Today's reading: Comparisons of danger

On 5/25/2019 11:47 AM, AMuzi wrote:

snip

People who ride, ride and you can't stop us.
People who don't ride, don't and you can't make them.

But apparently you can get a substantial number of people that didn't
ride to ride by providing certain types of infrastructure.

I think we were all rather surprised by the 75% increase in the number
of cyclists in Columbus Ohio on Summit Street following the installation
of protected bike lanes
http://www.dot.state.oh.us/engineering/OTEC/2017Presentations/72/Moorhead_72.pdf.
Of course some of those additional cyclists could have switched from
other streets.

The negative about that project was an increase in non-fatal crashes,
but from the photos that appears to be a particularly bad implementation
of a protected bike lane--a two way protected bike lane on a one way
street. In my city we looked, briefly, at two-way protected bike lanes
and quickly abandoned that idea because the only appeal was lower cost.

Last week we broke ground on a section of protected bike lane in my
city. When I spoke, I mentioned the Columbus project but said that I'd
be thrilled with just a 15% increase!
https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/city-news/mcclellan-road-protected-bikeways-project.

On Sat, 25 May 2019 20:36:01 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Saturday, May 25, 2019 at 10:36:45 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2019 13:47:03 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 5/25/2019 12:08 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, May 24, 2019 at 7:38:47 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/24/2019 3:22 AM, wrote:
On Friday, May 24, 2019 at 4:24:32 AM UTC+2, Frank Krygowski wrote:
It's been pointed out that "safe" vs. "dangerous" is not a binary
choice. There are various levels of risk, and activities can be very
dangerous, very safe, or every shade in between.

One rational way of judging an activity's level of safety is to compare
it with other activities. These comparisons have been done for a long
time, using different methods, and bicycling tends to come out of the
comparisons looking quite good.

Of course, some here strongly disapprove of such comparisons. They say
it somehow doesn't matter that (as data from several countries show)
bicycling's fatality rate per mile is lower than that for walking. Or
that bicycling's fatality rate per hour is far lower than that for
swimming. Or that bicyclists report fewer injuries per month than
gardeners. For those people, anything that shows bicycling is safe must
be mocked.

Well, yet another team of researchers disagrees. See Chieng, et. al.,
"How dangerous is cycling in New Zealand?", Journal of Transport &
Health, Vol. 6 (2017), pp. 23-28.

"We compared the risks of tpical exposures to road cycling for transport
with other common activities including do-it-yourself repairs (DIY) at
home, horse riding, quad bike riding, rugby union and snow sports...
Based on moderate injuries, cycling is less dangerous than many
recreationa and every day activities. We conclude that fear of cycling
in car-dependent New Zealand arises mainly from other causes than risk
of injury..."

Their metric was a bit unusual. They first used information on typical
monthly exposure for those who chose each activity in the list; and they
calculated expected injuries for a typical exposure (multiplied by a
million to shift the decimal point for easier discussion). For example,
horse riders don't tend to ride as often as transportational cyclists,
so if the per-hour injury rate were identical, horse riding would get a
sort of bonus and cycling would be penalized.

But horse riding is not identical in danger to bicycling. In fact, they
found "a typical exposure to cycling ... was 1.2 to 2.2 times safer than
DIY, 1.3 to 5.3 times safer than horse riding, 60 to 140 times safer
than skiing and 460 to 530 times safer than rugby." That's even though
the "typical exposure to cycling" is many more hours per year than most
of the activities they rated.

They also note "Also, we have not accounted for other impacts on health
than injury, although these mostly weigh heavily in favour of the
bicycle. (Numerous studies report that health gains from increased
physical activity exceed by a wide margin detrimental effects of injury
and pollution.)"

Further on, they say injury "...figures are very small in absolute
terms, and cannot explain why bicycles are singled out as 'unsafe'."
But they note the "Danger! Danger!" tendency of most bike safety
material: "Road safety programmes commonly emphasise the dangers of
cycling."

Yes indeed. So how can we get people to stop claiming riding a bike is
terribly dangerous? That nonsense spews not only from certain posters
here, but from every "protected bike lane" fan, every "wear your helmet"
nanny, every "Daytime Running Lights!" whacko, every "bright yellow
jacket" fashionista.

And most of those people are dedicated bicyclists! Why is it that
bicyclists are so dedicate to shooting themselves in the foot?

--
- Frank Krygowski

Everyone finds cycling as dangerous as he or she experiences it so you can stop your long essays. They don't change anything. They only make you look pedant.

Lou, the authors of the paper disagree with you. They point out that
propaganda has falsely convinced people that bicycling is dangerous; and
the result is that vast numbers of people _don't_ experience it. They
discuss this in some detail at the end of their paper.

What propaganda? What "vast numbers of people"? A lot of people don't ride in heavy traffic because it sucks -- or because they're lazy or even because they don't like riding around other cyclists. It's not all about perceived danger. Like I've said before, I have some high mileage friends who gave up riding on some roads just because they were unpleasant and stressful.

