Today's reading: Comparisons of danger

On 5/24/2019 3:22 AM, wrote:
On Friday, May 24, 2019 at 4:24:32 AM UTC+2, Frank Krygowski wrote:
It's been pointed out that "safe" vs. "dangerous" is not a binary
choice. There are various levels of risk, and activities can be very
dangerous, very safe, or every shade in between.

One rational way of judging an activity's level of safety is to compare
it with other activities. These comparisons have been done for a long
time, using different methods, and bicycling tends to come out of the
comparisons looking quite good.

Of course, some here strongly disapprove of such comparisons. They say
it somehow doesn't matter that (as data from several countries show)
bicycling's fatality rate per mile is lower than that for walking. Or
that bicycling's fatality rate per hour is far lower than that for
swimming. Or that bicyclists report fewer injuries per month than
gardeners. For those people, anything that shows bicycling is safe must
be mocked.

Well, yet another team of researchers disagrees. See Chieng, et. al.,
"How dangerous is cycling in New Zealand?", Journal of Transport &
Health, Vol. 6 (2017), pp. 23-28.

"We compared the risks of tpical exposures to road cycling for transport
with other common activities including do-it-yourself repairs (DIY) at
home, horse riding, quad bike riding, rugby union and snow sports...
Based on moderate injuries, cycling is less dangerous than many
recreationa and every day activities. We conclude that fear of cycling
in car-dependent New Zealand arises mainly from other causes than risk
of injury..."

Their metric was a bit unusual. They first used information on typical
monthly exposure for those who chose each activity in the list; and they
calculated expected injuries for a typical exposure (multiplied by a
million to shift the decimal point for easier discussion). For example,
horse riders don't tend to ride as often as transportational cyclists,
so if the per-hour injury rate were identical, horse riding would get a
sort of bonus and cycling would be penalized.

But horse riding is not identical in danger to bicycling. In fact, they
found "a typical exposure to cycling ... was 1.2 to 2.2 times safer than
DIY, 1.3 to 5.3 times safer than horse riding, 60 to 140 times safer
than skiing and 460 to 530 times safer than rugby." That's even though
the "typical exposure to cycling" is many more hours per year than most
of the activities they rated.

They also note "Also, we have not accounted for other impacts on health
than injury, although these mostly weigh heavily in favour of the
bicycle. (Numerous studies report that health gains from increased
physical activity exceed by a wide margin detrimental effects of injury
and pollution.)"

Further on, they say injury "...figures are very small in absolute
terms, and cannot explain why bicycles are singled out as 'unsafe'."
But they note the "Danger! Danger!" tendency of most bike safety
material: "Road safety programmes commonly emphasise the dangers of
cycling."

Yes indeed. So how can we get people to stop claiming riding a bike is
terribly dangerous? That nonsense spews not only from certain posters
here, but from every "protected bike lane" fan, every "wear your helmet"
nanny, every "Daytime Running Lights!" whacko, every "bright yellow
jacket" fashionista.

And most of those people are dedicated bicyclists! Why is it that
bicyclists are so dedicate to shooting themselves in the foot?

--
- Frank Krygowski

Everyone finds cycling as dangerous as he or she experiences it so you can stop your long essays. They don't change anything. They only make you look pedant.

Lou, the authors of the paper disagree with you. They point out that
propaganda has falsely convinced people that bicycling is dangerous; and
the result is that vast numbers of people _don't_ experience it. They
discuss this in some detail at the end of their paper.

I won't apologize for posting and discussing factual information on the
low risk of cycling, or on it's benefits. I won't apologize for
countering the myth that cycling is unusually dangerous and best avoided
- unless, as some here claim, you adopt every "safety" device ever marketed.

Finally: Where you live, you may see very little of this "Danger!
Danger!" crap. Based on what I've experienced in the U.S., and from what
I hear and read in Australia and New Zealand, that crap is rampant.
There is currently an avalanche of propaganda claiming riding a bike is
very dangerous unless the bicyclists are at all times protected from car
traffic by barriers. The propagandists want no car tires to ever touch
the pavement where a bike must pass.

This nonsense is bad for those of us riding normal streets and roads,
and it's bad for the future of bicycling.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Friday, May 24, 2019 at 7:38:47 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/24/2019 3:22 AM, wrote:
On Friday, May 24, 2019 at 4:24:32 AM UTC+2, Frank Krygowski wrote:
It's been pointed out that "safe" vs. "dangerous" is not a binary
choice. There are various levels of risk, and activities can be very
dangerous, very safe, or every shade in between.

One rational way of judging an activity's level of safety is to compare
it with other activities. These comparisons have been done for a long
time, using different methods, and bicycling tends to come out of the
comparisons looking quite good.

Of course, some here strongly disapprove of such comparisons. They say
it somehow doesn't matter that (as data from several countries show)
bicycling's fatality rate per mile is lower than that for walking. Or
that bicycling's fatality rate per hour is far lower than that for
swimming. Or that bicyclists report fewer injuries per month than
gardeners. For those people, anything that shows bicycling is safe must
be mocked.

Well, yet another team of researchers disagrees. See Chieng, et. al.,
"How dangerous is cycling in New Zealand?", Journal of Transport &
Health, Vol. 6 (2017), pp. 23-28.

"We compared the risks of tpical exposures to road cycling for transport
with other common activities including do-it-yourself repairs (DIY) at
home, horse riding, quad bike riding, rugby union and snow sports...
Based on moderate injuries, cycling is less dangerous than many
recreationa and every day activities. We conclude that fear of cycling
in car-dependent New Zealand arises mainly from other causes than risk
of injury..."

