|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Dangerous? Study: 77 to 1 benefit to risk
Dan wrote:
Frank writes: I agree with reduced speed limits in any place where a pedestrian or cyclist could be expected to be traveling. Hold on a sec' - where should a cyclist *not* be expected to travel? Around here, we have limited access highways. One would not expect a bicyclist to travel on them, because it's illegal. Also, FWIW, I don't see a need to reduce speed limits below the current 55 mph on country highways. I do fine riding most of those roads just as they are. -- - Frank Krygowski |
Ads |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Dangerous? Study: 77 to 1 benefit to risk
Peter Cole wrote:
As for the comparison with long-odds gambling... Human nature, for whatever reason, seems to favor gambling the likely small loss against the unlikely large win vs. the other way around. Ropiek's book _How Risky Is It Really?_ deals with that, and with lots more on the psychology of risk. Yes, humans are bad at making rational decisions involving extremely unlikely events. Perhaps a better way to promote cycling during the various "Bike Weeks" would be to randomly give out a few large prizes rather than free drinks and energy bars to everyone. I think that large prize idea is a good one. (Although organizers could do both, and maybe that's optimum.) -- - Frank Krygowski |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Dangerous? Study: 77 to 1 benefit to risk
Peter Cole wrote:
On 8/7/2011 12:12 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote: The rest of the factors you mention would not give me measurable benefit, and would give some detriments. Even in the core of downtown Pittsburgh at rush hour (really, gridlock hour), I've never needed a separate bike lane to avoid vehicles jammed curb to curb. If so, either you or Pittsburgh are unusual. Being impeded by vehicular traffic, whether cycling or on foot, significantly detracts from the convenience of either. Yes, being _significantly_ impeded by anything at all does significantly detract from the convenience of _any_ mode of transportation. That includes weather delays when flying, trains that are late, crowds of zoning-out walkers on a MUP, etc. This is life in our universe, like it or not. But I have essentially never been significantly delayed by car traffic. Occasionally, rarely, I've missed a green light that I could have caught; yet that doesn't meet the definition of "significant" in my book. And contrary to the claims of some others, I've never seen a traffic jam so curb-to-curb that I couldn't filter forward on a bike when I chose to. As it is, I rarely choose to... but again, that's because the delays haven't been significant. IME, the most serious problem with downtown gridlock at 5 PM Friday is the occasional driver's explosion of chaotic behavior. Things like the fuming driver who suddenly says "#%$!! I'm just going to whip a U-turn and get out of this jam!" and does something totally unexpected, with no warning nor caution. But a stripe of paint has zero influence on such people. You just have to learn to be alert. But there's that "learning" thing again. And separate signal phases would slow everyone down even more. Giving cyclists an "early green", for instance, might slow some motorists slightly, but I doubt it would have any real cross-town trip time effect. Giving cyclists a head start allows them to not have to contend with vehicles at intersections, particularly turning vehicles. Yeah. I get that already by not being too far to the right at an intersection. That keeps me visible in a motorist's attention zone, and prevents right hooks. (There's that "learning" thing again.) Early greens and bike boxes only level the playing field slightly... Are you aware that Portland's green bike boxes haven't been shown to work? Last I heard, data shows just as many intersection conflicts as before. Cyclists have specific needs, they do not "fare best" when treated as the operators of "vehicles", but when they're treated as cyclists. A dogma based on a false premise is unavoidably a false dogma. The obvious question is, what does one choose to believe? Seems most people make their pick, then call the opposing view "dogma." And you've chosen the dogma that says "The only way for biking to be safe and popular is by adding facilities that change the rules of the road." My decades of experience have shown me that the rules of the road work really, really well. And then, of course, there's the data confirming that... -- - Frank Krygowski |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Dangerous? Study: 77 to 1 benefit to risk
On 8/6/2011 3:21 PM, Simon Lewis wrote:
"T°m " writes: On 8/6/2011 3:37 PM, Dan wrote: [...] And the surest way to get people out of their cars and using bikes instead is to create dedicated space and bike facilites from what is now essentially space dedicated to cars - space that bicyclists may have a *right* to use, but that die-hard cagers think is too dangerous to ride in, and that cagers think belongs exclusively to them. I prefer economic incentives to get people of of their giant cages - an $8/gallon tax would be a start. (Also, don't berate them as irrational cowards for their choice to wear a helmet. It takes experience to develop a realistic concept of the risk.) And the uselessness of bicycle helmets. Bicycle helmets protect the skull if it comes into contact with the road. How is that useless? I did not see the original post in this thread, but I expect that it was claiming that helmets reduce the level of cycling. As most people are well aware, there has never been any scientifically and statistically sound survey or study that has shown that helmets, whether mandatory or compulsory, reduce cycling levels. Another study on the subject (for Canada), in Injury Prevention Magazine, concluded "Helmet legislation is not associated with changes in ridership." http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/16/4/219.abstract. But be warned, Injury Prevention is a an international peer-reviewed journal for health professionals and others in injury prevention. They used actual real data. They did not stand on a corner counting some cyclists and not counting others in order to achieve the result they desired! |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Dangerous? Study: 77 to 1 benefit to risk
Frank Krygowski writes:
Dan wrote: "T°m " writes: Well, the foam bicycle hat can work as a decent bump and scrape protector (assuming you do not land on your face), but the inability to prevent serious brain trauma is well established. DANGER! DANGER! You're misunderstanding the conversation, Dan. I don't recall Tom every claiming that bicycling is very dangerous. Quite the opposite. DANGER! DANGER! ... is what the die-hard cager too afraid to take the plunge is going to hear when you say something like, "... inability to prevent serious brain trauma is well established." My present point in this discussion is what is "the surest way to get cagers out of their cars an dusing bikes instead". I don't care for typical bicycle helmets without a hard shell. My *extensive* relevant experience leads me to conclude that my bicycle helmet is an excellent bump and scrape protector. Of course, you should realize you're some of the best living evidence for the principle of risk compensation. Heh. Fat lot you know. I might put it on the flip side: I know how and when to be more cautious than normal. I think this would offer much more benefit for those people: http://cyclingsavvy.org/about/3-part-course/. Active safety passive safety. Three hours in a parking lot watching each other take turns learning to stop and go and balance and steer? Three hours in a classroom discussing video and animation? (Uh-oh, "Students discover that bicycle drivers are equal road users, with the right and ability to control their space.") A three hour experiential tour of Orlando roads? In a *group*? Stopping to survey and discuss each exercise location? (The picture even shows the group standing around *looking* at the road.) Not much experience, if you ask me. What was it about your life that gave you such an anti-education bent? Whether it was playing sports, doing engineering, playing a musical instrument, riding bike or whatever, I've found that getting some good instruction made skills much easier to acquire. That doesn't mean that one plays like Joshua Bell or Kevin Burke after three hours of fiddle lessons. But it does mean that nobody plays like Joshua Bell or Kevin Burke if they've never had a lesson. I am all about education - *love* it! Especially the public schools - one of the best things going - a great equalizer that kids all deserve. And I said - and you snipped - without indication - that that sort of education course may be good for the kind of people that that sort of thing does any good. My present point in this discussion is what is "the surest way to get cagers out of their cars and using bikes instead", and I maintain that experience riding is the only best way for them to realize that bi- cycling is not so dangerous as they seem to believe, and that facilities are the surest way to get them to take the plunge, and that they don't need anyone treating them like idiot, chicken**** babies if they a helmet makes them more comfortable and give them the extra sense of security that lets them keep riding long enough to learn how it really is. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Dangerous? Study: 77 to 1 benefit to risk
On 8/7/2011 11:32 AM, SMS wrote:
On 8/6/2011 3:21 PM, Simon Lewis wrote: "T°m " writes: [...] And the uselessness of bicycle helmets. Bicycle helmets protect the skull if it comes into contact with the road. How is that useless? I did not see the original post in this thread, Then have the basic decency not to comment. snip Scharfian delusionalism -- Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W I am a vehicular cyclist. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
OT - USian Public Schools
On 8/7/2011 11:52 AM, Dan wrote:
[...] I am all about education - *love* it! Especially the public schools - one of the best things going - a great equalizer that kids all deserve. [...] Including the indoctrination in "American Exceptionalism" and crony capitalism? -- Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W I am a vehicular cyclist. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
OT - USian Public Schools
"T°m Sherm@n" " writes:
On 8/7/2011 11:52 AM, Dan wrote: [...] I am all about education - *love* it! Especially the public schools - one of the best things going - a great equalizer that kids all deserve. [...] Including the indoctrination in "American Exceptionalism" and crony capitalism? Okay, admittedly not all kids are raised - as mine have quite successfully I can proudly say - to think for themselves, but in my experience many fine public school teachers *and* school systems *do* make this a priority and can make up for some of this that is missing from the home and other influences. I was thinking more along the lines of access, and of the uplifting effect that said equal access and a few good teachers can offer. (I also love PBS.) |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
OT - USian Public Schools
Op 7-8-2011 19:21, "T°m Sherm@n" schreef:
On 8/7/2011 11:52 AM, Dan wrote: [...] I am all about education - *love* it! Especially the public schools - one of the best things going - a great equalizer that kids all deserve. [...] Including the indoctrination in "American Exceptionalism" and crony capitalism? Man, you must have a tough life getting upset about so many things. Lou |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Dangerous? Study: 77 to 1 benefit to risk
Phil W Lee writes:
Frank Krygowski considered Sun, 07 Aug 2011 12:04:26 -0400 the perfect time to write: Peter Cole wrote: As for the comparison with long-odds gambling... Human nature, for whatever reason, seems to favor gambling the likely small loss against the unlikely large win vs. the other way around. Ropiek's book _How Risky Is It Really?_ deals with that, and with lots more on the psychology of risk. Yes, humans are bad at making rational decisions involving extremely unlikely events. Perhaps a better way to promote cycling during the various "Bike Weeks" would be to randomly give out a few large prizes rather than free drinks and energy bars to everyone. I think that large prize idea is a good one. (Although organizers could do both, and maybe that's optimum.) Well, that's what lotteries do as well - keep handing out lots of little prizes, just to keep people playing, with the occasional well publicised big win. In a cycling promotion context, that would be handing out the free drinks, energy bars, etc, with a few sets of panniers, new chains, or service vouchers, and an annual draw for a custom built bike. Cagers don't care about any of that stuff (well, maybe the bike - which they figure they can sell for cash). And even not quite committed bicyclists won't be motivated to ditch the car by prizes - even if you keep giving them and keep giving them. The will to ride day in and day out can only come from within - the joy of riding itself (or maybe sometimes the need to get fit or die). |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Study to investigate if cyclists are putting their health at risk----- one for Geoff. | Rob | Australia | 1 | March 29th 11 12:20 PM |
More dangerous drivers who put cyclists seriously at risk. | Doug[_10_] | UK | 9 | October 22nd 10 09:16 AM |
Dangerous, dangerous furniture | F. Kurgan Gringioni | Racing | 0 | April 30th 10 06:27 AM |
"Cycling is not dangerous. Cars are dangerous." | Doug[_3_] | UK | 56 | September 14th 09 05:57 PM |
New Study... bicycles offer little benefit to the environment. | Richard B | General | 18 | August 6th 06 03:21 AM |