|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 9:18:32 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/16/2019 4:10 AM, jbeattie wrote: Without getting into the prudence of an adult MHL, I could see a MHL causing significant drops in certain populations. If traffic is no so bad that you really need to ride a bike, then people with a "live free or die" or "don't muss my hair" or overheat my head mentality may not ride -- assuming there is any real effort to enforce the law. In Amsterdam, people would probably just ignore the law, and there would be no change. In the London scrum, they may comply because driving is impossible and riding is objectively dangerous. In Portland, compliance is pretty high already and enforcement would be nil, so there would be no change. It really depends on the population. I don't see any reason why the drop in Australia couldn't be "real" as opposed to or the result of some confounding factor. Entire populations can become entrenched on some relatively minor issues. The drop in Australia was very significant (well over 30%) and occurred as a step change immediately upon enactment of the helmet laws. In the past, Scharf has vaguely said the drops could have been due to more traffic, more video games, changes in demographics, etc. But none of those explain a step change concurrent with the legislation. Australians are sensitive. Like mink. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...orce-jets.html Oh, and telephone surveys confirmed that the MHL was the reason many stopped cycling. Scharf's capacity for denial is amazing. Regarding your point that different populations would react differently - another big factor is different enforcement. Portland cops, like most in America, would probably pay no attention except in cases where they wanted to stop someone for other reasons. "Riding while black" might be an example. And fines would probably be minimal, making the ticket hardly worth the processing time. Australia went maniacal on enforcement, and fines are not minor - well over $100. Bicycles have been confiscated and people have been jailed for ignoring the laws and resulting fines. Regarding the other examples, I question whether riding in London is "objectively dangerous." While I've never ridden in the city proper, I have good friends who lived and worked there for a year. When I asked about the riding, they said "Oh, it was fine." The big publicity a few years ago about London bike fatalities was a close parallel to our "Year of the Shark" a couple decades ago. Bicyclists demanding segregated facilities were outraged about a few deaths in a short period; but cycling deaths had been trending down, and that year ended up with no more bike fatalities than recent years. Indeed, bike deaths were a fraction of pedestrian deaths, yet no pedestrians staged "die-ins." I'm in London right now. It's a f****** scrum with masses of non-compliant pedestrians with crushing auto traffic and droves of cyclists mostly sharing roadways with aggressive double-decker bus drivers. There are not a lot of facilities and really no place to ride except in the lane. It looks like about 60-75% wear helmets, even including the rent-a-bike set. In City of London and Westminster, there are lots of racer-ish riders, and in fact, the mix looks a lot like Portland, although less mountain bikes and more Bromptons and other folders. I was really amazed at the average pack speed. Some of the groups were moving like a bad Cat 5 race -- with a lot blowing lights and just missing pedestrians. I don't know about the injury stats, but If I lived here, I'd find commuting generally unpleasant. -- Jay Beattie. |
Ads |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.
Love it. Rideablot, who advertises loudly that he doesn't read my posts, now admits he reads me. His answer cuts all my substantive points, even the one in the tagline below my signature! The rest is pure personal abuse not worth replying to. - Andre Jute
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 6:30:20 PM UTC+1, Sir Ridesalot wrote: On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 1:05:39 PM UTC-4, Andre Jute wrote: On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 2:33:46 AM UTC+1, James wrote: Snipped I don't think anyone I know is an anti-helmet zealot. Depends on your definition of "know". If you include people with whom you correspond on the net, you know plenty of anti-helmet zealots (AHZ). Krygowski, Ridealot, and Tom Sherman all fit the profile. Of course, if you stick to the Biblical sense of "know"... Snipped -- JS Andre Jute Snipped Sorry to all those who've kill-filed this troll butt... Including ME in your list of RBT Anti-Helmet is hilarious and so far off the mark... All it does Mr. Jute is show that you are a Troll that has no idea what he's talking about. For the record, again, I'm NOT anti-helmet* I'm anti-MHL. *I wear a helmet at times and I FIRMLY believe that the wearing or the not wearing of a helmet should be left up to the individual. I would like to see helmets come with stickers firmly stating just what was done to get them passed by the approved body. I think if people knew just how low standards are for helmet testing that many who do wear helmets would stop. Cheers |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.
