|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Where "Safety Inflation" leads
On 10/8/2019 10:02 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 12:36:41 +1100, James wrote: On 9/10/19 4:32 am, Frank Krygowski wrote: "Bicycling is dangerous! You need to wear a helmet, use bright lights in the daytime and wear Day-Glo clothing. You need bike lanes, and you need to stay in them. Knee pads and elbow pads wouldn't hurt either! And you really ought to just load your bike in your car and take it out to a nice safe bike trail. Riding in a city just isn't safe." Here's what all that "Safety Inflation" ultimately generates: https://www.thenational.ae/uae/trans...-push-1.920236 Bicycling can be dangerous. People die doing it, as they do falling from bed, I know the rhetoric. It is understandable to infer the message is "Bicycling is dangerous!", but it is often put as "For your safety, wear a helmet & hi vis, use lights & reflectors, etc." In other words, "You will be much safer (or 'safe') if you take these precautions..." Trouble is, you are not made 'safe' by taking those precautions at all. Sure lights are pretty important at night or during times of poor visibility, but safety comes more from keeping your wits about you. Not riding in the door zone. Watching all turning traffic for failure to give way and having an escape route. Reducing speed when it is wet and slippery. Riding in a prominent position on the road and being aware of what all the other blind vehicle operators around you might be doing, etc. It's like dancing with multiple vision impaired partners simultaneously, knowing that they're swinging punches and by getting too close to any one of them can result in a punch to the head if you're not careful. Keeping your wits about you is probably more important than all of the usual recommendations put together! Of course riding in a country where the drivers better accommodate cyclists is next on the list. Italy was pretty good. Much better than Australia. The answer is fairly simple, simply pass a law that in a collision the larger vehicle, subject to proof otherwise, is deemed to be at fault and is financially liable for any and all resulting costs. Including replacement parts or vehicle, hospital and medical costs, loss of income, and even funeral costs if necessary. While this may not be politically possible in Australia it does, in Thailand, appear to reduce bicycle accidents and according to my neighbor, the policeman, most small motorcycle - auto crashes have been found to be the fault of the motorcycle. As I've mentioned, we made friends in Zurich when we were there. They told us such a law had been recently passed, and they claimed that it transformed the experience of walking and cycling. It made things much nicer. We spent an evening walking around the downtown with them. I remember the drivers as being very polite. Perhaps scowlingly polite, but still polite. -- - Frank Krygowski |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Where "Safety Inflation" leads
On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 22:49:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 10/8/2019 10:02 PM, John B. wrote: On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 12:36:41 +1100, James wrote: On 9/10/19 4:32 am, Frank Krygowski wrote: "Bicycling is dangerous! You need to wear a helmet, use bright lights in the daytime and wear Day-Glo clothing. You need bike lanes, and you need to stay in them. Knee pads and elbow pads wouldn't hurt either! And you really ought to just load your bike in your car and take it out to a nice safe bike trail. Riding in a city just isn't safe." Here's what all that "Safety Inflation" ultimately generates: https://www.thenational.ae/uae/trans...-push-1.920236 Bicycling can be dangerous. People die doing it, as they do falling from bed, I know the rhetoric. It is understandable to infer the message is "Bicycling is dangerous!", but it is often put as "For your safety, wear a helmet & hi vis, use lights & reflectors, etc." In other words, "You will be much safer (or 'safe') if you take these precautions..." Trouble is, you are not made 'safe' by taking those precautions at all. Sure lights are pretty important at night or during times of poor visibility, but safety comes more from keeping your wits about you. Not riding in the door zone. Watching all turning traffic for failure to give way and having an escape route. Reducing speed when it is wet and slippery. Riding in a prominent position on the road and being aware of what all the other blind vehicle operators around you might be doing, etc. It's like dancing with multiple vision impaired partners simultaneously, knowing that they're swinging punches and by getting too close to any one of them can result in a punch to the head if you're not careful. Keeping your wits about you is probably more important than all of the usual