Their metric was a bit unusual. They first used information on typical
monthly exposure for those who chose each activity in the list; and they
calculated expected injuries for a typical exposure (multiplied by a
million to shift the decimal point for easier discussion). For example,
horse riders don't tend to ride as often as transportational cyclists,
so if the per-hour injury rate were identical, horse riding would get a
sort of bonus and cycling would be penalized.

But horse riding is not identical in danger to bicycling. In fact, they
found "a typical exposure to cycling ... was 1.2 to 2.2 times safer than
DIY, 1.3 to 5.3 times safer than horse riding, 60 to 140 times safer
than skiing and 460 to 530 times safer than rugby." That's even though
the "typical exposure to cycling" is many more hours per year than most
of the activities they rated.

They also note "Also, we have not accounted for other impacts on health
than injury, although these mostly weigh heavily in favour of the
bicycle. (Numerous studies report that health gains from increased
physical activity exceed by a wide margin detrimental effects of injury
and pollution.)"

Further on, they say injury "...figures are very small in absolute
terms, and cannot explain why bicycles are singled out as 'unsafe'."
But they note the "Danger! Danger!" tendency of most bike safety
material: "Road safety programmes commonly emphasise the dangers of
cycling."

Yes indeed. So how can we get people to stop claiming riding a bike is
terribly dangerous? That nonsense spews not only from certain posters
here, but from every "protected bike lane" fan, every "wear your helmet"
nanny, every "Daytime Running Lights!" whacko, every "bright yellow
jacket" fashionista.

And most of those people are dedicated bicyclists! Why is it that
bicyclists are so dedicate to shooting themselves in the foot?

--
- Frank Krygowski

Everyone finds cycling as dangerous as he or she experiences it so you can stop your long essays. They don't change anything. They only make you look pedant.

Lou, the authors of the paper disagree with you. They point out that
propaganda has falsely convinced people that bicycling is dangerous; and
the result is that vast numbers of people _don't_ experience it. They
discuss this in some detail at the end of their paper.

What propaganda? What "vast numbers of people"? A lot of people don't ride in heavy traffic because it sucks -- or because they're lazy or even because they don't like riding around other cyclists. It's not all about perceived danger. Like I've said before, I have some high mileage friends who gave up riding on some roads just because they were unpleasant and stressful.

I know very few people, if any, who legitimately don't ride because of danger or the supposed danger propaganda. Most of the people who talk to me in the elevator about it being too dangerous to ride have a doughnut in one hand and a double-tall caramel machiato with whipped cream in the other. You could put in an elevated cycling tube from their homes, and they would find some other reason for not riding. People who want to ride typically can find a traffic calmed street or bicycle facility to use -- or some other facility where they feel comfortable.

Some roads I ride are dangerous because the locals are plain vicious -- the PU drivers in rural counties who want to make a point by making close passes on shoulderless country roads with ridiculously high speed limits (50-55mph). Riding lane center makes no difference except in terms of how long the honking lasts. No cycling technique makes a difference. Maybe Atavan or a shotgun would make a difference. It is plain unpleasant, and I totally understand riders staying away.

Many of my quiet country rides are now miserable, nearly constant interactions with cars speeding to and from the new pop-up suburbs. Would I prefer a dedicated bike lane or separated facility. Sure, but I don't expect to get one any time soon. Riding in heavy downtown traffic is actually safer and less stressful because speeds are so low and taking the lane is usually enough to prevent close passing, assuming I feel like sitting in traffic and not filtering, which is entirely legal and a whole lot faster.

-- Jay Beattie.

jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, May 24, 2019 at 7:38:47 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/24/2019 3:22 AM, wrote:
On Friday, May 24, 2019 at 4:24:32 AM UTC+2, Frank Krygowski wrote:
It's been pointed out that "safe" vs. "dangerous" is not a binary
choice. There are various levels of risk, and activities can be very
dangerous, very safe, or every shade in between.

One rational way of judging an activity's level of safety is to compare
it with other activities. These comparisons have been done for a long
time, using different methods, and bicycling tends to come out of the
comparisons looking quite good.

Of course, some here strongly disapprove of such comparisons. They say
it somehow doesn't matter that (as data from several countries show)
bicycling's fatality rate per mile is lower than that for walking. Or
that bicycling's fatality rate per hour is far lower than that for
swimming. Or that bicyclists report fewer injuries per month than
gardeners. For those people, anything that shows bicycling is safe must
be mocked.

Well, yet another team of researchers disagrees. See Chieng, et. al.,
"How dangerous is cycling in New Zealand?", Journal of Transport &
Health, Vol. 6 (2017), pp. 23-28.

"We compared the risks of tpical exposures to road cycling for transport
with other common activities including do-it-yourself repairs (DIY) at
home, horse riding, quad bike riding, rugby union and snow sports...
Based on moderate injuries, cycling is less dangerous than many
recreationa and every day activities. We conclude that fear of cycling
in car-dependent New Zealand arises mainly from other causes than risk
of injury..."

Their metric was a bit unusual. They first used information on typical
monthly exposure for those who chose each activity in the list; and they
calculated expected injuries for a typical exposure (multiplied by a
million to shift the decimal point for easier discussion). For example,
horse riders don't tend to ride as often as transportational cyclists,
so if the per-hour injury rate were identical, horse riding would get a
sort of bonus and cycling would be penalized.

But horse riding is not identical in danger to bicycling. In fact, they
found "a typical exposure to cycling ... was 1.2 to 2.2 times safer than
DIY, 1.3 to 5.3 times safer than horse riding, 60 to 140 times safer
than skiing and 460 to 530 times safer than rugby." That's even though
the "typical exposure to cycling" is many more hours per year than most
of the activities they rated.

