per swimming trip. I don't think I've ever swum for more than > >> an > >> hour at a time, but last night I bicycled for three hours straight. > > > Look at their per-hour estimates for riding or driving passenger > > cars. How much time do you spend driving? > > That's exactly what I object to. The stats are tabulated to make bicycling > look safer. You're completely wrong once again. That table or comparative risks per hour was assembled by the largest risk consulting firm in the country. It first appeared in an automotive trade magazine, in an article discussing fires within cars. It was in no way intended to promote bicycling - or domestic airlines, or hunting, or any of the activities that are safer than riding in motor vehicles. It simply gives the numbers as they are. If you don't like that per-hour data, produce some of your own. (I have more, but I'm sure you'll dislike it, since it also disproves your claims.) > > > You are grasping at straws, hoping to demonstrate that bicycling is > > very dangerous. But all you're demonstrating is that you don't > > understand numbers and data. > > No. That's what you're doing. I'm a cycling enthusiast. I don't have any > interest in making cycling look safer or more dangerous than it is. I'm just > interested in the truth. Then let me repeat: Dig out your own per-hour data and post it here. > You or one of the other guys here already admitted > that I shouldn't stir up the safety issue because "it makes it harder for > rest of us." See that? Not interested in the truth. Interested in supressing > the truth for the sake of the sport. Another mistake. I am very interested in the truth. I don't want you _lying_ about cycling's danger. The fundamental problem is, you are looking at each incident where you feel you possibly came a little too close to hurting yourself, and treating each such incident as a terrible tragedy. However: a) It's likely you made mistakes in most, if not every, case. And b) you were not injured anyway. Safety data is not based on how frequently a less-competent individual scares himself. Safety data is based on how frequently the average person actually gets seriously injured or killed. That fundamental difference is tripping you up. Those interested in this issue are welcome to read http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/SafetyQuiz.htm and to check out the listed sources. - Frank Krygowski         Date: 31 Aug 2007 13:44:03 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors <frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1188566674.910938.43330@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 31, 12:06 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: >> <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1188529549.353655.289290@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Aug 30, 10:29 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: >> >> <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >> > Most swimming in the US happens during three months of the year, >> >> > too. >> >> > And it's much more dangerous than cycling, both in terms of total >> >> > fatalities and in terms of per-hour fatalities. See >> >> >http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/comparat.html >> >> >> That stats are per hour. I and most people will spend more time per >> >> bike >> >> trip than per swimming trip. I don't think I've ever swum for more >> >> than >> >> an >> >> hour at a time, but last night I bicycled for three hours straight. >> >> > Look at their per-hour estimates for riding or driving passenger >> > cars. How much time do you spend driving? >> >> That's exactly what I object to. The stats are tabulated to make >> bicycling >> look safer. > > You're completely wrong once again. > > That table or comparative risks per hour was assembled by the largest > risk consulting firm in the country. It first appeared in an > automotive trade magazine, in an article discussing fires within > cars. It was in no way intended to promote bicycling - or domestic > airlines, or hunting, or any of the activities that are safer than > riding in motor vehicles. It simply gives the numbers as they are. > > If you don't like that per-hour data, produce some of your own. (I > have more, but I'm sure you'll dislike it, since it also disproves > your claims.) > My claim, as you call it, is that bicycling is pretty dangerous and unforgiving. Is serving with the US military in Iraq dangerous? Most people would say it is. In the same period of time as the Iraq war, the same number of people have been killed here in the USA bicycling. I don't have a number for how many people bicycle as opposed to how many serve in Iraq, but it probably would be interesting numbers especially when you consider most bicycling happens during three months of the year whereas fighting in Iraq is pretty much all year and cyclists in the USA are a small minority. 2) Bicycyles offer no protection in an accident. Cars do. Most people have at least a few fender benders during their lifetimes driving their cars. On a bicycle those same fender bender speed accidents can easily turn fatal, hence bicyling in traffic is unforgiving. 3) Cyclists have little control over dangerous conditions. - There's no way to know when the next drunk or incompetent will come up behind you in a 3000 pound vehicle. There's no way to know what the drivers of same vehicles will do. Their actions can seem predictable at times, but there are always anomalies. It only takes one anomaly to get a bicyclist killed. There's no way to control the speed of motorists. There's no way to control the aggression level of motorists. It's easier and more likely that a motorist will have a weapon like a bat or tire iron on board. Who wants to ride with a tire iron? The effect of bad drivers on a cyclist can be to aggravate the cyclist to the point of rage, which can turn verbal sparring into deadly combat. