Ineffective Cycling

Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Friday, May 10, 2019 at 7:13:44 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 10 May 2019 13:57:10 +0200, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 10.05.2019 um 13:01 schrieb Sepp Ruf:
3) higher traffic speed means the speed difference between cars and you
is higher, and thus the "primary" position carries more risks.
More risks, different risks, greater risk... what's your source for 3)? And
don't say "that recent recumbent velomobile's awful accident"

The only source of studies giving sufficiently detailed data is the
"First Cross Study" quoted by John Forester
https://www.johnforester.com/Article...ty/Cross01.htm.

Thanks. Can one of our resident veterans (or draft dodgers) please
succinctly describe traffic and the riding population in early 1970's Santa
Barbara County?

As I threw away the book containing all the details some time ago, I can
only quote from vague memory.

Wait a second, Rolf, you THREW AWAY our HOLY BOOK?!?

Primary Revolutionary Guards, take that traitor away!

Being hit from behind is on the order of 1% of all bicycle accidents but
on the order of 5-10% of bicycle accidents outside towns, and it is the
most fatal accident type. It is also one of the few "hard-to-avoid"
accident types (as seen by the age percentiles of accidents).

Agreed, and more specifically, it is one of the accident types more relevant
to me than to both the Cross Study's entries and today's
separatist-facilties trusting, telecommunicating, ear-budded rider
populations. I browse through Schlueter's collection, and have come to the
conclusion that, unless the conditions are too difficult to observe what the
traffic behind is doing, riding the "primary position" PLUS observing for
lack of reaction/ sensible trajectory, and to prepare for possible bailing,
is my preferred uncommon "common sense." Once I've convinced everyone to
ride as I do, same-side evasion crashes will eventually find their way into
statistics, especially if WE don't get to program the cagers' AI automatic
collision avoidance systems.
The League of American Bicyclists published a report
"Bicyclist safety must be a priority
Findings from a year of fatality tracking
and the urgent need for better data"
dated May 2014

Which states, in the introduction, that "We learned, for example,
that a much higher percentage of fatal crashes than expected were "hit
from behind" incidents" and in the body of the report that state that
hit from behind fatalities comprised some 40% of all fatal collisions.

See
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2014/05/...st-fatalities/
https://www.vox.com/2014/5/22/573862...ppen-in-the-us
Both of which refer to the League's report.

I came across another report that might be of some interest.\:
Evidence from Safety Research to Update
Cycling Training Materials in Canada.
he University of British Columbia & Simon Fraser University
September 2012

Among other data they state that studies showed that:
Motorists pass closer to cyclists on higher speed and traffic
roads, and when there is traffic in the opposite direction.

Large vehicles like trucks and buses pass closer to cyclists.

The farther bicyclists ride from the curb the less space they
are given when passed, including with bike lanes.

First, the League of American Bicyclists has been conquered by the bicycling
industry; and the leaders of that industry have, in some desperation, decided
that their only hope is to try to get the government to spend huge funds for
segregated bike facilities. Why? Because after decades of "Danger! Danger!"
propaganda, people have decided that riding a bike anfaciywhere cars may travel
is sure death. So the League, which was once a bicyclists' rights organization,
is now a facility promotion organization. (There have been several instances
where they refused to help defend road-riding cyclists against false legal
charges.)

Second, the League's "study" was complete bull****. They collected their "data"
by having temporary workers scan the internet, newspapers and TV for reporter
accounts of bike deaths. They accepted whatever the media said as "data." Can
you find any other science that was done that way? Do you think that would pass
even the least competent peer review?

Frank, you are confusing intelligence work (which can be anything from
complete crap to fine work, good enough for government use) with what you
essentially want to be a clean scientific study. So just tell us (or Thomas
Schlueter) how to get complete access to bicycle crash injury data,
preferably from a preferably insular country, centralized healthcare,
unified emergency services and an all-knowing police, plentiful resources to
keep excellent statistics, and willingness to freely share all the data
including court and insurance files with private researchers?

You would never have heard of, let alone have seen, this unfortunately dead
roadie's "accident data" had he only been driven to a clinic to have them
check his collarbone:
https://www.oe24.at/oesterreich/chronik/niederoesterreich/Radfahrer-stirbt-nach-Auto-Unfall-Fahrerfluechtiger-ausgeforscht/379517695
They got the street name wrong, didn't mention that the helmet should have
protected his leg from getting torn off, but one can deduct a bit from the
photos. (apart from: Moar intensely bright, big yellow strobes would have
saved him!)


