Handlebar rotation

On 2017-07-09 18:20, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 09 Jul 2017 07:39:39 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-07-08 19:01, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 08 Jul 2017 13:46:46 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-07-07 18:48, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 07 Jul 2017 07:33:58 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-07-06 20:11, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 06 Jul 2017 13:02:57 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-07-06 12:40, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/6/2017 3:14 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-06 12:05, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/6/2017 10:54 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-05 17:49, John B. wrote:

Yet people have been riding long distances on bicycles for years and
years. The first Paris - Brest - Paris randonnée was held in 1891. An
essentially non-stop bicycle ride of 1,200 km. The British, of course,
do it better with the 1433 km London Edinburgh London 2017 and the
'mericans have the Boston-Montreal-Boston, again a 1,200 km ride but
no longer an official randonnée and now strictly a permanent that
anyone could ride on their own in a self-supported manner while still
receiving recognition (validation) from Randonneurs USA.

Think of it, 126 years of successful long distance bicycle riding
without Joerg built lights.


It's simple. Most humans have a habit of accepting current
state-of-the-art as "that's as good as it gets". I don't, and I derive
most of my income from not thinking that way. And yes, I already had
bicycles with real electrical systems when I was a teenager.

The detail you're missing is that people have always ridden
_successfully_ without the systems you deem necessary.


As I said, people got used to that this is all they are going to get.
Just like people get used to walking in worn shoes if they can't
afford new ones.


There are always people who are into overkill. Some of those will claim
or pretend that their favorite overkill item is actually a necessity.
But that's disproven by every person who does well without the overkill
item.


A vehicle where the light does not go out or dim way down is IMO not
overkill. The lighting "system" bicyles have would never pass muster
at type certification for motor vehicles. There are good reasons why not.


For just one example: I'm just back from another club ride. About 15
people were on the ride. Two of them had the newly fashionable daytime
rear blinkies. This particular ride has occurred once per week every
week except in winter for, oh, perhaps ten years. Nobody has ever been
hit by a car, despite the thousands of person-miles ridden (GASP!)
without blinkies.


I have never been hit from behind either but the number of close calls
has noticeably decreased since I have bright rear lights. Mission
accomplished. The best is, this was never very expensive to accomplish.

Now you can stick the head in the sand again and pretend it ain't so :-)

We've been over this multiple times, but:

If your number of close calls for hits-from-behind has gone way down, it
must have been pretty high to begin with. By contrast, I almost never
experience such a close call; therefore I'd never be able to see a big
reduction.

Why don't those close calls happen to me? Because those close calls are
almost always due in part to rider error - specifically, inviting close
passes by riding too far to the right.


Yeah, right. The woman who rode in the lane on Blue Ravine died because
of that. The other woman in the pickup truck who was drunk tried to
evade but the lane was now too narrow and *BAM*

[...]

You mean to say that you were run into on Blue Ravine and died? Or
this is just something that you saw on the TV?


I didn't have an operation to turn me into a woman :-)

It was shortly after we moved here about 20 years ago. That and several
other serious accidents combined with (or rather, caused by) the lack of
cycling infrastructure resulted in me and lots of others to mothball the
bikes for many years. While those accidents were not always fatal many
were what the medical folks call "life-changing" where riders became
crippled for the rest of their lives.


So what you are actually saying is that bicycles are dangerious.


No, motor vehicles are. Or to be more precise, their operators.


... and
as the U.S. notion seems to be that one must do everything possible to
protect the poor consumer then logically these dangerious bicycles
should be banned to protect society.


If there is no willingness to enforce traffic rules regarding the fair
treatment of cyclists, and in the US largely there isn't, then
separating their traffic paths from those of motor vehicles is best.
Some communities such as Folsom understand this while others like ours
don't.


But even so, www.statista.com reported to be something in the
neighborhood of 66.52 million bicycle riders in Spring 2016.... and
one woman died?


That was one example of many. We have about one death a month in the
area, on average. Many are hit from behind.


