IQ-X vs Edelux II

Am 30.04.2019 um 07:43 schrieb Ralph Barone:
Frank Krygowski wrote:

John Pucher (you cited one of his papers) in "Making Walking and
Cycling Safer: Lessons from Europe," estimates from U.S. data that
bicyclists suffer 109 fatalities per billion km ridden.
Pedestrians suffer 362 fatalities per billion km, three times as
bad!

That says bicycling is safer than walking, per mile. And it's not
an anomalous result. Data from many countries confirms that per
mile, bicycling is safer than walking.

I’m not sure that quoting the accident stats per mile travelled is
the way to do it.
[..]

If we convert these to hourly rates, I wouldn’t be surprised to see
walking suddenly become safer than cycling.

Given the numbers above, you need to ask: is the average speed on a
bicycle 3 1/2 times as fast as the average pedestrian?

My gut feeling is: no, the average speed on a bicycle is only 3 times as
high as the average speed of a pedestrian, making cycling marginally
safer than walking per hour of activity but essentially it's the same
order of magnitude per hour of activity.

Am 30.04.2019 um 18:12 schrieb Frank Krygowski:

Correct, _some_ facilities will bring out the cyclists. But taking that
further, of the ones that succeed, which type of cyclists will they
bring out?

As I've mentioned, I once served on a statewide committee charged with
evaluating funding requests for, among other things, bike facilities.
The funding was supposedly tied to transportation usefulness, not
recreation.

My state Baden-Württemberg has recently approved to build "fast bike
highways" of "state-wide importance" from state transportation (road) money.

The conditions include
* total distance 5km
* cross-community connection
* feasibility study shows a public benefit and demonstrates 2,000
cyclists per day on average on the majority of the distance

The "Fast bike highway" standard require
* separation between bicycles and pedestrians (unless pedestrian use is
deemed 'unlikely')
* bicycle width 4m bidirectional or 2m per direction (reduced standard
3m for at most 10% of the distance)
* design speed for bends minimum 30 km/h (19mph)
* no unnecessary altitude changes
* expected delay at junctions maximum 30s per km in town, 15s per km
outside town
* shared use of residential roads allowed if cars are restricted to 30 km/h

We have three pilot routes in planning (all three along the river Neckar):
Plochingen - Stuttgart (20km) http://radschnellweg-neckartal.de
Bad Wimpfen - Heilbronn (15km) https://radschnellweg-hn.de/
Heidelberg- Mannheim (25km) - connecting two cities with little
end-to-end traffic expected

The first two will be essentially an upgrade of existing riverside bike
routes to higher standards plus a few bridges to be built while the last
one will most likely not follow the existing riverside trail.

Rolf

John B. wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 10:43:24 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. wrote:
On Mon, 29 Apr 2019 11:56:22 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. wrote:
On Sun, 28 Apr 2019 17:22:07 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 4/28/2019 3:30 PM, John B. wrote:

snip

And I agree, the fact that bicycling is unusual in America probably does
add to the "Danger! Danger!" mentality. It makes each official or
informal report of a crash stand out in a person's mind because it's
uncommon. The immensely greater count of car crashes or even pedestrian
fatalities doesn't register the same way.

Because, as I said, they are common :-)

No, it's because of the relative number of such fatal crashes on a
per-mile or per trip basis, not by raw numbers, as well as because of
the trends. Just looking at raw numbers is meaningless unless you factor
in distance or number of trips.

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2016/07/01/u-s-traffic-fatalities-rising-fast-especially-pedestrian-and-cyclist-deaths/.

One reason for the trend is because cars have been getting steadily
safer with airbags, ABS, collision avoidance systems, and other safety
equipment, while pedestrians and cyclists are just as vulnerable (except
when there is protected infrastructure). Increases in distracted driving
are also a factor.

Rather than shout "danger danger," work to mitigate the factors that can
be mitigated. We don't want to make cars less safe, but we can do
something about distracted driving and protecting pedestrians and
bicyclists.

Protecting Bicyclists from what? They are, right now,the safest group
using the highways.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, a part of The U.S.
Department of Transportation, tells us that in 2011 some 677
bicyclists died, which amounted to some 2% of all traffic deaths.

What percentage of total traffic were the total number of cyclists? My
guess would be they are over represented in the fatalities.

The report stated that In 2011 there were total of 32,367 "Total
Fatalities" and there were 677 "Pedalcyclist Fatalities"



You miss the point. Those numbers donÂ’t mean much without comparing them
to the usage percentages.


According to the table in the report which, as I said, is available on
the Web, entitled "Total Fatalities and Pedalcyclist Fatalities in
Traffic Crashes, 2002-2011", Pedestrians Bicyclists Data Analysis"



Pedestrian deaths was 4,457 amounting to 14% of all traffic deaths. Of
the bicycle deaths some 28% had been drinking alcohol, (BAC) of .01
grams per deciliter (g/dL) or higher,

All this information is freely available on the Web.

Never mind the private bicycle paths just getting the bicyclists to
ride sober would save some 103 lives. That is more than a quarter of
all bike deaths.