recommendations put together! Of course riding in a country where the drivers better accommodate cyclists is next on the list. Italy was pretty good. Much better than Australia. The answer is fairly simple, simply pass a law that in a collision the larger vehicle, subject to proof otherwise, is deemed to be at fault and is financially liable for any and all resulting costs. Including replacement parts or vehicle, hospital and medical costs, loss of income, and even funeral costs if necessary. While this may not be politically possible in Australia it does, in Thailand, appear to reduce bicycle accidents and according to my neighbor, the policeman, most small motorcycle - auto crashes have been found to be the fault of the motorcycle. As I've mentioned, we made friends in Zurich when we were there. They told us such a law had been recently passed, and they claimed that it transformed the experience of walking and cycling. It made things much nicer. We spent an evening walking around the downtown with them. I remember the drivers as being very polite. Perhaps scowlingly polite, but still polite. Generally speaking, when the penalty is someone grabbing your pocket book and peeling a whole wad of money out of it, (to paraphrase Samuel Johnson) it concentrates the mind wonderfully Back in the day when $1,000 was the best part of a month's salary Singapore passed a regulation that spitting on the sidewalk was penalized by a $1,000 fine and (can you believe it) no one spits on the sidewalk in Singapore :-) -- cheers, John B. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Where "Safety Inflation" leads
On 9/10/19 1:02 pm, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 12:36:41 +1100, James wrote: On 9/10/19 4:32 am, Frank Krygowski wrote: "Bicycling is dangerous! You need to wear a helmet, use bright lights in the daytime and wear Day-Glo clothing. You need bike lanes, and you need to stay in them. Knee pads and elbow pads wouldn't hurt either! And you really ought to just load your bike in your car and take it out to a nice safe bike trail. Riding in a city just isn't safe." Here's what all that "Safety Inflation" ultimately generates: https://www.thenational.ae/uae/trans...-push-1.920236 Bicycling can be dangerous. People die doing it, as they do falling from bed, I know the rhetoric. It is understandable to infer the message is "Bicycling is dangerous!", but it is often put as "For your safety, wear a helmet & hi vis, use lights & reflectors, etc." In other words, "You will be much safer (or 'safe') if you take these precautions..." Trouble is, you are not made 'safe' by taking those precautions at all. Sure lights are pretty important at night or during times of poor visibility, but safety comes more from keeping your wits about you. Not riding in the door zone. Watching all turning traffic for failure to give way and having an escape route. Reducing speed when it is wet and slippery. Riding in a prominent position on the road and being aware of what all the other blind vehicle operators around you might be doing, etc. It's like dancing with multiple vision impaired partners simultaneously, knowing that they're swinging punches and by getting too close to any one of them can result in a punch to the head if you're not careful. Keeping your wits about you is probably more important than all of the usual recommendations put together! Of course riding in a country where the drivers better accommodate cyclists is next on the list. Italy was pretty good. Much better than Australia. The answer is fairly simple, simply pass a law that in a collision the larger vehicle, subject to proof otherwise, is deemed to be at fault and is financially liable for any and all resulting costs. Including replacement parts or vehicle, hospital and medical costs, loss of income, and even funeral costs if necessary. While this may not be politically possible in Australia it does, in Thailand, appear to reduce bicycle accidents and according to my neighbor, the policeman, most small motorcycle - auto crashes have been found to be the fault of the motorcycle. Yes, I think it would be political suicide in Australia, at least at the moment. The very mention of similar ideas (strict liability) results in much foaming from the mouth and calls for bicycling licenses and registration, or bicycle prohibition from the roads. -- JS |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Where "Safety Inflation" leads
On Wed, 09 Oct 2019 18:52:25 +1100, James wrote:
On 9/10/19 1:02 pm, John B. wrote: On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 12:36:41 +1100, James wrote: Of course riding in a country where the drivers better accommodate cyclists is next on the list. Italy was pretty good. Much better than Australia. The answer is fairly simple, simply pass a law that in a collision the larger vehicle, subject to proof otherwise, is deemed to be at fault and is financially liable for any and all resulting costs. Including replacement parts or vehicle, hospital and medical costs, loss of income, and even funeral costs if necessary. While this may not be politically possible in Australia it does, in Thailand, appear to reduce bicycle accidents and according to my neighbor, the policeman, most small motorcycle - auto crashes have been found to be the fault of the motorcycle. Yes, I think it would be political suicide in Australia, at least at the moment. I know someone in Australa who drives one of the larget vehicles and his soltion to tthe **** fight that this would cause, was to nstall an all round camera system to record whilst driving. Since then he has l=missed an impressive amoungt of "damages" claimed by smaller vehicles simply from having the vision availabe when ever the other driver calls Plod who on reviewing the vision always hnits on the smaller driver. His insurance company loves this systemas well. The very mention of similar ideas (strict liability) results in much foaming from the mouth It is called DIVERT, Divert, divert. , and calls for bicycling licenses and registration, or bicycle prohibition from the roads. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Where "Safety Inflation" leads
On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 18:52:25 +1100, James
wrote: On 9/10/19 1:02 pm, John B. wrote: On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 12:36:41 +1100, James wrote: On 9/10/19 4:32 am, Frank Krygowski wrote: "Bicycling is dangerous! You need to wear a helmet, use bright lights in the daytime and wear Day-Glo clothing. You need bike lanes, and you need to stay in them. Knee pads and elbow pads wouldn't hurt either! And you really ought to just load your bike in your car and take it out to a nice safe bike trail. Riding in a city just isn't safe." Here's what all that "Safety Inflation" ultimately generates: https://www.thenational.ae/uae/trans...-push-1.920236 Bicycling can be dangerous. People die doing it, as they do falling from bed, I know the rhetoric. It is understandable to infer the message is "Bicycling is dangerous!", but it is often put as "For your safety, wear a helmet & hi vis, use lights & reflectors, etc." In other words, "You will be much safer (or 'safe') if you take these precautions..." Trouble is, you are not made 'safe' by taking those precautions at all. Sure lights are pretty important at night or during times of poor visibility, but safety comes more from keeping your wits about you. Not riding in the door zone. Watching all turning traffic for failure to give way and having an escape route. Reducing speed when it is wet and slippery. Riding in a prominent position on the road and being aware of what all the other blind vehicle operators around you might be doing, etc. It's like dancing with multiple vision impaired partners simultaneously, knowing that they're swinging punches and by getting too close to any one of them can result in a punch to the head if you're not careful. Keeping your wits about you is probably more important than all of the usual recommendations put together! Of course riding in a country where the drivers better accommodate cyclists is next on the list. Italy was pretty good. Much better than Australia. The answer is fairly simple, simply pass a law that in a collision the larger vehicle, subject to proof otherwise, is deemed to be at fault and is financially liable for any and all resulting costs. Including replacement parts or vehicle, hospital and medical costs, loss of income, and even funeral costs if necessary. While this may not be politically possible in Australia it does, in Thailand, appear to reduce bicycle accidents and according to my neighbor, the policeman, most small motorcycle - auto crashes have been found to be the fault of the motorcycle. Yes, I think it would be political suicide in Australia, at least at the moment. The very mention of similar ideas (strict liability) results in much foaming from the mouth and calls for bicycling licenses and registration, or bicycle prohibition from the roads. I saw in the news that some young bloke in a Ute ran over 20 Joeys. Bicycles can probably brag that they don't do those sort of things. -- cheers, John B. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Where "Safety Inflation" leads
On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 18:52:25 +1100, James