I know very few people, if any, who legitimately don't ride because of danger or the supposed danger propaganda. Most of the people who talk to me in the elevator about it being too dangerous to ride have a doughnut in one hand and a double-tall caramel machiato with whipped cream in the other. You could put in an elevated cycling tube from their homes, and they would find some other reason for not riding. People who want to ride typically can find a traffic calmed street or bicycle facility to use -- or some other facility where they feel comfortable.

Some roads I ride are dangerous because the locals are plain vicious -- the PU drivers in rural counties who want to make a point by making close passes on shoulderless country roads with ridiculously high speed limits (50-55mph). Riding lane center makes no difference except in terms of how long the honking lasts. No cycling technique makes a difference. Maybe Atavan or a shotgun would make a difference. It is plain unpleasant, and I totally understand riders staying away.

Many of my quiet country rides are now miserable, nearly constant interactions with cars speeding to and from the new pop-up suburbs. Would I prefer a dedicated bike lane or separated facility. Sure, but I don't expect to get one any time soon. Riding in heavy downtown traffic is actually safer and less stressful because speeds are so low and taking the lane is usually enough to prevent close passing, assuming I feel like sitting in traffic and not filtering, which is entirely legal and a whole lot faster.

-- Jay Beattie.



+1 good overview.

People who ride, ride and you can't stop us.
People who don't ride, don't and you can't make them.

(in a small meek voice) Mister, you mean even if they build segregated
bicycle paths?
--
cheers,

John B.

Yeppers! Most segregated bike paths I've read about soon become MUPs with all the problems of those. This is not to mention keeping a segregated bike path free of debris.

Cheers

Actually I had read, somewhere, that de-segregation was the name of
the game in America. Thus isn't a segregated bicycle path politically
incorrect?
--
cheers,

John B.

On Sat, 25 May 2019 23:15:07 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 5/25/2019 7:34 PM, John B. wrote:

snip

Truly? Are people in the U.S. actually so vicious? To deliberately
pass very closely when passing bicycles?

Yes. And it only takes a few such people. Judging from our last
presidential election, there are lot more such people than anyone believed.

Ah but, that is one of the glories of the Democratic system that the
U.S. so vigorously promotes all around the world. If you just hold an
election to select your leader(s) they can do no wrong.
--
cheers,

John B.

On 5/25/2019 10:34 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2019 10:08:31 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:


Much deleted

Everyone finds cycling as dangerous as he or she experiences it so you can stop your long essays. They don't change anything. They only make you look pedant.

Lou, the authors of the paper disagree with you. They point out that
propaganda has falsely convinced people that bicycling is dangerous; and
the result is that vast numbers of people _don't_ experience it. They
discuss this in some detail at the end of their paper.

What propaganda? What "vast numbers of people"? A lot of people don't ride in heavy traffic because it sucks -- or because they're lazy or even because they don't like riding around other cyclists. It's not all about perceived danger. Like I've said before, I have some high mileage friends who gave up riding on some roads just because they were unpleasant and stressful.

I know very few people, if any, who legitimately don't ride because of danger or the supposed danger propaganda. Most of the people who talk to me in the elevator about it being too dangerous to ride have a doughnut in one hand and a double-tall caramel machiato with whipped cream in the other. You could put in an elevated cycling tube from their homes, and they would find some other reason for not riding. People who want to ride typically can find a traffic calmed street or bicycle facility to use -- or some other facility where they feel comfortable.

Some roads I ride are dangerous because the locals are plain vicious -- the PU drivers in rural counties who want to make a point by making close passes on shoulderless country roads with ridiculously high speed limits (50-55mph). Riding lane center makes no difference except in terms of how long the honking lasts. No cycling technique makes a difference. Maybe Atavan or a shotgun would make a difference. It is plain unpleasant, and I totally understand riders staying away.

Truly? Are people in the U.S. actually so vicious? To deliberately
pass very closely when passing bicycles?

It happens. Since I started riding more prominently in the lane (away
from the gutter) it's been rare, but it happens.

I think there are several reasons. Some motorists who honestly don't
know that it's a bad practice. Some motorists who honestly don't know
how wide their car is. (Keep in mind, the standards for passing a U.S.
driver's license test are laughably low.)

More often, there are motorists who can't be bothered to delay
themselves for ten seconds. They try to squeeze by even though other
cars prevent safe passing clearance.

The worst are the type Jay describes, who execute a "punishment pass."
They object to a bicyclists using "their" road, and deliberately scare
the cyclist by passing close, often while roaring the engine, honking
the horn, etc.

Again, for me close passes are a rare event. For edge riders, they're
more common. And apparently in some redneck parts of the country they're
more common.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/26/2019 2:39 AM, sms wrote:
On 5/25/2019 11:47 AM, AMuzi wrote:

snip

People who ride, ride and you can't stop us.
People who don't ride, don't and you can't make them.

