|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009
On Nov 17, 12:22*am, DirtRoadie wrote:
On Nov 16, 10:27*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote: If you worry about the minuscule chance of being killed from behind, and therefore spend a lot of time gazing into your rear view mirror, you're almost certainly _more_ likely to get into a wreck from a left cross, a right hook, a door, a pull-out, a pothole, a slippery spot, or even a dog. Wow! Now there's the voice of reason. I especially like the "if....therefore" part. Let's recognize the other issues. If you are obsessed with the possibilty of being hit from the right you will undoubtedly never look to the left and will be creamed by something coming from the left that you didn't see. It's pretty obvious, isn't it? Geez if you are watching for potholes you will never see dogs. OMG ,I 'm done with riding. There is just NO way to keep track of what 's going on around you. DR All dogs do are chase. You might want to stop pulling that bone on a rope 2. :-) Have a great day, Andy http://intouch.org/magazine/daily-devotional http://www.happynews.com |
Ads |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009
On Nov 17, 9:06*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Nov 17, 4:21*pm, James wrote: On Nov 18, 5:43*am, Ed wrote: The other 6 were in the light. One was listed as dawn and that guy specifically had a reflector (and large/slow vehicle triangle). the dusk victim's driver complained of sun glare. We had a veteran killed earlier this year. *Got run over from behind by a bus. *The bus driver said the sun was in his eyes. Regarding sun in drivers' eyes: *If the sun is low in the sky, and you're between a motorist and the sun, you may indeed be invisible. *A sensible motorist should be using his visor properly to shade his eyes, and driving at a speed where he won't hit anything or anybody; but lots of motorists don't understand that. So be aware of low-sun situations. *It's really bad only for a few minutes before sunset or after sunrise. *It's probably easy enough to avoid. - Frank Krygowski Best advice for bicyclists is the same as for driving a car. I make the assumption that everyone out there is trying to hit me. Have a great day, Andy http://intouch.org/magazine/daily-devotional http://www.happynews.com |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009
On Nov 19, 6:58*pm, James wrote:
On Nov 20, 9:44*am, Frank Krygowski wrote: James, it should be obvious that I wasn't seriously quoting you. *But that's certainly the direction you were going - looking harder to find bad news about bicycling. No, wrong again. *I'm interested in why there is an overwhelming interest in dead cyclists while the seriously injured ones are not so interesting. * This should be obvious. Death always arouses the most interest because it is in a way the ultimate "serious" outcome. And as explained, "seriously injured" is a much more difficult thing to define. Death is counted pretty much the same way in all countries and in all studies. But we just looked at a study that defined "serious" as "any injury a doctor or nurse looks at." It would take years of hard work to get researchers to agree on what "serious" means. That's unlikely to happen. So the most interesting thing is the same thing that's easiest to define, and that which has the best data records. It's going to be very hard to convince many people to abandon those facts. It is obvious that it makes the statisticians job harder, however the conditions under which an accident occurs, regardless of the outcome, may be more insightful. If you're trying to find the specific details of road conditions and operator mistakes that lead to crashes, you're right, more data is better. But you'll always have the problem that some things are too minor to bother with. It's common for "Safety!" zealots to decry the fact that not all bike crashes are reported to police - as if every time a jogger tripped and fell, it was reported to police! One has to draw a line, and say some events aren't important enough to worry about. Now, Carol Tan did excellent work on details of bike crashes in the US. Her "crash type manual" is a great resource. You can find places to download it, I'm sure. But whether you'll ever get such a work done for your area, I don't know. I'd think it unlikely - it's a huge project. If you are not a little bit savvy or if you are very unlucky, cycling can be very dangerous, indeed life threatening. *Luckily we are mostly savvy enough that we mostly stay safe. *There are still the unlucky ones. But that's true of every activity in the world. It doesn't have much to do with evaluating or improving (if necessary) any one activity's level of safety. If the problem exists that motorists need better education, don't you think it's worth pursuing? I do. I've stated that pretty often. I think you've aligned yourself with those authors, by your admission that there are almost no bike fatalities in your area, so you want to look for lesser injuries. *You want to show - somehow - that cycling really is dangerous. snip Wrong again. *I want to know what accidents happened and how they could be avoided or reduced. * OK, I can accept that. - Frank Krygowski |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009
On Nov 19, 9:28*pm, Andy wrote:
Riding on sidewalks is an excellent way to reduce those "unwanted events." That's been researched many times. AFAIK, there is no study that's ever found sidewalk cycling to be anywhere near as safe as riding on the road. - Frank Krygowski |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009