They also note "Also, we have not accounted for other impacts on health
than injury, although these mostly weigh heavily in favour of the
bicycle. (Numerous studies report that health gains from increased
physical activity exceed by a wide margin detrimental effects of injury
and pollution.)"

Further on, they say injury "...figures are very small in absolute
terms, and cannot explain why bicycles are singled out as 'unsafe'."
But they note the "Danger! Danger!" tendency of most bike safety
material: "Road safety programmes commonly emphasise the dangers of
cycling."

Yes indeed. So how can we get people to stop claiming riding a bike is
terribly dangerous? That nonsense spews not only from certain posters
here, but from every "protected bike lane" fan, every "wear your helmet"
nanny, every "Daytime Running Lights!" whacko, every "bright yellow
jacket" fashionista.

And most of those people are dedicated bicyclists! Why is it that
bicyclists are so dedicate to shooting themselves in the foot?

--
- Frank Krygowski

Everyone finds cycling as dangerous as he or she experiences it so you
can stop your long essays. They don't change anything. They only make you look pedant.

Lou, the authors of the paper disagree with you. They point out that
propaganda has falsely convinced people that bicycling is dangerous; and
the result is that vast numbers of people _don't_ experience it. They
discuss this in some detail at the end of their paper.

What propaganda? What "vast numbers of people"? A lot of people don't
ride in heavy traffic because it sucks -- or because they're lazy or even
because they don't like riding around other cyclists. It's not all about
perceived danger. Like I've said before, I have some high mileage friends
who gave up riding on some roads just because they were unpleasant and stressful.

I know very few people, if any, who legitimately don't ride because of
danger or the supposed danger propaganda. Most of the people who talk to
me in the elevator about it being too dangerous to ride have a doughnut
in one hand and a double-tall caramel machiato with whipped cream in the
other. You could put in an elevated cycling tube from their homes, and
they would find some other reason for not riding. People who want to ride
typically can find a traffic calmed street or bicycle facility to use --
or some other facility where they feel comfortable.

Some roads I ride are dangerous because the locals are plain vicious --
the PU drivers in rural counties who want to make a point by making close
passes on shoulderless country roads with ridiculously high speed limits
(50-55mph). Riding lane center makes no difference except in terms of how
long the honking lasts. No cycling technique makes a difference. Maybe
Atavan or a shotgun would make a difference. It is plain unpleasant, and
I totally understand riders staying away.

Many of my quiet country rides are now miserable, nearly constant
interactions with cars speeding to and from the new pop-up suburbs. Would
I prefer a dedicated bike lane or separated facility. Sure, but I don't
expect to get one any time soon. Riding in heavy downtown traffic is
actually safer and less stressful because speeds are so low and taking
the lane is usually enough to prevent close passing, assuming I feel like
sitting in traffic and not filtering, which is entirely legal and a whole lot faster.

-- Jay Beattie.





Another +1


duane

On 5/25/2019 12:08 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, May 24, 2019 at 7:38:47 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/24/2019 3:22 AM, wrote:
On Friday, May 24, 2019 at 4:24:32 AM UTC+2, Frank Krygowski wrote:
It's been pointed out that "safe" vs. "dangerous" is not a binary
choice. There are various levels of risk, and activities can be very
dangerous, very safe, or every shade in between.

One rational way of judging an activity's level of safety is to compare
it with other activities. These comparisons have been done for a long
time, using different methods, and bicycling tends to come out of the
comparisons looking quite good.

Of course, some here strongly disapprove of such comparisons. They say
it somehow doesn't matter that (as data from several countries show)
bicycling's fatality rate per mile is lower than that for walking. Or
that bicycling's fatality rate per hour is far lower than that for
swimming. Or that bicyclists report fewer injuries per month than
gardeners. For those people, anything that shows bicycling is safe must
be mocked.

Well, yet another team of researchers disagrees. See Chieng, et. al.,
"How dangerous is cycling in New Zealand?", Journal of Transport &
Health, Vol. 6 (2017), pp. 23-28.

"We compared the risks of tpical exposures to road cycling for transport
with other common activities including do-it-yourself repairs (DIY) at
home, horse riding, quad bike riding, rugby union and snow sports...
Based on moderate injuries, cycling is less dangerous than many
recreationa and every day activities. We conclude that fear of cycling
in car-dependent New Zealand arises mainly from other causes than risk
of injury..."

Their metric was a bit unusual. They first used information on typical
monthly exposure for those who chose each activity in the list; and they
calculated expected injuries for a typical exposure (multiplied by a
million to shift the decimal point for easier discussion). For example,
horse riders don't tend to ride as often as transportational cyclists,
so if the per-hour injury rate were identical, horse riding would get a
sort of bonus and cycling would be penalized.

But horse riding is not identical in danger to bicycling. In fact, they
found "a typical exposure to cycling ... was 1.2 to 2.2 times safer than
DIY, 1.3 to 5.3 times safer than horse riding, 60 to 140 times safer
than skiing and 460 to 530 times safer than rugby." That's even though
the "typical exposure to cycling" is many more hours per year than most
of the activities they rated.

They also note "Also, we have not accounted for other impacts on health
than injury, although these mostly weigh heavily in favour of the
bicycle. (Numerous studies report that health gains from increased
physical activity exceed by a wide margin detrimental effects of injury
and pollution.)"

Further on, they say injury "...figures are very small in absolute
terms, and cannot explain why bicycles are singled out as 'unsafe'."
But they note the "Danger! Danger!" tendency of most bike safety
material: "Road safety programmes commonly emphasise the dangers of
cycling."

