IN HONEST STATISTICS (NOT THE KRYGOWSKI KIND), IS CYCLING SAFE — OR DANGEROUS?

On Tue, 26 Nov 2013 00:47:35 +0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

Wes Groleau wrote:
On 11-25-2013, 11:32, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Death tolls tend to rise or fall with road use. When hard times and/or
gas prices and/or demographic trends reduce the miles driven, fewer
drivers and passengers are killed. “Millennials aren’t driving cars,”
some claim. OTOH, cycling seems to be rising in popularity, so bike
deaths should have a tendency to rise, even though that tendency may be
partially offset by other factors.

More cyclists may mean more targets for cars to hit.

BUT it may also mean fewer cars to hit them.

Larger cycling presence reduces accidents with cars.
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cont...3/205.full.pdf


I recently came across some numbers that are very informative.

Taken from the Web site of
http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/facts/crash-facts.cfm

This site states that:

The 2002 National Survey of Pedestrian and Bicyclist Attitudes and
Behaviors was sponsored by the US Department of Transportation,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and Bureau of
Transportation Statistics in order to gauge pedestrian and bicyclist
trips, behaviors, and attitudes.

According to the survey, approximately 57 million people, 27.3 percent
of the population age 16 or older, rode a bicycle at least once during
the summer of 2002. The survey breaks this down by gender, age, and
race/ethnicity.

They also state that:
Bicyclist Deaths in 2011: 677 (NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts)

So according to what appears to be a site that advocates cycling we
have;

Accidents 677 divided by total cyclists = 0.000011877 or 0.0011877%

Or, 677 divided by (total cyclists divided by 100,000) = 1.187719298
per 100,000.

Which would seem to show that bicycle riding is far the safest
activity that one can engage in.

By the way, PubMed.gov states:

"based on the data gathered in the department of forensic medicine at
the University Hospital of Johann Wolfgang Goethe University in
Frankfurt/Main. Over a period of 21 years (1972-1992), roughly 21,000
forensic autopsies revealed 39 cases (0.19%) of natural deaths
occurring during sexual activity."

Natural deaths in the U.S. in 2009 = 2,473,000 and 0.19% of that
number seems to amount to some 4698.7, or 190 per 100,000.

So in essence, bicycle riding is far safer than having sex.

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 17:15:58 -0800, sms wrote:

On 11/25/2013 5:02 PM, John B. wrote:

snip

Limiting hand phone use while driving is extremely simple to
accomplish. In Singapore, for example, talking on a hand phone while
driving is punishable by up to a S$1,000 fine and six months in prison.

Except "studies have shown" that the problem with phone use is not
holding the phone in one's hand, it's the lack of concentration on
driving caused by the phone conversation. So even using a headset isn't
going to fix the problem of distracted driving. Too bad that using a
cell phone jammer is illegal.

Who's going to know? And what are they going to do about it? Call the
cops?
--
davethedave

On 11/26/2013 7:18 AM, davethedave wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 17:15:58 -0800, sms wrote:

On 11/25/2013 5:02 PM, John B. wrote:

snip

Limiting hand phone use while driving is extremely simple to
accomplish. In Singapore, for example, talking on a hand phone while
driving is punishable by up to a S$1,000 fine and six months in prison.

Except "studies have shown" that the problem with phone use is not
holding the phone in one's hand, it's the lack of concentration on
driving caused by the phone conversation. So even using a headset isn't
going to fix the problem of distracted driving. Too bad that using a
cell phone jammer is illegal.

Who's going to know? And what are they going to do about it? Call the
cops?

Probably no one will know. But it's a federal crime even to possess such
a device. Not something I'd be willing to risk. YMMV.

http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/jammerenforcement/jamfaq.pdf

On Monday, November 25, 2013 8:32:24 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:

snip

I think road death tolls change for various reasons, some of which are properly credited, some of which are not. For example:


snip

What I'd love to see would be more competence and courtesy from all road users - motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians - because of public information campaigns and other education efforts.


So incompetence and discourtesy exists because people don't *know* any
better?? ... And *billboards* will turn that around??? Duuuuuuuuude!

Sadly, I think that's a negligible contribution to the improvements we've seen.


You don't think it's gotten worse?

On Tue, 26 Nov 2013 09:51:47 -0800, sms wrote:

On 11/26/2013 7:18 AM, davethedave wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 17:15:58 -0800, sms wrote:

On 11/25/2013 5:02 PM, John B. wrote:

snip

Limiting hand phone use while driving is extremely simple to
accomplish. In Singapore, for example, talking on a hand phone while
driving is punishable by up to a S$1,000 fine and six months in
prison.