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07236/811824-94.stm 4) A dog can kill a bicyclist just by running out and getting in the cyclist's path. A car can also loose control, but if a car runs the animal over, there's very little chance the motorist will flip out of his windshield and split his head open on the pavement. The presence of dogs and actions of dogs are like human actions - usually predictable but occasionally unpredicatable. Deer can also be a hazard, both live and dead deer. A dead carcass on the side of the road at night can result in a fall, death, or unconsciousness. Laying in the road unconscious at night is definitely very high risk. Bicycle design hasn't changed much since 1909. Cars have made a lot of changes and cars are inspected for safety in most states. Cars have turn signals and brake lights. Bikes don't. Cars have air bags. Bikes don't. Cars have good headlights and their candlepower is regulated. Bike shops will sell you any piece of crap and call it a headlight. My girlfriend got hit by a car in broad daylight about 35 years ago. She almost lost her life and later her leg, but she still rides today. She has been in constant pain for 35 years though and that situation will never change. Downhill skiing isn't really possible for her because of knee damage. Many other activities and actions, quite ordinary things really, are also prohibited. She's maimed for life at a young age because of a slow speed accident involving her bike and a car that didn't even stop. The driver was never caught or charged even though there were a lot of witnesses. It was a pretty busy intersection at that time of day. Fatalities and wheelchairs aren't the whole story. They're ignored in your stats. Lots of people "recover", but they're in constant pain forever. Functionality isn't always total functioality and it doesn't cover pain. If you could quantify the pain suffered by this one girl over 35 years and compare it to the pain of someone who didn't bicycle, you'd probably have 10,000 pounds for her and 200 pounds for the non cyclist. >> >> > You are grasping at straws, hoping to demonstrate that bicycling is >> > very dangerous. But all you're demonstrating is that you don't >> > understand numbers and data. >> >> No. That's what you're doing. I'm a cycling enthusiast. I don't have any >> interest in making cycling look safer or more dangerous than it is. I'm >> just >> interested in the truth. > > Then let me repeat: Dig out your own per-hour data and post it > here. > >> You or one of the other guys here already admitted >> that I shouldn't stir up the safety issue because "it makes it harder for >> rest of us." See that? Not interested in the truth. Interested in >> supressing >> the truth for the sake of the sport. > > Another mistake. I am very interested in the truth. I don't want you > _lying_ about cycling's danger. > > The fundamental problem is, you are looking at each incident where you > feel you possibly came a little too close to hurting yourself, and > treating each such incident as a terrible tragedy. > > However: a) It's likely you made mistakes in most, if not every, > case. And b) you were not injured anyway. > > Safety data is not based on how frequently a less-competent individual > scares himself. Safety data is based on how frequently the average > person actually gets seriously injured or killed. That fundamental > difference is tripping you up. > > Those interested in this issue are welcome to read > http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/SafetyQuiz.htm > and to check out the listed sources. > > - Frank Krygowski > It only takes one accident, Frank, and then cycling is no longer healthy. Your stats and the environmental superiority of the bicycle become irrelevant. (Go ahead and figure out the environmental cost of living in a wheelchair if you like.) I know a close call when I see one and I see a lot more close calls when I ride my bicycle than when I drive my car. I'm constantly reminded of the consequences of these close calls every time my woman complains that her knee is killing her, she can't stand another minute of pain, or she can't do this or that.           Date: 05 Sep 2007 10:26:26 From: Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors On Sep 5, 12:15 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > wrote: > > > Ladders are dangerous. And so are stairs! And knives! And scissors! And carpets! And shoelaces! And hammers! Why, the list goes on and on!! How will we survive??? How will we live??? Oh, the humanity!!!! - Frank Krygowski             Date: 05 Sep 2007 14:37:35 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors <frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1189013186.578758.113560@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 5, 12:15 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: >> >> >> Ladders are dangerous. > > And so are stairs! And knives! And scissors! And carpets! And > shoelaces! And hammers! Why, the list goes on and on!! How will we > survive??? How will we live??? Oh, the humanity!!!! > > - Frank Krygowski > You admit that ladders, knives, stairs and scissors are dangerous. Why don't you start a website proclaiming they aren't dangerous to improve their image. Also, argue on the internet. Convince people they aren't dangerous. Better yet, argue against improvement. We dont' need improved, safer stairs and scissors. Scissor users just need to follow some basic rules. Accidents happen when stair users break the rules. They deserve what they get. If we talk openly about stair dangers, they'll take away our stairs. How will we get to the second floor. No. We mustn't let that happen. If you've fallen down the stairs, it's your fault. Keep it to yourself. You only act like that with bicycles. What a clown you are.           Date: 05 Sep 2007 00:05:52 From: Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors On Sep 4, 8:07 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > On Sep 4, 4:18 pm, r15...