IQ-X vs Edelux II

On 4/30/2019 12:35 AM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 29 Apr 2019 23:13:16 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/29/2019 10:41 PM, sms wrote:
On 4/29/2019 4:26 AM, John B. wrote:

snip

Protecting Bicyclists from what? They are, right now,the safest group
using the highways.

Oy, you really need to learn how to look at statistics in relation to
the number of trips or number of miles, and not just at raw numbers.

John Pucher (you cited one of his papers) in "Making Walking and Cycling
Safer: Lessons from Europe," estimates from U.S. data that bicyclists
suffer 109 fatalities per billion km ridden. Pedestrians suffer 362
fatalities per billion km, three times as bad!

Frankly I doubt that anyone has ridden a bicycle a billion kilometers
so why don't we use more down to earth numbers. Like, say, 1,000
Kilometers, or maybe 10,000 Kilometers? Or even 100,000 Km?

If we used more down to earth numbers like 1000 km, the fatality and
injury counts would be too low for most people to understand. Only a
small percentage of people are good at scientific notation.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/30/2019 10:35 AM, sms wrote:


Comparing the number of trips, or comparing by time, could work in some
cases. You're right, by time, walking is probably safer, but by distance
cycling is probably safer. By time or by distance or by trip, driving is
safer.

First, if even Scharf is admitting that bicycling is safer than walking
per mile traveled, can't we PLEASE ditch the constant warnings calling
for helmet use, daytime running lights, expensive and problematic
segregated facilities, high visibility clothing, etc?

Second, making the excuse that walking "is probably" (with no citation)
safer per hour is immaterial if a person is doing anything other than
recreation. A recreational walk or bike ride may be budgeted by time.
But later today I'll bike to our credit union. I certainly won't walk,
because it would take me three or four hours. Distance is important for
transportation.

Third: Touting the safety of driving seems weird for a mayor who
complains about traffic congestion. It also omits the very real
contribution of driving (a sedentary activity) toward the major causes
of death and disease in America. Bicycling has repeatedly been found to
have health benefits that greatly outweigh its tiny risks; so bicycling
is actually safer than _not_ bicycling. I don't think you can say that
about sitting in a car.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/30/2019 10:04 AM, jbeattie wrote:
Anyway, some facilities do bring out the cyclists, and sometimes you get a lot of cyclists with minimal facilities. It's not imagined or idiotic -- bicyclists do come, but thought has to be put into why the come and if they will come if you build an expensive facility to nowhere or if the increase justifies the cost.

Correct, _some_ facilities will bring out the cyclists. But taking that
further, of the ones that succeed, which type of cyclists will they
bring out?

As I've mentioned, I once served on a statewide committee charged with
evaluating funding requests for, among other things, bike facilities.
The funding was supposedly tied to transportation usefulness, not
recreation; but the majority of the applications were blatantly
recreational. Their "transportation" rationales were often comic.

The same was true for our nearest rail-to-trail conversion. All the
publicity and much of the grant application was about people biking the
trail instead of driving cars. In actual practice, people drive cars to
the trail, take their bikes off their racks, ride back and forth then
drive back home. I doubt that 1% of the users are for actual "instead of
a car" transportation.

I agree that riverside bike paths can be both pleasant and, within
cities, useful for transportation. And in our own area, I know of one
underused rail line that could be converted to a very useful bike trail
from the old city center to the modern suburban shopping area.

But I'm also sure that if that trail were constructed, it would attract
far, far fewer cyclists than a similar facility in Portland, Seattle,
Berkeley, or wherever. Here, I'd expect a maximum of ten cyclists per
hour. Fashion and culture are very influential, and in most of the
midwest there's little interest in transportational biking. And any
interest that may develop tends to go away come November. It's hard to
keep your enthusiasm when facing a bike ride in frozen slush.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/30/2019 7:04 AM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

Well, I can tell you that the Springwater Corridor on the east side of the Willamette (a rail-trail conversion) is a f****** conga line of cyclists. https://bikeportland.org/2017/12/19/...the-u-s-261628 The photo is of an organized ride of some sort and not morning traffic on a sunny day, but commute traffic is heavy -- and can be fast.

The Stevens Creek Trail near me is very busy during commute times.

It's not my normal area but I was over there one day and decided to take
the trail home even though it's about two miles longer than using roads.
What a zoo. I approached a tee intersection where the trail I was on
runs into the Stevens Creek Trail. A good thing I was going slow and
stopped as "a conga line" is a good description, and the traffic was
moving at an expeditious pace.