Yes indeed. So how can we get people to stop claiming riding a bike is
terribly dangerous? That nonsense spews not only from certain posters
here, but from every "protected bike lane" fan, every "wear your helmet"
nanny, every "Daytime Running Lights!" whacko, every "bright yellow
jacket" fashionista.

And most of those people are dedicated bicyclists! Why is it that
bicyclists are so dedicate to shooting themselves in the foot?

--
- Frank Krygowski

Everyone finds cycling as dangerous as he or she experiences it so you can stop your long essays. They don't change anything. They only make you look pedant.

Lou, the authors of the paper disagree with you. They point out that
propaganda has falsely convinced people that bicycling is dangerous; and
the result is that vast numbers of people _don't_ experience it. They
discuss this in some detail at the end of their paper.

What propaganda? What "vast numbers of people"? A lot of people don't ride in heavy traffic because it sucks -- or because they're lazy or even because they don't like riding around other cyclists. It's not all about perceived danger. Like I've said before, I have some high mileage friends who gave up riding on some roads just because they were unpleasant and stressful.

I know very few people, if any, who legitimately don't ride because of danger or the supposed danger propaganda. Most of the people who talk to me in the elevator about it being too dangerous to ride have a doughnut in one hand and a double-tall caramel machiato with whipped cream in the other. You could put in an elevated cycling tube from their homes, and they would find some other reason for not riding. People who want to ride typically can find a traffic calmed street or bicycle facility to use -- or some other facility where they feel comfortable.

Some roads I ride are dangerous because the locals are plain vicious -- the PU drivers in rural counties who want to make a point by making close passes on shoulderless country roads with ridiculously high speed limits (50-55mph). Riding lane center makes no difference except in terms of how long the honking lasts. No cycling technique makes a difference. Maybe Atavan or a shotgun would make a difference. It is plain unpleasant, and I totally understand riders staying away.

Many of my quiet country rides are now miserable, nearly constant interactions with cars speeding to and from the new pop-up suburbs. Would I prefer a dedicated bike lane or separated facility. Sure, but I don't expect to get one any time soon. Riding in heavy downtown traffic is actually safer and less stressful because speeds are so low and taking the lane is usually enough to prevent close passing, assuming I feel like sitting in traffic and not filtering, which is entirely legal and a whole lot faster.

-- Jay Beattie.



+1 good overview.

People who ride, ride and you can't stop us.
People who don't ride, don't and you can't make them.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 5/25/2019 1:08 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, May 24, 2019 at 7:38:47 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/24/2019 3:22 AM, wrote:
On Friday, May 24, 2019 at 4:24:32 AM UTC+2, Frank Krygowski wrote:
It's been pointed out that "safe" vs. "dangerous" is not a binary
choice. There are various levels of risk, and activities can be very
dangerous, very safe, or every shade in between.

One rational way of judging an activity's level of safety is to compare
it with other activities. These comparisons have been done for a long
time, using different methods, and bicycling tends to come out of the
comparisons looking quite good.

Of course, some here strongly disapprove of such comparisons. They say
it somehow doesn't matter that (as data from several countries show)
bicycling's fatality rate per mile is lower than that for walking. Or
that bicycling's fatality rate per hour is far lower than that for
swimming. Or that bicyclists report fewer injuries per month than
gardeners. For those people, anything that shows bicycling is safe must
be mocked.

Well, yet another team of researchers disagrees. See Chieng, et. al.,
"How dangerous is cycling in New Zealand?", Journal of Transport &
Health, Vol. 6 (2017), pp. 23-28.

"We compared the risks of tpical exposures to road cycling for transport
with other common activities including do-it-yourself repairs (DIY) at
home, horse riding, quad bike riding, rugby union and snow sports...
Based on moderate injuries, cycling is less dangerous than many
recreationa and every day activities. We conclude that fear of cycling
in car-dependent New Zealand arises mainly from other causes than risk
of injury..."

Their metric was a bit unusual. They first used information on typical
monthly exposure for those who chose each activity in the list; and they
calculated expected injuries for a typical exposure (multiplied by a
million to shift the decimal point for easier discussion). For example,
horse riders don't tend to ride as often as transportational cyclists,
so if the per-hour injury rate were identical, horse riding would get a
sort of bonus and cycling would be penalized.

But horse riding is not identical in danger to bicycling. In fact, they
found "a typical exposure to cycling ... was 1.2 to 2.2 times safer than
DIY, 1.3 to 5.3 times safer than horse riding, 60 to 140 times safer
than skiing and 460 to 530 times safer than rugby." That's even though
the "typical exposure to cycling" is many more hours per year than most
of the activities they rated.

They also note "Also, we have not accounted for other impacts on health
than injury, although these mostly weigh heavily in favour of the
bicycle. (Numerous studies report that health gains from increased
physical activity exceed by a wide margin detrimental effects of injury
and pollution.)"

Further on, they say injury "...figures are very small in absolute
terms, and cannot explain why bicycles are singled out as 'unsafe'."
But they note the "Danger! Danger!" tendency of most bike safety
material: "Road safety programmes commonly emphasise the dangers of
cycling."

Yes indeed. So how can we get people to stop claiming riding a bike is
terribly dangerous? That nonsense spews not only from certain posters
here, but from every "protected bike lane" fan, every "wear your helmet"
nanny, every "Daytime Running Lights!" whacko, every "bright yellow
jacket" fashionista.

And most of those people are dedicated bicyclists! Why is it that
bicyclists are so dedicate to shooting themselves in the foot?

--
- Frank Krygowski

Everyone finds cycling as dangerous as he or she experiences it so you can stop your long essays. They don't change anything. They only make you look pedant.

