A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

another Chicago cyclist



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 24th 18, 04:30 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,447
Default another Chicago cyclist

https://wbbm780.radio.com/dodge-char...h-pulaski-park

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Ads
  #2  
Old September 24th 18, 05:09 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default another Chicago cyclist

On 9/24/2018 11:30 AM, AMuzi wrote:
https://wbbm780.radio.com/dodge-char...h-pulaski-park


The guy almost certainly was a cyclist, since he was standing with a
bike. But this should be counted as a pedestrian death, not a bicycling
death, because he was _standing_ with a bike.


--
- Frank Krygowski
  #3  
Old September 24th 18, 05:13 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,447
Default another Chicago cyclist

On 9/24/2018 11:09 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/24/2018 11:30 AM, AMuzi wrote:
https://wbbm780.radio.com/dodge-char...h-pulaski-park



The guy almost certainly was a cyclist, since he was
standing with a bike. But this should be counted as a
pedestrian death, not a bicycling death, because he was
_standing_ with a bike.



Report omits his helmet (+ / -) status.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


  #4  
Old September 24th 18, 06:04 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Jeff Liebermann
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,018
Default another Chicago cyclist

On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 12:09:32 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/24/2018 11:30 AM, AMuzi wrote:
https://wbbm780.radio.com/dodge-char...h-pulaski-park


The guy almost certainly was a cyclist, since he was standing with a
bike. But this should be counted as a pedestrian death, not a bicycling
death, because he was _standing_ with a bike.


I beg to differ. I researched this type of statistical problem a few
years ago. However, I'm not sure I can recall the exactly logic and
standards.

As I understand it, the means of transportation involved in the
accident is on the basis of whether the vehicle was involved in the
accident. The term "involved" is key here, as it can include a wide
variety of ways a person might be involved.

If someone stopped their car on a freeway, got out of the car, and was
hit by passing traffic, that person would NOT be considered a
pedestrian simply because they were not sitting in their car. It
would be a vehicle accident because a car was "involved". Similarly,
if someone was riding their bicycle, dismounted and was hit by a car,
it would still be a cycling accident because the vehicle "involved"
was a bicycle.

There is also something involving a persons intent to travel in some
manner. If their intent was to ride a bicycle or drive a car, even
though they were not riding or driving at that exact moment in time,
they would still be considered a bicycle rider or car driver, rather
than a pedestrian.

However, I don't know exactly how the statistics are tabulated. Does
a car versus bicycle accident count as one accident or two (one each
for the car and for the bicycle)? I thought it might be buried in
here, but I guess not:
https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812507
There should be something on the NHTSA site, but I couldn't find it.
https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
  #5  
Old September 24th 18, 06:17 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,447
Default another Chicago cyclist

On 9/24/2018 12:04 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 12:09:32 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/24/2018 11:30 AM, AMuzi wrote:
https://wbbm780.radio.com/dodge-char...h-pulaski-park


The guy almost certainly was a cyclist, since he was standing with a
bike. But this should be counted as a pedestrian death, not a bicycling
death, because he was _standing_ with a bike.


I beg to differ. I researched this type of statistical problem a few
years ago. However, I'm not sure I can recall the exactly logic and
standards.

As I understand it, the means of transportation involved in the
accident is on the basis of whether the vehicle was involved in the
accident. The term "involved" is key here, as it can include a wide
variety of ways a person might be involved.

If someone stopped their car on a freeway, got out of the car, and was
hit by passing traffic, that person would NOT be considered a
pedestrian simply because they were not sitting in their car. It
would be a vehicle accident because a car was "involved". Similarly,
if someone was riding their bicycle, dismounted and was hit by a car,
it would still be a cycling accident because the vehicle "involved"
was a bicycle.

There is also something involving a persons intent to travel in some
manner. If their intent was to ride a bicycle or drive a car, even
though they were not riding or driving at that exact moment in time,
they would still be considered a bicycle rider or car driver, rather
than a pedestrian.

However, I don't know exactly how the statistics are tabulated. Does
a car versus bicycle accident count as one accident or two (one each
for the car and for the bicycle)? I thought it might be buried in
here, but I guess not:
https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812507
There should be something on the NHTSA site, but I couldn't find it.
https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov



I don't know.

However if one is drunk and asleep in a car with keys in
pocket, car not running, it's still a DUI under WI statute.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


  #6  
Old September 24th 18, 06:24 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
David Scheidt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,346
Default another Chicago cyclist

Frank Krygowski wrote:
:On 9/24/2018 11:30 AM, AMuzi wrote:
: https://wbbm780.radio.com/dodge-char...h-pulaski-park

Also, that is no pulaski park. There is a pulaski park, which is why
the **** south, but it's just a park, not a neighborhood. this is
north park. (I live a mile south of there, also in North park.)
Some idiot pulbished a map of chicago neighorhoods, and got lots of
them wrong. And of course, WLS routinely relys on it, rather than
getting facts.





--
sig 29
  #7  
Old September 24th 18, 09:09 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Shadow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14
Default another Chicago cyclist

On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 10:04:21 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 12:09:32 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/24/2018 11:30 AM, AMuzi wrote:
https://wbbm780.radio.com/dodge-char...h-pulaski-park


The guy almost certainly was a cyclist, since he was standing with a
bike. But this should be counted as a pedestrian death, not a bicycling
death, because he was _standing_ with a bike.