@aol.com wrote: > > > On Sep 3, 7:24 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > Ah. I compare the safety of cycling to the safety of motoring, a mode > > > of transport that essentially everybody accepts as reasonably safe. > > > Do you accept it as 'reasonably safe?' > > Yes, definitely. And so do the vast, vast majority of Americans. > Only a few phobic individuals agree with you. > > > > > Just wondering, because a few days ago, you wrote: > > > "As I said in another post, I had three friends in college who died in > > three separate car crashes. Two were members of a club to which I > > belonged. One was the brother of a close friend. > > > Since then, there have been others I've known who have died riding in > > motor vehicles. One of my son's best friends did while he was in > > college. One of my daughter's friends did, in his mid-twenties. > > > I've known of four family members - that is, grandparents, siblings, > > in-laws - who were injured in car crashes seriously enough to warrant > > hospital time. One still deals with severely impaired mobility years > > after the crash, and will never fully recover. Two of the others had > > concussions, as did yet another colleague at work. Another close > > friend was saved (he says) by his airbag when his new car was totally > > demolished, but I'd have to phone him to recall what injuries he did > > sustain." > > > Ah, I love the smell of reasonable safety in the morning. > > You seem to be implying that, because I know people injured or killed > while motoring, that motoring must not be reasonably safe. > > You are "thinking" at the same low level as "Greens" - that is, very, > very simplistically. > > I spent today working with a friend who was once seriously hurt in a > fall from a ladder. Does that incident - and many more like it - mean > ladders are not reasonably safe? Should the government ban them? Or > should it mandate lots of protective gear every time someone uses a > ladder? Will you and our other anonymous poster now try to instill a > fear of ladders in any readers you can reach? Anybody working on a ladder should do so with a respect for the dangers that are involved with doing that, if they want to avoid being seriously hurt. The same goes for riding a bike in traffic. Wow, this is really advanced stuff, isn't it. > If so, you'd better get busy with my friend. We were working on my > roof today. By your standards, he's not sufficiently terrorized! Brilliant example, professor! Ask any tradesman who routinely climbs ladders at work, even those who use torches or nail guns, etc., and they'll tell you that using the ladder is the most dangerous part of their job. These guys all have a healthy respect for the risks involved. Will you tell them they are 'terrorized' and 'silly,' that they are irrational loons because using a ladder is 'reasonably safe?' I think you're best confining your arguments to people who don't routinely use ladders, or bikes. Robert           Date: 05 Sep 2007 06:31:42 From: Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors On Sep 4, 8:07 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > On Sep 4, 4:18 pm, r15...@aol.com wrote: > > > On Sep 3, 7:24 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > Ah. I compare the safety of cycling to the safety of motoring, a mode > > > of transport that essentially everybody accepts as reasonably safe. > > > Do you accept it as 'reasonably safe?' > > Yes, definitely. And so do the vast, vast majority of Americans. > Only a few phobic individuals agree with you. > > > > > > > Just wondering, because a few days ago, you wrote: > > > "As I said in another post, I had three friends in college who died in > > three separate car crashes. Two were members of a club to which I > > belonged. One was the brother of a close friend. > > > Since then, there have been others I've known who have died riding in > > motor vehicles. One of my son's best friends did while he was in > > college. One of my daughter's friends did, in his mid-twenties. > > > I've known of four family members - that is, grandparents, siblings, > > in-laws - who were injured in car crashes seriously enough to warrant > > hospital time. One still deals with severely impaired mobility years > > after the crash, and will never fully recover. Two of the others had > > concussions, as did yet another colleague at work. Another close > > friend was saved (he says) by his airbag when his new car was totally > > demolished, but I'd have to phone him to recall what injuries he did > > sustain." > > > Ah, I love the smell of reasonable safety in the morning. > > You seem to be implying that, because I know people injured or killed > while motoring, that motoring must not be reasonably safe. > > You are "thinking" at the same low level as "Greens" - that is, very, > very simplistically. > > I spent today working with a friend who was once seriously hurt in a > fall from a ladder. Does that incident - and many more like it - mean > ladders are not reasonably safe? Should the government ban them? Or > should it mandate lots of protective gear every time someone uses a > ladder? Will you and our other anonymous poster now try to instill a > fear of ladders in any readers you can reach? > > If so, you'd better get busy with my friend. We were working on my > roof today. By your standards, he's not sufficiently terrorized! > > - Frank Krygowski- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - What exactly does that mean, 'reasonably safe?' Are you saying that there is no risk worth worrying about when driving a car? Are you saying that people understand the risks but drive anyway? Are you saying that anybody who gets nervous behind the wheel is unreasonable? Are you saying that people don't understand the risks but drive anyway? Please explain.           