Assuming that their deaths were caused by their alcohol consumption and not
just coincidental.

That is rather difficult to analyze when all you have is a dead body
to examine. But the use of blood - alcohol content is pretty common in
blaming highway users.


Well without knowing if the alcohol was the cause or even if the cyclist
was the cause to begin with, those sorts of stats are pretty meaningless.

O.K., you are the coroner and there is the dead body. You draw a
little blood and measure the alcohol and find that the guy, before he
died, was legally inebriated... now tell us if that was the cause of
the accident that smashed his head and killed him.


Not possible without further information.

While I do agree with you in principal it is a bit difficult to
accomplish in reality.
--
cheers,

John B.



So when it’s not possible to get correct data you extrapolate based on your
own assumptions? Not very scientific. The cyclist could be stopped at a
stop light and the motorist runs him over from behind while texting. Your
stats don’t even show who is at fault much less whether the alcohol is
contributory.

I don’t doubt that there are drunks on bikes even though I don’t know
anyone who would ride drunk. But you can’t spout stats that mean nothing
to make a point.


--
duane

Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 30.04.2019 um 07:43 schrieb Ralph Barone:
Frank Krygowski wrote:

John Pucher (you cited one of his papers) in "Making Walking and
Cycling Safer: Lessons from Europe," estimates from U.S. data that
bicyclists suffer 109 fatalities per billion km ridden.
Pedestrians suffer 362 fatalities per billion km, three times as
bad!

That says bicycling is safer than walking, per mile. And it's not
an anomalous result. Data from many countries confirms that per
mile, bicycling is safer than walking.

I’m not sure that quoting the accident stats per mile travelled is
the way to do it.
[..]

If we convert these to hourly rates, I wouldn’t be surprised to see
walking suddenly become safer than cycling.

Given the numbers above, you need to ask: is the average speed on a
bicycle 3 1/2 times as fast as the average pedestrian?

My gut feeling is: no, the average speed on a bicycle is only 3 times as
high as the average speed of a pedestrian, making cycling marginally
safer than walking per hour of activity but essentially it's the same
order of magnitude per hour of activity.

On the whole I don’t strongly dislike with you on this, but if average
walking speed is 5 km/hr, then walking becomes safer than cycling once the
cyclist exceeds 17.5 km/hr. So if I’m commuting to work (around 20 km/hr
average) I’m a little less safe, but if I’m fully loaded touring (around 15
km/hr), I’m a little more safe.

But agreed, cycling is not like juggling flaming chainsaws through a war
zone with a bullseye painted on your back.

Ralph Barone wrote:
Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 30.04.2019 um 07:43 schrieb Ralph Barone:
Frank Krygowski wrote:

John Pucher (you cited one of his papers) in "Making Walking and
Cycling Safer: Lessons from Europe," estimates from U.S. data that
bicyclists suffer 109 fatalities per billion km ridden.
Pedestrians suffer 362 fatalities per billion km, three times as
bad!

That says bicycling is safer than walking, per mile. And it's not
an anomalous result. Data from many countries confirms that per
mile, bicycling is safer than walking.

I’m not sure that quoting the accident stats per mile travelled is
the way to do it.
[..]

If we convert these to hourly rates, I wouldn’t be surprised to see
walking suddenly become safer than cycling.

Given the numbers above, you need to ask: is the average speed on a
bicycle 3 1/2 times as fast as the average pedestrian?

My gut feeling is: no, the average speed on a bicycle is only 3 times as
high as the average speed of a pedestrian, making cycling marginally
safer than walking per hour of activity but essentially it's the same
order of magnitude per hour of activity.

On the whole I don’t strongly disagree with you on this, but if average
Disagree, not dislike. Damned autocorrect...
walking speed is 5 km/hr, then walking becomes safer than cycling once the
cyclist exceeds 17.5 km/hr. So if I’m commuting to work (around 20 km/hr
average) I’m a little less safe, but if I’m fully loaded touring (around 15
km/hr), I’m a little more safe.

But agreed, cycling is not like juggling flaming chainsaws through a war
zone with a bullseye painted on your back.

Am 02.05.2019 um 15:36 schrieb Ralph Barone:
Rolf Mantel wrote:

Given the numbers above, you need to ask: is the average speed on a
bicycle 3 1/2 times as fast as the average pedestrian?

My gut feeling is: no, the average speed on a bicycle is only 3 times as
high as the average speed of a pedestrian, making cycling marginally
safer than walking per hour of activity but essentially it's the same
order of magnitude per hour of activity.

On the whole I don’t strongly disagree with you on this, but if average
walking speed is 5 km/hr, then walking becomes safer than cycling once the
cyclist exceeds 17.5 km/hr. So if I’m commuting to work (around 20 km/hr
average) I’m a little less safe, but if I’m fully loaded touring (around 15
km/hr), I’m a little more safe.

The risk is based on populations of people and cannot be broken down
individually like that. So the only relevant question is "What is the
country-wide average speed of cyclists?"

