Great Cycling Advocate Killed by repeat Drunk Driver

"Gearóid Ó Laoi/Garry Lee" wrote in message
...
It is an international statistic that your safest bet in cycling is to
cycle
on minor roads. I do.


You are 6 times less like to be killed on a minor road, as on a major one.


Please don't quote statistics without a link to the source of said
statistics. Otherwise it is just hearsay. If you can provide the source, it
would be appreciated and provide credibility to your position. I would be
more likely to believe this statistic if it were applied to automobiles. But
I have doubts about it being true for cyclists as many cyclists avoid major
roads anyway. It seems the data would be seriously skewed. But please,
provide a link if you have one.

Thanks,
Buck

iLiad wrote:
The number of people killed in alcohol-related crashes has risen slightly
since 1999 ending years of steady decline. Last year, 17,448 were killed,
accounting for 41 percent of all U.S. traffic deaths.
http://www.ghsa.org/html/media/mediacoverage/121802.htm

It's nice to see that alcohol-involved (maybe a passenger had
alcohol in his system) has been replaced by alcohol-related
(a vehicle operator or pedestrian had alcohol in his system)
but it would be nice to know how many were drunk, how many
were impaired, and how many just had a dose of cough syrup last
night. It would also be nice to know if the alcohol-related
person had anything to do with causing the death.
Mitch.

In article , says...
iLiad wrote:
The number of people killed in alcohol-related crashes has risen slightly
since 1999 ending years of steady decline. Last year, 17,448 were killed,
accounting for 41 percent of all U.S. traffic deaths.
http://www.ghsa.org/html/media/mediacoverage/121802.htm

It's nice to see that alcohol-involved (maybe a passenger had
alcohol in his system) has been replaced by alcohol-related
(a vehicle operator or pedestrian had alcohol in his system)
but it would be nice to know how many were drunk, how many
were impaired, and how many just had a dose of cough syrup last
night. It would also be nice to know if the alcohol-related
person had anything to do with causing the death.
Mitch.

From what I've read, in accident statistics, "Alcohol-related" means
that the alcohol contributed in some significant way to causing the
accident. A drunk pedestrian on the sidewalk who is killed by a
reckless driver who loses control on the road and runs up on the
sidewalk and kills said drunk pedestrian is not considered an "alcohol-
related" accident. Neither is one where a passenger is drunk but the
driver has no alcohol in his system, but falls asleep and hits a tree.

As far as what level of alcohol in the blood stream is considered to be
"impaired", I'm not sure if there's a standard, but I've seen at least
one study which used a level of half of the legally intoxicated level.
I don't think I could come up with a reference for that, but that's the
way I remember it.

--
Dave Kerber
Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

In article ,
Buck s c h w i n n _ f o r _ s a l e @ h o t m a i l . c o m wrote:
"Gearóid Ó Laoi/Garry Lee" wrote in message
...
It is an international statistic that your safest bet in cycling is to
cycle
on minor roads. I do.


You are 6 times less like to be killed on a minor road, as on a major one.


Please don't quote statistics without a link to the source of said
statistics.

Hear, hear.

For what it's worth, the one study I remember off the top of my head
having a comparison between "major" and "minor" roads is this summary of a
survey of LAW members--

http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/Moritz2.htm

which finds the major roads slightly safer. (See "major w/o bike
facilities", "minor w/o bike facilities", in table 5.)

--Bruce Fields

David Kerber wrote:

In article , says...
iLiad wrote:
http://www.ghsa.org/html/media/mediacoverage/121802.htm


From what I've read, in accident statistics, "Alcohol-related" means
that the alcohol contributed in some significant way to causing the
accident. A drunk pedestrian on the sidewalk who is killed by a
reckless driver who loses control on the road and runs up on the
sidewalk and kills said drunk pedestrian is not considered an "alcohol-
related" accident.

In the link above, this definition was given:
NHTSA defines an alcohol-related fatality as any that occurred
in an accident where a driver, pedestrian or cyclist had alcohol
detected in their blood. In most states, it is legal to drive with
less than 0.08 percent blood alcohol content.

After seeing that definition of the alcohol relationship with the 17,000
deaths, we see this quote on the same page:
"We have very little evidence that a significant number of people
are dying from cell phones, yet we know that more than 17,000
people died from drunken driving,"

Mitch.

Mitch Haley wrote:

David Kerber wrote:


In article , says...


iLiad wrote:


http://www.ghsa.org/html/media/mediacoverage/121802.htm


From what I've read, in accident statistics, "Alcohol-related" means
that the alcohol contributed in some significant way to causing the
accident. A drunk pedestrian on the sidewalk who is killed by a
reckless driver who loses control on the road and runs up on the
sidewalk and kills said drunk pedestrian is not considered an "alcohol-
related" accident.



In the link above, this definition was given:
NHTSA defines an alcohol-related fatality as any that occurred
in an accident where a driver, pedestrian or cyclist had alcohol
detected in their blood. In most states, it is legal to drive with
less than 0.08 percent blood alcohol content.

After seeing that definition of the alcohol relationship with the 17,000
deaths, we see this quote on the same page:
"We have very little evidence that a significant number of people
are dying from cell phones, yet we know that more than 17,000
people died from drunken driving,"


It's not illegal so no one ever follows up with an investigation (cell
phone records could be used to prove it - but there's no reason to).
Annnnd ...... as it is now; who would admit to it?