On 5/16/2019 4:38 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 9:18:32 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 5/16/2019 4:10 AM, jbeattie wrote: Without getting into the prudence of an adult MHL, I could see a MHL causing significant drops in certain populations. If traffic is no so bad that you really need to ride a bike, then people with a "live free or die" or "don't muss my hair" or overheat my head mentality may not ride -- assuming there is any real effort to enforce the law. In Amsterdam, people would probably just ignore the law, and there would be no change. In the London scrum, they may comply because driving is impossible and riding is objectively dangerous. In Portland, compliance is pretty high already and enforcement would be nil, so there would be no change. It really depends on the population. I don't see any reason why the drop in Australia couldn't be "real" as opposed to or the result of some confounding factor. Entire populations can become entrenched on some relatively minor issues. The drop in Australia was very significant (well over 30%) and occurred as a step change immediately upon enactment of the helmet laws. In the past, Scharf has vaguely said the drops could have been due to more traffic, more video games, changes in demographics, etc. But none of those explain a step change concurrent with the legislation. Australians are sensitive. Like mink. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...orce-jets.html Oh, and telephone surveys confirmed that the MHL was the reason many stopped cycling. Scharf's capacity for denial is amazing. Regarding your point that different populations would react differently - another big factor is different enforcement. Portland cops, like most in America, would probably pay no attention except in cases where they wanted to stop someone for other reasons. "Riding while black" might be an example. And fines would probably be minimal, making the ticket hardly worth the processing time. Australia went maniacal on enforcement, and fines are not minor - well over $100. Bicycles have been confiscated and people have been jailed for ignoring the laws and resulting fines. Regarding the other examples, I question whether riding in London is "objectively dangerous." While I've never ridden in the city proper, I have good friends who lived and worked there for a year. When I asked about the riding, they said "Oh, it was fine." The big publicity a few years ago about London bike fatalities was a close parallel to our "Year of the Shark" a couple decades ago. Bicyclists demanding segregated facilities were outraged about a few deaths in a short period; but cycling deaths had been trending down, and that year ended up with no more bike fatalities than recent years. Indeed, bike deaths were a fraction of pedestrian deaths, yet no pedestrians staged "die-ins." I'm in London right now. It's a f****** scrum with masses of non-compliant pedestrians with crushing auto traffic and droves of cyclists mostly sharing roadways with aggressive double-decker bus drivers. There are not a lot of facilities and really no place to ride except in the lane. It looks like about 60-75% wear helmets, even including the rent-a-bike set. In City of London and Westminster, there are lots of racer-ish riders, and in fact, the mix looks a lot like Portland, although less mountain bikes and more Bromptons and other folders. I was really amazed at the average pack speed. Some of the groups were moving like a bad Cat 5 race -- with a lot blowing lights and just missing pedestrians. I don't know about the injury stats, but If I lived here, I'd find commuting generally unpleasant. It's been a few years, but ISTR recall our friends saying they searched out routes that were a bit longer, but quieter. They (husband and wife) are both very experience utility cyclists and very comfortable with taking the lane. Pedestrians do worse than cyclists in London, perhaps because of their non-compliance. Be especially careful when walking! From one advocacy organization: 2014 : 64 pedestrians and 13 cyclists killed, = 77 citizens; 61% of all road deaths (56% of all KSIs) 2015 – 66 pedestrians and 9 cyclists killed = 75 citizens; 55% of all road deaths (53% of all KSIs) 2016 – 70 pedestrians and 8 cyclists killed = 79 citizens; 63% of all road deaths (53% of all KSIs) 2017 – 76 pedestrians and 10 cyclists killed = 86 citizens; 64% of all road deaths (54% of all KSIs) -- - Frank Krygowski |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 1:38:21 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 9:18:32 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 5/16/2019 4:10 AM, jbeattie wrote: Without getting into the prudence of an adult MHL, I could see a MHL causing significant drops in certain populations. If traffic is no so bad that you really need to ride a bike, then people with a "live free or die" or "don't muss my hair" or overheat my head mentality may not ride -- assuming there is any real effort to enforce the law. In Amsterdam, people would probably just ignore the law, and there would be no change. In the London scrum, they may comply because driving is impossible and riding is objectively dangerous. In Portland, compliance is pretty high already and enforcement would be nil, so there would be no change. It really depends on the population. I don't see any reason why the drop in Australia couldn't be "real" as opposed to or the result of some confounding factor. Entire populations can become entrenched on some relatively minor issues. The drop in Australia was very significant (well over 30%) and occurred as a step change immediately upon enactment of the helmet laws. In the past, Scharf has vaguely said the drops could have been due to more traffic, more video games, changes in demographics, etc. But none of those explain a step change concurrent with the legislation. Australians are sensitive. Like mink. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...orce-jets.html Oh, and telephone surveys confirmed that the MHL was the reason many stopped cycling. Scharf's capacity for denial is amazing. Regarding your point that different populations would react differently - another big factor is different enforcement. Portland cops, like most in America, would probably pay no attention except in cases where they wanted to stop someone for other reasons. "Riding while black" might be an example. And fines would probably be minimal, making the ticket hardly worth the processing time. Australia went maniacal on enforcement, and fines are not minor - well over $100. Bicycles have been confiscated and people have been jailed for ignoring the laws and resulting fines. Regarding the other examples, I question whether riding in London is "objectively dangerous." While I've never ridden in the city proper, I have good friends who lived and worked there for a year. When I asked about the riding, they said "Oh, it was fine." The big publicity a few years ago about London bike fatalities was a close parallel to our "Year of the Shark" a couple decades ago. Bicyclists demanding segregated facilities were outraged about a few deaths in a short period; but cycling deaths had been trending down, and that year ended up with no more bike fatalities than recent years. Indeed, bike deaths were a fraction of pedestrian deaths, yet no pedestrians staged "die-ins." I'm in London right now. It's a f****** scrum with masses of non-compliant pedestrians with crushing auto traffic and droves of cyclists mostly sharing roadways with aggressive double-decker bus drivers. There are not a lot of facilities and really no place to ride except in the lane. It looks like about 60-75% wear helmets, even including the rent-a-bike set. In City of London and Westminster, there are lots of racer-ish riders, and in fact, the mix looks a lot like Portland, although less mountain bikes and more Bromptons and other folders. I was really amazed at the average pack speed. Some of the groups were moving like a bad Cat 5 race -- with a lot blowing lights and just missing pedestrians. I don't know about the injury stats, but If I lived here, I'd find commuting generally unpleasant. -- Jay Beattie. I made a major error on my Tuesday ride. I came down a hill at climbing 600 feet in my first 30 minutes of riding. I approached a red light and blew right through it. I never go through red lights except where it is legal to do so - on he head of a T-intersection. In this case there was a car there and he slammed his brakes on in time. All these cars that are pained dark colors that blend into the background sure doesn't help matters. But nonetheless it was my fault and I have to be a great deal more careful. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.
Love this too. Frank-boy Krygowski, who advertises loudly that he doesn't read my posts, now admits he reads me. His answer cuts all my substantive points, because he simply doesn't have answers to my perfectly reasonable points. The fact that the rest from this clown is pure personal abuse not worth replying to demonstrates that poor Krygowski is an insecure loser, hence the bluster and the bullying. - Andre Jute
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 7:25:31 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 5/16/2019 1:05 PM, Andre Jute wrote: On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 2:33:46 AM UTC+1, James wrote: There are also MHL zealots and plain vanilla helmet zealots. Sure. But they don't bother me. There are all kinds of zealots. If they start lecturing me, I cut them down and they don't do it again. Jute probably conflates their total dismissal of him with their being intimidated. Nah, I don't bother to intimidate people unless they actually hit me or drive too near me, then I deal with them. Even zealots with bees in their bonnets who're dumb enough to try and impose their "moral" view on me, get a polite, reasoned answer, noblesse oblige in action, and then, because they have no answers except circular self-referential ones, like the Mormons who tell you "but the book Mormon says", they either never mention the subject again, or run away either physically or virtually, just like your pretence, Franki-boy, that you don't read me, so that your lack of rational answers to perfectly logical points isn't exposed -- you hope! Occasionally a Brown Marmorated Stink Bug gets into a house. They are obnoxious and they have no value, but they pose no threat. I don't engage in conversation with them. I throw them in the toilet. Franki-boy has no answer to Gandhi either. His answer to poor living things smaller than him is to drown them, probably the most painfully prolonged way of killing them. I find Jute to be similar, and I treat him similarly. I suspect others do as well. Are you threatening to drown me in your toilet, Franki-boy? Isn't that overly ambitious for a limp wimp like you? -- - Frank Krygowski What a worthless asshole. Andre Jute Harmless |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.