Lou, the authors of the paper disagree with you. They point out that
propaganda has falsely convinced people that bicycling is dangerous; and
the result is that vast numbers of people _don't_ experience it. They
discuss this in some detail at the end of their paper.

What propaganda? What "vast numbers of people"? A lot of people don't ride in heavy traffic because it sucks -- or because they're lazy or even because they don't like riding around other cyclists. It's not all about perceived danger. Like I've said before, I have some high mileage friends who gave up riding on some roads just because they were unpleasant and stressful.

I know very few people, if any, who legitimately don't ride because of danger or the supposed danger propaganda. Most of the people who talk to me in the elevator about it being too dangerous to ride have a doughnut in one hand and a double-tall caramel machiato with whipped cream in the other. You could put in an elevated cycling tube from their homes, and they would find some other reason for not riding. People who want to ride typically can find a traffic calmed street or bicycle facility to use -- or some other facility where they feel comfortable.

I'm surprised you're treating this as so binary - that either people
have a deathly fear of cycling, or they're 300 pound couch potatoes who
would never consider any physical activity.

The general unpopularity of cycling in America (and Australia, New
Zealand, etc.) has been a subject of study. I haven't bothered to track
down all the papers I've seen cited, but there have been many. Danger is
always near the top of the reasons. Yes, people could be making excuses,
there are plenty of other excuses available. I doubt the "danger" excuse
just pops into their minds. And given the way "bike safety" messages are
delivered, it's not surprising danger is a common idea.

I'm aware that some would not cycle even if it were stamped and
certified as totally without risk. That doesn't change the fact that
fear of danger is one of the biggest deterrents.

I'm not saying no roads are dangerous, or no roads are unpleasant. I
often choose my routes to avoid unpleasant ones. But I find even most
"scary!" roads are fine when I ride properly.


Some roads I ride are dangerous because the locals are plain vicious -- the PU drivers in rural counties who want to make a point by making close passes on shoulderless country roads with ridiculously high speed limits (50-55mph). Riding lane center makes no difference except in terms of how long the honking lasts. No cycling technique makes a difference. Maybe Atavan or a shotgun would make a difference. It is plain unpleasant, and I totally understand riders staying away.

Many of my quiet country rides are now miserable, nearly constant interactions with cars speeding to and from the new pop-up suburbs. Would I prefer a dedicated bike lane or separated facility. Sure, but I don't expect to get one any time soon. Riding in heavy downtown traffic is actually safer and less stressful because speeds are so low and taking the lane is usually enough to prevent close passing, assuming I feel like sitting in traffic and not filtering, which is entirely legal and a whole lot faster.

We have similar roads. Since I've lived here (almost 40 years) several
of our favorite roads have gotten less pleasant. But there are plenty of
pleasant routes left. I enjoy exploring and finding them, even though I
know the area very thoroughly.

I'm not against all segregated bike infrastructure. The one stretch of
busy four-lane I have to ride most often (for example, to reach a
hardware store or the mall) would certainly benefit from a separate,
well-maintained alternative route.

But saying that is a lot different from saying "We need new,
_innovative_ ways of separating bikes from cars everywhere. Bike lane
stripes are not safe enough!" I'm reading that nonsense almost daily
now, and not only is it wrong, it's unproductive. It scares people away
from riding here and now.

I've met a person who claimed she couldn't ride in her cul-de-sac
residential neighborhood because there were no bike lane stripes. I've
met a person (a new attendee at a bike club meeting) who asked her
husband in horror "Are they talking about riding on ROADS???" I've
talked to people who said they won't ride a bike because they didn't
want to wear a helmet. All that is related to false "danger!" claims.


--
- Frank Krygowski

AMuzi wrote:
On 5/25/2019 12:08 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, May 24, 2019 at 7:38:47 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/24/2019 3:22 AM, wrote:
On Friday, May 24, 2019 at 4:24:32 AM UTC+2, Frank Krygowski wrote:
It's been pointed out that "safe" vs. "dangerous" is not a binary
choice. There are various levels of risk, and activities can be very
dangerous, very safe, or every shade in between.

One rational way of judging an activity's level of safety is to compare
it with other activities. These comparisons have been done for a long
time, using different methods, and bicycling tends to come out of the
comparisons looking quite good.

Of course, some here strongly disapprove of such comparisons. They say
it somehow doesn't matter that (as data from several countries show)
bicycling's fatality rate per mile is lower than that for walking. Or
that bicycling's fatality rate per hour is far lower than that for
swimming. Or that bicyclists report fewer injuries per month than
gardeners. For those people, anything that shows bicycling is safe must
be mocked.

Well, yet another team of researchers disagrees. See Chieng, et. al.,
"How dangerous is cycling in New Zealand?", Journal of Transport &
Health, Vol. 6 (2017), pp. 23-28.

"We compared the risks of tpical exposures to road cycling for transport
with other common activities including do-it-yourself repairs (DIY) at
home, horse riding, quad bike riding, rugby union and snow sports...
Based on moderate injuries, cycling is less dangerous than many
recreationa and every day activities. We conclude that fear of cycling
in car-dependent New Zealand arises mainly from other causes than risk
of injury..."

Their metric was a bit unusual. They first used information on typical
monthly exposure for those who chose each activity in the list; and they
calculated expected injuries for a typical exposure (multiplied by a
million to shift the decimal point for easier discussion). For example,
horse riders don't tend to ride as often as transportational cyclists,
so if the per-hour injury rate were identical, horse riding would get a
sort of bonus and cycling would be penalized.

