Episcopalians vs bicyclists

On Thursday, January 1, 2015 5:04:55 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/1/2015 7:16 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, December 31, 2014 5:51:55 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Sometimes people's impressions are simply not accurate. That's why I
like data.

Here's some: http://www.technology.org/2013/12/03...-cyclists-u-s/

http://www.vox.com/2014/5/22/5738626...ppen-in-the-us

Data-ish narrative summary. I think national statistics (FARS) show a decline in the
total number of bicycle deaths, but we don't know if the number of
rear-end collisions
has risen in relationship to the other death-modes. LAB was surprised
by the high
percentage of deaths resulting from rear end collisions, but I don't
know if surprise is
data -- or that it represents an increase in the number of rear-enders.

So, from the first link, we have an increase in bike deaths due to
distracted driving, from 56 in 2005 to 73 in 2010. Percentagewise, that
looks like a big increase. But is 73 "a lot" of bike deaths? There are
something like five to ten billion bike miles ridden annually in the U.S.

Yes, distracted driving is something to fight against. But it's way too
early to pretend it's a major risk for cyclists. (And again, I think
one way to defend against it is to be very prominent in the lane, so the
distracted driver notices you even if he glances up when he's far back.)

The second link is a rehash of a ludicrous propaganda bit by LAB. I
thought we'd discussed that here, but perhaps it was on another group,
so here's the summary:

LAB did not access any police reports or any other official reports of
crashes. Instead, they had interns or staff members trolling for
reporters' accounts of bike crashes in newspapers, websites, blogs,
magazine articles, etc. The ONLY information used to categorize the
crash type was that given by the reporter, and the "reporter" may have
been a guy living in his mom's basement, typing in his underwear.

Andy Clarke is now fully dedicated to promoting Mia Birk and crew's
business model, which is encourage cities to spend plenty of money on
"expert design" and construction of segregated bike facilities.
Increasing the "fear from the rear" is a prime method for doing that.
Clarke's gone so far as to state, in interviews, that what's been taught
by League certified instructors for decades must be wrong, based on a
"research" method that would fail most college classes.

As a result, we now have more and more (supposed) cycling advocates
claiming that nothing less than total separation can make cycling safe.
In other words, they are saying that riding, as done all over the
U.S., is a dangerous practice. How far is that from "You knew the
risks, you deserved to get hit"?

This is one example of why I am no longer a LAB member. I even know
guys who, decades ago, worked as high-level LAB volunteers and became
life members but who now wish they could drop their life memberships.

I thought you said you liked data!

Crap, in rural North Carolina, getting rear-ended is the predominant crash mode. http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/...e/fhwasa12018/ (Table 1). So much for my tour of North Carolina.

And as a percentage of over-all traffic deaths, cyclist deaths are up. http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/812018.pdf

I'd throw out some more for you to gnaw on and tear apart, but I can't tolerate looking for data chew-toys for more than about two minutes. None if affects the way I ride or my risk which, on a day like today (sunny and cold) is more dependent on unseen patches of ice.

-- Jay Beattie.

'but I can't tolerate looking for data chew-toys for more than about two minutes. None if affects the way I ride or my risk which, on a day like today (sunny and cold) is more dependent on unseen patches of ice.'

my argument overlaid on the facts or data...that potential..that is the reality you wire to as a ground....is uh uh REALITY...which it is right ?

and off course potential from 2 tons passing you 5 feet away at a speed differential of 30-40 mph driven by a monkey...is dangerous.

the stats only tellus where when and why cycling is extremely dangerous.

BTW NC is a lot like OR but NC boasts huge mosquitoes , no desert wilderness. But a lot like.

On 1/2/2015 12:11 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, January 1, 2015 5:04:55 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/1/2015 7:16 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, December 31, 2014 5:51:55 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Sometimes people's impressions are simply not accurate. That's why I
like data.

Here's some: http://www.technology.org/2013/12/03...-cyclists-u-s/

http://www.vox.com/2014/5/22/5738626...ppen-in-the-us

Data-ish narrative summary. I think national statistics (FARS) show a decline in the
total number of bicycle deaths, but we don't know if the number of
rear-end collisions
has risen in relationship to the other death-modes. LAB was surprised
by the high
percentage of deaths resulting from rear end collisions, but I don't
know if surprise is
data -- or that it represents an increase in the number of rear-enders.

So, from the first link, we have an increase in bike deaths due to
distracted driving, from 56 in 2005 to 73 in 2010. Percentagewise, that
looks like a big increase. But is 73 "a lot" of bike deaths? There are
something like five to ten billion bike miles ridden annually in the U.S.