Date: 31 Aug 2007 12:57:26 From: Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 13:44:03 -0400, "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net > wrote: [snip] >My claim, as you call it, is that bicycling is pretty dangerous and >unforgiving. Is serving with the US military in Iraq dangerous? Most people >would say it is. In the same period of time as the Iraq war, the same number >of people have been killed here in the USA bicycling. I don't have a number >for how many people bicycle as opposed to how many serve in Iraq, but it >probably would be interesting numbers especially when you consider most >bicycling happens during three months of the year whereas fighting in Iraq >is pretty much all year and cyclists in the USA are a small minority. [snip] Dear G, What level of carnage would you predict if the U.S. military starts using bicycles for transport in Iraq? Cheers, Carl Fogel             Date: 31 Aug 2007 16:19:24 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors <carlfogel@comcast.net > wrote in message news:krogd3taufh0om8v6tcl1v344un90ie127@4ax.com... > On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 13:44:03 -0400, "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net> > wrote: > > [snip] > >>My claim, as you call it, is that bicycling is pretty dangerous and >>unforgiving. Is serving with the US military in Iraq dangerous? Most >>people >>would say it is. In the same period of time as the Iraq war, the same >>number >>of people have been killed here in the USA bicycling. I don't have a >>number >>for how many people bicycle as opposed to how many serve in Iraq, but it >>probably would be interesting numbers especially when you consider most >>bicycling happens during three months of the year whereas fighting in Iraq >>is pretty much all year and cyclists in the USA are a small minority. > > [snip] > > Dear G, > > What level of carnage would you predict if the U.S. military starts > using bicycles for transport in Iraq? > > Cheers, > > Carl Fogel Hmmmm.... If every one of our soldiers started using bicycles all the time, statistics might suggest that we can expect a certain percetage of them will die or be maimed per year. I think there's about a hundred thousand troops, maybe 200,000? I don't know. Maybe 5 more per year would get killed cycling..... but wait! There's a war going on! Almost every one of them would get picked off by snipers. They're exposed and slow moving. Insurgents might also just run them down as motorists do here in the USA. Probably a few will refuse to leave their bases. They'll probably have a higher survival rate so I'm guessing a few dozen will survive out of the 200,000. Of course of those few dozen some will starve to death unless airdrops are employed.               Date: 31 Aug 2007 14:40:33 From: Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 16:19:24 -0400, "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net > wrote: > ><carlfogel@comcast.net> wrote in message >news:krogd3taufh0om8v6tcl1v344un90ie127@4ax.com... >> On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 13:44:03 -0400, "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net> >> wrote: >> >> [snip] >> >>>My claim, as you call it, is that bicycling is pretty dangerous and >>>unforgiving. Is serving with the US military in Iraq dangerous? Most >>>people >>>would say it is. In the same period of time as the Iraq war, the same >>>number >>>of people have been killed here in the USA bicycling. I don't have a >>>number >>>for how many people bicycle as opposed to how many serve in Iraq, but it >>>probably would be interesting numbers especially when you consider most >>>bicycling happens during three months of the year whereas fighting in Iraq >>>is pretty much all year and cyclists in the USA are a small minority. >> >> [snip] >> >> Dear G, >> >> What level of carnage would you predict if the U.S. military starts >> using bicycles for transport in Iraq? >> >> Cheers, >> >> Carl Fogel > >Hmmmm.... If every one of our soldiers started using bicycles all the time, >statistics might suggest that we can expect a certain percetage of them will >die or be maimed per year. I think there's about a hundred thousand troops, >maybe 200,000? I don't know. Maybe 5 more per year would get killed >cycling..... but wait! There's a war going on! Almost every one of them >would get picked off by snipers. They're exposed and slow moving. Insurgents >might also just run them down as motorists do here in the USA. Probably a >few will refuse to leave their bases. They'll probably have a higher >survival rate so I'm guessing a few dozen will survive out of the 200,000. >Of course of those few dozen some will starve to death unless airdrops are >employed. Dear G, What if the soliders started walking instead of using Hummers and Bradleys for transport? Would the carnage be even worse than if they switched to bicycles? After all, every study of the two forms of transport ever cited on RBT concludes that pedestrians face a greater risk of being killed in accidents than bicyclists, whether compared in raw numbers, hours, or miles spent in their "dangerous and unforgiving" activity. Cheers, Carl Fogel               Date: 31 Aug 2007 15:29:52 From: A Muzi Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors >> "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net> wrote >> [snip] >>> My claim, as you call it, is that bicycling is pretty dangerous and >>> unforgiving. Is serving with the US military in Iraq dangerous? Most >>> people >>> would say it is. In the same period of time as the Iraq war, the same >>> number >>> of people have been killed here in the USA bicycling. I don't have a >>> number >>> for how many people bicycle as opposed to how many serve in Iraq, but it >>> probably would be interesting numbers especially when you consider most >>> bicycling happens during three months of the year whereas fighting in Iraq >>> is pretty much all year and cyclists in the USA are a small minority. >> [snip] > <carlfogel@comcast.net> wrote in message >> What level of carnage would you predict if the U.S. military starts >> using bicycles for transport in Iraq? Greens wrote: > Hmmmm.... If every one of our soldiers started using bicycles all the time, > statistics might suggest that we can expect a certain percetage of them will > die or be maimed per year. I think there's about a hundred thousand troops, > maybe 