I beg to differ. I researched this type of statistical problem a few
years ago. However, I'm not sure I can recall the exactly logic and
standards.

As I understand it, the means of transportation involved in the
accident is on the basis of whether the vehicle was involved in the
accident. The term "involved" is key here, as it can include a wide
variety of ways a person might be involved.

If someone stopped their car on a freeway, got out of the car, and was
hit by passing traffic, that person would NOT be considered a
pedestrian simply because they were not sitting in their car.


So if I was to go to a public toilet, and was run over after
leaving, that would be a "****ing accident" ?

[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012
  #8  
Old September 24th 18, 10:28 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default another Chicago cyclist

On 9/24/2018 1:04 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 12:09:32 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/24/2018 11:30 AM, AMuzi wrote:
https://wbbm780.radio.com/dodge-char...h-pulaski-park


The guy almost certainly was a cyclist, since he was standing with a
bike. But this should be counted as a pedestrian death, not a bicycling
death, because he was _standing_ with a bike.


I beg to differ. I researched this type of statistical problem a few
years ago. However, I'm not sure I can recall the exactly logic and
standards.

As I understand it, the means of transportation involved in the
accident is on the basis of whether the vehicle was involved in the
accident. The term "involved" is key here, as it can include a wide
variety of ways a person might be involved.

If someone stopped their car on a freeway, got out of the car, and was
hit by passing traffic, that person would NOT be considered a
pedestrian simply because they were not sitting in their car. It
would be a vehicle accident because a car was "involved". Similarly,
if someone was riding their bicycle, dismounted and was hit by a car,
it would still be a cycling accident because the vehicle "involved"
was a bicycle.


OK, on following a link, I see that he had been riding and stopped,
perhaps for a stop sign or red light when he was hit. I agree, that
should be tabulated as a bike crash.

But IIRC, the woman killed by the self-driving car a while back was
walking her bike across the road. Seems to me that should be treated as
a pedestrian incident. The presence of the bike was incidental.

Two days ago, my wife walked a kid's bike back to the kid's house from a
nearby park. If she had been injured, that too should be a pedestrian
incident. The presence of a bike was incidental.


--
- Frank Krygowski
  #9  
Old September 25th 18, 12:18 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Jeff Liebermann
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,018
Default another Chicago cyclist

On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 17:09:49 -0300, Shadow wrote:

So if I was to go to a public toilet, and was run over after
leaving, that would be a "****ing accident" ?

[]'s


Only if you were using the toilet for transportation.
https://www.google.com/search?q=toilet+bicycle&tbm=isch
I'm not sure if there is a distinction between a bicycle with a toilet
seat saddle and a bicycle powered toilet.


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
  #10  
Old September 25th 18, 12:26 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Jeff Liebermann
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,018
Default another Chicago cyclist

On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 17:28:08 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

But IIRC, the woman killed by the self-driving car a while back was
walking her bike across the road. Seems to me that should be treated as
a pedestrian incident. The presence of the bike was incidental.


I think we can solve the problem by simply asking the end to end
distance traveled and how much of that was walking versus riding. If
the entire distance traveled was walking a bicycle, then I would
concede that it was a pedestrian accident. However, if the majority
of the distance was riding the bicycle, and the walking the bicycle
was only across one road, I would say that it was a bicycle accident.

I have no idea if this is the way it's handled for statistics or in
the courts.

Two days ago, my wife walked a kid's bike back to the kid's house from a
nearby park. If she had been injured, that too should be a pedestrian
incident. The presence of a bike was incidental.


If your wife was unable to ride the kids bicycle, then I would agree.
She was transporting the bicycle, the bicycle was not transporting
her. However, if she could have ridden the bicycle, a determination
as to which was doing the transporting might first need to be made.

Solomon was better at this.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Chicago: Minus one cyclist AMuzi Techniques 31 October 6th 18 11:48 PM
MY ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER FOR ALL TO SEE AND REMEMBER! JIMMYMAC 4863 W. GREGORY ST. CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60630 773 282 9874++++++JIMMYMAC 4863 W. GREGORY ST. CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60630 773 282 9874++++++JIMMYMAC 4863 W. GREGORY ST. CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 6063 ed dolan Recumbent Biking 0 June 28th 07 11:01 PM
ED DOLAN, TAKE A MACHETE AND CHOP THE SHIT OUT OF YOUR 20 CATS NOW HELL NO, I AM THE KING OF TROLLS***JIMMYMAC 4863 W. GREGORY ST. CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60630 773 282 9874***HELL NO, I AM THE KING OF TROLLS***JIMMYMAC 4863 W. GREGORY ST. CHICAGO, ILLI jimmymac Recumbent Biking 0 November 27th 06 08:23 PM
MY ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER FOR ALL TO SEE AND REMEMBER! JIMMYMAC 4863 W. GREGORY ST. CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60630 773 282 9874++++++JIMMYMAC 4863 W. GREGORY ST. CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60630 773 282 9874++++++JIMMYMAC 4863 W. GREGORY ST. CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 6063 jimmymac Recumbent Biking 0 November 11th 06 10:02 PM
Jimmymac, Chicago cyclist retracts lies, begs forgiveness! MOJO Techniques 2 January 13th 06 05:05 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.