View Single Post
  #926  
Old February 2nd 19, 06:08 PM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default AG: Lit Crit wanted

On 2/1/2019 6:56 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Fri, 1 Feb 2019 12:45:59 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 2/1/2019 12:12 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 19:24:38 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/31/2019 6:34 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

Yet, strangely, I've never heard a bicycle advocate emphasize that it
might be preferable to obey traffic laws and not be drunk when riding
a bicycle. In honesty I have read mention in various "how to" bicycle
articles that casually mention, usually after several lurid paragraphs
about bikes being hit from the rear and the dangers of right turns,
the casual mention that bicyclists should obey the law, with no
emphasis what so ever that riding a bicycle in violation of the
traffic laws may result in the cyclist being killed.

There are _plenty_ of sources of information that tell cyclists to obey
the rules of the road. I'm sure there aren't as many that say "Don't
ride while drunk" - but then, do you think such advice would make a
difference? Maybe I'm stereotyping, but I think the typical guy who lost
his license by DUI isn't going to read safety information before biking
home from the bar.

Maybe you'll like Frank & Fred. See
http://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/index.html

Here's the first one:
http://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/FrankNFred001.htm

And the second starts talking about laws:
http://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/FrankNFred002.htm

Right. That reference says:
"First, riding to the left of center. Second, crashing stop signs or
traffic lights. Third, shooting into a lane of traffic without
checking to see if it's clear."

Apparently any other act is permitted.


?? Why did you stop reading before the next sentence or two?

"There are other mistakes, of course, but my main idea this month is: If
you wouldn't do something driving a car, you probably shouldn't do it
riding a bike."

For a bit more detail see:

https://tinyurl.com/y99znkzw
There were 5,090 collisions between a bicycle and a motor vehicle in
L.A. county in 2012, of which 2,759 were the fault of the bicycle.
That is 54%.

https://tinyurl.com/y7lsx4y4
"19% of bicyclists killed in 2014 had blood alcohol levels of 0.08 or
higher"

https://tinyurl.com/yc2emabq
"Some 21 percent of autopsies for New York City bicyclists who died
within three hours of their accidents detected alcohol in the body"


I've seen that data, John. I'm not arguing against it. I'm arguing
against your pretense that bicycling advocates don't promote obedience
to traffic laws.

You're right that more attention should be paid to discouraging drunk
cycling. I'd like to hear your ideas on how that should be done. What do
you suggest? Maybe signs next to the bike racks outside of bars?


Quite simple. You enforce the existing laws.

I can't comment on what actually happens in the U.S. as, to paraphrase
Will Rogers, the only thing I know is what I read here, but when I see
things like "Jez Cri! I was only doing 10 miles over the limit when
the Sum Btch stopped me", I get the impression that the general U.S.
public is made up of scofflaws.

I'll give you an example of how enforcing laws actually works. In
Singapore the law says that "you shall not talk on a hand phone while
driving". The penalty is something like a $1,000 fine - about a week's
salary for a working man. And guess what, they enforce the law and
people don't talk on hand phones while driving.


I certainly won't deny differences in culture between different
countries. But solving the problem of riding bikes while drunk by
"simple, you enforce existing laws" is kind of naive, at least in the
U.S.. Here's how it would probably go down:

First, some local mayor or police chief would have to declare that this
is going to be a major goal. Now even in some ideal world where that
goal were achieved ("Drunk bicycling is down 80% in East Podunk!") it
would probably make no difference across the city line in West Podunk.
Jurisdiction limits are real. And the effort would probably end in a
year even in East Podunk.

But more realistically: As soon as the Podunk Courier's headline said
"Cops to crack down on drunk pedalers," the call-in talk show would be
buried in "What a waste of money!" and "Can't they fight REAL crime?"
and "When they're waiting outside bars, who will protect my
neighborhood?" and "They can't stop a biker without probable cause!!!
I'm writing to the ACLU!!" The political fallout would be quick.

And there wont' be huge federal grant to hire enough extra cops to put
the sting on drunks biking away from bars. Saving the lives of 200
drunks, nationwide, per year just won't be a high priority. (Of those,
far less than one per year would happen in East Podunk anyway.) Plus,
grant givers will correctly say "It's better that they risk their lives
on bikes, instead of risking others' lives by driving cars."

So because of politics and practicalities, enforcement at a level to
seriously restrict drunk bicycling seems impossible to me, at least in
the U.S. I think the problem just isn't big enough, and the solution is
too difficult. (200 fatalities per year is fewer than almost all other
causes of death.)

Speaking of differences between societies: What's the annual drunk
bicyclist death count in, say, Singapore? How does it compare with
pedestrian and motorist death counts? And what does ultra-strict
Singapore do to prevent drunk bicycling?


--
- Frank Krygowski
Ads
 

Home - Home - Home - Home - Home