200,000? I don't know. Maybe 5 more per year would get killed > cycling..... but wait! There's a war going on! Almost every one of them > would get picked off by snipers. They're exposed and slow moving. Insurgents > might also just run them down as motorists do here in the USA. Probably a > few will refuse to leave their bases. They'll probably have a higher > survival rate so I'm guessing a few dozen will survive out of the 200,000. > Of course of those few dozen some will starve to death unless airdrops are > employed. Or maybe they'll arrive in neighborhoods less noisily than with a Hummer and be more effective. This is all purely speculative- just like your 'cycling is dangerous' theory. As one of our favorite 90-year-old cyclists says, "Retire? No way. I've knew guys who stopped working. They died." -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971                 Date: 31 Aug 2007 17:03:47 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors "A Muzi" <am@yellowjersey.org > wrote in message news:13dgugtpsk23p4e@corp.supernews.com... >>> "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net> wrote >>> [snip] >>>> My claim, as you call it, is that bicycling is pretty dangerous and >>>> unforgiving. Is serving with the US military in Iraq dangerous? Most >>>> people >>>> would say it is. In the same period of time as the Iraq war, the same >>>> number >>>> of people have been killed here in the USA bicycling. I don't have a >>>> number >>>> for how many people bicycle as opposed to how many serve in Iraq, but >>>> it >>>> probably would be interesting numbers especially when you consider most >>>> bicycling happens during three months of the year whereas fighting in >>>> Iraq >>>> is pretty much all year and cyclists in the USA are a small minority. >>> [snip] > >> <carlfogel@comcast.net> wrote in message >>> What level of carnage would you predict if the U.S. military starts >>> using bicycles for transport in Iraq? > > Greens wrote: >> Hmmmm.... If every one of our soldiers started using bicycles all the >> time, statistics might suggest that we can expect a certain percetage of >> them will die or be maimed per year. I think there's about a hundred >> thousand troops, maybe 200,000? I don't know. Maybe 5 more per year would >> get killed cycling..... but wait! There's a war going on! Almost every >> one of them would get picked off by snipers. They're exposed and slow >> moving. Insurgents might also just run them down as motorists do here in >> the USA. Probably a few will refuse to leave their bases. They'll >> probably have a higher survival rate so I'm guessing a few dozen will >> survive out of the 200,000. Of course of those few dozen some will starve >> to death unless airdrops are employed. > > Or maybe they'll arrive in neighborhoods less noisily than with a Hummer > and be more effective. This is all purely speculative- just like your > 'cycling is dangerous' theory. > > As one of our favorite 90-year-old cyclists says, "Retire? No way. I've > knew guys who stopped working. They died." > -- > Andrew Muzi > www.yellowjersey.org > Open every day since 1 April, 1971 If you want to ride your bicycle into battle against modern Iraqi insurgents, go ahead. I don't think any of your army will survive.   Date: 27 Aug 2007 09:16:16 From: amakyonin Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors On Aug 26, 5:41 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > wrote: > a digestive system like a goose, takes in > small high calories food bits and turns it into energy quickly, pooping out > the waste immediately to save on weight Maybe not such a good idea considering how well the peeing on the bike thread went over.     Date: 29 Aug 2007 23:13:52 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors amakyonin ??? wrote: > On Aug 26, 5:41 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote: >> a digestive system like a goose, takes in >> small high calories food bits and turns it into energy quickly, pooping out >> the waste immediately to save on weight > > Maybe not such a good idea considering how well the peeing on the bike > thread went over. > It would be a useful skill when attempting a break from the pack in a race - who would jump and try to draft you? ;) -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com   Date: 26 Aug 2007 15:50:24 From: Hank Wirtz Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors On Aug 26, 2:25 pm, Ozark Bicycle <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote: > On Aug 26, 3:53 pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote: > > > > > Greens wrote: > > > While riding along, I often think I wish I had eyes like a deer for > > > bicycling, set on the side of my head so that I could see what's happening > > > to the front, sides and to a much larger extent, the rear. I'm convinced > > > that the cyclist needs this kidn of vision more than a car or pedestrian. > > > Cars don't need to see what's behind them as much because they're about the > > > fastest thing on the road and fender benders aren't usually fatal for > > > motorists. Cyclists are usually the slowest thing on the road. > > > > Example 1: Biking down the road, there's a parked car up ahead. I can't tell > > > if someone is in the driver's seat. That might be a headrest and even if it > > > isn't the driver might be bent over. I'd like to steer wide around the > > > parked car, but I can hear a car coming behind me. I look in my side mirror > > > (mounted on my handlebar and way too far to the side if you ask me) and I > > > see the car coming up from behind in my mirror. What I don't see or hear is > > > that there's another car right behind him. The first car passes and I start > > > to move into the main path of traffic behind it to pass the parked car at a > > > safe distance, but at the last moment I notice the second car who has > > > fortunately spotted me. I pass the parked car with inches to spare. As it > > > turns out that's all the second motorist thought I'd want. Luck is with me > > > and nobody