Actually 726 died in the U.S. in 2014 ( the latest year I could find
without looking very hard) and in 2014 the above site tells me that
there were 67.33 million cyclists. So one cyclist was killed for every
10,096.4 that rode a bike. Obviously, statistically, bicycle riding is
a very dangerious pastime!

Perhaps the government should be encouraged to ban these dangerious
devices. Save Lives! Ban a Bike!


I read about them in our local paper and those are real stories, real
people, real grieving families and all that. People like Justin Vega:

http://fox40.com/2017/05/26/sacramen...d-25-year-old/


Certainly. But do you read in your local papers about the thousands,
millions?, of bicycle riders who quite happily ride around with never
an accident?


Sure. However, the number of severe and fatal accidents per traveled
mile is much higher for a cyclists than for a car driver. That's what
matters. If I ride to Rancho Cordova in my car that is safer than
cycling. Or used to be. Now much of the ride is possible via abandoned
roads, dirt paths and bike paths. So now I use the road bike or MTB.


Of course not as a happy, contented rider isn't newsworthy, it is the
blood and guts strewn all over the road that makes the headlines. So,
essentially, you are reading a media what dotes on death. And so, of
course, you read about deaths.


I know the statistics and those are facts.

The facts are that bicycle injuries are relatively few and usually
minor. In California only about 4% of all traffic deaths are cyclists


Per mile they are larger than for car drivers. Much larger. Therefore,
cycling in regular traffic is more dangerous than doing the same trip in
a car. I ride anyhow but that's my personal choice. Most of my neighbors
do not share that choice.

What in the world has "per mile" got to do with the fact that only
approximately 4% of all traffic deaths are bicyclists.


The place where I have to go for an errand will not miraculously move 10
miles closer just because I use the bicycle.


If you want to run around in circles to find a qualification that
justifies your psychotic fear of bicycle riding why not use altitude.
Just think, only one airplane crash in California in 2014 versus, what
was it a hundred and something bicyclists killed.


A mile is a mile is a mile.


Proof positive that them two wheel killers should be banned.


Huh?

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 7/10/2017 1:20 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-09 11:16, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/9/2017 10:51 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-09 07:13, Frank Krygowski wrote:

But second, your statement wasn't even a good deflection. By FAR, the
main cause of bicycling injury is simply falling off.


Proof, please.

Well, one respected source is _Effective Cycling_ by John Forester, MIT
Press. Page 260 of the 6th edition says 50% of bike injuries are due to
falls, vs. 17% due to car-bike crashes. (17% are also due to bike-bike
crashes.) For "serious" injuries, it's 36% due to falls, 26% car-bike
crashes and 13% bike-bike crashes.


Forester is most certain not a respected source for people like myself
(or any other cyclist I personally know).

Of course you don't respect him. I already know you disagree with
anything he says, simply because it disagrees with your own preconceptions.

What data do you have?


Lost. For example this:

https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentra...1-2458-14-1205

And from that link: "The study population consisted of adult (≥19
years) residents of Toronto and Vancouver who were injured while riding
a bicycle in the city and treated within 24 hours in the emergency
departments of the hospitals listed above..."

So you're not looking at all injuries. You're looking at only those
injuries whom someone chose to take to the ER. It excludes the vast
majority of bike injuries precisely because the vast majority of bike
injuries are minor. (And Teschke is notorious for carefully selecting
data that can be used to promote segregated facilities for cyclists.)

List your last few bike injuries, Joerg. Tell us what they were and how
they happened, as I did upthread. Don't omit the minor ones.

Ever heard of "fall to void collision". I guess not. When a car comes at
a cyclist anybody in their right mind will take evasive action. That
often goes wrong but a crash into the vegetation is usually much better
than being run over by truck tires.

Joerg, you're the master of hypothetical disaster narrative. You make it
sound like a bicyclist's life is a constant stream of narrowly averted
disasters, complete with cartoon sound effects. Such bull****!