A vehicular cyclist's traffikhaiku ... to a gutter bunny, a harakiri recipe:
--
This Lane I Take
Record, Observe
React, Steam on
(Replay, Payback.)

On Saturday, May 11, 2019 at 12:02:58 PM UTC-4, Sepp Ruf wrote:
Snipped
https://www.oe24.at/oesterreich/chronik/niederoesterreich/Radfahrer-stirbt-nach-Auto-Unfall-Fahrerfluechtiger-ausgeforscht/379517695
They got the street name wrong, didn't mention that the helmet should have
protected his leg from getting torn off, but one can deduct a bit from the
photos. (apart from: Moar intensely bright, big yellow strobes would have
saved him!)


A vehicular cyclist's traffikhaiku ... to a gutter bunny, a harakiri recipe:
--
This Lane I Take
Record, Observe
React, Steam on
(Replay, Payback.)

I just LOVE it when a bicycling fatality reports that the bicyclist was or wasn't wearing a helmet but don't mention that the MASSIVE other injuries were the cause of death.

CHeers

On Friday, May 10, 2019 at 7:32:48 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 5/10/2019 3:29 AM, Duane wrote:

snip

**** man! If I was to wait until there were protected bicycle lanes going
to everywhere I currently ride my bicycle I'd hardly ever be on the
bicycle. I've ridden for over 60 years and have yet to see a protected
separate from the roadway bicycle path.

Cheers


Yeah the two extremes. Reality is somewhere in the middle.


Not sure what country SirRidesalot lives in, but in the U.S. we have
many "protected separate from the roadway bicycle paths." Not just in
California of course, I've been on them in Virginia, Idaho, and Oregon
as well.

The reality is that the need for protected bike lanes varies. They are
not just to "make people feel safe," they are to address the actual
safety issue of various non-cycling entities believing that a painted
bike lane is the perfect place to stop a vehicle to make a delivery,
take a phone call, drop-off or pick-up passengers, park, wait in line to
enter a parking lot, issue traffic tickets, etc..

Often, the whole length of a bike lane doesn't need to be protected, but
there can be selected protected areas where problems most often occur.
That is what cities in my area are doing. We'll identify areas where a
section of protected bike lane is needed, and use the money we have on
those specific areas.

I know that some people believe that if only we could educate drivers
and do more enforcement that all the problems would be solved. That's a
nice belief, but unfortunately it's naive. The reality is that you can't
address these problems through education or enforcement, you have to
have physical barriers that prevent the abhorrent behavior.

The motivation of the authors of books like Cycle Craft and Effective
Cycling is not to encourage mode share changes from vehicles to
bicycles, the motivation is very narrow--to attempt to show cyclists how
to ride more safely in traffic. Some of the advice they present is
useful, but most long-time cyclists already are familiar with the ideas
they present without ever having to read these books.

Believe it or not these are all over New York State as well. Though the entrances to them are sometimes a little difficult to find. They will start the path inside of a park rather than off of the roadway.

On Friday, May 10, 2019 at 2:03:41 PM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/10/2019 5:29 AM, Duane wrote:
Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 09.05.2019 um 14:35 schrieb Duane:
What I object to is telling me that my "primary" position should be one
that puts me in the middle of the lane. Maybe the term "primary" has
some meaning that I don't understand. I'll be there when I think it
necessary but I understand that there's some risk to doing that.

If it's just the wording, I might give some motivation. The majority of
bike trips (at least outside the US) are transportational, and the
majority of transportational trips is in town.

In my classes I ran in the 1900's based on "Cyclecraft", I explained as
follows:
In situations of potential conflict in town, you should be in the
"primary" position.
Situations of potential conflict include
- going straight when there is a significant chance of the car behind
doing a near-side turn
- going straight when there is a car coming from the near-side and you
have priority
- going straight when it is unsafe/inappropriate for a car to overtake
you (e.g. pedestrian crossing, oncoming traffic on narrow roads)

In Europe, this means that the "primary position" is recommended for
70-80% of the distance you cycle in town, so it is more helpful to teach
"in town, take the primary position, and when you judge it is safe to be
overtaken by the cars behind, change to the secondary position to let
them pass".

For cycling outside town, the situation is different:
1) a lot fewer points of conflict
2) lower traffic density means you won't be overtaken every 10s while
riding in secondary position
3) higher traffic speed means the speed difference between cars and you
is higher, and thus the "primary" position carries more risks.