throws open the door. > > > > The key thing is I made it through this by sheer luck. The second car had me > > > covered to some extent and the parked car didn't door me. I'd much rather > > > have been given an early warning that a second car was coming. > > > Unfortunately, I don't know of any car detecting gadgets, but then there's > > > that guy that did the experiment with wearing helmets. He said that wearing > > > helmets resulted in motorists giving you less space. That's not important > > > right now. The important thing is that in his study he used an ultrasonic > > > gadget to detect cars and their distance from him. That's the kind of thing > > > I want. Some kind of sonar to let me know what's going on behind me. Let me > > > know if there are cars, how many cars, in back, to the side, etc and also if > > > they are veering onto the side of the road. > > > > Sometimes your ears will pick up the second car, but often the first car or > > > a lawnmower or just the wind will drown out the sound of cars coming up from > > > behind. I've also had fast moving cyclists pass me with almost no warning > > > and sometimes I do swerve around a little. It's just pure luck that there > > > wasn't a collision. > > > > Ultrasound is one way of doing it. Infrared might be better. All cars have > > > hot motors. Couldn't something be made to show how many hot spots there are > > > around me? Maybe a screen to show them closing in? > > > > I've also thought of mounting a rear facing video camera and monitor so that > > > I could watch and maybe even record traffic and events. I think the screen > > > may be too small though. > > > > There are times when I get into situations where I have to see and monitor > > > cars and peds behind, in front and to the side of me all at the same time. > > > Things just change so fast and people do the strangest things in reaction to > > > cyclists. Women will push a baby carriage right in front of you to make the > > > point that they have the right of way. This is as opposed to slowing down > > > for a couple of seconds. I would think it would be easy to just slow down > > > while pushing a baby carriage, but some women are so intent on pressing > > > their right of way that they'll push that carriage in front of you to make > > > you stop. I've also had a woman walk right into my path with her pack of > > > loose dogs at night. I had a light on, but I guess I wasn't making a car > > > noise. I assumed because she was approaching at 90 degrees, she'd see me, > > > but no. She doesn't look up unless she hears the telltale sound of 3000 > > > pound car on pavement. > > > "I wish I had eyes like a deer" > > Or a gimlet-eyed lizard, eh? > > -- > > The next leap forward in cycling: the genetically modified rider. Dick Pound just called. You've been banned from Usenet for the next two years.   Date: 26 Aug 2007 14:25:34 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors On Aug 26, 3:53 pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org > wrote: > Greens wrote: > > While riding along, I often think I wish I had eyes like a deer for > > bicycling, set on the side of my head so that I could see what's happening > > to the front, sides and to a much larger extent, the rear. I'm convinced > > that the cyclist needs this kidn of vision more than a car or pedestrian. > > Cars don't need to see what's behind them as much because they're about the > > fastest thing on the road and fender benders aren't usually fatal for > > motorists. Cyclists are usually the slowest thing on the road. > > > Example 1: Biking down the road, there's a parked car up ahead. I can't tell > > if someone is in the driver's seat. That might be a headrest and even if it > > isn't the driver might be bent over. I'd like to steer wide around the > > parked car, but I can hear a car coming behind me. I look in my side mirror > > (mounted on my handlebar and way too far to the side if you ask me) and I > > see the car coming up from behind in my mirror. What I don't see or hear is > > that there's another car right behind him. The first car passes and I start > > to move into the main path of traffic behind it to pass the parked car at a > > safe distance, but at the last moment I notice the second car who has > > fortunately spotted me. I pass the parked car with inches to spare. As it > > turns out that's all the second motorist thought I'd want. Luck is with me > > and nobody throws open the door. > > > The key thing is I made it through this by sheer luck. The second car had me > > covered to some extent and the parked car didn't door me. I'd much rather > > have been given an early warning that a second car was coming. > > Unfortunately, I don't know of any car detecting gadgets, but then there's > > that guy that did the experiment with wearing helmets. He said that wearing > > helmets resulted in motorists giving you less space. That's not important > > right now. The important thing is that in his study he used an ultrasonic > > gadget to detect cars and their distance from him. That's the kind of thing > > I want. Some kind of sonar to let me know what's going on behind me. Let me > > know if there are cars, how many cars, in back, to the side, etc and also if > > they are veering onto the side of the road. > > > Sometimes your ears will pick up the second car, but often the first car or > > a lawnmower or just the wind will drown out the sound of cars coming up from > > behind. I've also had fast moving cyclists pass me with almost no warning > > and sometimes I do swerve around a little. It's just pure luck that there > > wasn't a collision. > > > Ultrasound is one way of doing it. Infrared might be better. All cars have > > hot motors. Couldn't something be made to show how many hot spots there are > > around me? Maybe a screen to show them closing in? > > > I've also thought of mounting a rear facing video camera and monitor so that > > I could watch and maybe even record traffic and events. I think the screen > > may be too small though. > > > There are times