On Nov 19, 9:46 am, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 11/19/2010 12:07 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On Nov 18, 5:30 pm, wrote: So you're saying because it's too difficult to assess bicycling accidents that don't result in a death, we should just ignore that dataset. Hmm, me thinks there's likely a whole range of accidents the statisticians don't know or care about. How comforting. Last night, I read through the article on Portland bike commuter injuries: Hoffman, Lambert et.al., _Bicycle Commuter Injury Prevention_, Journal of Trauma, V 69 No 5 Nov 2010. It does just what James likes: It attempts to inflate the "Danger!" impression attached to cycling by diligently capturing every tiny injury, no matter how slight, that any bicyclist in its study population received in an entire year. James is saying that using only fatalities and not other cycling injuries is skewing the data if the data is used to determine whether cycling is dangerous. Are you disagreeing with that? Accusing him of trying to inflate the danger and then phrasing it as "diligently capturing every tiny injury ..." is irritating. To say the least. |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009
On Nov 19, 6:28 pm, Andy wrote:
On Nov 16, 11:27 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote: On Nov 16, 11:01 pm, James wrote: On Nov 17, 2:33 pm, Phil H wrote: The most common manner of collision is when a driver strikes a cyclist from behind" What the ~!? Calling Frank Krygowski to the terminal... (He just loves to write about what he calls "fear from the rear". According to Frank, we shouldn't be concerned at all that we might be hit from behind.) Hits from the rear are responsible for a large percentage of cyclist fatalities. But cyclist fatalities are extremely rare. (There were not even 700 in all the U.S. in 2009, if I recall correctly, compared with over 4000 pedestrians, and tens of thousands of motor vehicle occupants.) In the US, there are at _least_ 8 million miles ridden between bike fatalities. The vast majority of bike crashes or wrecks are caused by something you see in front of you, not behind you. Most common causes of bike crashes are simple road hazards - things like gravel, potholes, slippery stuff, cracks that swallow wheels, etc. After that, there are cars that turn left in front of you (left in the US), cars that right hook you, cars that pull out of stop signs or driveways, car doors that open in front of you. There are a surprising number of bike-bike crashes, too. If you worry about the minuscule chance of being killed from behind, and therefore spend a lot of time gazing into your rear view mirror, you're almost certainly _more_ likely to get into a wreck from a left cross, a right hook, a door, a pull-out, a pothole, a slippery spot, or even a dog. - Frank Krygowski Riding on sidewalks is an excellent way to reduce those "unwanted events." I ran out of wine again and had to run to the store. Dark, cold, wet, wet leaves. Popped a couple of warmup wheeljies heading for main street. Come to the stop sign, and holy crap - not only are there cars coming, there are lots of them coming both ways (Friday night - must be a game.) Roll up onto the sidewalk (just about fell over there), but then saw a truckload of christmas trees or something coming one way going slow, and a gap behind a pickup truck coming the other way... no McGaskill, but wheelied off the curb and squirted across :-) Thought about it later. Of course I should have rolled up to the stop sign, assumed the position, and showed those motorists how to cycle properly (lights notwithstanding). The number of bicylists in Pearland, Texas has really increased due to the job and economy. We have a bike lane in the downtown area, but I usually use the sidewalks during the going to/coming home time of the day. Bicylists get to see all kinds of interesting things and there are financial payoffs. Some items I have found in dumpsters include: Fully functional P-4 system to replace my old P-3. (Just had to fabricate a front cover.) I run OS/2 1.3 on my 386. snip |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009
On 11/19/2010 10:19 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Nov 19, 6:58 pm, wrote: On Nov 20, 9:44 am, Frank wrote: James, it should be obvious that I wasn't seriously quoting you. But that's certainly the direction you were going - looking harder to find bad news about bicycling. No, wrong again. I'm interested in why there is an overwhelming interest in dead cyclists while the seriously injured ones are not so interesting. This should be obvious. Death always arouses the most interest because it is in a way the ultimate "serious" outcome. And as explained, "seriously injured" is a much more difficult thing to define. Death is counted pretty much the same way in all countries and in all studies. But we just looked at a study that defined "serious" as "any injury a doctor or nurse looks at." It would take years of hard work to get researchers to agree on what "serious" means. That's unlikely to happen. So the most interesting thing is the same thing that's easiest to define, and that which has the best data records. It's going to be very hard to convince many people to abandon those facts. It is obvious that it makes the statisticians job harder, however the conditions under which an accident occurs, regardless of the outcome, may be more insightful. If you're trying to find the specific details of road conditions and operator mistakes that lead to crashes, you're right, more data is better. But you'll always have the problem that some things are too minor to bother with. It's common for "Safety!" zealots to decry the fact that not all bike crashes are reported to police - as if every time a jogger tripped and fell, it was reported to police! One has to draw a line, and say some events aren't important enough to worry about. Now, Carol Tan did excellent work on details of bike crashes in the US. Her "crash type manual" is a great resource. You can find places to download