Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failure ofVehicular Cycling.

On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 07:13:51 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 4:45:32 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/11/2017 12:58 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-08-11 09:06, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 8:56:59 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
On 8/11/2017 10:54 AM, Joerg wrote:
Just imagine if that driver up front had been a cyclist.

"Just imagine" is a Medieval way of choosing safety strategies. One
can imagine anything - "Here there be dragons" - or maybe mountain
lions.



http://bikeleague.org/sites/default/...port_final.pdf

Permission to stick your head back into the sand now.

First, Joerg, the techniques used in that "study" are laughable and have
earned much derision. As they say, "The majority of the information
captured by Every Bicyclist Counts came from newspaper reports (56% of
all reported sources), TV reports (25%) and blogs (19%)." Those are
hardly reliable sources of details necessary to determine crash
mechanisms. The very fact that their "hit from behind" category is so
much larger than any other study should raise red flags, even if the
"study" were not done by an organization that these days, devotes most
of its energy to promoting segregated facilities.

Second, there is little or no indication of whether or not most of the
cyclists were using techniques advocated by me, by _Effective Cycling_,
by _Cyclecraft_, by the League's own cycling classes, by CAN-BIKE, by
BikeAbility etc. I'd say it's very likely they were not. IOW, those
cyclists were probably riding like you do. Ponder that, please.

Third, in the sample of "such a wonderful guy/girl" personal stories,
there were at least two killed while riding in bike lanes and two while
riding shoulders. A person could use those tales to say the bike lanes
and shoulders you tout are completely useless. Also, note there are no
heartwarming stories about people riding at night without lights, or
riding drunk, despite their severe over-representation in other data on
bike fatalities.

What I do agree with is probably most often missed by readers: the need
to gather better data. Good data doesn't come from scanning blogs.

Frank - are you suggesting that the government hire bicycle
counter to stand on every corner and make a count of the bicycles? Or
perhaps require licenses?

Get a hold on yourself and no I don't mean there.

Back in 1930 Amsterdam did just that as a part of their traffic
planning. They counted every bicycle that passed an intersection for a
12 hour period.

Why not in America?
--
Cheers,

John B.

John B. wrote:
On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 07:13:51 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 4:45:32 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/11/2017 12:58 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-08-11 09:06, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 8:56:59 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
On 8/11/2017 10:54 AM, Joerg wrote:
Just imagine if that driver up front had been a cyclist.

"Just imagine" is a Medieval way of choosing safety strategies. One
can imagine anything - "Here there be dragons" - or maybe mountain
lions.



http://bikeleague.org/sites/default/...port_final.pdf

Permission to stick your head back into the sand now.

First, Joerg, the techniques used in that "study" are laughable and have
earned much derision. As they say, "The majority of the information
captured by Every Bicyclist Counts came from newspaper reports (56% of
all reported sources), TV reports (25%) and blogs (19%)." Those are
hardly reliable sources of details necessary to determine crash
mechanisms. The very fact that their "hit from behind" category is so
much larger than any other study should raise red flags, even if the
"study" were not done by an organization that these days, devotes most
of its energy to promoting segregated facilities.

Second, there is little or no indication of whether or not most of the
cyclists were using techniques advocated by me, by _Effective Cycling_,
by _Cyclecraft_, by the League's own cycling classes, by CAN-BIKE, by
BikeAbility etc. I'd say it's very likely they were not. IOW, those
cyclists were probably riding like you do. Ponder that, please.

Third, in the sample of "such a wonderful guy/girl" personal stories,
there were at least two killed while riding in bike lanes and two while
riding shoulders. A person could use those tales to say the bike lanes
and shoulders you tout are completely useless. Also, note there are no
heartwarming stories about people riding at night without lights, or
riding drunk, despite their severe over-representation in other data on
bike fatalities.

What I do agree with is probably most often missed by readers: the need
to gather better data. Good data doesn't come from scanning blogs.

Frank - are you suggesting that the government hire bicycle
counter to stand on every corner and make a count of the bicycles? Or
perhaps require licenses?

Get a hold on yourself and no I don't mean there.

Back in 1930 Amsterdam did just that as a part of their traffic
planning. They counted every bicycle that passed an intersection for a
12 hour period.

Why not in America?
--
Cheers,


In Montreal they use cameras and software.

--
duane

On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 9:53:50 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Don't complain that Joerg is whining when all you have to do is bring the same subject up at any bike club meeting and you're assaulted by 2/3rds of the group with exactly the same sort of complaints.

Not my bike club.