Have I heard of a "fall to avoid collision?" Not from the experience of
anybody I know. It's never happened to me, my wife, my kids, and as far
as I can recall, anyone I ride with. And I ride with a lot of people.

BTW, I've also never known anyone who got attacked by a mountain lion.
My universe is much less dangerous than yours - perhaps because mine is
real.

... Yes, cars are
implicated in most bike deaths; ...

Aha, now you begin to understand. So are serious injuries.

And obviously, cars are also implicated in 100% of motorist deaths and
nearly 100% of pedestrian deaths. Why do you restrict your "Danger!!"
nonsense to bicycling?

Bikes do not have safety belts, crumple zones, styrofoam-filled bumpers,
protected occupant compartments, airbags, and so on. Now that was simple.

And pedestrians do??


I saw a rear-end collision on a road from a safe spot on the bike path
yesterday ... screeeeech ... KAPOW. If the guy had hit a bike the
cyclist would now be in the hospital or morgue. The driver of the car in
front got out unharmed.

Over 35,000 American motorists die in a typical year. About 750
bicyclists die in a typical year. Every study done on the subject has
shown that the health and longevity benefits of bicycling greatly
outweigh its tiny risks.

Man up, stop whining, and learn to ride your bike correctly.

Again: the "control a narrow lane" principle is taught by the Cycling
Savvy classes of the American Bicycle Education Association, and by the
League of American Bicyclists' education program, the CAN-BIKE program
of Canada, the Bikeability program of Great Britain.

Do you have _any_ source for your curb-hugging advice that's more
authoritative than your own brain?


Common sense. As I said, AFRAP is the law here.

"'Common sense' is the collection of prejudices acquired by age
eighteen." - Albert Einstein

And after all the links I've posted and all the discussion we've had,
it's clear you choose not to understand the law, just as you choose to
remain ignorant of bicycling education.

As I said, ignorance goes well with hubris. Deliberate ignorance goes
even further.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 7/10/2017 1:24 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-09 11:32, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/9/2017 10:44 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-08 15:59, jbeattie wrote:


When was the last time you were hurt on a bike? Were you hit by a car?


No but that is because I am primarily using a mountain bike, the way
it was meant to be used. The reason I got hurt a lot as a kid was that
I used a regular bicycle on motocross tracks without wearing any
protective gear.

Other people's accidents did not always involved a direct collision
but many were caused by evasive action because of car drivers (often
truck drivers).

Maybe we should do a little survey of posters to this discussion group.
What was your last on-road bike-related injury? Was it because you were
hit by a car? Was it because you were taking evasive action to avoid
being hit by a car? Or what was the cause?

I suppose if people prefer, they could give counts of all their bike
injury incidents instead of just the last one.

I don't have much to contribute. Since 1972: I slid out on gravel at
about 5 mph creeping down a very steep, short hill on a city street. I
scraped my knee. And the front forks of our custom tandem snapped off
on a bumpy road at about 10 mph or less. I banged up my shoulder. So
that's one crash with the most common cause, which is the road surface;
and one crash by a relatively rare cause, component failure.

My wife's on road crashes are also two. She was on the back of the
tandem when it crashed, but she wasn't injured, just shaken up. And
many years ago, on a club ride, someone slammed on their brakes
unnecessarily in front of her. She avoided that person as she stopped,
but another rider ran into her from behind and knocked her down. Again,
no injury, just a fall. We were about 20 miles into an 80 mile ride,
which we all finished.

More detail on the final crash above: The person who caused the chain
reaction crash had slammed on the brakes because they were afraid of a
passing truck. But none of the others (including me, leading the ride)
braked because of the truck. It just wasn't necessary at all. So that
crash was actually caused not by the truck, but by timidity.


No, it was caused by reckless cyclist behavior. Every respectable
teacher in driver's ed teaches their students to keep an adequate
distance from the vehicle up front. One Mississippi, two Mississippi.
Simple. Failing to do so will one day result in a crash like you
described. It doesn't have to be timidity. It could be as simple as an
animal running into the road.