I don't know what percentage of the trail users would just use surface
streets were the trail not there, but the surface streets are not
pleasant and have seemingly endless stoplights. The trail also passes
over and under freeways and railroad tracks where there are not nearby
surface crossings for bicycles.

The companies along that trail, and its spurs, include Google, Symantec,
Synopsys, Samsung, NASA/AMES, and Microsoft. A critical section will
begin construction in September, which will allow access to Facebook.

Those that claim that these bicycle corridors are not well-used just
don't know of what they speak but they feel compelled to speak anyway
because they have an agenda that demands it.

On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 10:43:24 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. wrote:
On Mon, 29 Apr 2019 11:56:22 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. wrote:
On Sun, 28 Apr 2019 17:22:07 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 4/28/2019 3:30 PM, John B. wrote:

snip

And I agree, the fact that bicycling is unusual in America probably does
add to the "Danger! Danger!" mentality. It makes each official or
informal report of a crash stand out in a person's mind because it's
uncommon. The immensely greater count of car crashes or even pedestrian
fatalities doesn't register the same way.

Because, as I said, they are common :-)

No, it's because of the relative number of such fatal crashes on a
per-mile or per trip basis, not by raw numbers, as well as because of
the trends. Just looking at raw numbers is meaningless unless you factor
in distance or number of trips.

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2016/07/01/u-s-traffic-fatalities-rising-fast-especially-pedestrian-and-cyclist-deaths/.

One reason for the trend is because cars have been getting steadily
safer with airbags, ABS, collision avoidance systems, and other safety
equipment, while pedestrians and cyclists are just as vulnerable (except
when there is protected infrastructure). Increases in distracted driving
are also a factor.

Rather than shout "danger danger," work to mitigate the factors that can
be mitigated. We don't want to make cars less safe, but we can do
something about distracted driving and protecting pedestrians and
bicyclists.

Protecting Bicyclists from what? They are, right now,the safest group
using the highways.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, a part of The U.S.
Department of Transportation, tells us that in 2011 some 677
bicyclists died, which amounted to some 2% of all traffic deaths.

What percentage of total traffic were the total number of cyclists? My
guess would be they are over represented in the fatalities.

The report stated that In 2011 there were total of 32,367 "Total
Fatalities" and there were 677 "Pedalcyclist Fatalities"



You miss the point. Those numbers don’t mean much without comparing them
to the usage percentages.


According to the table in the report which, as I said, is available on
the Web, entitled "Total Fatalities and Pedalcyclist Fatalities in
Traffic Crashes, 2002-2011", Pedestrians Bicyclists Data Analysis"



Pedestrian deaths was 4,457 amounting to 14% of all traffic deaths. Of
the bicycle deaths some 28% had been drinking alcohol, (BAC) of .01
grams per deciliter (g/dL) or higher,

All this information is freely available on the Web.

Never mind the private bicycle paths just getting the bicyclists to
ride sober would save some 103 lives. That is more than a quarter of
all bike deaths.


Assuming that their deaths were caused by their alcohol consumption and not
just coincidental.

That is rather difficult to analyze when all you have is a dead body
to examine. But the use of blood - alcohol content is pretty common in
blaming highway users.


Well without knowing if the alcohol was the cause or even if the cyclist
was the cause to begin with, those sorts of stats are pretty meaningless.

O.K., you are the coroner and there is the dead body. You draw a
little blood and measure the alcohol and find that the guy, before he
died, was legally inebriated... now tell us if that was the cause of
the accident that smashed his head and killed him.

While I do agree with you in principal it is a bit difficult to
accomplish in reality.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 11:44:20 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/30/2019 12:35 AM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 29 Apr 2019 23:13:16 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/29/2019 10:41 PM, sms wrote:
On 4/29/2019 4:26 AM, John B. wrote:

snip

Protecting Bicyclists from what? They are, right now,the safest group
using the highways.

Oy, you really need to learn how to look at statistics in relation to
the number of trips or number of miles, and not just at raw numbers.

John Pucher (you cited one of his papers) in "Making Walking and Cycling
Safer: Lessons from Europe," estimates from U.S. data that bicyclists
suffer 109 fatalities per billion km ridden. Pedestrians suffer 362
fatalities per billion km, three times as bad!

Frankly I doubt that anyone has ridden a bicycle a billion kilometers
so why don't we use more down to earth numbers. Like, say, 1,000
Kilometers, or maybe 10,000 Kilometers? Or even 100,000 Km?

