Cycling deaths in Toronto traced back to city infrastructure
 

On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 12:45:25 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Sunday, July 12, 2015 at 10:31:48 AM UTC-4, sms wrote:
I've never been a "danger danger" like our friend from Ohio.

The best method of educating people is to set an example. Using proper
lighting is the best example. When people ask me where I got my lights,
or the handlebar mount, I tell them, but that's about it.

Yet more bull****! You're saying that it's very dangerous to ride a bicycle in the daytime UNLESS YOU HAVE BRIGHT FLASHING DLRs! That's the same as shouting "DANGER! DANGER!" The simple fact that you continue to ignore is that MILLIONS, I repeat, MILLIONS of bicyclists commute each and every day and in very heavy traffic without using DLRs. SHHESH!

Cheers


How cruel. People see Swarfe's bike. They crowd around shouting "WHERE
DID YOU GET THAT LIGHT". He tells them about his web site and he makes
a couple of bucks.

What, you deny him a chance to make an honest dollar?
--
cheers,

John B.

Cycling deaths in Toronto traced back to city infrastructure
 

On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 07:32:43 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 7/12/2015 5:12 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jul 2015 19:15:40 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 7/11/2015 5:25 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

snip

I had expected that there would be a whole slew of screeching brakes
and cars swerving out of my way.... Damn! it was discouraging, not a
single car or truck seemed to notice my special, super, deluxe,
blinking light.

They all noticed it. That's why there was no screeching of brakes and
swerving. They saw you because you were conspicuous and they did not
have to make any sudden moves.


Well this morning I tried it without the light and Bless Me, I
couldn't tell the difference. The cars, buses and trucks acted just
like they did the day I tested the flasher.

You must have had a built in bias, or you were riding in such a way that
making yourself more conspicuous made no difference.


I haven't changed my riding style in 20 years and I don't believe that
I am biased. I have both a front and rear flashing light on my bikes
but I certainly don't allege that the cars treat me differently when
the flashers are on, as you do. In fact, as I said, I can't see any
difference whatsoever, lights on, off, flashing, or not installed.

I haven't tried the flag idea but I do, occasionally see people
carrying a 12 ft. length of PVC pipe on their shoulder. Perhaps that
might be a good idea.
--
cheers,

John B.

Cycling deaths in Toronto traced back to city infrastructure
 

On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 11:20:43 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 7/12/2015 8:20 AM, jbeattie wrote:

Maybe he was riding in a low traffic area. Maybe he's otherwise visible. Who knows. I saw maybe 100+ riders while out yesterday. One had a FDRL. Lots of team/club/shop ride packs where one would expect to see the non-foolish riders.

The large number of DRLs on bicycles are in commuting areas where there
are a lot of professional people commuting. Maybe that sounds snooty,
but the riders in my area of Silicon Valley are divided into groups. You
have the professional people, the elderly Asians that are living with
their kids and don't drive, and you have service workers. The latter two
groups are unlikely to be wearing helmets or to be using lights, day or
night. The first group is the one that understands the benefit of being
more conspicuous and protecting themselves in the event of a head-impact
crash.

In San Francisco, in the areas and at the times I am riding, it's
heavily professional people, with a few messengers thrown in, plus the
bike share bikes. The bike share bikes all have flashers, front and
rear, that are always on when the bicycle is in motion. The professional
people also tend to use DRLs. The messengers do not.


How about a survey to determine who are the endangered group. Do the
Aged Asians get run over more, or the professional people get run over
more?

My guess is that the old Asian guy has been riding a bike for 40 - 50
years without getting squashed and the "professional group" seem to be
the highly endangered group according to the statistics generated by
the CHP.

Does that say something about Old Asians? Or Professional People?
people?
--
cheers,

John B.

Cycling deaths in Toronto traced back to city infrastructure
 

Am 10.07.2015 um 21:31 schrieb sms:
On 7/10/2015 12:20 PM, jbeattie wrote:

But keep in mind that statistics are like opinions, except worse
because people present them as facts. The raw data is the fact -- and
like Frank points out, the conclusions drawn from the DRL data are
suspicious -- much like helmets preventing broken legs (mine does,
BTW). I don't trust epidemiology about 74% of the time.

Frank's problem has long been that he doesn't understand the difference
between correlation and causation. The "helmets prevent broken legs"
schtick that he is so fond of is a direct result of this failure of
being able to distinguish between correlation and causation.

He does but those people who markte helmets by mentioning papers that
try to demonstrate causation by claiming correlation don't.

Do you know the 'contra-positive' rule of formal logic?

A = B is equivalent to -B = -A.

Causation implies correlation. Therefore failed correlation implied no
causation.

Rolf

Cycling deaths in Toronto traced back to city infrastructure
 

Am 09.07.2015 um 20:59 schrieb sms:
On 7/9/2015 12:11 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:

Something really bad must be happening if somebody like you sits in the
front of the bus! You can clearly see that all people like you always
sit in the rear of the bus, and there must be a good reason for this
(you grandad might remember).

Something must have gotten screwed up when you translated whatever it is
you meant to say.

Do the key words Alabama and 1956 ring a bell?

Cycling deaths in Toronto traced back to city infrastructure
 

On 13/07/2015 8:06 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 09.07.2015 um 20:59 schrieb sms:
On 7/9/2015 12:11 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:

Something really bad must be happening if somebody like you sits in the
front of the bus! You can clearly see that all people like you always
sit in the rear of the bus, and there must be a good reason for this
(you grandad might remember).

Something must have gotten screwed up when you translated whatever it is
you meant to say.

Do the key words Alabama and 1956 ring a bell?

It does. So what are you trying to say with "all people like you always
sit in the rear of the bus and there must be a good reason for this."

Cycling deaths in Toronto traced back to city infrastructure
 

On 7/13/2015 5:26 AM, Duane wrote:
On 13/07/2015 8:06 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 09.07.2015 um 20:59 schrieb sms:
On 7/9/2015 12:11 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:

Something really bad must be happening if somebody like you sits in the
front of the bus! You can clearly see that all people like you always
sit in the rear of the bus, and there must be a good reason for this
(you grandad might remember).

Something must have gotten screwed up when you translated whatever it is
you meant to say.

Do the key words Alabama and 1956 ring a bell?

It does. So what are you trying to say with "all people like you always
sit in the rear of the bus and there must be a good reason for this."

Whatever he meant to say got lost in translation.

Cycling deaths in Toronto traced back to city infrastructure
 

On 7/13/2015 1:40 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 10.07.2015 um 21:31 schrieb sms:
On 7/10/2015 12:20 PM, jbeattie wrote:

But keep in mind that statistics are like opinions, except worse
because people present them as facts. The raw data is the fact -- and
like Frank points out, the conclusions drawn from the DRL data are
suspicious -- much like helmets preventing broken legs (mine does,
BTW). I don't trust epidemiology about 74% of the time.

Frank's problem has long been that he doesn't understand the difference
between correlation and causation. The "helmets prevent broken legs"
schtick that he is so fond of is a direct result of this failure of
being able to distinguish between correlation and causation.

He does but those people who markte helmets by mentioning papers that
try to demonstrate causation by claiming correlation don't.

I've never seen that, but I don't pay attention to marketing claims by
helmet companies. I look at statistics and data from studies that have
nothing to gain no matter what the conclusion.

Do you know the 'contra-positive' rule of formal logic?

A = B is equivalent to -B = -A.

Causation implies correlation. Therefore failed correlation implied no
causation.

That's why no normal person would ever claim causation when only
correlation exists. That's why control groups are used and only one
variable is changed at a time.