Yes, distracted driving is something to fight against. But it's way too
early to pretend it's a major risk for cyclists. (And again, I think
one way to defend against it is to be very prominent in the lane, so the
distracted driver notices you even if he glances up when he's far back.)

The second link is a rehash of a ludicrous propaganda bit by LAB. I
thought we'd discussed that here, but perhaps it was on another group,
so here's the summary:

LAB did not access any police reports or any other official reports of
crashes. Instead, they had interns or staff members trolling for
reporters' accounts of bike crashes in newspapers, websites, blogs,
magazine articles, etc. The ONLY information used to categorize the
crash type was that given by the reporter, and the "reporter" may have
been a guy living in his mom's basement, typing in his underwear.

Andy Clarke is now fully dedicated to promoting Mia Birk and crew's
business model, which is encourage cities to spend plenty of money on
"expert design" and construction of segregated bike facilities.
Increasing the "fear from the rear" is a prime method for doing that.
Clarke's gone so far as to state, in interviews, that what's been taught
by League certified instructors for decades must be wrong, based on a
"research" method that would fail most college classes.

As a result, we now have more and more (supposed) cycling advocates
claiming that nothing less than total separation can make cycling safe.
In other words, they are saying that riding, as done all over the
U.S., is a dangerous practice. How far is that from "You knew the
risks, you deserved to get hit"?

This is one example of why I am no longer a LAB member. I even know
guys who, decades ago, worked as high-level LAB volunteers and became
life members but who now wish they could drop their life memberships.

I thought you said you liked data!

I don't like data that's misleading. That includes data that's ineptly
gathered, or deliberately mis-gathered to be used for propaganda
purposes. LAB's data is at least one of those, and perhaps both.

Crap, in rural North Carolina, getting rear-ended is the predominant
crash mode. http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/...e/fhwasa12018/
(Table 1).
So much for my tour of North Carolina.

As it happens, I have several very good friends in North Carolina. I'm
also a good online friend of one avid bicyclist and cycling advocate who
used to work for NC's DOT, doing research. He has some interesting
tales to tell.

But having ridden a fair amount in rural NC, I can tell you that hits
from behind are almost the only thing that can happen to you. When
you're riding for miles with the only intersections being lightly
traveled country roads, things like "motorist failed to yield at
intersection" or "motorist failed to yield midblock" are hard to come
by. Remove all the other crash types, and hits from behind are the only
thing left. That doesn't mean they're common. And it doesn't mean that
riding prominently in the lane wouldn't help prevent them.


And as a percentage of over-all traffic deaths, cyclist deaths are up.
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/812018.pdf

But note the predominant reason. It's not that bike deaths have surged.
(They're up a bit, possibly due to more cycling taking place.) Instead,
motorist deaths have plummeted. To cherry-pick two years, in 2005 there
were 42,724 non-cyclist traffic deaths and 786 cyclist deaths. In 2012,
the numbers are 32,835 and 726. So bike fatalities have trended down,
but not nearly as fast as car fatalities.

I think the main difference has been the changes in motor vehicle
technology. We now have cars with totally inflatable interiors,
electronic stability control, anti-lock brakes, and improved body &
chassis energy absorption. We've also had big crackdowns on drunk
driving. All those tend to reduce car fatalities, but have little
effect on bikes.


I'd throw out some more for you to gnaw on and tear apart, but I
can't tolerate looking for data chew-toys for more than about two minutes.
None if affects the way I ride or my risk which, on a day like today
(sunny and cold) is more dependent on unseen patches of ice.

It can affect a cyclist if he or she misinterprets the data in a way
that leads to more dangerous riding practices. And it affects cycling
as a whole, if it scares people into thinking riding on ordinary roads
is too dangerous to attempt.


--
- Frank Krygowski

http://goo.gl/w7Szo5

On Fri, 2 Jan 2015 09:11:13 -0800 (PST), jbeattie
wrote:

On Thursday, January 1, 2015 5:04:55 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/1/2015 7:16 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, December 31, 2014 5:51:55 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Sometimes people's impressions are simply not accurate. That's why I
like data.

Here's some: http://www.technology.org/2013/12/03...-cyclists-u-s/

http://www.vox.com/2014/5/22/5738626...ppen-in-the-us

Data-ish narrative summary. I think national statistics (FARS) show a decline in the
total number of bicycle deaths, but we don't know if the number of
rear-end collisions
has risen in relationship to the other death-modes. LAB was surprised
by the high
percentage of deaths resulting from rear end collisions, but I don't
know if surprise is
data -- or that it represents an increase in the number of rear-enders.