If we used more down to earth numbers like 1000 km, the fatality and
injury counts would be too low for most people to understand. Only a
small percentage of people are good at scientific notation.

Exactly! But wouldn't it present a more realistic picture? After all,
saying that bicyclists suffer 109 fatalities per billion km ridden
seems to bring to mind the sense of 109 fatalities while the
explanation that cyclists incident rate is about 1 in 9,174,311.9 Km.
would seem to present a more rational picture.

Agreed that as a ratio either is valid but trying to think about my
chances of having 109 fatalities (Wow! Big number) in a billion Km
(can't even imagine that distance) -- which is seems to be about
24953.2 circumnavigations of the earth, is to most people a
meaningless figure.

So maybe we could say that if you ride a bicycle around the equator
228.9 times you may have an accident and die :-)

(or any other ratio that presents an emotionally understandable
comparison)
--
cheers,

John B.

On 4/30/2019 6:15 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 11:44:20 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/30/2019 12:35 AM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 29 Apr 2019 23:13:16 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/29/2019 10:41 PM, sms wrote:
On 4/29/2019 4:26 AM, John B. wrote:

snip

Protecting Bicyclists from what? They are, right now,the safest group
using the highways.

Oy, you really need to learn how to look at statistics in relation to
the number of trips or number of miles, and not just at raw numbers.

John Pucher (you cited one of his papers) in "Making Walking and Cycling
Safer: Lessons from Europe," estimates from U.S. data that bicyclists
suffer 109 fatalities per billion km ridden. Pedestrians suffer 362
fatalities per billion km, three times as bad!

Frankly I doubt that anyone has ridden a bicycle a billion kilometers
so why don't we use more down to earth numbers. Like, say, 1,000
Kilometers, or maybe 10,000 Kilometers? Or even 100,000 Km?

If we used more down to earth numbers like 1000 km, the fatality and
injury counts would be too low for most people to understand. Only a
small percentage of people are good at scientific notation.

Exactly! But wouldn't it present a more realistic picture? After all,
saying that bicyclists suffer 109 fatalities per billion km ridden
seems to bring to mind the sense of 109 fatalities while the
explanation that cyclists incident rate is about 1 in 9,174,311.9 Km.
would seem to present a more rational picture.

Agreed that as a ratio either is valid but trying to think about my
chances of having 109 fatalities (Wow! Big number) in a billion Km
(can't even imagine that distance) -- which is seems to be about
24953.2 circumnavigations of the earth, is to most people a
meaningless figure.

So maybe we could say that if you ride a bicycle around the equator
228.9 times you may have an accident and die :-)

(or any other ratio that presents an emotionally understandable
comparison)

You've made a good point. Those promoting helmets, lights and day-glo
for all bike riding get a lot of mileage out of "You might die!"

We do need ways of explaining to the innumerate the low value of "might."


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 18:53:58 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/30/2019 6:15 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 11:44:20 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/30/2019 12:35 AM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 29 Apr 2019 23:13:16 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/29/2019 10:41 PM, sms wrote:
On 4/29/2019 4:26 AM, John B. wrote:

snip

Protecting Bicyclists from what? They are, right now,the safest group
using the highways.

Oy, you really need to learn how to look at statistics in relation to
the number of trips or number of miles, and not just at raw numbers.

John Pucher (you cited one of his papers) in "Making Walking and Cycling
Safer: Lessons from Europe," estimates from U.S. data that bicyclists
suffer 109 fatalities per billion km ridden. Pedestrians suffer 362
fatalities per billion km, three times as bad!

Frankly I doubt that anyone has ridden a bicycle a billion kilometers
so why don't we use more down to earth numbers. Like, say, 1,000
Kilometers, or maybe 10,000 Kilometers? Or even 100,000 Km?

If we used more down to earth numbers like 1000 km, the fatality and
injury counts would be too low for most people to understand. Only a
small percentage of people are good at scientific notation.

Exactly! But wouldn't it present a more realistic picture? After all,
saying that bicyclists suffer 109 fatalities per billion km ridden
seems to bring to mind the sense of 109 fatalities while the
explanation that cyclists incident rate is about 1 in 9,174,311.9 Km.
would seem to present a more rational picture.

Agreed that as a ratio either is valid but trying to think about my
chances of having 109 fatalities (Wow! Big number) in a billion Km
(can't even imagine that distance) -- which is seems to be about
24953.2 circumnavigations of the earth, is to most people a
meaningless figure.

