Danger Danger!

On 11/20/2013 2:26 PM, Dan O wrote:
On Tuesday, November 19, 2013 5:12:24 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:

snip

Should people say "Cycling is too dangerous!"? No, unless they follow it up with "... um, although it's much safer than walking."


So, it's not okay to say, "Cycling is too dangerous!"

But, it is okay to say, "Cycling is too dangerous! ... um, although it's
much safer than walking."

(?)

snip



Well that lets the people you're talking too know where you're coming
from right away.

On Wednesday, November 20, 2013 2:26:51 PM UTC-5, Dan O wrote:

So, it's not okay to say, "Cycling is too dangerous!"

But, it is okay to say, "Cycling is too dangerous! ... um, although it's
much than walking."

(?)

The point was, if the listener has any intelligence, the second statement will correctly show the first one to be bull**** fear mongering.

- Frank Krygowski

On Tuesday, November 19, 2013 3:48:29 PM UTC-8, James wrote:

snip


http://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/20...cks-dutch-way/


Excellent!

(On the Twitter feed: "I see John Forester is in the Netherlands
telling the Dutch that their system for cycling is wrong.")

On 21/11/13 07:55, Dan O wrote:
On Tuesday, November 19, 2013 3:48:29 PM UTC-8, James wrote:

snip


http://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/20...cks-dutch-way/


Excellent!

(On the Twitter feed: "I see John Forester is in the Netherlands
telling the Dutch that their system for cycling is wrong.")

Cool!

I wonder where he (Mark Treasure) got that from? It's likely John said
the Dutch system is wrong for US cities, and I tend to agree with him.

Until the facilities start making good design sense, I'm on the side of
"better educate the drivers and increase penalties for them making
mistakes and errors of judgment."

Someone from a global engineering company (AECOM) told me that a bike
facility isn't a bike facility unless it is suitable for 8 and 88 year olds.

Well, that rules out all I've seen over here.

--
JS

"Frank Krygowski" wrote in message ...
On Wednesday, November 20, 2013 5:24:08 AM UTC-5, Graham wrote:
"Frank Krygowski" wrote in message ...

On Tuesday, November 19, 2013 5:51:19 PM UTC-5, Graham wrote:

"Frank Krygowski" wrote:

On Tuesday, November 19, 2013 12:47:50 PM UTC-5, Graham wrote:

"Less well known is that, mile for mile, it's more dangerous to be a pedestrian than it is to be a cyclist..." Yet how many know that? How many are being scared away from riding by the "Danger! Danger!" cries?

The "Danger Danger!" title was tongue in cheek but is does have a serious side.

Precisely. Anyone familiar with the probabilities of rare events shouldn't be surprised by an occasional cluster. This seems much like the Summer of the Shark flap of some years ago - the epidemic that wasn't.

[snip]

Do you mean the rate per year, the rate per mile cycled, or the rate per cyclist? Those are greatly different things. And yet, as the article I linked demonstrated, cycling in London is significantly safer than pedestrian travel. Cycling has far fewer fatalities per year, and significantly fewer fatalities per mile traveled.

Take all those statements above and compare them to the official report by the UK government paying partucular attention to charts 5 and 7.

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...cgb2012-01.pdf

Of course, you're now changing focus. Your original post, plus my responses, plus the article from which I quoted, plus most of the "Danger! Danger!" news coverage has focused on cycling deaths within the city of London. The paper you linked was, instead, data for all of Great Britain. It's still true that cycling in London causes fewer deaths (in total, and per mile traveled) than walking in London, from what I can see.

I am not changing any focus I am just providing data. That was the first reliable source I came across which happened to be for the nation as a whole and as such it is worthy of note and refutes your contention at least at that level.

I don't know what your "experience" is regarding cycling deaths, beyond the obvious: that it hasn't happened to you. Do you have some "reliable source" which shows more cycling deaths than pedestrian deaths in London?

Not immediately to hand but I do know that the national statistics are broken right down to local authority level. You should be able to turn them up relatively quickly from the govenment stats website.

And I'm not saying that things can't be improved. But we do seem to disagree on the most effective method for improvement.

There you go again trying to create an argument. I have made no mention of any method of improvement and do not intent to this is purely about DATA!

Graham.

On 11/19/2013 9:47 AM, Graham wrote:
I just received this in a news letter from the UK CTC of which I am a member:

"My colleagues and I are absolutely devastated with the shocking rate at which cyclists are dying on London’s roads. Six cyclists have died over the last two weeks, all of them in collisions with large vehicles, three of which were lorries. During this period, three pedestrians were also killed in collisions with lorries in London."

I just heard a story on the news about what's happening in London with
regards to cycling deaths.

It's extremely strange that the CTC claims to be devastated. Their
actions clearly demonstrate that they have little interest in reducing
cyclist deaths and injuries. They're still promoting the big lie that
helmets are detrimental to public health. Is anyone really stupid enough
to believe that? It's one thing to be opposed to mandatory helmets,
that's a reasonable position, but the CTC's position goes far beyond
that, embracing junk science and statistics in an effort to justify
their views.

Read
http://www.ctc.org.uk/campaigning/views-and-briefings/cycle-helmets.
There are at least 30 statements in that blurb that are provably wrong.

On 11-20-2013, 16:52, James wrote:
Someone from a global engineering company (AECOM) told me that a bike
facility isn't a bike facility unless it is suitable for 8 and 88 year olds.

Well, that rules out all I've seen over here.

Including the sidewalks that a few are so fond of.

--
Wes Groleau

You always have time for what you do first.

On 11-20-2013, 16:52, James wrote:
Someone from a global engineering company (AECOM) told me that a bike
facility isn't a bike facility unless it is suitable for 8 and 88
year olds.

Well, that rules out all I've seen over here.

Including the sidewalks that a few are so fond of.

Or....

Half-mile from me is a bike path with a wooden section over a low spot.
It also has a fork to go up and alongside a highway bridge, or to go
under the highway to the other side.

Some genius made each fork a 90º left, 90º right zigzag and put them IN
the wooden section. When wet or snowy, I'm sure there are a lot of
wipe-outs there. I slow to walking speed, but I've wiped out twice.
Destroyed a front wheel one of the times.

I've also seen close calls as people going both ways try to smooth out
the zig-zag. As they are concentrating on not scraping the corner
posts, they aren't noticing each other on collision path.

--
Wes Groleau

You always have time for what you do first.

8 to 88 is a tall order. First design a rollerskate that doesn't trip up gerries.

Andre Jute

On 21/11/13 13:46, sms wrote:
On 11/19/2013 9:47 AM, Graham wrote:
I just received this in a news letter from the UK CTC of which I am a
member:

"My colleagues and I are absolutely devastated with the shocking rate
at which cyclists are dying on London’s roads. Six cyclists have died
over the last two weeks, all of them in collisions with large
vehicles, three of which were lorries. During this period, three
pedestrians were also killed in collisions with lorries in London."

I just heard a story on the news about what's happening in London with
regards to cycling deaths.

It's extremely strange that the CTC claims to be devastated. Their
actions clearly demonstrate that they have little interest in reducing
cyclist deaths and injuries. They're still promoting the big lie that
helmets are detrimental to public health. Is anyone really stupid enough
to believe that? It's one thing to be opposed to mandatory helmets,
that's a reasonable position, but the CTC's position goes far beyond
that, embracing junk science and statistics in an effort to justify
their views.

Read
http://www.ctc.org.uk/campaigning/views-and-briefings/cycle-helmets.
There are at least 30 statements in that blurb that are provably wrong.

Try driving a truck over a foam helmet at see how it is destroyed.

--
JS