You're deflecting again.

Tell us about your recent injuries, Joerg. Tell us about their causes.
Restrict it to on-road if you like. I'm saying most bike injuries are
minor and do not involve cars. You're claiming something else. What's
your experience?


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 10:21:00 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-09 11:16, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/9/2017 10:51 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-09 07:13, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/8/2017 6:07 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-08 14:39, Frank Krygowski wrote:


We've discussed that Danish study before. Perhaps you've
forgotten. One
gem was that the participants who applied to be in the study so they
would be given the lights (um... no bias there, right?) also reported
far fewer single bike crashes than those who were not given the free
lights. In other words, they toppled off their bikes less.

Understand, those lights given away were not "see the road" headlights
that might show up road obstacles. Their spoke-driven blinkies
intended
as "be seen" lights. Now why would free "be seen" lights cause a
reduction in simply toppling off a bike? Unless, that is, the people
who applied to get the lights and vouch for... oops, "study" their
effectiveness were simply being a lot more careful than normal riders?


Falling off a bike is not the main cause of injury or death. Colliding
with motor vehicles is.

First, your statement is a deflection. The point is, the Danish study
was not a proper, unbiased study. It was more of an advertising
campaign designed to sell the lights that were given away to volunteers.

But second, your statement wasn't even a good deflection. By FAR, the
main cause of bicycling injury is simply falling off.


Proof, please.

Well, one respected source is _Effective Cycling_ by John Forester, MIT
Press. Page 260 of the 6th edition says 50% of bike injuries are due to
falls, vs. 17% due to car-bike crashes. (17% are also due to bike-bike
crashes.) For "serious" injuries, it's 36% due to falls, 26% car-bike
crashes and 13% bike-bike crashes.


Forester is most certain not a respected source for people like myself
(or any other cyclist I personally know).


What data do you have?


Lost. For example this:

https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentra...1-2458-14-1205

Ever heard of "fall to void collision". I guess not. When a car comes at
a cyclist anybody in their right mind will take evasive action. That
often goes wrong but a crash into the vegetation is usually much better
than being run over by truck tires.


... Yes, cars are
implicated in most bike deaths; ...

Aha, now you begin to understand. So are serious injuries.

And obviously, cars are also implicated in 100% of motorist deaths and
nearly 100% of pedestrian deaths. Why do you restrict your "Danger!!"
nonsense to bicycling?


Bikes do not have safety belts, crumple zones, styrofoam-filled bumpers,
protected occupant compartments, airbags, and so on. Now that was simple.

I saw a rear-end collision on a road from a safe spot on the bike path
yesterday ... screeeeech ... KAPOW. If the guy had hit a bike the
cyclist would now be in the hospital or morgue. The driver of the car in
front got out unharmed.


... but bike deaths are about as rare as
falling-out-of-bed deaths. American bicyclists do over 10 million miles
per fatality.


Per mile, fatalities _and_ serious injuries of cyclists are higher
than those of car drivers.

Per mile, bicycle fatalities are much, much lower than pedestrian
fatalities. Why do you restrict your "Danger!!" nonsense to bicycling?


Don't veer off. We are talking about motor vehicle versus bicycle use.

Yes, being a pedestrian can be dangerous and that is the core reason why
nobody in their right mind walks to the shopping center out here. There
is no sidewalk and the posted speed limit is 45mph. In Germany we always
walked. There was a nice segregated foot path through a residential
neighborhood, that's why.


BTW, about the PCH, you need to read this:
https://patch.com/california/malibu/...-a-deep-breath

Nothing new here.

What will be new is when (or if) you ever understand it.

It's not me who doesn't understand here :-)

Ignorance goes so well with hubris, Joerg! Dunning-Kruger reigns!

Again: the "control a narrow lane" principle is taught by the Cycling
Savvy classes of the American Bicycle Education Association, and by the
League of American Bicyclists' education program, the CAN-BIKE program
of Canada, the Bikeability program of Great Britain.