So maybe we could say that if you ride a bicycle around the equator
228.9 times you may have an accident and die :-)

(or any other ratio that presents an emotionally understandable
comparison)

You've made a good point. Those promoting helmets, lights and day-glo
for all bike riding get a lot of mileage out of "You might die!"

We do need ways of explaining to the innumerate the low value of "might."

Yes. I used a ladder just yesterday - to cut a bunch of bananas off
one of my wife's banana "trees" and yes, one *might* fall off a ladder
and hurt oneself... but I didn't :-)

Should I buy a banana helmet :-?

(For those that don't cut bananas I can tell you that a bunch weighs
50 or 60 pounds. You are more likely to get a hernia than to fall off
he ladder :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

On 4/30/2019 5:15 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 11:44:20 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/30/2019 12:35 AM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 29 Apr 2019 23:13:16 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/29/2019 10:41 PM, sms wrote:
On 4/29/2019 4:26 AM, John B. wrote:

snip

Protecting Bicyclists from what? They are, right now,the safest group
using the highways.

Oy, you really need to learn how to look at statistics in relation to
the number of trips or number of miles, and not just at raw numbers.

John Pucher (you cited one of his papers) in "Making Walking and Cycling
Safer: Lessons from Europe," estimates from U.S. data that bicyclists
suffer 109 fatalities per billion km ridden. Pedestrians suffer 362
fatalities per billion km, three times as bad!

Frankly I doubt that anyone has ridden a bicycle a billion kilometers
so why don't we use more down to earth numbers. Like, say, 1,000
Kilometers, or maybe 10,000 Kilometers? Or even 100,000 Km?

If we used more down to earth numbers like 1000 km, the fatality and
injury counts would be too low for most people to understand. Only a
small percentage of people are good at scientific notation.

Exactly! But wouldn't it present a more realistic picture? After all,
saying that bicyclists suffer 109 fatalities per billion km ridden
seems to bring to mind the sense of 109 fatalities while the
explanation that cyclists incident rate is about 1 in 9,174,311.9 Km.
would seem to present a more rational picture.

Agreed that as a ratio either is valid but trying to think about my
chances of having 109 fatalities (Wow! Big number) in a billion Km
(can't even imagine that distance) -- which is seems to be about
24953.2 circumnavigations of the earth, is to most people a
meaningless figure.

So maybe we could say that if you ride a bicycle around the equator
228.9 times you may have an accident and die :-)

(or any other ratio that presents an emotionally understandable
comparison)


You've convinced me.

If I ever take up circumnavigation on my bike, I'll stop
after 228 laps.

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

John B. wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 11:44:20 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/30/2019 12:35 AM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 29 Apr 2019 23:13:16 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/29/2019 10:41 PM, sms wrote:
On 4/29/2019 4:26 AM, John B. wrote:

snip

Protecting Bicyclists from what? They are, right now,the safest group
using the highways.

Oy, you really need to learn how to look at statistics in relation to
the number of trips or number of miles, and not just at raw numbers.

John Pucher (you cited one of his papers) in "Making Walking and Cycling
Safer: Lessons from Europe," estimates from U.S. data that bicyclists
suffer 109 fatalities per billion km ridden. Pedestrians suffer 362
fatalities per billion km, three times as bad!

Frankly I doubt that anyone has ridden a bicycle a billion kilometers
so why don't we use more down to earth numbers. Like, say, 1,000
Kilometers, or maybe 10,000 Kilometers? Or even 100,000 Km?

If we used more down to earth numbers like 1000 km, the fatality and
injury counts would be too low for most people to understand. Only a
small percentage of people are good at scientific notation.

Exactly! But wouldn't it present a more realistic picture? After all,
saying that bicyclists suffer 109 fatalities per billion km ridden
seems to bring to mind the sense of 109 fatalities while the
explanation that cyclists incident rate is about 1 in 9,174,311.9 Km.
would seem to present a more rational picture.

Agreed that as a ratio either is valid but trying to think about my
chances of having 109 fatalities (Wow! Big number) in a billion Km
(can't even imagine that distance) -- which is seems to be about
24953.2 circumnavigations of the earth, is to most people a
meaningless figure.

So maybe we could say that if you ride a bicycle around the equator
228.9 times you may have an accident and die :-)

I think if I rode a bicycle around the equator once, I would die.

(or any other ratio that presents an emotionally understandable
comparison)
--
cheers,

John B.