According to old studies quoted by John Forester, experienced cyclists
have an accident risk lower than the average cyclist by a factor 10 or
more, so *you personally* will always be safer on the bike ;-)

Rolf Mantel writes:

Am 30.04.2019 um 07:43 schrieb Ralph Barone:
Frank Krygowski wrote:

John Pucher (you cited one of his papers) in "Making Walking and
Cycling Safer: Lessons from Europe," estimates from U.S. data that
bicyclists suffer 109 fatalities per billion km ridden.
Pedestrians suffer 362 fatalities per billion km, three times as
bad!

That says bicycling is safer than walking, per mile. And it's not
an anomalous result. Data from many countries confirms that per
mile, bicycling is safer than walking.

I’m not sure that quoting the accident stats per mile travelled is
the way to do it.
[..]

If we convert these to hourly rates, I wouldn’t be surprised to see
walking suddenly become safer than cycling.

Given the numbers above, you need to ask: is the average speed on a
bicycle 3 1/2 times as fast as the average pedestrian?

My gut feeling is: no, the average speed on a bicycle is only 3 times
as high as the average speed of a pedestrian, making cycling
marginally safer than walking per hour of activity but essentially
it's the same order of magnitude per hour of activity.

That ratio seems small to me, unless bike commuting in heavy traffic.

For transportation I typically walk somewhere between 3 and 3.5 mph, or
bike between 14 and 18 mph. The ratio between 12 mph, which seems quite
slow for a bike, and 4 mph, which is really quite a fast walk, is 3.

--

On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 3:43:21 AM UTC-7, Duane wrote:
snip


So when it’s not possible to get correct data you extrapolate based on your
own assumptions? Not very scientific. The cyclist could be stopped at a
stop light and the motorist runs him over from behind while texting. Your
stats don’t even show who is at fault much less whether the alcohol is
contributory.

I don’t doubt that there are drunks on bikes even though I don’t know
anyone who would ride drunk. But you can’t spout stats that mean nothing
to make a point.

Cyclists make mistakes, drunk or sober -- as do motorists. Riding while intoxicated is a thing and often a pretext for cops to stop a suspect on a bike. In Oregon at least, bicyclists are subject to the drunk driving laws.

The fallacy of conspicuity, riding correctness and perfect safety was illustrated yet again this morning when a car simply pulled out in front of me and my son while we were going full blast down a major arterial. There was no question that the driver saw us. My son was looking right at him, and there is no missing a guy who is 6'6" wearing pink arm warmers. I'd detail the rest of his outfit, but it would cause the vehicular cyclists to convulse. There are people who just don't give a f***.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 02/05/2019 11:39 a.m., jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 3:43:21 AM UTC-7, Duane wrote:
snip


So when it’s not possible to get correct data you extrapolate based on your
own assumptions? Not very scientific. The cyclist could be stopped at a
stop light and the motorist runs him over from behind while texting. Your
stats don’t even show who is at fault much less whether the alcohol is
contributory.

I don’t doubt that there are drunks on bikes even though I don’t know
anyone who would ride drunk. But you can’t spout stats that mean nothing
to make a point.

Cyclists make mistakes, drunk or sober -- as do motorists. Riding while intoxicated is a thing and often a pretext for cops to stop a suspect on a bike. In Oregon at least, bicyclists are subject to the drunk driving laws.


Like I said, I don't doubt there are drunks on bikes. I just don't know
any people that ride drunk and I know a lot of cyclists.

The fallacy of conspicuity, riding correctness and perfect safety was illustrated yet again this morning when a car simply pulled out in front of me and my son while we were going full blast down a major arterial. There was no question that the driver saw us. My son was looking right at him, and there is no missing a guy who is 6'6" wearing pink arm warmers. I'd detail the rest of his outfit, but it would cause the vehicular cyclists to convulse. There are people who just don't give a f***.


I know all of this. I ride a bike and sometime I ride it in a city.
I've had assholes pull out in front of me when I was center lane and had
eye contact. There are no placebos.

My argument was with spouting stats that have no meaning and imbuing
meaning. Fake news is getting on my nerves. If John's stats showed
that the cyclist was drunk AND the cause of the accident it would be
different than just saying the dead cyclist had a few beers. And saying
2% of road fatalities were cyclists when cyclists probably make up .5%
of road users is different than saying only 2% of fatalities are cyclists.

Am 02.05.2019 um 17:19 schrieb Radey Shouman:
That ratio seems small to me, unless bike commuting in heavy traffic.

For transportation I typically walk somewhere between 3 and 3.5 mph, or
bike between 14 and 18 mph.

18 mph as a total average including all stops is rather steep even for
an experienced cyclist. Do you have streches of 5 miles without a
traffic light, without an all-way stop?


The ratio between 12 mph, which seems quite
slow for a bike, and 4 mph, which is really quite a fast walk, is 3.

Population-based, I was guessing 3 mph for walking and 9-10 mph for
cycling, when you average out the fast commuter doing 15 mph with
grandma going to the shops and kids just learning to bike. My wife for
example does not like going faster than 10 mph max speed through town on
her way to work because she want to do her 2.5 miles without needing to
change clothes, and her total cycling time is determined by the wait at
the traffic lights, bringing her average maybe to 8 or 9 mph despite
cycling to work 4 times a week.