it, I'm sure. But whether you'll ever get such a work done for your area, I don't know. I'd think it unlikely - it's a huge project. If you are not a little bit savvy or if you are very unlucky, cycling can be very dangerous, indeed life threatening. Luckily we are mostly savvy enough that we mostly stay safe. There are still the unlucky ones. But that's true of every activity in the world. It doesn't have much to do with evaluating or improving (if necessary) any one activity's level of safety. If the problem exists that motorists need better education, don't you think it's worth pursuing? I do. I've stated that pretty often. I think you've aligned yourself with those authors, by your admission that there are almost no bike fatalities in your area, so you want to look for lesser injuries. You want to show - somehow - that cycling really is dangerous. snip Wrong again. I want to know what accidents happened and how they could be avoided or reduced. OK, I can accept that. - Frank Krygowski Stutts, J. & Hunter, W. (1999) Injuries to Pedestrians and Bicyclists – An Anlysis Based on Hospital Emergency Department Data. FHWA-RD-99-078. Federal Highway Administration. http://katana.hsrc.unc.edu/cms/downl...e_Analysis.pdf "These findings lend strong support to previous research (summarized in chapter 2) carried out in this country, as well as in Australia, New Zealand, and a number of European countries, showing that reliance on official road accident statistics greatly underestimates the number of injured bicyclists and pedestrians." "Finally, it is interesting to draw perspective from numbers that have been reported nationally concerning injured pedestrians and bicyclists. Two obvious sources for information on events that involve a motor vehicle are the Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS) and the General Estimates System (GES). According to FARS data, 830 bicyclists were killed in collisions with motor vehicles in 1995, including 136 in California, 50 in New York, and 35 in North Carolina (NHTSA, 1996). For pedestrians, the corresponding numbers were 5,585 overall, 825 in California, 412 in New York, and 188 in North Carolina. Information on injured bicyclists and pedestrians, based on GES data, is only available at the national level: an estimated 61,000 bicyclists and 84,000 pedestrians were injured in collisions with motor vehicles (NHTSA, 1996). These numbers, based on police crash reports, only reflect the "tip of the iceberg" as far as injuries to pedestrians and bicyclists are concerned." Similar to recent Portland statistics, this study found about 1/2 of ER admissions for bike crashes in the road involved motor vehicles. Of those, ~1/4 resulted in hospital admission. |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009
On 11/19/2010 10:28 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Nov 19, 9:28 pm, wrote: Riding on sidewalks is an excellent way to reduce those "unwanted events." That's been researched many times. AFAIK, there is no study that's ever found sidewalk cycling to be anywhere near as safe as riding on the road. - Frank Krygowski http://katana.hsrc.unc.edu/cms/downl...e_Analysis.pdf "Combining the two sources of information, the Commission was able to conclude, for example, that the risk of injury for children riding bicycles in the street was about eight times greater than riding on bicycle paths, and nearly two times greater than riding on sidewalks" |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009
On Nov 20, 9:06*am, Peter Cole wrote:
"These findings lend strong support to previous research (summarized in chapter 2) carried out in this country, as well as in Australia, New Zealand, and a number of European countries, showing that reliance on official road accident statistics greatly underestimates the number of injured bicyclists and pedestrians." Not to mention injured gardeners, injured aerobic dancers, injured weightlifters, injured kids playing tag or hopscotch! The fundamental principle is that of _course_ many injuries are unrecorded, because most injuries are too minor to matter. This is true no matter what the activity. It generates complaints only from those who make it their mission to "dangerize" a particular activity. For some reason, bicycling seems to attract the attention of a disproportionate number of those people. And by the way, those gardeners, aerobic dancers and weightlifters? I have on file a paper which I've cited before. A poll similar to the Portland paper found that doing any of those activities for exercise generates more injuries than does riding a bicycle for exercise. Powell, et. al., _Injury Rates from Walking, Gardening, Weightlifting, Outdoor Bicycling and Aerobics_, Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, V 20, pp. 1243-9, 1998. Bicycling was the safest of all those activities, according to their poll results. Why are some bicyclists so intent on overstating bicycling's minimal dangers? Is it some weird macho thing? - Frank Krygowski |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009
On Nov 20, 8:12*am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Why are some bicyclists so intent on overstating bicycling's minimal dangers? Why are some engineers in Ohio so ignorantly intent on posing inaccurate rhetorical questions using exaggerations? Is it some ethnic thing? DR |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Reduce fatalities or danger rates instead? | Doug[_3_] | UK | 3 | September 19th 10 08:05 AM |
Three cycling fatalities in London last month. | Daniel Barlow | UK | 4 | July 7th 09 12:58 PM |
Child cyclist fatalities in London | Tom Crispin | UK | 13 | October 11th 08 05:12 PM |
Car washes for cyclist fatalities | Bobby | Social Issues | 4 | October 11th 04 07:13 PM |
web-site on road fatalities | cfsmtb | Australia | 4 | April 23rd 04 09:21 AM |