Do you have _any_ source for your curb-hugging advice that's more
authoritative than your own brain?


Common sense. As I said, AFRAP is the law here. You wrote that the
cyclist here should be in the lane:

https://www.outsideonline.com/sites/...?itok=QBL2UTKO

That statement is wrong. If I'd hear someone teach such dangerous
nonsense to a class of kids I would report that guy to the Department of
Education.

I observations of "collisions" are that the cyclist is almost always young and almost always runs traffic control signs or lights without even looking.. They don't seem able to understand WHY those traffic control devices are being used.

In some other cases they do not have equipment necessary for safe operation - insufficient brakes on the killer hills in San Francisco. The inability to cross train tracks which are part of San Francisco. Instead of a respect for other traffic a disrespect for others.

Comments here demand response - if there is a long enough open area to the right EVEN if it is parking area I move over and allow backing up traffic past. I expect the same respect from them and almost always get it except from young drivers. Or total idiots like the one complaining that I was taking the middle lane when there was a bicycle lane to the right. This moron was going to turn right and wanted to take the middle lane until the turn apparently. That lane was clear but I stay away from the bicycle lane because it's across a shopping center with several entrance/exit driveways and people that look to the right when the traffic comes from the left.

On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 10:24:06 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-09 11:32, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/9/2017 10:44 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-08 15:59, jbeattie wrote:


When was the last time you were hurt on a bike? Were you hit by a car?


No but that is because I am primarily using a mountain bike, the way
it was meant to be used. The reason I got hurt a lot as a kid was that
I used a regular bicycle on motocross tracks without wearing any
protective gear.

Other people's accidents did not always involved a direct collision
but many were caused by evasive action because of car drivers (often
truck drivers).

Maybe we should do a little survey of posters to this discussion group.
What was your last on-road bike-related injury? Was it because you were
hit by a car? Was it because you were taking evasive action to avoid
being hit by a car? Or what was the cause?

I suppose if people prefer, they could give counts of all their bike
injury incidents instead of just the last one.

I don't have much to contribute. Since 1972: I slid out on gravel at
about 5 mph creeping down a very steep, short hill on a city street. I
scraped my knee. And the front forks of our custom tandem snapped off
on a bumpy road at about 10 mph or less. I banged up my shoulder. So
that's one crash with the most common cause, which is the road surface;
and one crash by a relatively rare cause, component failure.

My wife's on road crashes are also two. She was on the back of the
tandem when it crashed, but she wasn't injured, just shaken up. And
many years ago, on a club ride, someone slammed on their brakes
unnecessarily in front of her. She avoided that person as she stopped,
but another rider ran into her from behind and knocked her down. Again,
no injury, just a fall. We were about 20 miles into an 80 mile ride,
which we all finished.

More detail on the final crash above: The person who caused the chain
reaction crash had slammed on the brakes because they were afraid of a
passing truck. But none of the others (including me, leading the ride)
braked because of the truck. It just wasn't necessary at all. So that
crash was actually caused not by the truck, but by timidity.


No, it was caused by reckless cyclist behavior. Every respectable
teacher in driver's ed teaches their students to keep an adequate
distance from the vehicle up front. One Mississippi, two Mississippi.
Simple. Failing to do so will one day result in a crash like you
described. It doesn't have to be timidity. It could be as simple as an
animal running into the road.

In the SF bay area there is no clearance allowed and the police do nothing about it. Leaving sufficient clearance only opens the lane for five cars to all pull into the space simultaneously and then pull to the right or left or even into the parking lane.

One of the favorite pastimes is to floorboard it when you can see another stop sign one block away.

On 2017-07-10 10:54, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/10/2017 1:24 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-09 11:32, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/9/2017 10:44 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-08 15:59, jbeattie wrote:


When was the last time you were hurt on a bike? Were you hit by a
car?