On 16/5/19 6:10 pm, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 5:32:52 PM UTC-7, sms wrote: On 5/15/2019 4:23 PM, James wrote: snip The National Cycling Participation Survey results are free to download from the Austroads website - after you register. The only reason I posted a link from cycle-helmets.com is because you don't need to register to download it from them. Okay, fair enough. It's just that everyone gets very wary with a reference includes cycle-helmets.com, a site that is well-known for intentionally misinterpreting data, ignoring data that doesn't fit their agenda, and constantly trying to equate correlation and causation. If cycling rates fall, no matter what the actual reason, if there was a helmet law then they insist that the helmet law was the cause. The fact is that cycling rates rise and fall for a large number of reasons. One poster recently pointed out that new bicycle infrastructure caused a 75% increase in the number of riders. Sometimes, as happened in China, it's vast improvements in public transit that drastically reduced cycling rates. Sometimes it's economic factors. Sometimes it's weather. Sometimes it's demographic shifts. The thing that jumps out immediately about that "survey" is the statement "Participation is defined as the number of individuals who have cycled for any journey or purpose and in any location over a specified time period." Cycle around the block once a year, and you're counted as a cyclist. Decide you're too old the next year and don't take out the bike, and you're not counted. A proper survey would be much more specific and look at annual distance and number of cycling days per year. While the "Participation Survey" can be interesting, the problem with it are the organizations and individuals that try to draw false conclusions from it. SMS has misrepresented the survey. The respondents are grouped into those who cycled at least once in the last year, month or week, and ... "2.4 Time ridden over past week. Respondents who had ridden over the past week were asked for an estimate of how much time they had spent riding. We note that this measure is based on respondent recall over the previous week and is likely to be at best a rough estimate. The number of hours ridden in 2017 averaged 2.54 hoursper week (95% CI: 2.28 – 2.79); this is a statistically significantly decline on 2011 (Figure 2.11)" Distance for many people is an unknown. Not everyone has or uses a bicycling computer for every trip. The only estimate that everyone is capable of making with some degree of accuracy, is how many hours they cycled in the last week. This survey was designed by professionals, not SMS. Without getting into the prudence of an adult MHL, I could see a MHL causing significant drops in certain populations. If traffic is no so bad that you really need to ride a bike, then people with a "live free or die" or "don't muss my hair" or overheat my head mentality may not ride -- assuming there is any real effort to enforce the law. In most of Australia there is a real effort to enforce the law. There are only a handful of exceptions. One exception is Byron Bay. Though situated in NSW, the state with the most heavy fines ($330 IIRC) and strict enforcement near it's capital city (Sydney), helmet enforcement around Byron Bay seems very relaxed. I've visited a few times over the last year, and each time I am pleasantly surprised by the number of young women riding. A sight unseen elsewhere (except perhaps Darwin where the law was relaxed many years ago, but I haven't been there to see first hand). In Amsterdam, people would probably just ignore the law, and there would be no change. Finland has a MHL but there is no fine and no enforcement. Consequently survey results find helmets are not a factor in people's decision to ride or not. Mostly it is perceived safety and that riding a bicycle makes you hot (yes, that is an actual reason the Fins surveyed gave). In the London scrum, they may comply because driving is impossible and riding is objectively dangerous. In Portland, compliance is pretty high already and enforcement would be nil, so there would be no change. It really depends on the population. I don't see any reason why the drop in Australia couldn't be "real" as opposed to or the result of some confounding factor. Entire populations can become entrenched on some relatively minor issues. The latest round of MHL zealots in Australia think they have shown scientifically that there was no drop in participation, or at least that there is no evidence of one. They dismiss the census data that shows that cycling used as the method of travel to work on the census day dropped significantly after MHL-day, claiming that the data is not of sufficiently high quality. Cherry picking now springs to mind. They rely on a couple of surveys and dismiss all the other evidence, conveniently. -- JS |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.