wrote: On 9/10/19 1:02 pm, John B. wrote: On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 12:36:41 +1100, James wrote: On 9/10/19 4:32 am, Frank Krygowski wrote: "Bicycling is dangerous! You need to wear a helmet, use bright lights in the daytime and wear Day-Glo clothing. You need bike lanes, and you need to stay in them. Knee pads and elbow pads wouldn't hurt either! And you really ought to just load your bike in your car and take it out to a nice safe bike trail. Riding in a city just isn't safe." Here's what all that "Safety Inflation" ultimately generates: https://www.thenational.ae/uae/trans...-push-1.920236 Bicycling can be dangerous. People die doing it, as they do falling from bed, I know the rhetoric. It is understandable to infer the message is "Bicycling is dangerous!", but it is often put as "For your safety, wear a helmet & hi vis, use lights & reflectors, etc." In other words, "You will be much safer (or 'safe') if you take these precautions..." Trouble is, you are not made 'safe' by taking those precautions at all. Sure lights are pretty important at night or during times of poor visibility, but safety comes more from keeping your wits about you. Not riding in the door zone. Watching all turning traffic for failure to give way and having an escape route. Reducing speed when it is wet and slippery. Riding in a prominent position on the road and being aware of what all the other blind vehicle operators around you might be doing, etc. It's like dancing with multiple vision impaired partners simultaneously, knowing that they're swinging punches and by getting too close to any one of them can result in a punch to the head if you're not careful. Keeping your wits about you is probably more important than all of the usual recommendations put together! Of course riding in a country where the drivers better accommodate cyclists is next on the list. Italy was pretty good. Much better than Australia. The answer is fairly simple, simply pass a law that in a collision the larger vehicle, subject to proof otherwise, is deemed to be at fault and is financially liable for any and all resulting costs. Including replacement parts or vehicle, hospital and medical costs, loss of income, and even funeral costs if necessary. While this may not be politically possible in Australia it does, in Thailand, appear to reduce bicycle accidents and according to my neighbor, the policeman, most small motorcycle - auto crashes have been found to be the fault of the motorcycle. Yes, I think it would be political suicide in Australia, at least at the moment. The very mention of similar ideas (strict liability) results in much foaming from the mouth and calls for bicycling licenses and registration, or bicycle prohibition from the roads. The problem with all the "solutions" is that they are usually not strictly enforced. When hand phones became popular and everyone was talking on them Singapore decided that it was dangerous to hold a phone to your ear and drive a car at the same time so they passed a law - Hold a phone to your ear and drive and it was a $1,000 fine, and in those days $1,000 was pretty much a month's salary. And they enforced it. Cops stood on the corner and wrote down the license of every one that came by with a phone in his ear and they all got fined $1,000. In about a week, or maybe a few days less, you didn't see anyone driving with a hand phone in his ear and you still don't today. A "hand's free" O.K., but don't hold the phone in your hand :-( The Singapore government decided that sidewalks with spittle all over them - Chinese believe that spitting clears the throat and is a healthy practice - wasn't what they wanted in their town, so $1,000 fine. Two days later no spitting :-) The secret was, they enforced the law, rigorously. -- cheers, John B. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Where "Safety Inflation" leads
On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 12:32:33 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Here's what all that "Safety Inflation" ultimately generates: https://www.thenational.ae/uae/trans...-push-1.920236 That's pretty much as extreme as you can get. There's got to be a happy medium somewhere. Here in Chicago, I'd like to see *any* evidence of enforcement of bike laws. A good start would be people riding the wrong way on one-way streets or blasting through red lights. Of course, it would also be nice to see some action on cars parked in or driving down bike lanes, and other unsafe and illegal practices. I'm not holding my breath. At least no one is snatching my bike while I'm riding it! |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Where "Safety Inflation" leads
On Wednesday, October 9, 2019 at 12:52:32 AM UTC-7, James wrote:
On 9/10/19 1:02 pm, John B. wrote: On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 12:36:41 +1100, James wrote: On 9/10/19 4:32 am, Frank Krygowski wrote: "Bicycling is dangerous! You need to wear a helmet, use bright lights in the daytime and wear Day-Glo clothing. You need bike lanes, and you need to stay in them. Knee pads and elbow pads wouldn't hurt either! And you really ought to just load your bike in your car and take it out to a nice safe bike trail. Riding in a city just isn't safe." Here's what all that "Safety Inflation" ultimately generates: https://www.thenational.ae/uae/trans...-push-1.920236 Bicycling can be dangerous. People die doing it, as they do falling from bed, I know the rhetoric. It is understandable to infer the message is "Bicycling is dangerous!", but it is often put as "For your safety, wear a helmet & hi vis, use lights & reflectors, etc." In other words, "You will be much safer (or 'safe') if you take these precautions..." Trouble is, you are not made 'safe' by taking those precautions at all.. Sure lights are pretty important at night or during times of poor visibility, but safety comes more from keeping your wits about you. Not riding in the door zone. Watching all turning traffic for failure to give way and having an escape route. Reducing speed when it is wet and slippery. Riding in a prominent position on the road and being aware of what all the other blind vehicle operators around you might be doing, etc. It's like dancing with multiple vision impaired partners simultaneously, knowing that they're swinging punches and by getting too close to any one of them can result in a punch to the head if you're not careful. Keeping your wits about you is probably more important than all of the usual recommendations put together! Of course riding in a country where the drivers better accommodate cyclists is next on the list. Italy was pretty good. Much better than Australia. The answer is fairly simple, simply pass a law that in a collision the larger vehicle, subject to proof otherwise, is deemed to be at fault and is financially liable for any and all resulting costs. Including replacement parts or vehicle, hospital and medical costs, loss of income, and even funeral costs if necessary. While this may not be politically possible in Australia it does, in Thailand, appear to reduce bicycle accidents and according to my neighbor, the policeman, most small motorcycle - auto crashes have been found to be the fault of the motorcycle. Yes, I think it would be political suicide in Australia, at least at the moment. The very mention of similar ideas (strict liability) results in much foaming from the mouth and calls for bicycling licenses and registration, or bicycle prohibition from the roads. It would be polarizing anywhere. As a general rule in the US states, the violation of a traffic law raises a presumption of negligence. So if a driver violates a law and causes an injury, the driver is presumed to be at fault. Same goes with cyclists. This promotes compliance with the traffic laws by cyclists and drivers. Why would you want to presume a driver is at fault for merely driving a car and not violating any laws? The "larger vehicle" rule would favor a lot of road users who have proved (to me) that they do not follow the laws, including skateboarders and escooter "drivers." A bicycle, being a larger vehicle, would be presumed at fault. One of my greatest hazards around here are pedestrians who just step off curbs, against lights, looking down at cell phones. -- Jay Beattie. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Where "Safety Inflation" leads
Am 09.10.2019 um 15:59 schrieb jbeattie:
On Wednesday, October 9, 2019 at 12:52:32 AM UTC-7, James wrote: On 9/10/19 1:02 pm, John B. wrote: The answer is fairly simple, simply pass a law that in a collision the larger vehicle, subject to proof otherwise, is deemed to be at fault and is financially liable for any and all resulting costs. Including replacement parts or vehicle, hospital and medical costs, loss of income, and even funeral costs if necessary. While this may not be politically possible in Australia it does, in Thailand, appear to reduce bicycle accidents and according to my neighbor, the policeman, most small motorcycle - auto crashes have been found to be the fault of the motorcycle. Yes, I think it would be political suicide in Australia, at least at the moment. The very mention of similar ideas (strict liability) results in much foaming from the mouth and calls for bicycling licenses and registration, or bicycle prohibition from the roads. It would be polarizing anywhere. As a general rule in the US states, the violation of a traffic law raises a presumption of negligence. So if a driver violates a law and causes an injury, the driver is presumed to be at fault. Same goes with cyclists. This promotes compliance with the traffic laws by cyclists and drivers. Why would you want to presume a driver is at fault for merely driving a car and not violating any laws? In Europe (including UK), motorized vehicles are classified as "dangerous machinery" and hence are liable for damage caused even if no operating error is involved and nobody is at fault. This liability obviously is superseded by a direct liability due to negligence on behalf of the other party. One condition of operating dangerous machinery in the public is also the existence of an appropriate liability insurance. The "larger vehicle" rule would favor a lot of road users who have proved (to me) that they do not follow the laws, including skateboarders and escooter "drivers." In Europe, an Escooter is classified as "dangerous machinery" due to being propelled by a motor and the bicycle is not due to being propelled by muscle only. A bicycle, being a larger vehicle, would be presumed at fault. One of my greatest hazards around here are pedestrians who just step off curbs, against lights, looking down at cell phones. This trick seems to have worked against a cyclist in London recently even without the bicycle being classified as "dangerous machinery". |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Where "Safety Inflation" leads