when I get into situations where I have to see and monitor > > cars and peds behind, in front and to the side of me all at the same time. > > Things just change so fast and people do the strangest things in reaction to > > cyclists. Women will push a baby carriage right in front of you to make the > > point that they have the right of way. This is as opposed to slowing down > > for a couple of seconds. I would think it would be easy to just slow down > > while pushing a baby carriage, but some women are so intent on pressing > > their right of way that they'll push that carriage in front of you to make > > you stop. I've also had a woman walk right into my path with her pack of > > loose dogs at night. I had a light on, but I guess I wasn't making a car > > noise. I assumed because she was approaching at 90 degrees, she'd see me, > > but no. She doesn't look up unless she hears the telltale sound of 3000 > > pound car on pavement. > > "I wish I had eyes like a deer" > Or a gimlet-eyed lizard, eh? > -- > The next leap forward in cycling: the genetically modified rider.     Date: 26 Aug 2007 17:41:52 From: Greens Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors "Ozark Bicycle" <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote in message news:1188163534.299004.142380@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 26, 3:53 pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >> Greens wrote: >> > While riding along, I often think I wish I had eyes like a deer for >> > bicycling, set on the side of my head so that I could see what's >> > happening >> > to the front, sides and to a much larger extent, the rear. I'm >> > convinced >> > that the cyclist needs this kidn of vision more than a car or >> > pedestrian. >> > Cars don't need to see what's behind them as much because they're about >> > the >> > fastest thing on the road and fender benders aren't usually fatal for >> > motorists. Cyclists are usually the slowest thing on the road. >> >> > Example 1: Biking down the road, there's a parked car up ahead. I can't >> > tell >> > if someone is in the driver's seat. That might be a headrest and even >> > if it >> > isn't the driver might be bent over. I'd like to steer wide around the >> > parked car, but I can hear a car coming behind me. I look in my side >> > mirror >> > (mounted on my handlebar and way too far to the side if you ask me) and >> > I >> > see the car coming up from behind in my mirror. What I don't see or >> > hear is >> > that there's another car right behind him. The first car passes and I >> > start >> > to move into the main path of traffic behind it to pass the parked car >> > at a >> > safe distance, but at the last moment I notice the second car who has >> > fortunately spotted me. I pass the parked car with inches to spare. As >> > it >> > turns out that's all the second motorist thought I'd want. Luck is with >> > me >> > and nobody throws open the door. >> >> > The key thing is I made it through this by sheer luck. The second car >> > had me >> > covered to some extent and the parked car didn't door me. I'd much >> > rather >> > have been given an early warning that a second car was coming. >> > Unfortunately, I don't know of any car detecting gadgets, but then >> > there's >> > that guy that did the experiment with wearing helmets. He said that >> > wearing >> > helmets resulted in motorists giving you less space. That's not >> > important >> > right now. The important thing is that in his study he used an >> > ultrasonic >> > gadget to detect cars and their distance from him. That's the kind of >> > thing >> > I want. Some kind of sonar to let me know what's going on behind me. >> > Let me >> > know if there are cars, how many cars, in back, to the side, etc and >> > also if >> > they are veering onto the side of the road. >> >> > Sometimes your ears will pick up the second car, but often the first >> > car or >> > a lawnmower or just the wind will drown out the sound of cars coming up >> > from >> > behind. I've also had fast moving cyclists pass me with almost no >> > warning >> > and sometimes I do swerve around a little. It's just pure luck that >> > there >> > wasn't a collision. >> >> > Ultrasound is one way of doing it. Infrared might be better. All cars >> > have >> > hot motors. Couldn't something be made to show how many hot spots there >> > are >> > around me? Maybe a screen to show them closing in? >> >> > I've also thought of mounting a rear facing video camera and monitor so >> > that >> > I could watch and maybe even record traffic and events. I think the >> > screen >> > may be too small though. >> >> > There are times when I get into situations where I have to see and >> > monitor >> > cars and peds behind, in front and to the side of me all at the same >> > time. >> > Things just change so fast and people do the strangest things in >> > reaction to >> > cyclists. Women will push a baby carriage right in front of you to make >> > the >> > point that they have the right of way. This is as opposed to slowing >> > down >> > for a couple of seconds. I would think it would be easy to just slow >> > down >> > while pushing a baby carriage, but some women are so intent on pressing >> > their right of way that they'll push that carriage in front of you to >> > make >> > you stop. I've also had a woman walk right into my path with her pack >> > of >> > loose dogs at night. I had a light on, but I guess I wasn't making a >> > car >> > noise. I assumed because she was approaching at 90 degrees, she'd see >> > me, >> > but no. She doesn't look up unless she hears the telltale sound of >> > 3000 >> > pound car on pavement. >> >> "I wish I had eyes like a deer" >> Or a gimlet-eyed lizard, eh? >> -- >> > > The next leap forward in cycling: the genetically modified rider. > Would make a nice series for a Worth 1000 contest. Cyclist adaptations - eyes on the side of the head or spider eyes, humoungous lungs and chest to hold them, all of it streamlined and water repellent, maybe oiled feathers to insulate and keep out water, extra bone on the skull to protect the brain in impacts, feet with integrated pedal clips, no need for socks and shoes that just get wet and miserable, a digestive system like a goose, takes in small high calories food bits and turns it into energy quickly, pooping out the waste immediately to save on weight, lightweight bony epaulets with turn signals on the shoulders.       