On 5/16/2019 3:38 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 9:18:32 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 5/16/2019 4:10 AM, jbeattie wrote: Without getting into the prudence of an adult MHL, I could see a MHL causing significant drops in certain populations. If traffic is no so bad that you really need to ride a bike, then people with a "live free or die" or "don't muss my hair" or overheat my head mentality may not ride -- assuming there is any real effort to enforce the law. In Amsterdam, people would probably just ignore the law, and there would be no change. In the London scrum, they may comply because driving is impossible and riding is objectively dangerous. In Portland, compliance is pretty high already and enforcement would be nil, so there would be no change. It really depends on the population. I don't see any reason why the drop in Australia couldn't be "real" as opposed to or the result of some confounding factor. Entire populations can become entrenched on some relatively minor issues. The drop in Australia was very significant (well over 30%) and occurred as a step change immediately upon enactment of the helmet laws. In the past, Scharf has vaguely said the drops could have been due to more traffic, more video games, changes in demographics, etc. But none of those explain a step change concurrent with the legislation. Australians are sensitive. Like mink. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...orce-jets.html Oh, and telephone surveys confirmed that the MHL was the reason many stopped cycling. Scharf's capacity for denial is amazing. Regarding your point that different populations would react differently - another big factor is different enforcement. Portland cops, like most in America, would probably pay no attention except in cases where they wanted to stop someone for other reasons. "Riding while black" might be an example. And fines would probably be minimal, making the ticket hardly worth the processing time. Australia went maniacal on enforcement, and fines are not minor - well over $100. Bicycles have been confiscated and people have been jailed for ignoring the laws and resulting fines. Regarding the other examples, I question whether riding in London is "objectively dangerous." While I've never ridden in the city proper, I have good friends who lived and worked there for a year. When I asked about the riding, they said "Oh, it was fine." The big publicity a few years ago about London bike fatalities was a close parallel to our "Year of the Shark" a couple decades ago. Bicyclists demanding segregated facilities were outraged about a few deaths in a short period; but cycling deaths had been trending down, and that year ended up with no more bike fatalities than recent years. Indeed, bike deaths were a fraction of pedestrian deaths, yet no pedestrians staged "die-ins." I'm in London right now. It's a f****** scrum with masses of non-compliant pedestrians with crushing auto traffic and droves of cyclists mostly sharing roadways with aggressive double-decker bus drivers. There are not a lot of facilities and really no place to ride except in the lane. It looks like about 60-75% wear helmets, even including the rent-a-bike set. In City of London and Westminster, there are lots of racer-ish riders, and in fact, the mix looks a lot like Portland, although less mountain bikes and more Bromptons and other folders. I was really amazed at the average pack speed. Some of the groups were moving like a bad Cat 5 race -- with a lot blowing lights and just missing pedestrians. I don't know about the injury stats, but If I lived here, I'd find commuting generally unpleasant. -- Jay Beattie. that may be a self-correcting problem: https://nypost.com/2019/05/16/cyclis...ing-red-light/ -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.
On 5/16/2019 4:41 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/16/2019 4:38 PM, jbeattie wrote: On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 9:18:32 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 5/16/2019 4:10 AM, jbeattie wrote: Without getting into the prudence of an adult MHL, I could see a MHL causing significant drops in certain populations. If traffic is no so bad that you really need to ride a bike, then people with a "live free or die" or "don't muss my hair" or overheat my head mentality may not ride -- assuming there is any real effort to enforce the law. In Amsterdam, people would probably just ignore the law, and there would be no change. In the London scrum, they may comply because driving is impossible and riding is objectively dangerous. In Portland, compliance is pretty high already and enforcement would be nil, so there would be no change. It really depends on the population. I don't see any reason why the drop in Australia couldn't be "real" as opposed to or the result of some confounding factor. Entire populations can become entrenched on some relatively minor issues. The drop in Australia was very significant (well over 30%) and occurred as a step change immediately upon enactment of the helmet laws. In the past, Scharf has vaguely said the drops could have been due to more traffic, more video games, changes in demographics, etc. But none of those explain a step change concurrent with the legislation. Australians are sensitive. Like mink. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...orce-jets.html Oh, and telephone surveys confirmed that the MHL was the reason many stopped cycling. Scharf's capacity for denial is amazing. Regarding your point that different populations would react differently - another big factor is different enforcement. Portland cops, like most in America, would probably pay no attention except in cases where they wanted to stop someone for other reasons. "Riding while black" might be an example. And fines would probably be minimal, making the ticket hardly worth the processing time. Australia went maniacal on enforcement, and fines are not minor - well over $100. Bicycles have been confiscated and people have been jailed for ignoring the laws and resulting fines. Regarding the other examples, I question whether riding in London is "objectively dangerous." While I've never ridden in the city proper, I have good friends who lived and worked there for a year. When I asked about the riding, they said "Oh, it was fine." The big publicity a few years ago about London bike fatalities was a close parallel to our "Year of the Shark" a couple decades ago. Bicyclists demanding segregated facilities were outraged about a few deaths in a short period; but cycling deaths had been trending down, and that year ended up with no more bike fatalities than recent years. Indeed, bike deaths were a fraction of pedestrian deaths, yet no pedestrians staged "die-ins." I'm in London right now. It's a f****** scrum with masses of non-compliant pedestrians with crushing auto traffic and droves of cyclists mostly sharing roadways with aggressive double-decker bus drivers. There are not a lot of facilities and really no place to ride except in the lane. It looks like about 60-75% wear helmets, even including the rent-a-bike set. In City of London and Westminster, there are lots of racer-ish riders, and in fact, the mix looks a lot like Portland, although less mountain bikes and more Bromptons and other folders. I was really amazed at the average pack speed. Some of the groups were moving like a bad Cat 5 race -- with a lot blowing lights and just missing pedestrians. I don't know about the injury stats, but If I lived here, I'd find commuting generally unpleasant. It's been a few years, but ISTR recall our friends saying they searched out routes that were a bit longer, but quieter. They (husband and wife) are both very experience utility cyclists and very comfortable with taking the lane. Pedestrians do worse than cyclists in London, perhaps because of their non-compliance. Be especially careful when walking! From one advocacy organization: 2014 : 64 pedestrians and 13 cyclists killed, = 77 citizens; 61% of all road deaths (56% of all KSIs) 2015 – 66 pedestrians and 9 cyclists killed = 75 citizens; 55% of all road deaths (53% of all KSIs) 2016 – 70 pedestrians and 8 cyclists killed = 79 citizens; 63% of all road deaths (53% of all KSIs) 2017 – 76 pedestrians and 10 cyclists killed = 86 citizens; 64% of all road deaths (54% of all KSIs) more laws, more regulation, more compulsion oughta do it: https://nypost.com/2019/05/16/new-yo...ng-the-street/ -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.
On Fri, 17 May 2019 08:43:11 +1000, James
wrote: On 16/5/19 6:10 pm, jbeattie wrote: On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 5:32:52 PM UTC-7, sms wrote: On 5/15/2019 4:23 PM, James wrote: snip The National Cycling Participation Survey results are free to download from the Austroads website - after you register. The only reason I posted a link from cycle-helmets.com is because you don't need to register to download it from them. Okay, fair enough. It's just that everyone gets very wary with a reference includes cycle-helmets.com, a site that is well-known for intentionally misinterpreting data, ignoring data that doesn't fit their agenda, and constantly trying to equate correlation and causation. If cycling rates fall, no matter what the actual reason, if there was a helmet law then they insist that the helmet law was the cause. The fact is that cycling rates rise and fall for a large number of reasons. One poster recently pointed out that new bicycle infrastructure caused a 75% increase in the number of riders. Sometimes, as happened in China, it's vast improvements in public transit that drastically reduced cycling rates. Sometimes it's economic factors. Sometimes it's weather. Sometimes it's demographic shifts. The thing that jumps out immediately about that "survey" is the statement "Participation is defined as the number of individuals who have cycled for any journey or purpose and in any location over a specified time period." Cycle around the block once a year, and you're counted as a cyclist. Decide you're too old the next year and don't take out the bike, and you're not counted. A proper survey would be much more specific and look at annual distance and number of cycling days per year. While the "Participation Survey" can be interesting, the problem with it are the organizations and individuals that try to draw false conclusions from it. SMS has misrepresented the survey. The respondents are grouped into those who cycled at least once in the last year, month or week, and ... "2.4 Time ridden over past week. Respondents who had ridden over the past week were asked for an estimate of how much time they had spent riding. We note that this measure is based on respondent recall over the previous week and is likely to be at best a rough estimate. The