Except "studies have shown" that the problem with phone use is not
holding the phone in one's hand, it's the lack of concentration on
driving caused by the phone conversation. So even using a headset
isn't going to fix the problem of distracted driving. Too bad that
using a cell phone jammer is illegal.

Who's going to know? And what are they going to do about it? Call the
cops?

Probably no one will know. But it's a federal crime even to possess such
a device. Not something I'd be willing to risk. YMMV.

http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/jammerenforcement/jamfaq.pdf

That does seem to be a remarkably butt hurting fine they have attached to
the usage of them. That said, it's also probably a good thing you can't
buy them in Walmart.

I did put a smiley on the end as an attempt to indicate the irony of the
wronged party being unable to make a call to complain about not being
able to make calls.

--
davethedave

On Tuesday, November 26, 2013 3:13:22 PM UTC-5, Dan O wrote:
On Monday, November 25, 2013 8:32:24 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:

What I'd love to see would be more competence and courtesy from all road users - motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians - because of public information campaigns and other education efforts.

So incompetence and discourtesy exists because people don't *know* any
better?? ... And *billboards* will turn that around??? Duuuuuuuuude!

As always, I hesitate to respond, for obvious reasons. But:

Many motorists honestly do not know that bicyclists have full rights to the road. Many bicyclists honestly think they are supposed to ride facing traffic. These and many, many other examples of ignorance (i.e. not knowing) are fixable by public information campaigns and other education efforts.

Billboards might be just one means of delivering educational messages; there are many other possibilities, which I've described many times. The cost need not be high.

I know you're very skeptical of education. But educators have a saying: "Stupidity is permanent. Ignorance, we can fix."

I think we should try to fix ignorance.

- Frank Krygowski

On Tue, 26 Nov 2013 13:57:50 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Tuesday, November 26, 2013 3:13:22 PM UTC-5, Dan O wrote:
On Monday, November 25, 2013 8:32:24 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:

What I'd love to see would be more competence and courtesy from all road users - motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians - because of public information campaigns and other education efforts.

So incompetence and discourtesy exists because people don't *know* any
better?? ... And *billboards* will turn that around??? Duuuuuuuuude!

As always, I hesitate to respond, for obvious reasons. But:

Many motorists honestly do not know that bicyclists have full rights to the road. Many bicyclists honestly think they are supposed to ride facing traffic. These and many, many other examples of ignorance (i.e. not knowing) are fixable by public information campaigns and other education efforts.

Billboards might be just one means of delivering educational messages; there are many other possibilities, which I've described many times. The cost need not be high.

I know you're very skeptical of education. But educators have a saying: "Stupidity is permanent. Ignorance, we can fix."

I think we should try to fix ignorance.

- Frank Krygowski

I have the faint suspicion that it is less a matter of education and
more a matter of "impede-ance". More a matter of auto traffic rolling
along at, say 80 KPH, while the bicycle is laboring along at 20.

I can remember, in my youth, signs used to be posted along highways,
"Slow moving traffic keep right" and every state that I lived in had
highway codes that forbid "impeding traffic". And that, I suggest, is
the root of the matter.

When I was going to school I had a motorcycle for a period and I can
honestly say that no one ever honked at me, threw cans of beer at me,
or even passed me closely. In fact, quite the opposite, I was passing
them.

The main north - south highway out of Bangkok is a four lane divided
highway. Built probably 40 or 50 years ago it is overloaded with
traffic and speeds are often times slow. I was at the corner of a
smaller road that entered the "Super Highway" waiting for a "hole" so
I could turn onto the larger road and I saw a group of four cyclists
approaching down the highway. They were traveling faster than the auto
traffic and frequently passing the slower vehicles and nobody seemed
to give a hoot. No beer cans in the air, no beep, beeping. Nothing.

So, my theory is, that bicycles that do not impede traffic will have
experience few problems than the bicycles that do, will.

I tested this theory the other day (for a very short time) on a street
that has slower traffic than some I ride on and pedaling along at 22
KPH one can acquire a "tail" in quite a surprisingly short time and
the beep, beeping, was very noticeable, and my guess is that no amount
of education is going to convince the commuter on his/her way to work
that the damned bicycle that is impeding his progress is justified in
doing so.