Date: 26 Aug 2007 19:32:18 From: A Muzi Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors >>> Greens wrote: >>>> While riding along, I often think I wish I had eyes like a deer for >>>> bicycling, set on the side of my head so that I could see what's >>>> happening >>>> to the front, sides and to a much larger extent, the rear. I'm >>>> convinced >>>> that the cyclist needs this kidn of vision more than a car or >>>> pedestrian. >>>> Cars don't need to see what's behind them as much because they're about _snip- >> A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>> "I wish I had eyes like a deer" >>> Or a gimlet-eyed lizard, eh? > "Ozark Bicycle" <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote >> The next leap forward in cycling: the genetically modified rider. Greens wrote: > Would make a nice series for a Worth 1000 contest. Cyclist adaptations - > eyes on the side of the head or spider eyes, humoungous lungs and chest to > hold them, all of it streamlined and water repellent, maybe oiled feathers > to insulate and keep out water, extra bone on the skull to protect the brain > in impacts, feet with integrated pedal clips, no need for socks and shoes > that just get wet and miserable, a digestive system like a goose, takes in > small high calories food bits and turns it into energy quickly, pooping out > the waste immediately to save on weight, lightweight bony epaulets with turn > signals on the shoulders. Or a handlebar and three cranksets (arachnidae). Or skip the machinery altogether (rotifera) -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971   Date: 26 Aug 2007 15:53:21 From: A Muzi Subject: Re: The need for high tech traffic detectors Greens wrote: > While riding along, I often think I wish I had eyes like a deer for > bicycling, set on the side of my head so that I could see what's happening > to the front, sides and to a much larger extent, the rear. I'm convinced > that the cyclist needs this kidn of vision more than a car or pedestrian. > Cars don't need to see what's behind them as much because they're about the > fastest thing on the road and fender benders aren't usually fatal for > motorists. Cyclists are usually the slowest thing on the road. > > Example 1: Biking down the road, there's a parked car up ahead. I can't tell > if someone is in the driver's seat. That might be a headrest and even if it > isn't the driver might be bent over. I'd like to steer wide around the > parked car, but I can hear a car coming behind me. I look in my side mirror > (mounted on my handlebar and way too far to the side if you ask me) and I > see the car coming up from behind in my mirror. What I don't see or hear is > that there's another car right behind him. The first car passes and I start > to move into the main path of traffic behind it to pass the parked car at a > safe distance, but at the last moment I notice the second car who has > fortunately spotted me. I pass the parked car with inches to spare. As it > turns out that's all the second motorist thought I'd want. Luck is with me > and nobody throws open the door. > > The key thing is I made it through this by sheer luck. The second car had me > covered to some extent and the parked car didn't door me. I'd much rather > have been given an early warning that a second car was coming. > Unfortunately, I don't know of any car detecting gadgets, but then there's > that guy that did the experiment with wearing helmets. He said that wearing > helmets resulted in motorists giving you less space. That's not important > right now. The important thing is that in his study he used an ultrasonic > gadget to detect cars and their distance from him. That's the kind of thing > I want. Some kind of sonar to let me know what's going on behind me. Let me > know if there are cars, how many cars, in back, to the side, etc and also if > they are veering onto the side of the road. > > Sometimes your ears will pick up the second car, but often the first car or > a lawnmower or just the wind will drown out the sound of cars coming up from > behind. I've also had fast moving cyclists pass me with almost no warning > and sometimes I do swerve around a little. It's just pure luck that there > wasn't a collision. > > Ultrasound is one way of doing it. Infrared might be better. All cars have > hot motors. Couldn't something be made to show how many hot spots there are > around me? Maybe a screen to show them closing in? > > I've also thought of mounting a rear facing video camera and monitor so that > I could watch and maybe even record traffic and events. I think the screen > may be too small though. > > There are times when I get into situations where I have to see and monitor > cars and peds behind, in front and to the side of me all at the same time. > Things just change so fast and people do the strangest things in reaction to > cyclists. Women will push a baby carriage right in front of you to make the > point that they have the right of way. This is as opposed to slowing down > for a couple of seconds. I would think it would be easy to just slow down > while pushing a baby carriage, but some women are so intent on pressing > their right of way that they'll push that carriage in front of you to make > you stop. I've also had a woman walk right into my path with her pack of > loose dogs at night. I had a light on, but I guess I wasn't making a car > noise. I assumed because she was approaching at 90 degrees, she'd see me, > but no. She doesn't look up unless she hears the telltale sound of 3000 > pound car on pavement. "I wish I had eyes like a deer" Or a gimlet-eyed lizard, eh? -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971