number of hours ridden in 2017 averaged 2.54 hoursper week (95% CI: 2.28 – 2.79); this is a statistically significantly decline on 2011 (Figure 2.11)" Distance for many people is an unknown. Not everyone has or uses a bicycling computer for every trip. The only estimate that everyone is capable of making with some degree of accuracy, is how many hours they cycled in the last week. This survey was designed by professionals, not SMS. Without getting into the prudence of an adult MHL, I could see a MHL causing significant drops in certain populations. If traffic is no so bad that you really need to ride a bike, then people with a "live free or die" or "don't muss my hair" or overheat my head mentality may not ride -- assuming there is any real effort to enforce the law. In most of Australia there is a real effort to enforce the law. There are only a handful of exceptions. One exception is Byron Bay. Though situated in NSW, the state with the most heavy fines ($330 IIRC) and strict enforcement near it's capital city (Sydney), helmet enforcement around Byron Bay seems very relaxed. I've visited a few times over the last year, and each time I am pleasantly surprised by the number of young women riding. A sight unseen elsewhere (except perhaps Darwin where the law was relaxed many years ago, but I haven't been there to see first hand). In Amsterdam, people would probably just ignore the law, and there would be no change. Finland has a MHL but there is no fine and no enforcement. Consequently survey results find helmets are not a factor in people's decision to ride or not. Mostly it is perceived safety and that riding a bicycle makes you hot (yes, that is an actual reason the Fins surveyed gave). In the London scrum, they may comply because driving is impossible and riding is objectively dangerous. In Portland, compliance is pretty high already and enforcement would be nil, so there would be no change. It really depends on the population. I don't see any reason why the drop in Australia couldn't be "real" as opposed to or the result of some confounding factor. Entire populations can become entrenched on some relatively minor issues. The latest round of MHL zealots in Australia think they have shown scientifically that there was no drop in participation, or at least that there is no evidence of one. They dismiss the census data that shows that cycling used as the method of travel to work on the census day dropped significantly after MHL-day, claiming that the data is not of sufficiently high quality. Cherry picking now springs to mind. They rely on a couple of surveys and dismiss all the other evidence, conveniently. It seems likely that there are a multitude of reasons for people not commuting by bicycle ranging from "Oh! I just had my hair done", to "OH! But 3 miles is too far to go by bicycle", to "Good Lord! It's raining", to "Oh My God! My head hurts. No more booze on weekdays!", to "I don't wanna wear a Helmet!". When I was working in Jakarta I used to ride 100 km every Sunday morning but wouldn't have dreamed of commuting to work by bike. Partially because a chauffeur driven car was one of the perks of the job, partially because a white shirt and tie was more or less the standard uniform for managers in the business and one didn't want to be calling on clients looking all hot and sweaty, and partially because I spent the ride to work planning my day. While a dedicated bicyclist might argue that these are all surmountable problems the whole point is that they were sufficient, for me to decide not to ride a bike to work. -- cheers, John B. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 8:54:32 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 17 May 2019 08:43:11 +1000, James wrote: On 16/5/19 6:10 pm, jbeattie wrote: On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 5:32:52 PM UTC-7, sms wrote: On 5/15/2019 4:23 PM, James wrote: snip The National Cycling Participation Survey results are free to download from the Austroads website - after you register. The only reason I posted a link from cycle-helmets.com is because you don't need to register to download it from them. Okay, fair enough. It's just that everyone gets very wary with a reference includes cycle-helmets.com, a site that is well-known for intentionally misinterpreting data, ignoring data that doesn't fit their agenda, and constantly trying to equate correlation and causation. If cycling rates fall, no matter what the actual reason, if there was a helmet law then they insist that the helmet law was the cause. The fact is that cycling rates rise and fall for a large number of reasons. One poster recently pointed out that new bicycle infrastructure caused a 75% increase in the number of riders. Sometimes, as happened in China, it's vast improvements in public transit that drastically reduced cycling rates. Sometimes it's economic factors. Sometimes it's weather. Sometimes it's demographic shifts. The thing that jumps out immediately about that "survey" is the statement "Participation is defined as the number of individuals who have cycled for any journey or purpose and in any location over a specified time period." Cycle around the block once a year, and you're counted as a cyclist. Decide you're too old the next year and don't take out the bike, and you're not counted. A proper survey would be much more specific and look at annual distance and number of cycling days per