So, from the first link, we have an increase in bike deaths due to
distracted driving, from 56 in 2005 to 73 in 2010. Percentagewise, that
looks like a big increase. But is 73 "a lot" of bike deaths? There are
something like five to ten billion bike miles ridden annually in the U.S.

Yes, distracted driving is something to fight against. But it's way too
early to pretend it's a major risk for cyclists. (And again, I think
one way to defend against it is to be very prominent in the lane, so the
distracted driver notices you even if he glances up when he's far back.)

The second link is a rehash of a ludicrous propaganda bit by LAB. I
thought we'd discussed that here, but perhaps it was on another group,
so here's the summary:

LAB did not access any police reports or any other official reports of
crashes. Instead, they had interns or staff members trolling for
reporters' accounts of bike crashes in newspapers, websites, blogs,
magazine articles, etc. The ONLY information used to categorize the
crash type was that given by the reporter, and the "reporter" may have
been a guy living in his mom's basement, typing in his underwear.

Andy Clarke is now fully dedicated to promoting Mia Birk and crew's
business model, which is encourage cities to spend plenty of money on
"expert design" and construction of segregated bike facilities.
Increasing the "fear from the rear" is a prime method for doing that.
Clarke's gone so far as to state, in interviews, that what's been taught
by League certified instructors for decades must be wrong, based on a
"research" method that would fail most college classes.

As a result, we now have more and more (supposed) cycling advocates
claiming that nothing less than total separation can make cycling safe.
In other words, they are saying that riding, as done all over the
U.S., is a dangerous practice. How far is that from "You knew the
risks, you deserved to get hit"?

This is one example of why I am no longer a LAB member. I even know
guys who, decades ago, worked as high-level LAB volunteers and became
life members but who now wish they could drop their life memberships.

I thought you said you liked data!

Crap, in rural North Carolina, getting rear-ended is the predominant crash mode. http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/...e/fhwasa12018/ (Table 1). So much for my tour of North Carolina.

And as a percentage of over-all traffic deaths, cyclist deaths are up. http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/812018.pdf

I'd throw out some more for you to gnaw on and tear apart, but I can't tolerate looking for data chew-toys for more than about two minutes. None if affects the way I ride or my risk which, on a day like today (sunny and cold) is more dependent on unseen patches of ice.

-- Jay Beattie.

I think that the question really is
"is number of bicycle deaths significant?" and I'm not sure that it
is.

If, for example, the total number of bicycles being ridden daily in
the U.S., is say 1,000, then the 726 deaths recorded in 2012 are 72%
of the riders, truly significant.

If, on the other hand, the total number of cyclists is 1,000,000 then
the number of deaths is 0.07%.

And if, as stated in
http://www.statista.com/statistics/1...us-since-2006/
Number of participants in bicycling in the United States is 46.6
million then the percentage of deaths becomes .0015%.

Another way of looking at it is that of the 2.5 million deaths
annually in the U.S. the percentage of cycling deaths is .02%

But there are a lot of problems with all these calculations.
Apparently no one knows how many cyclists there are actually. I read
one report that counted, "anyone who rode a bicycle at least once
yearly", which doesn't sound like a reasonable base to back death
risks on.

Another point is that of the people hospitalized in the U.S. somewhere
of between 98,000 - 440,000 dies of medical mistakes
see:
http://www.propublica.org/article/ho...n-us-hospitals

As apparently something like 35.1 million people are hospitalized
annually then somewhere between 0.2% and 1% die of medically problems,
which might be a factor in numbering bicycle deaths - is someone who
is admitted to a hospital due to bicycle related injuries and who dies
because of a medical mistake a bicycle death?

And yes, as a percentage of over-all traffic deaths, cyclist deaths
are up, but is that simply a factor of more cyclists of the road?

I suggest that counting the number of bicycle deaths annually is not
an accurate method of measuring the risk dying while riding a bicycle,
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Friday, January 2, 2015 7:28:56 PM UTC-5, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Fri, 2 Jan 2015 09:11:13 -0800 (PST), jbeattie
wrote:

On Thursday, January 1, 2015 5:04:55 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/1/2015 7:16 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, December 31, 2014 5:51:55 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Sometimes people's impressions are simply not accurate. That's why I
like data.

Here's some: http://www.technology.org/2013/12/03...-cyclists-u-s/

http://www.vox.com/2014/5/22/5738626...ppen-in-the-us

Data-ish narrative summary. I think national statistics (FARS) show a decline in the
total number of bicycle deaths, but we don't know if the number of
rear-end collisions
has risen in relationship to the other death-modes. LAB was surprised
by the high
percentage of deaths resulting from rear end collisions, but I don't
know if surprise is
data -- or that it represents an increase in the number of rear-enders..