But horse riding is not identical in danger to bicycling. In fact, they
found "a typical exposure to cycling ... was 1.2 to 2.2 times safer than
DIY, 1.3 to 5.3 times safer than horse riding, 60 to 140 times safer
than skiing and 460 to 530 times safer than rugby." That's even though
the "typical exposure to cycling" is many more hours per year than most
of the activities they rated.

They also note "Also, we have not accounted for other impacts on health
than injury, although these mostly weigh heavily in favour of the
bicycle. (Numerous studies report that health gains from increased
physical activity exceed by a wide margin detrimental effects of injury
and pollution.)"

Further on, they say injury "...figures are very small in absolute
terms, and cannot explain why bicycles are singled out as 'unsafe'."
But they note the "Danger! Danger!" tendency of most bike safety
material: "Road safety programmes commonly emphasise the dangers of
cycling."

Yes indeed. So how can we get people to stop claiming riding a bike is
terribly dangerous? That nonsense spews not only from certain posters
here, but from every "protected bike lane" fan, every "wear your helmet"
nanny, every "Daytime Running Lights!" whacko, every "bright yellow
jacket" fashionista.

And most of those people are dedicated bicyclists! Why is it that
bicyclists are so dedicate to shooting themselves in the foot?

--
- Frank Krygowski

Everyone finds cycling as dangerous as he or she experiences it so you
can stop your long essays. They don't change anything. They only make you look pedant.

Lou, the authors of the paper disagree with you. They point out that
propaganda has falsely convinced people that bicycling is dangerous; and
the result is that vast numbers of people _don't_ experience it. They
discuss this in some detail at the end of their paper.

What propaganda? What "vast numbers of people"? A lot of people don't
ride in heavy traffic because it sucks -- or because they're lazy or
even because they don't like riding around other cyclists. It's not all
about perceived danger. Like I've said before, I have some high mileage
friends who gave up riding on some roads just because they were unpleasant and stressful.

I know very few people, if any, who legitimately don't ride because of
danger or the supposed danger propaganda. Most of the people who talk to
me in the elevator about it being too dangerous to ride have a doughnut
in one hand and a double-tall caramel machiato with whipped cream in the
other. You could put in an elevated cycling tube from their homes, and
they would find some other reason for not riding. People who want to
ride typically can find a traffic calmed street or bicycle facility to
use -- or some other facility where they feel comfortable.

Some roads I ride are dangerous because the locals are plain vicious --
the PU drivers in rural counties who want to make a point by making
close passes on shoulderless country roads with ridiculously high speed
limits (50-55mph). Riding lane center makes no difference except in
terms of how long the honking lasts. No cycling technique makes a
difference. Maybe Atavan or a shotgun would make a difference. It is
plain unpleasant, and I totally understand riders staying away.

Many of my quiet country rides are now miserable, nearly constant
interactions with cars speeding to and from the new pop-up suburbs.
Would I prefer a dedicated bike lane or separated facility. Sure, but I
don't expect to get one any time soon. Riding in heavy downtown traffic
is actually safer and less stressful because speeds are so low and
taking the lane is usually enough to prevent close passing, assuming I
feel like sitting in traffic and not filtering, which is entirely legal
and a whole lot faster.

-- Jay Beattie.



+1 good overview.

People who ride, ride and you can't stop us.
People who don't ride, don't and you can't make them.


Yep

--
duane

On Sat, 25 May 2019 10:08:31 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:


Much deleted

Everyone finds cycling as dangerous as he or she experiences it so you can stop your long essays. They don't change anything. They only make you look pedant.

Lou, the authors of the paper disagree with you. They point out that
propaganda has falsely convinced people that bicycling is dangerous; and
the result is that vast numbers of people _don't_ experience it. They
discuss this in some detail at the end of their paper.

What propaganda? What "vast numbers of people"? A lot of people don't ride in heavy traffic because it sucks -- or because they're lazy or even because they don't like riding around other cyclists. It's not all about perceived danger. Like I've said before, I have some high mileage friends who gave up riding on some roads just because they were unpleasant and stressful.

I know very few people, if any, who legitimately don't ride because of danger or the supposed danger propaganda. Most of the people who talk to me in the elevator about it being too dangerous to ride have a doughnut in one hand and a double-tall caramel machiato with whipped cream in the other. You could put in an elevated cycling tube from their homes, and they would find some other reason for not riding. People who want to ride typically can find a traffic calmed street or bicycle facility to use -- or some other facility where they feel comfortable.

Some roads I ride are dangerous because the locals are plain vicious -- the PU drivers in rural counties who want to make a point by making close passes on shoulderless country roads with ridiculously high speed limits (50-55mph). Riding lane center makes no difference except in terms of how long the honking lasts. No cycling technique makes a difference. Maybe Atavan or a shotgun would make a difference. It is plain unpleasant, and I totally understand riders staying away.

Truly? Are people in the U.S. actually so vicious? To deliberately
pass very closely when passing bicycles?

As I have said repeatedly, I do not live in the U.S. but in the
several countries I have lived, and ridden bicycles, in I can't
remember ever having it happen to me.

Earlier this morning, on my usual Sunday Ride, on a major highway I
was passed by a large number of vehicles ranging from 10 wheel trucks
hauling 10 wheel trailers to automobiles to small motorcycles and
frankly the small motorcycles, 100 cc Hondas, etc., passed closer than
any of the others. I'm guessing here but perhaps 1 meter clearance,
certainly not close enough to cause me to cringe in terror.