year. While the "Participation Survey" can be interesting, the problem with it are the organizations and individuals that try to draw false conclusions from it. SMS has misrepresented the survey. The respondents are grouped into those who cycled at least once in the last year, month or week, and ... "2.4 Time ridden over past week. Respondents who had ridden over the past week were asked for an estimate of how much time they had spent riding. We note that this measure is based on respondent recall over the previous week and is likely to be at best a rough estimate. The number of hours ridden in 2017 averaged 2.54 hoursper week (95% CI: 2.28 – 2.79); this is a statistically significantly decline on 2011 (Figure 2.11)" Distance for many people is an unknown. Not everyone has or uses a bicycling computer for every trip. The only estimate that everyone is capable of making with some degree of accuracy, is how many hours they cycled in the last week. This survey was designed by professionals, not SMS. Without getting into the prudence of an adult MHL, I could see a MHL causing significant drops in certain populations. If traffic is no so bad that you really need to ride a bike, then people with a "live free or die" or "don't muss my hair" or overheat my head mentality may not ride -- assuming there is any real effort to enforce the law. In most of Australia there is a real effort to enforce the law. There are only a handful of exceptions. One exception is Byron Bay. Though situated in NSW, the state with the most heavy fines ($330 IIRC) and strict enforcement near it's capital city (Sydney), helmet enforcement around Byron Bay seems very relaxed. I've visited a few times over the last year, and each time I am pleasantly surprised by the number of young women riding. A sight unseen elsewhere (except perhaps Darwin where the law was relaxed many years ago, but I haven't been there to see first hand). In Amsterdam, people would probably just ignore the law, and there would be no change. Finland has a MHL but there is no fine and no enforcement. Consequently survey results find helmets are not a factor in people's decision to ride or not. Mostly it is perceived safety and that riding a bicycle makes you hot (yes, that is an actual reason the Fins surveyed gave). In the London scrum, they may comply because driving is impossible and riding is objectively dangerous. In Portland, compliance is pretty high already and enforcement would be nil, so there would be no change. It really depends on the population. I don't see any reason why the drop in Australia couldn't be "real" as opposed to or the result of some confounding factor. Entire populations can become entrenched on some relatively minor issues. The latest round of MHL zealots in Australia think they have shown scientifically that there was no drop in participation, or at least that there is no evidence of one. They dismiss the census data that shows that cycling used as the method of travel to work on the census day dropped significantly after MHL-day, claiming that the data is not of sufficiently high quality. Cherry picking now springs to mind. They rely on a couple of surveys and dismiss all the other evidence, conveniently. It seems likely that there are a multitude of reasons for people not commuting by bicycle ranging from "Oh! I just had my hair done", to "OH! But 3 miles is too far to go by bicycle", to "Good Lord! It's raining", to "Oh My God! My head hurts. No more booze on weekdays!", to "I don't wanna wear a Helmet!". When I was working in Jakarta I used to ride 100 km every Sunday morning but wouldn't have dreamed of commuting to work by bike. Partially because a chauffeur driven car was one of the perks of the job, partially because a white shirt and tie was more or less the standard uniform for managers in the business and one didn't want to be calling on clients looking all hot and sweaty, and partially because I spent the ride to work planning my day. While a dedicated bicyclist might argue that these are all surmountable problems the whole point is that they were sufficient, for me to decide not to ride a bike to work. -- cheers, John B. When I lived in Toronto Ontario Canada I was fortunate to be able to bicycle commute to any of the jobs I had there. In most cases it was faster than taking the transit even though where I lived there were 2 streetcars going up to the subway. I'd have a leisurely ride into work and then use the return ride for interval training. Two jobs I had were fantastic because one route I could take was along a gorgeous valley road (Rosedale Valley)and another route ran through a number of connected parks and both routes eliminated almost all of the traffic that I'd otherwise have encountered had I had to use the roads. Once again with bicycle commuting it's a case of different strokes for different folks with different wants/needs. Cheers |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Is cycling dangerous? | Bertie Wooster[_2_] | UK | 20 | March 17th 14 09:43 PM |
Cycling casualties plummet despite rise in numbers | Simon Mason[_4_] | UK | 7 | April 6th 12 08:06 AM |
"Cycling is not dangerous. Cars are dangerous." | Doug[_3_] | UK | 56 | September 14th 09 05:57 PM |
Help Texas Cycling call these numbers throughout the weekend | Anton Berlin | Racing | 4 | June 25th 09 08:58 PM |
Cycling is dangerous | Garry Jones | General | 375 | November 21st 03 05:52 PM |