Then you're in a club of one. I've belonged to three different clubs over 40 years and heard the same complaints over and over.

On 8/13/2017 3:19 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 07:13:51 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 4:45:32 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/11/2017 12:58 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-08-11 09:06, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 8:56:59 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
On 8/11/2017 10:54 AM, Joerg wrote:
Just imagine if that driver up front had been a cyclist.

"Just imagine" is a Medieval way of choosing safety strategies. One
can imagine anything - "Here there be dragons" - or maybe mountain
lions.



http://bikeleague.org/sites/default/...port_final.pdf

Permission to stick your head back into the sand now.

First, Joerg, the techniques used in that "study" are laughable and have
earned much derision. As they say, "The majority of the information
captured by Every Bicyclist Counts came from newspaper reports (56% of
all reported sources), TV reports (25%) and blogs (19%)." Those are
hardly reliable sources of details necessary to determine crash
mechanisms. The very fact that their "hit from behind" category is so
much larger than any other study should raise red flags, even if the
"study" were not done by an organization that these days, devotes most
of its energy to promoting segregated facilities.

Second, there is little or no indication of whether or not most of the
cyclists were using techniques advocated by me, by _Effective Cycling_,
by _Cyclecraft_, by the League's own cycling classes, by CAN-BIKE, by
BikeAbility etc. I'd say it's very likely they were not. IOW, those
cyclists were probably riding like you do. Ponder that, please.

Third, in the sample of "such a wonderful guy/girl" personal stories,
there were at least two killed while riding in bike lanes and two while
riding shoulders. A person could use those tales to say the bike lanes
and shoulders you tout are completely useless. Also, note there are no
heartwarming stories about people riding at night without lights, or
riding drunk, despite their severe over-representation in other data on
bike fatalities.

What I do agree with is probably most often missed by readers: the need
to gather better data. Good data doesn't come from scanning blogs.

Frank - are you suggesting that the government hire bicycle
counter to stand on every corner and make a count of the bicycles? Or
perhaps require licenses?

Get a hold on yourself and no I don't mean there.

Back in 1930 Amsterdam did just that as a part of their traffic
planning. They counted every bicycle that passed an intersection for a
12 hour period.

Why not in America?

That works if you're trying to evaluate bike use. I was talking about
what the LAB effort pretended to determine, which was the cause of
crashes. For that you need good collection of info about the crash,
preferably by cops immediately after the crash happens.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 09:55:53 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. wrote:
On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 07:13:51 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 4:45:32 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/11/2017 12:58 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-08-11 09:06, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 8:56:59 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
On 8/11/2017 10:54 AM, Joerg wrote:
Just imagine if that driver up front had been a cyclist.

"Just imagine" is a Medieval way of choosing safety strategies. One
can imagine anything - "Here there be dragons" - or maybe mountain
lions.



http://bikeleague.org/sites/default/...port_final.pdf

Permission to stick your head back into the sand now.

First, Joerg, the techniques used in that "study" are laughable and have
earned much derision. As they say, "The majority of the information
captured by Every Bicyclist Counts came from newspaper reports (56% of
all reported sources), TV reports (25%) and blogs (19%)." Those are
hardly reliable sources of details necessary to determine crash
mechanisms. The very fact that their "hit from behind" category is so
much larger than any other study should raise red flags, even if the
"study" were not done by an organization that these days, devotes most
of its energy to promoting segregated facilities.

Second, there is little or no indication of whether or not most of the
cyclists were using techniques advocated by me, by _Effective Cycling_,
by _Cyclecraft_, by the League's own cycling classes, by CAN-BIKE, by
BikeAbility etc. I'd say it's very likely they were not. IOW, those
cyclists were probably riding like you do. Ponder that, please.

Third, in the sample of "such a wonderful guy/girl" personal stories,
there were at least two killed while riding in bike lanes and two while
riding shoulders. A person could use those tales to say the bike lanes
and shoulders you tout are completely useless. Also, note there are no
heartwarming stories about people riding at night without lights, or
riding drunk, despite their severe over-representation in other data on
bike fatalities.

What I do agree with is probably most often missed by readers: the need
to gather better data. Good data doesn't come from scanning blogs.

Frank - are you suggesting that the government hire bicycle
counter to stand on every corner and make a count of the bicycles? Or
perhaps require licenses?

Get a hold on yourself and no I don't mean there.

Back in 1930 Amsterdam did just that as a part of their traffic
planning. They counted every bicycle that passed an intersection for a
12 hour period.