Many of my quiet country rides are now miserable, nearly constant interactions with cars speeding to and from the new pop-up suburbs. Would I prefer a dedicated bike lane or separated facility. Sure, but I don't expect to get one any time soon. Riding in heavy downtown traffic is actually safer and less stressful because speeds are so low and taking the lane is usually enough to prevent close passing, assuming I feel like sitting in traffic and not filtering, which is entirely legal and a whole lot faster.

-- Jay Beattie.


--
cheers,

John B.

On Sat, 25 May 2019 13:47:03 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 5/25/2019 12:08 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, May 24, 2019 at 7:38:47 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/24/2019 3:22 AM, wrote:
On Friday, May 24, 2019 at 4:24:32 AM UTC+2, Frank Krygowski wrote:
It's been pointed out that "safe" vs. "dangerous" is not a binary
choice. There are various levels of risk, and activities can be very
dangerous, very safe, or every shade in between.

One rational way of judging an activity's level of safety is to compare
it with other activities. These comparisons have been done for a long
time, using different methods, and bicycling tends to come out of the
comparisons looking quite good.

Of course, some here strongly disapprove of such comparisons. They say
it somehow doesn't matter that (as data from several countries show)
bicycling's fatality rate per mile is lower than that for walking. Or
that bicycling's fatality rate per hour is far lower than that for
swimming. Or that bicyclists report fewer injuries per month than
gardeners. For those people, anything that shows bicycling is safe must
be mocked.

Well, yet another team of researchers disagrees. See Chieng, et. al.,
"How dangerous is cycling in New Zealand?", Journal of Transport &
Health, Vol. 6 (2017), pp. 23-28.

"We compared the risks of tpical exposures to road cycling for transport
with other common activities including do-it-yourself repairs (DIY) at
home, horse riding, quad bike riding, rugby union and snow sports...
Based on moderate injuries, cycling is less dangerous than many
recreationa and every day activities. We conclude that fear of cycling
in car-dependent New Zealand arises mainly from other causes than risk
of injury..."

Their metric was a bit unusual. They first used information on typical
monthly exposure for those who chose each activity in the list; and they
calculated expected injuries for a typical exposure (multiplied by a
million to shift the decimal point for easier discussion). For example,
horse riders don't tend to ride as often as transportational cyclists,
so if the per-hour injury rate were identical, horse riding would get a
sort of bonus and cycling would be penalized.

But horse riding is not identical in danger to bicycling. In fact, they
found "a typical exposure to cycling ... was 1.2 to 2.2 times safer than
DIY, 1.3 to 5.3 times safer than horse riding, 60 to 140 times safer
than skiing and 460 to 530 times safer than rugby." That's even though
the "typical exposure to cycling" is many more hours per year than most
of the activities they rated.

They also note "Also, we have not accounted for other impacts on health
than injury, although these mostly weigh heavily in favour of the
bicycle. (Numerous studies report that health gains from increased
physical activity exceed by a wide margin detrimental effects of injury
and pollution.)"

Further on, they say injury "...figures are very small in absolute
terms, and cannot explain why bicycles are singled out as 'unsafe'."
But they note the "Danger! Danger!" tendency of most bike safety
material: "Road safety programmes commonly emphasise the dangers of
cycling."

Yes indeed. So how can we get people to stop claiming riding a bike is
terribly dangerous? That nonsense spews not only from certain posters
here, but from every "protected bike lane" fan, every "wear your helmet"
nanny, every "Daytime Running Lights!" whacko, every "bright yellow
jacket" fashionista.

And most of those people are dedicated bicyclists! Why is it that
bicyclists are so dedicate to shooting themselves in the foot?

--
- Frank Krygowski

Everyone finds cycling as dangerous as he or she experiences it so you can stop your long essays. They don't change anything. They only make you look pedant.

Lou, the authors of the paper disagree with you. They point out that
propaganda has falsely convinced people that bicycling is dangerous; and
the result is that vast numbers of people _don't_ experience it. They
discuss this in some detail at the end of their paper.

What propaganda? What "vast numbers of people"? A lot of people don't ride in heavy traffic because it sucks -- or because they're lazy or even because they don't like riding around other cyclists. It's not all about perceived danger. Like I've said before, I have some high mileage friends who gave up riding on some roads just because they were unpleasant and stressful.

I know very few people, if any, who legitimately don't ride because of danger or the supposed danger propaganda. Most of the people who talk to me in the elevator about it being too dangerous to ride have a doughnut in one hand and a double-tall caramel machiato with whipped cream in the other. You could put in an elevated cycling tube from their homes, and they would find some other reason for not riding. People who want to ride typically can find a traffic calmed street or bicycle facility to use -- or some other facility where they feel comfortable.

Some roads I ride are dangerous because the locals are plain vicious -- the PU drivers in rural counties who want to make a point by making close passes on shoulderless country roads with ridiculously high speed limits (50-55mph). Riding lane center makes no difference except in terms of how long the honking lasts. No cycling technique makes a difference. Maybe Atavan or a shotgun would make a difference. It is plain unpleasant, and I totally understand riders staying away.

Many of my quiet country rides are now miserable, nearly constant interactions with cars speeding to and from the new pop-up suburbs. Would I prefer a dedicated bike lane or separated facility. Sure, but I don't expect to get one any time soon. Riding in heavy downtown traffic is actually safer and less stressful because speeds are so low and taking the lane is usually enough to prevent close passing, assuming I feel like sitting in traffic and not filtering, which is entirely legal and a whole lot faster.

-- Jay Beattie.



+1 good overview.

People who ride, ride and you can't stop us.
People who don't ride, don't and you can't make them.

(in a small meek voice) Mister, you mean even if they build segregated
bicycle paths?
--
cheers,

John B.