On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 6:36:48 PM UTC-7, James wrote:
On 9/10/19 4:32 am, Frank Krygowski wrote: "Bicycling is dangerous! You need to wear a helmet, use bright lights in the daytime and wear Day-Glo clothing. You need bike lanes, and you need to stay in them. Knee pads and elbow pads wouldn't hurt either! And you really ought to just load your bike in your car and take it out to a nice safe bike trail. Riding in a city just isn't safe." Here's what all that "Safety Inflation" ultimately generates: https://www.thenational.ae/uae/trans...-push-1.920236 Bicycling can be dangerous. People die doing it, as they do falling from bed, I know the rhetoric. It is understandable to infer the message is "Bicycling is dangerous!", but it is often put as "For your safety, wear a helmet & hi vis, use lights & reflectors, etc." In other words, "You will be much safer (or 'safe') if you take these precautions..." Trouble is, you are not made 'safe' by taking those precautions at all. Sure lights are pretty important at night or during times of poor visibility, but safety comes more from keeping your wits about you. Not riding in the door zone. Watching all turning traffic for failure to give way and having an escape route. Reducing speed when it is wet and slippery. Riding in a prominent position on the road and being aware of what all the other blind vehicle operators around you might be doing, etc.. It's like dancing with multiple vision impaired partners simultaneously, knowing that they're swinging punches and by getting too close to any one of them can result in a punch to the head if you're not careful. Keeping your wits about you is probably more important than all of the usual recommendations put together! Of course riding in a country where the drivers better accommodate cyclists is next on the list. Italy was pretty good. Much better than Australia. -- JS It is extremely difficult to get accurate statistics but the largest cause of bicycle accidents are single vehicle accidents with the rider doing things like riding into curbs and such and being thrown off. 2% of the deaths are these accidents. Also - the majority of auto-bicycle accidents are with stupid people that don't know how to drive or how to ride. One of the deadliest accidents is wrong way riding. These often involve a driver turning a corner and hence looking in the opposite direction for oncoming traffic. As more people are riding, a larger percentage of cyclists know the proper riding technique for the road and even though the numbers of riders are increasing, the number of fatal accidents are dropping. I wear a helmet but entirely without any belief that it would save me in a car accident - but rather to prevent further concussion injuries. Trek (under the label Bontrager) makes an entirely new 3D printed helmet padding. Originally they claimed that it allowed a 28 times improvement in head injuries but the last ad I saw said that it was up to 48. This is worthwhile and while it is considerably more expensive than Bell it is about the same price as other helmets. I also wear bright kit such as the orange of Euskatel-Euskati or the bright yellow of Team Tinkoff. Since I ride in the hills on very twisty roads I can tell the difference in response time of drivers to more subdued kit. Those who think that they are good enough with a flannel shirt and Levis are perfect able to take care of themselves and I don't want any laws telling them what to do since the more riders on the road the safer they are for bicyclists regardless of garb. But I chose what I wear for a tried and proven purpose. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"Blackfriars cyclist safety debate 'evaded by Tories'" | Doug[_12_] | UK | 11 | September 27th 11 12:10 PM |
"Blackfriars cyclist safety debate 'evaded by Tories'" | Doug[_10_] | UK | 14 | June 11th 11 04:22 AM |
"Cycle safety mirrors to be mounted to London’s traffic lights" | Doug[_10_] | UK | 7 | June 28th 10 08:03 PM |
"Biking off-road leads to trail erosion and tree root damage" | Mike Vandeman | Mountain Biking | 2 | June 30th 07 02:21 AM |
"Biking off-road leads to trail erosion and tree root damage" | Mike Vandeman | Social Issues | 1 | June 29th 07 05:23 PM |