No but that is because I am primarily using a mountain bike, the way
it was meant to be used. The reason I got hurt a lot as a kid was that
I used a regular bicycle on motocross tracks without wearing any
protective gear.

Other people's accidents did not always involved a direct collision
but many were caused by evasive action because of car drivers (often
truck drivers).

Maybe we should do a little survey of posters to this discussion group.
What was your last on-road bike-related injury? Was it because you were
hit by a car? Was it because you were taking evasive action to avoid
being hit by a car? Or what was the cause?

I suppose if people prefer, they could give counts of all their bike
injury incidents instead of just the last one.

I don't have much to contribute. Since 1972: I slid out on gravel at
about 5 mph creeping down a very steep, short hill on a city street. I
scraped my knee. And the front forks of our custom tandem snapped off
on a bumpy road at about 10 mph or less. I banged up my shoulder. So
that's one crash with the most common cause, which is the road surface;
and one crash by a relatively rare cause, component failure.

My wife's on road crashes are also two. She was on the back of the
tandem when it crashed, but she wasn't injured, just shaken up. And
many years ago, on a club ride, someone slammed on their brakes
unnecessarily in front of her. She avoided that person as she stopped,
but another rider ran into her from behind and knocked her down. Again,
no injury, just a fall. We were about 20 miles into an 80 mile ride,
which we all finished.

More detail on the final crash above: The person who caused the chain
reaction crash had slammed on the brakes because they were afraid of a
passing truck. But none of the others (including me, leading the ride)
braked because of the truck. It just wasn't necessary at all. So that
crash was actually caused not by the truck, but by timidity.


No, it was caused by reckless cyclist behavior. Every respectable
teacher in driver's ed teaches their students to keep an adequate
distance from the vehicle up front. One Mississippi, two Mississippi.
Simple. Failing to do so will one day result in a crash like you
described. It doesn't have to be timidity. It could be as simple as an
animal running into the road.

You're deflecting again.

Tell us about your recent injuries, Joerg. Tell us about their causes.
Restrict it to on-road if you like. I'm saying most bike injuries are
minor and do not involve cars. You're claiming something else. What's
your experience?


Depends on what you call "recent". I had a 15+ year cycling hiatus on
account of lacking cycle path infrastructure. When that got better I
started riding again in 2013. No road injuries since then but several
evasive actions required because of motorists.

I have detailed the crashes before that in another post today. The ones
before were mostly due to motorists and a few due to equipment failure,
usually brake cable snaps. The worst crash was into the side of VW Polo
which, to my surprise, seriously damaged the car. Stop sign violation on
behalf of the driver.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 7/10/2017 2:08 PM, wrote:

Comments here demand response - if there is a long enough open area to the right EVEN if it is parking area I move over and allow backing up traffic past.

As do I, and I think everyone I ride with.

Well, sometimes on group rides, someone might be in a side by side
conversation and not pay attention for a bit. Others will generally
yell "car back" to get the riders to wake up and give clearance when
it's available.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 2017-07-10 10:51, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/10/2017 1:20 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-09 11:16, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/9/2017 10:51 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-09 07:13, Frank Krygowski wrote:

But second, your statement wasn't even a good deflection. By FAR, the
main cause of bicycling injury is simply falling off.


Proof, please.

Well, one respected source is _Effective Cycling_ by John Forester, MIT
Press. Page 260 of the 6th edition says 50% of bike injuries are due to
falls, vs. 17% due to car-bike crashes. (17% are also due to bike-bike
crashes.) For "serious" injuries, it's 36% due to falls, 26% car-bike
crashes and 13% bike-bike crashes.


Forester is most certain not a respected source for people like myself
(or any other cyclist I personally know).

Of course you don't respect him. I already know you disagree with
anything he says, simply because it disagrees with your own preconceptions.


With my experience, and that of most others I know.


What data do you have?


Lost. For example this:

https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentra...1-2458-14-1205


And from that link: "The study population consisted of adult (≥19
years) residents of Toronto and Vancouver who were injured while riding
a bicycle in the city and treated within 24 hours in the emergency
departments of the hospitals listed above..."