Why not in America?
--
Cheers,


In Montreal they use cameras and software.

Costs more money than hiring a student. In Denmark, was it, they just
gave the students a dinky little magneto powered light to put on their
bicycle (and probably got a tax write off for the cost) :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 12:15:13 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/13/2017 3:19 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 07:13:51 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 4:45:32 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/11/2017 12:58 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-08-11 09:06, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 8:56:59 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
On 8/11/2017 10:54 AM, Joerg wrote:
Just imagine if that driver up front had been a cyclist.

"Just imagine" is a Medieval way of choosing safety strategies. One
can imagine anything - "Here there be dragons" - or maybe mountain
lions.



http://bikeleague.org/sites/default/...port_final.pdf

Permission to stick your head back into the sand now.

First, Joerg, the techniques used in that "study" are laughable and have
earned much derision. As they say, "The majority of the information
captured by Every Bicyclist Counts came from newspaper reports (56% of
all reported sources), TV reports (25%) and blogs (19%)." Those are
hardly reliable sources of details necessary to determine crash
mechanisms. The very fact that their "hit from behind" category is so
much larger than any other study should raise red flags, even if the
"study" were not done by an organization that these days, devotes most
of its energy to promoting segregated facilities.

Second, there is little or no indication of whether or not most of the
cyclists were using techniques advocated by me, by _Effective Cycling_,
by _Cyclecraft_, by the League's own cycling classes, by CAN-BIKE, by
BikeAbility etc. I'd say it's very likely they were not. IOW, those
cyclists were probably riding like you do. Ponder that, please.

Third, in the sample of "such a wonderful guy/girl" personal stories,
there were at least two killed while riding in bike lanes and two while
riding shoulders. A person could use those tales to say the bike lanes
and shoulders you tout are completely useless. Also, note there are no
heartwarming stories about people riding at night without lights, or
riding drunk, despite their severe over-representation in other data on
bike fatalities.

What I do agree with is probably most often missed by readers: the need
to gather better data. Good data doesn't come from scanning blogs.

Frank - are you suggesting that the government hire bicycle
counter to stand on every corner and make a count of the bicycles? Or
perhaps require licenses?

Get a hold on yourself and no I don't mean there.

Back in 1930 Amsterdam did just that as a part of their traffic
planning. They counted every bicycle that passed an intersection for a
12 hour period.

Why not in America?

That works if you're trying to evaluate bike use. I was talking about
what the LAB effort pretended to determine, which was the cause of
crashes. For that you need good collection of info about the crash,
preferably by cops immediately after the crash happens.

As far as I can determine there is no accurate count of bicycle
accidents and or deaths. In fact I've read mention of this in a number
of studies as (the studies say) some? many? bike accidents are either
not reported or do not result in a visit to a clinic, or even if a
clinic is visited the injury may be recorded but not the fact that it
was a "bicycle accident".

Even where, it appears, that an effort was made to acquire accurate
information, such as the L.A. county study (that reported that more
then half of the bike - auto crashes were the fault of the cyclist)
only the initial cause was recorded. If a bicycle was riding the wrong
way the blame was attributed to the bicycle regardless of any other
actions that might have added to the severity of the crash.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 8/13/2017 8:07 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 12:15:13 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
I was talking about
what the LAB effort pretended to determine, which was the cause of
crashes. For that you need good collection of info about the crash,
preferably by cops immediately after the crash happens.

As far as I can determine there is no accurate count of bicycle
accidents and or deaths. In fact I've read mention of this in a number
of studies as (the studies say) some? many? bike accidents are either
not reported or do not result in a visit to a clinic, or even if a
clinic is visited the injury may be recorded but not the fact that it
was a "bicycle accident".

That's true of almost everything. There's probably no really accurate
count of chair accidents, stairs accidents, shoe accidents etc.

Even where, it appears, that an effort was made to acquire accurate
information, such as the L.A. county study (that reported that more
then half of the bike - auto crashes were the fault of the cyclist)
only the initial cause was recorded. If a bicycle was riding the wrong
way the blame was attributed to the bicycle regardless of any other
actions that might have added to the severity of the crash.

Right. If we really want to understand the situations and behaviors that
cause bike crashes, we need better data.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 22:20:48 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/13/2017 8:07 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 12:15:13 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
I was talking about
what the LAB effort pretended to determine, which was the cause of
crashes. For that you need good collection of info about the crash,
preferably by cops immediately after the crash happens.