Rolf

PS: it is extremely hard to have a language that is both precise and
easily understood at the same time. For international communication,
the precise language might be more appropriate but to reach the public
you need an easily understood language even though this language might
lead to misunderstandings in some other countries.



I like your points about riding outside of town. My usual preference.

With respect to primary position, better explanation but still not legal
here. I can legally move to the center to avoid obstacles including door
zones or to move into position to turn left. Before I pay the fines I
would drive to work.

My primary position is the legal position. My secondary position would be
moving left when necessary.

As far as lane center to prevent close passes I don’t find it effective
except in cases of a single lane road. Not very common here. With the
normal two lane road, the car is going to pass me when safe of pass me
illegally. For the former, taking the lane isn’t necessary. For the
latter my experience is that most of the time they still pass, only closer,
faster and more dangerously.

On my commute I see a lot of bikes. I don’t think rush hour traffic at
20k/h will work. And the police would be out in force. I’m not for
separate bike paths either so I don’t have a solution other than ride
defensively. Be visible, predictable and follow the rules of the road.


So you're saying that riders ought to consider pavement
design, pavement condition or lack thereof, impedimenta such
as parked cars, ambient weather, traffic, cross traffic,
time of day, sight lines, signage/ordinances, rider speed &
ability? So how I ride is conditional even for the same
route on different days or times?

in that case, +1.

Me too, +1. Today I rode up a narrow lane, fractions more than one car wide, but with frequent minor lanes and driveways. Any time a car came from behind I'd dawdle across a driveway but off the road to make space. If I couldn't, I'd stick in the middle of the lane until he slowed to my speed and then I'd ride on the "wrong side" of the lane so that he could see exactly how far his mirror passed from me. Nobody got impatient, no one tooted their horn at me.

It should be clear from the above that the cyclist should do everything possible to make his intention clear, including hand signals even if it is just one cyclist and one driver on the road.

The problem with whatever that book is that Franki-boy is pushing -- I read it once, and decided it had the wrong attitude for my roads and the drivers on them and would therefore merely infuriate them, so I threw it away -- is that it makes the cyclist seem arrogant when the driver is in command of a hefty deadly blunt weapon. That there is only one such book, and that like every other fascist mandate it is pushed by its fanatical adherents like a fraudulent religion -- say, like Scientology -- by all the wrongos in cycling, doesn't incline me to give it a second chance.

Andre Jute
I'll just stick to vigilance, common courtesy and careful analysis leading to apt solutions, thank you

On 5/11/2019 12:02 PM, Sepp Ruf wrote:
So just tell us (or Thomas
Schlueter) how to get complete access to bicycle crash injury data,
preferably from a preferably insular country, centralized healthcare,
unified emergency services and an all-knowing police, plentiful resources to
keep excellent statistics, and willingness to freely share all the data
including court and insurance files with private researchers?

I've seen many articles, including formal research papers, that have
tried to inflate the danger of bicycling because, they say, many crashes
and injuries are not reported.

This past week, I was at a regional transportation safety conference.
One presenter had a new variation on that. She pointed to huge numbers
of motorists killed or seriously injured (KSI)in our metro area each
year. The number for bicyclists (and for pedestrians) was much, much
smaller.

But she said "Ah, but if you compare the ratio of KSI to the reported
crashes, we can see that bicycling and walking are actually quite
dangerous. A far higher proportion of the total number of bicycle
crashes result in KSI, but most motor vehicle crashes don't result in
KSI." (Or something like that.)

I took her aside and pointed out that her data set was biased, and not a
good sample for evaluating that. Why? Because almost every car crash
gets reported, simply because there is enough expensive damage to the
vehicle itself.

But only a tiny proportion of bike crashes are reported. Most bike
crashes are simple falls, or other single vehicle events. Even many
car-bike crashes result in only minor injuries and little property
damage. Victims of solo bike crashes may tell nobody, and cops may not
even be asked (or bother to) record minor car-bike events. If data
captured all those events - or at least, captured as great a proportion
as for car crashes - that presenter's numbers would be far different.

So, getting back to your question: How can you get complete data on all
bike crash injuries? You can't. Most injured riders immediately get back
on the bike and, when home again, clean themselves up. And that's
reasonable.

Some tales of bike woe really should remain under the radar. Society has
far bigger problems to worry about.


--
- Frank Krygowski