So you're not looking at all injuries. You're looking at only those
injuries whom someone chose to take to the ER. It excludes the vast
majority of bike injuries precisely because the vast majority of bike
injuries are minor. (And Teschke is notorious for carefully selecting
data that can be used to promote segregated facilities for cyclists.)


The data is similar for other studies.


List your last few bike injuries, Joerg. Tell us what they were and how
they happened, as I did upthread. Don't omit the minor ones.


I do not keep a log of any minor ones. I have listed the serious
accidents in this thread. Mine usually involved mistakes or reckless
action by car drivers.


Ever heard of "fall to void collision". I guess not. When a car comes
at a cyclist anybody in their right mind will take evasive action.
That often goes wrong but a crash into the vegetation is usually much
better than being run over by truck tires.

Joerg, you're the master of hypothetical disaster narrative. You make it
sound like a bicyclist's life is a constant stream of narrowly averted
disasters, complete with cartoon sound effects. Such bull****!

Have I heard of a "fall to avoid collision?" Not from the experience of
anybody I know.


Sorry to say, then you don't seem to know much about bicycling.


... It's never happened to me, my wife, my kids, and as far
as I can recall, anyone I ride with. And I ride with a lot of people.


Bailing off the road happened to several people I know. And yeah, some
crashed while doing that but that is highly preferred to ending up under
a vehicle. Maybe not in your world in which I wish not to be.


BTW, I've also never known anyone who got attacked by a mountain lion.
My universe is much less dangerous than yours - perhaps because mine is
real.


One local guy here was even attacked by a buck and ended up in the
hospital with serious injuries. You can stick the head back in the sand
now, then it won't happen.


... Yes, cars are
implicated in most bike deaths; ...

Aha, now you begin to understand. So are serious injuries.

And obviously, cars are also implicated in 100% of motorist deaths and
nearly 100% of pedestrian deaths. Why do you restrict your "Danger!!"
nonsense to bicycling?

Bikes do not have safety belts, crumple zones, styrofoam-filled
bumpers, protected occupant compartments, airbags, and so on. Now that
was simple.

And pedestrians do??


No, but they can elect not to cross roadways outside of traffic lights
and then walking is very safe. Unless a terrorist or a drunk plows into
you which is rare.

We cyclists can often elect to use segregated bike paths which I always
do. Same effect. On most of my paths it would take a car becoming
airborne and then flying a long stretch to crash into me. Thing is, they
do not have wings.


I saw a rear-end collision on a road from a safe spot on the bike path
yesterday ... screeeeech ... KAPOW. If the guy had hit a bike the
cyclist would now be in the hospital or morgue. The driver of the car
in front got out unharmed.

Over 35,000 American motorists die in a typical year. About 750
bicyclists die in a typical year. Every study done on the subject has
shown that the health and longevity benefits of bicycling greatly
outweigh its tiny risks.

Man up, stop whining, and learn to ride your bike correctly.


You will obviously never understand what "per mile" means.


Again: the "control a narrow lane" principle is taught by the Cycling
Savvy classes of the American Bicycle Education Association, and by the
League of American Bicyclists' education program, the CAN-BIKE program
of Canada, the Bikeability program of Great Britain.

Do you have _any_ source for your curb-hugging advice that's more
authoritative than your own brain?


Common sense. As I said, AFRAP is the law here.

"'Common sense' is the collection of prejudices acquired by age
eighteen." - Albert Einstein

And after all the links I've posted and all the discussion we've had,
it's clear you choose not to understand the law, just as you choose to
remain ignorant of bicycling education.

As I said, ignorance goes well with hubris. Deliberate ignorance goes
even further.


I know the law and stick to it, regardless of what you advocate.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 12:29:22 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/10/2017 2:08 PM, wrote:

Comments here demand response - if there is a long enough open area to the right EVEN if it is parking area I move over and allow backing up traffic past.