Nearly every close call I've had in the last few years has involved a
driver with their cell phone clamped firmly to their head and NOT paying
attention. My daughter, when driving an Access Ride bus said that bus
drivers talk about seeing that inattention due to cell phone usage all
the time. Seen many cars changing lanes without a blinker? In my
experience, odds are very high that the person is on their hand held
cell phone - too busy - too mentally occupied - to reach the blinker
lever. I have a friend who was hit by a cell phone toting driver and and
suffered a serious back injury. This may all sound anecdotal, but I've
seen enough to know that cell phones are a unique hazard and their use
while driving should be banned.

--
*****************************
Chuck Anderson • Boulder, CO
http://www.CycleTourist.com
Integrity is obvious.
The lack of it is common.
*****************************

Mark Hickey wrote in message . ..
Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

That's a good price. I'll take one! Make mine 3"x2.5" ovalized main
tube, set up for a 47" wheelbase, 44" X-seam and dual 650C wheels,
with mounts for an M5 carbon seat. Gee what a coincidence, those are
the same measurements as a Bacchetta Aero frame. What are the odds?
g

"Gearóid Ó Laoi/Garry Lee" wrote in message ...
It is an international statistic that your safest bet in cycling is to cycle
on minor roads. I do.


You are 6 times less like to be killed on a minor road, as on a major one.

Even without the footnote, I can see where this statistic may be
accurate. When I go out do do my favorite 37 mile exercise loop, it's
90% country roads, but I still have to do a few miles on major
suburban roads to get to those country roads. Heavy traffic certainly
complicates matters since drivers often can't see any further than the
Texas-sized SUV that they're tailgating. Sometimes I worry not so
much about the vehicle right behind me, as the 3 or 4 behind him/her.
When cars number 1, 2 and 3 get in the left lane to pass me, will car
number 4 see his golden opportunity to pass the whole pack on the
right? This is usually not an issue on the farm-to-market roads,
where my only harrassment comes from (generally harmless) dogs. One
problem with country roads, however, involves those country roads that
lead to a liquor store, since Lubbock has no package stores within the
city limits. IMO it's a stupid law, since it tends to put people into
the position where they have to drive longer distaces when they run
out of alcohol half-way through the party and they're already half
schnockered. But Lubbock was founded (and is still run) by Baptist
and Church of Christ types, who (at least officially) disapprove of
SINFUL things like alcohol. Nevermind the fact that Jesus drank wine
like people drink Pepsi nowadays.

Bill Anton
2001 Vision R-40 SWb 26x26 OSS
Lubbock, TX, USA

In article W38cb.558849$YN5.383334@sccrnsc01, Chuck Anderson
wrote:

Mitch Haley wrote:

David Kerber wrote:


In article , says...


iLiad wrote:


http://www.ghsa.org/html/media/mediacoverage/121802.htm


From what I've read, in accident statistics, "Alcohol-related" means
that the alcohol contributed in some significant way to causing the
accident. A drunk pedestrian on the sidewalk who is killed by a
reckless driver who loses control on the road and runs up on the
sidewalk and kills said drunk pedestrian is not considered an "alcohol-
related" accident.



In the link above, this definition was given:
NHTSA defines an alcohol-related fatality as any that occurred
in an accident where a driver, pedestrian or cyclist had alcohol
detected in their blood. In most states, it is legal to drive with
less than 0.08 percent blood alcohol content.

After seeing that definition of the alcohol relationship with the 17,000
deaths, we see this quote on the same page:
"We have very little evidence that a significant number of people
are dying from cell phones, yet we know that more than 17,000
people died from drunken driving,"


It's not illegal so no one ever follows up with an investigation (cell
phone records could be used to prove it - but there's no reason to).
Annnnd ...... as it is now; who would admit to it?

In some states, it is illegal, but only to talk on a hand-held cell phone.
Hands-free units are fine. But personally, I don't think hands are the
issue. I think cell phones are way too distracting, and I'd just ban them
from use by a driver, period, while the vehicle is in traffic.

Nearly every close call I've had in the last few years has involved a
driver with their cell phone clamped firmly to their head and NOT paying
attention. My daughter, when driving an Access Ride bus said that bus
drivers talk about seeing that inattention due to cell phone usage all
the time. Seen many cars changing lanes without a blinker? In my
experience, odds are very high that the person is on their hand held
cell phone - too busy - too mentally occupied - to reach the blinker
lever. I have a friend who was hit by a cell phone toting driver and and
suffered a serious back injury. This may all sound anecdotal, but I've
seen enough to know that cell phones are a unique hazard and their use
while driving should be banned.

Well, I don't know if I'd call them unique. I think other distractions
while driving are just as bad, and people have to realize just how
dangerous they are. You can get in a terrible accident because of
refereeing a fight with the kids in the back, arguing with the passenger,
switching radio stations to find something you like, eating, or reaching
down to get your wallet from your purse. Until people take all these
behaviors, as well as cell phone use, seriously as driving hazards, there
will continue to be more accidents by distracted drivers.

Some people even stop by the mailbox on the way out of the house, open up
their mail, and read it while driving.

There has to be an attitude developed that even in a world so busy that
one is constantly tempted to multitask, driving is one action that should
be done completely by itself, without trying to accomplish anything else
at the same time.
--
Trudi

(Bill Anton) wrote in message . com...

Nevermind the fact that Jesus drank wine
like people drink Pepsi nowadays.

Good thing He didn't live in Atlanta!