On Saturday, May 25, 2019 at 10:36:45 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2019 13:47:03 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 5/25/2019 12:08 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, May 24, 2019 at 7:38:47 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/24/2019 3:22 AM, wrote:
On Friday, May 24, 2019 at 4:24:32 AM UTC+2, Frank Krygowski wrote:
It's been pointed out that "safe" vs. "dangerous" is not a binary
choice. There are various levels of risk, and activities can be very
dangerous, very safe, or every shade in between.

One rational way of judging an activity's level of safety is to compare
it with other activities. These comparisons have been done for a long
time, using different methods, and bicycling tends to come out of the
comparisons looking quite good.

Of course, some here strongly disapprove of such comparisons. They say
it somehow doesn't matter that (as data from several countries show)
bicycling's fatality rate per mile is lower than that for walking. Or
that bicycling's fatality rate per hour is far lower than that for
swimming. Or that bicyclists report fewer injuries per month than
gardeners. For those people, anything that shows bicycling is safe must
be mocked.

Well, yet another team of researchers disagrees. See Chieng, et. al..,
"How dangerous is cycling in New Zealand?", Journal of Transport &
Health, Vol. 6 (2017), pp. 23-28.

"We compared the risks of tpical exposures to road cycling for transport
with other common activities including do-it-yourself repairs (DIY) at
home, horse riding, quad bike riding, rugby union and snow sports....
Based on moderate injuries, cycling is less dangerous than many
recreationa and every day activities. We conclude that fear of cycling
in car-dependent New Zealand arises mainly from other causes than risk
of injury..."

Their metric was a bit unusual. They first used information on typical
monthly exposure for those who chose each activity in the list; and they
calculated expected injuries for a typical exposure (multiplied by a
million to shift the decimal point for easier discussion). For example,
horse riders don't tend to ride as often as transportational cyclists,
so if the per-hour injury rate were identical, horse riding would get a
sort of bonus and cycling would be penalized.

But horse riding is not identical in danger to bicycling. In fact, they
found "a typical exposure to cycling ... was 1.2 to 2.2 times safer than
DIY, 1.3 to 5.3 times safer than horse riding, 60 to 140 times safer
than skiing and 460 to 530 times safer than rugby." That's even though
the "typical exposure to cycling" is many more hours per year than most
of the activities they rated.

They also note "Also, we have not accounted for other impacts on health
than injury, although these mostly weigh heavily in favour of the
bicycle. (Numerous studies report that health gains from increased
physical activity exceed by a wide margin detrimental effects of injury
and pollution.)"

Further on, they say injury "...figures are very small in absolute
terms, and cannot explain why bicycles are singled out as 'unsafe'."
But they note the "Danger! Danger!" tendency of most bike safety
material: "Road safety programmes commonly emphasise the dangers of
cycling."

Yes indeed. So how can we get people to stop claiming riding a bike is
terribly dangerous? That nonsense spews not only from certain posters
here, but from every "protected bike lane" fan, every "wear your helmet"
nanny, every "Daytime Running Lights!" whacko, every "bright yellow
jacket" fashionista.

And most of those people are dedicated bicyclists! Why is it that
bicyclists are so dedicate to shooting themselves in the foot?

--
- Frank Krygowski

Everyone finds cycling as dangerous as he or she experiences it so you can stop your long essays. They don't change anything. They only make you look pedant.

Lou, the authors of the paper disagree with you. They point out that
propaganda has falsely convinced people that bicycling is dangerous; and
the result is that vast numbers of people _don't_ experience it. They
discuss this in some detail at the end of their paper.

What propaganda? What "vast numbers of people"? A lot of people don't ride in heavy traffic because it sucks -- or because they're lazy or even because they don't like riding around other cyclists. It's not all about perceived danger. Like I've said before, I have some high mileage friends who gave up riding on some roads just because they were unpleasant and stressful.

I know very few people, if any, who legitimately don't ride because of danger or the supposed danger propaganda. Most of the people who talk to me in the elevator about it being too dangerous to ride have a doughnut in one hand and a double-tall caramel machiato with whipped cream in the other. You could put in an elevated cycling tube from their homes, and they would find some other reason for not riding. People who want to ride typically can find a traffic calmed street or bicycle facility to use -- or some other facility where they feel comfortable.

Some roads I ride are dangerous because the locals are plain vicious -- the PU drivers in rural counties who want to make a point by making close passes on shoulderless country roads with ridiculously high speed limits (50-55mph). Riding lane center makes no difference except in terms of how long the honking lasts. No cycling technique makes a difference. Maybe Atavan or a shotgun would make a difference. It is plain unpleasant, and I totally understand riders staying away.

Many of my quiet country rides are now miserable, nearly constant interactions with cars speeding to and from the new pop-up suburbs. Would I prefer a dedicated bike lane or separated facility. Sure, but I don't expect to get one any time soon. Riding in heavy downtown traffic is actually safer and less stressful because speeds are so low and taking the lane is usually enough to prevent close passing, assuming I feel like sitting in traffic and not filtering, which is entirely legal and a whole lot faster.

-- Jay Beattie.



+1 good overview.

People who ride, ride and you can't stop us.
People who don't ride, don't and you can't make them.

(in a small meek voice) Mister, you mean even if they build segregated
bicycle paths?
--
cheers,

John B.

Yeppers! Most segregated bike paths I've read about soon become MUPs with all the problems of those. This is not to mention keeping a segregated bike path free of debris.

Cheers

On 5/25/2019 7:34 PM, John B. wrote:

snip

Truly? Are people in the U.S. actually so vicious? To deliberately
pass very closely when passing bicycles?

Yes. And it only takes a few such people. Judging from our last
presidential election, there are lot more such people than anyone believed.