As do I, and I think everyone I ride with.

Well, sometimes on group rides, someone might be in a side by side
conversation and not pay attention for a bit. Others will generally
yell "car back" to get the riders to wake up and give clearance when
it's available.

And sometime there are cars driving 25 mph in a 25 mph zone that are getting screamed at - so?

On 7/10/2017 3:26 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-10 10:54, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/10/2017 1:24 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-09 11:32, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/9/2017 10:44 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-08 15:59, jbeattie wrote:


When was the last time you were hurt on a bike? Were you hit by a
car?


No but that is because I am primarily using a mountain bike, the way
it was meant to be used. The reason I got hurt a lot as a kid was that
I used a regular bicycle on motocross tracks without wearing any
protective gear.

Other people's accidents did not always involved a direct collision
but many were caused by evasive action because of car drivers (often
truck drivers).

Maybe we should do a little survey of posters to this discussion group.
What was your last on-road bike-related injury? Was it because you
were
hit by a car? Was it because you were taking evasive action to avoid
being hit by a car? Or what was the cause?

I suppose if people prefer, they could give counts of all their bike
injury incidents instead of just the last one.

I don't have much to contribute. Since 1972: I slid out on gravel at
about 5 mph creeping down a very steep, short hill on a city street. I
scraped my knee. And the front forks of our custom tandem snapped off
on a bumpy road at about 10 mph or less. I banged up my shoulder. So
that's one crash with the most common cause, which is the road surface;
and one crash by a relatively rare cause, component failure.

My wife's on road crashes are also two. She was on the back of the
tandem when it crashed, but she wasn't injured, just shaken up. And
many years ago, on a club ride, someone slammed on their brakes
unnecessarily in front of her. She avoided that person as she stopped,
but another rider ran into her from behind and knocked her down.
Again,
no injury, just a fall. We were about 20 miles into an 80 mile ride,
which we all finished.

More detail on the final crash above: The person who caused the chain
reaction crash had slammed on the brakes because they were afraid of a
passing truck. But none of the others (including me, leading the ride)
braked because of the truck. It just wasn't necessary at all. So that
crash was actually caused not by the truck, but by timidity.


No, it was caused by reckless cyclist behavior. Every respectable
teacher in driver's ed teaches their students to keep an adequate
distance from the vehicle up front. One Mississippi, two Mississippi.
Simple. Failing to do so will one day result in a crash like you
described. It doesn't have to be timidity. It could be as simple as an
animal running into the road.

You're deflecting again.

Tell us about your recent injuries, Joerg. Tell us about their causes.
Restrict it to on-road if you like. I'm saying most bike injuries are
minor and do not involve cars. You're claiming something else. What's
your experience?


Depends on what you call "recent".

Start with your last bike-related injury and work backward. Stop when
you like. Just don't omit any.

I had a 15+ year cycling hiatus on
account of lacking cycle path infrastructure. When that got better I
started riding again in 2013. No road injuries since then but several
evasive actions required because of motorists.

So no injuries in four years or so. Perhaps this isn't such a
death-defying activity after all!

BTW, I didn't include off-road injuries in my list of two (since 1972).
Let me fix that.

In 1973 I was taking a shortcut through an industrial parking lot. In
the shadows I missed seeing a slot between a scale platform and the
surrounding pavement. It swallowed my front wheel, I went over the bars
and scraped up both palms. No ER visit necessary. Riding home (about
two miles IIRC) was painful, as was doing anything using my hands for a
few days.

You now have a complete list of my cycling injuries as an adult, both on
road and off road. I crashed my mountain bike many times back when I
was challenging myself when riding it, but I was never injured.

And again, ever since learning to ride visibly away from the gutter (as
the law _does_ allow, despite your stubborn disbelief) I've never had to
take serious evasive action due to a motorist. I've hit the brakes a
very few times, but never even a panic stop.

Gutter bunnies seem to have a completely different experience out there.

--
- Frank Krygowski