So, from the first link, we have an increase in bike deaths due to
distracted driving, from 56 in 2005 to 73 in 2010. Percentagewise, that
looks like a big increase. But is 73 "a lot" of bike deaths? There are
something like five to ten billion bike miles ridden annually in the U..S.

Yes, distracted driving is something to fight against. But it's way too
early to pretend it's a major risk for cyclists. (And again, I think
one way to defend against it is to be very prominent in the lane, so the
distracted driver notices you even if he glances up when he's far back..)

The second link is a rehash of a ludicrous propaganda bit by LAB. I
thought we'd discussed that here, but perhaps it was on another group,
so here's the summary:

LAB did not access any police reports or any other official reports of
crashes. Instead, they had interns or staff members trolling for
reporters' accounts of bike crashes in newspapers, websites, blogs,
magazine articles, etc. The ONLY information used to categorize the
crash type was that given by the reporter, and the "reporter" may have
been a guy living in his mom's basement, typing in his underwear.

Andy Clarke is now fully dedicated to promoting Mia Birk and crew's
business model, which is encourage cities to spend plenty of money on
"expert design" and construction of segregated bike facilities.
Increasing the "fear from the rear" is a prime method for doing that.
Clarke's gone so far as to state, in interviews, that what's been taught
by League certified instructors for decades must be wrong, based on a
"research" method that would fail most college classes.

As a result, we now have more and more (supposed) cycling advocates
claiming that nothing less than total separation can make cycling safe..
In other words, they are saying that riding, as done all over the
U.S., is a dangerous practice. How far is that from "You knew the
risks, you deserved to get hit"?

This is one example of why I am no longer a LAB member. I even know
guys who, decades ago, worked as high-level LAB volunteers and became
life members but who now wish they could drop their life memberships.

I thought you said you liked data!

Crap, in rural North Carolina, getting rear-ended is the predominant crash mode. http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/...e/fhwasa12018/ (Table 1). So much for my tour of North Carolina.

And as a percentage of over-all traffic deaths, cyclist deaths are up. http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/812018.pdf

I'd throw out some more for you to gnaw on and tear apart, but I can't tolerate looking for data chew-toys for more than about two minutes. None if affects the way I ride or my risk which, on a day like today (sunny and cold) is more dependent on unseen patches of ice.

-- Jay Beattie.

I think that the question really is
"is number of bicycle deaths significant?" and I'm not sure that it
is.

If, for example, the total number of bicycles being ridden daily in
the U.S., is say 1,000, then the 726 deaths recorded in 2012 are 72%
of the riders, truly significant.

If, on the other hand, the total number of cyclists is 1,000,000 then
the number of deaths is 0.07%.

And if, as stated in
http://www.statista.com/statistics/1...us-since-2006/
Number of participants in bicycling in the United States is 46.6
million then the percentage of deaths becomes .0015%.

Another way of looking at it is that of the 2.5 million deaths
annually in the U.S. the percentage of cycling deaths is .02%

But there are a lot of problems with all these calculations.
Apparently no one knows how many cyclists there are actually. I read
one report that counted, "anyone who rode a bicycle at least once
yearly", which doesn't sound like a reasonable base to back death
risks on.

Another point is that of the people hospitalized in the U.S. somewhere
of between 98,000 - 440,000 dies of medical mistakes
see:
http://www.propublica.org/article/ho...n-us-hospitals

As apparently something like 35.1 million people are hospitalized
annually then somewhere between 0.2% and 1% die of medically problems,
which might be a factor in numbering bicycle deaths - is someone who
is admitted to a hospital due to bicycle related injuries and who dies
because of a medical mistake a bicycle death?

And yes, as a percentage of over-all traffic deaths, cyclist deaths
are up, but is that simply a factor of more cyclists of the road?

I suggest that counting the number of bicycle deaths annually is not
an accurate method of measuring the risk dying while riding a bicycle,
--
Cheers,

John B.

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\*

getting the POTENTIAL concept across is vurah difficult ( in Scotty brogue)

POTENTIAL is the reality as stated AND the CLOUD OF REALITY POTENTIAL

izzit possible ? establishing a energy savings bicycle reality ?

that depends on the CLOUD OF REALITY POTENTIAL

the mass perception of bicycle REALITY

NO ONE ceptin you and Frank consider stats...NADA DATA

the masses see only CLOUD OF REALITY POTENTIAL

or in truth, NOTHING only their delusion.

data and stats actually have very little TO DO with cycling.

veruh difiseal..

look what I found !

http://goo.gl/gHX8qS