As far as I can determine there is no accurate count of bicycle
accidents and or deaths. In fact I've read mention of this in a number
of studies as (the studies say) some? many? bike accidents are either
not reported or do not result in a visit to a clinic, or even if a
clinic is visited the injury may be recorded but not the fact that it
was a "bicycle accident".

That's true of almost everything. There's probably no really accurate
count of chair accidents, stairs accidents, shoe accidents etc.

Even where, it appears, that an effort was made to acquire accurate
information, such as the L.A. county study (that reported that more
then half of the bike - auto crashes were the fault of the cyclist)
only the initial cause was recorded. If a bicycle was riding the wrong
way the blame was attributed to the bicycle regardless of any other
actions that might have added to the severity of the crash.

Right. If we really want to understand the situations and behaviors that
cause bike crashes, we need better data.

I just came across a site that claims that beds are more dangerious
than firearms, with 835 deaths from falling out of bed in 2014 versus
only 364 due to mass shootings :-)
https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeaut..._of_bed_in_us/

Given that U.S. bicycle deaths were only 749 in 2014 it becomes
obvious that we don't need bike paths to be safe. What we need are
lower beds - Japanese futons? :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 8/13/2017 11:58 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 22:20:48 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/13/2017 8:07 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 12:15:13 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
I was talking about
what the LAB effort pretended to determine, which was the cause of
crashes. For that you need good collection of info about the crash,
preferably by cops immediately after the crash happens.

As far as I can determine there is no accurate count of bicycle
accidents and or deaths. In fact I've read mention of this in a number
of studies as (the studies say) some? many? bike accidents are either
not reported or do not result in a visit to a clinic, or even if a
clinic is visited the injury may be recorded but not the fact that it
was a "bicycle accident".

That's true of almost everything. There's probably no really accurate
count of chair accidents, stairs accidents, shoe accidents etc.

Even where, it appears, that an effort was made to acquire accurate
information, such as the L.A. county study (that reported that more
then half of the bike - auto crashes were the fault of the cyclist)
only the initial cause was recorded. If a bicycle was riding the wrong
way the blame was attributed to the bicycle regardless of any other
actions that might have added to the severity of the crash.

Right. If we really want to understand the situations and behaviors that
cause bike crashes, we need better data.

I just came across a site that claims that beds are more dangerious
than firearms, with 835 deaths from falling out of bed in 2014 versus
only 364 due to mass shootings :-)
https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeaut..._of_bed_in_us/

Given that U.S. bicycle deaths were only 749 in 2014 it becomes
obvious that we don't need bike paths to be safe. What we need are
lower beds - Japanese futons? :-)

I've noted before that falling out of bed deaths frequently exceed bike
deaths. It illustrates how rare bike deaths really are; yet many people
worry so much about getting killed while riding.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 10:08:28 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/13/2017 11:58 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 22:20:48 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/13/2017 8:07 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 12:15:13 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
I was talking about
what the LAB effort pretended to determine, which was the cause of
crashes. For that you need good collection of info about the crash,
preferably by cops immediately after the crash happens.

As far as I can determine there is no accurate count of bicycle
accidents and or deaths. In fact I've read mention of this in a number
of studies as (the studies say) some? many? bike accidents are either
not reported or do not result in a visit to a clinic, or even if a
clinic is visited the injury may be recorded but not the fact that it
was a "bicycle accident".

That's true of almost everything. There's probably no really accurate
count of chair accidents, stairs accidents, shoe accidents etc.

Even where, it appears, that an effort was made to acquire accurate
information, such as the L.A. county study (that reported that more
then half of the bike - auto crashes were the fault of the cyclist)
only the initial cause was recorded. If a bicycle was riding the wrong
way the blame was attributed to the bicycle regardless of any other
actions that might have added to the severity of the crash.

Right. If we really want to understand the situations and behaviors that
cause bike crashes, we need better data.

I just came across a site that claims that beds are more dangerious
than firearms, with 835 deaths from falling out of bed in 2014 versus
only 364 due to mass shootings :-)
https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeaut..._of_bed_in_us/

Given that U.S. bicycle deaths were only 749 in 2014 it becomes
obvious that we don't need bike paths to be safe. What we need are
lower beds - Japanese futons? :-)

I've noted before that falling out of bed deaths frequently exceed bike
deaths. It illustrates how rare bike deaths really are; yet many people
worry so much about getting killed while riding.

It doesn't matter how rare it is. Bicyclist themselves go way out of their way to emphasize the dangers of cycling - "Always wear a helmet". In most states it is illegal for a minor to bicycle without a "safety" helmet.