(by the way, the four bikes on the super Highway were passing cars
much closer then the mentioned 3 feet of space :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Tuesday, November 26, 2013 7:31:06 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 26 Nov 2013 13:57:50 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski wrote:

Many motorists honestly do not know that bicyclists have full rights to the road. Many bicyclists honestly think they are supposed to ride facing traffic. These and many, many other examples of ignorance (i.e. not knowing) are fixable by public information campaigns and other education efforts. ...


I have the faint suspicion that it is less a matter of education and
more a matter of "impede-ance". More a matter of auto traffic rolling
along at, say 80 KPH, while the bicycle is laboring along at 20.

... I saw a group of four cyclists
approaching down the highway. They were traveling faster than the auto
traffic and frequently passing the slower vehicles and nobody seemed
to give a hoot. No beer cans in the air, no beep, beeping. Nothing.

So, my theory is, that bicycles that do not impede traffic will have
experience few problems than the bicycles that do, will.

The impeding issue is certainly a factor, but I don't think it's the only one. There have been plenty of accounts of motorists getting mad at cyclists who filter forward, IOW go faster than the cars. Didn't we have a poster here who claimed that, absent a bike lane, motorists would purposely pull within a foot of the right curb, specifically to keep him from riding past?

Also, I drive or ride through Amish territory many times per year. I've never observed hostility toward buggy drivers, even though they often have cars backed up behind them. The same is true for slow trucks, school buses, farm machinery, etc.

In any case, it should help to tell motorists (over and over) that bicyclists have full rights to the road. Likewise, it should help to tell bicyclists that they must ride with traffic, using lights at night, obeying signs and signals. There's a lot of ignorance out there.

(by the way, the four bikes on the super Highway were passing cars
much closer then the mentioned 3 feet of space :-)

The three foot laws or recommendations are imperfect, I'll admit. But I think they're better than unspecified "safe distance" laws.

I'm part of an organization that's trying to get a three foot law passed here in Ohio. So far, it's stuck in committee. The objecting legislators have said they don't want to pass it because bicyclists don't obey traffic laws.

- Frank Krygowski

On Wed, 27 Nov 2013 08:34:35 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Tuesday, November 26, 2013 7:31:06 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 26 Nov 2013 13:57:50 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski wrote:

Many motorists honestly do not know that bicyclists have full rights to the road. Many bicyclists honestly think they are supposed to ride facing traffic. These and many, many other examples of ignorance (i.e. not knowing) are fixable by public information campaigns and other education efforts. ...


I have the faint suspicion that it is less a matter of education and
more a matter of "impede-ance". More a matter of auto traffic rolling
along at, say 80 KPH, while the bicycle is laboring along at 20.

... I saw a group of four cyclists
approaching down the highway. They were traveling faster than the auto
traffic and frequently passing the slower vehicles and nobody seemed
to give a hoot. No beer cans in the air, no beep, beeping. Nothing.

So, my theory is, that bicycles that do not impede traffic will have
experience few problems than the bicycles that do, will.

The impeding issue is certainly a factor, but I don't think it's the only one. There have been plenty of accounts of motorists getting mad at cyclists who filter forward, IOW go faster than the cars. Didn't we have a poster here who claimed that, absent a bike lane, motorists would purposely pull within a foot of the right curb, specifically to keep him from riding past?

Yes, I had that happen. On a motorcycle.
On the other hand, there you are stuck in a long line of cars and
here's some fool, on a damned bicycle, squirming his way up to the
head of the line...

Also, I drive or ride through Amish territory many times per year. I've never observed hostility toward buggy drivers, even though they often have cars backed up behind them. The same is true for slow trucks, school buses, farm machinery, etc.

Well, the lain folk" are following God's word,,,, cyclists are just
grown-up people playing with kids toys.

In any case, it should help to tell motorists (over and over) that bicyclists have full rights to the road. Likewise, it should help to tell bicyclists that they must ride with traffic, using lights at night, obeying signs and signals. There's a lot of ignorance out there.

Using lights at night? Obeying the Law? You must be some sort of
radical :-)

(by the way, the four bikes on the super Highway were passing cars
much closer then the mentioned 3 feet of space :-)

The three foot laws or recommendations are imperfect, I'll admit. But I think they're better than unspecified "safe distance" laws.

Actually, if they don't hit you what complaint does one actually have?
"Oooo, he almost hit me? "

I'm part of an organization that's trying to get a three foot law passed here in Ohio. So far, it's stuck in committee. The objecting legislators have said they don't want to pass it because bicyclists don't obey traffic laws.

That sounds like some logical people - "Those SOB's don't obey the law
anyway. Why encumber the books with yet another law to be ignored"?

- Frank Krygowski

:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.