But apparently you can get a substantial number of people that didn't
ride to ride by providing certain types of infrastructure.

I think we were all rather surprised by the 75% increase in the number
of cyclists in Columbus Ohio on Summit Street following the installation
of protected bike lanes
http://www.dot.state.oh.us/engineering/OTEC/2017Presentations/72/Moorhead_72.pdf.
Of course some of those additional cyclists could have switched from
other streets.

The negative about that project was an increase in non-fatal crashes,
but from the photos that appears to be a particularly bad implementation
of a protected bike lane--a two way protected bike lane on a one way
street. In my city we looked, briefly, at two-way protected bike lanes
and quickly abandoned that idea because the only appeal was lower cost.

Last week we broke ground on a section of protected bike lane in my
city. When I spoke, I mentioned the Columbus project but said that I'd
be thrilled with just a 15% increase!
https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/city-news/mcclellan-road-protected-bikeways-project.

Being a politician, I'm sure you didn't mention Columbus's more than
700% increases in crashes on their "protected" bikeway.

And you didn't point out that crashes increasing ten times as much as
riding indicates a problem.


--
- Frank Krygowski

Truly? Are people in the U.S. actually so vicious? To deliberately
pass very closely when passing bicycles?

Once I was riding in the winter on a road that was mostly clear but had a line
of slush down the middle. A pickup truck, going in the opposite direction,
moved left just enough to spray me with slush as it passed. No doubt in my mind
that it was deliberate.

On Sun, 26 May 2019 11:26:06 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/25/2019 10:34 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2019 10:08:31 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:


Much deleted

Everyone finds cycling as dangerous as he or she experiences it so you can stop your long essays. They don't change anything. They only make you look pedant.

Lou, the authors of the paper disagree with you. They point out that
propaganda has falsely convinced people that bicycling is dangerous; and
the result is that vast numbers of people _don't_ experience it. They
discuss this in some detail at the end of their paper.

What propaganda? What "vast numbers of people"? A lot of people don't ride in heavy traffic because it sucks -- or because they're lazy or even because they don't like riding around other cyclists. It's not all about perceived danger. Like I've said before, I have some high mileage friends who gave up riding on some roads just because they were unpleasant and stressful.

I know very few people, if any, who legitimately don't ride because of danger or the supposed danger propaganda. Most of the people who talk to me in the elevator about it being too dangerous to ride have a doughnut in one hand and a double-tall caramel machiato with whipped cream in the other. You could put in an elevated cycling tube from their homes, and they would find some other reason for not riding. People who want to ride typically can find a traffic calmed street or bicycle facility to use -- or some other facility where they feel comfortable.

Some roads I ride are dangerous because the locals are plain vicious -- the PU drivers in rural counties who want to make a point by making close passes on shoulderless country roads with ridiculously high speed limits (50-55mph). Riding lane center makes no difference except in terms of how long the honking lasts. No cycling technique makes a difference. Maybe Atavan or a shotgun would make a difference. It is plain unpleasant, and I totally understand riders staying away.

Truly? Are people in the U.S. actually so vicious? To deliberately
pass very closely when passing bicycles?

It happens. Since I started riding more prominently in the lane (away
from the gutter) it's been rare, but it happens.

I think there are several reasons. Some motorists who honestly don't
know that it's a bad practice. Some motorists who honestly don't know
how wide their car is. (Keep in mind, the standards for passing a U.S.
driver's license test are laughably low.)

More often, there are motorists who can't be bothered to delay
themselves for ten seconds. They try to squeeze by even though other
cars prevent safe passing clearance.

The worst are the type Jay describes, who execute a "punishment pass."
They object to a bicyclists using "their" road, and deliberately scare
the cyclist by passing close, often while roaring the engine, honking
the horn, etc.

Again, for me close passes are a rare event. For edge riders, they're
more common. And apparently in some redneck parts of the country they're
more common.

Admittedly I've not been in the U.S. for a long time but I don't
remember it like that at all.

I even lived in what you refer to as "Red Neck" country for quite a
number of years and I actually found the bulk of the "Red Necks to be
quite polite and very friendly. It wasn't all "tobacco road" either.
One bloke that used to come in the shop owned three off-shore drilling
rigs, another "farmed" something like a hundred acres of cotton and
one was a lawyer... who along with his father had one client, the
Gracie More Estate, or some such name. I asked the boss about this
"Gracie More Estate" and he told me it was a cotton plantation where
they found oil.

It sure must have changed.
--
cheers,

John B.

On 5/26/2019 4:57 PM, Bertrand wrote:
Truly? Are people in the U.S. actually so vicious? To deliberately
pass very closely when passing bicycles?

Once I was riding in the winter on a road that was mostly clear but had
a line of slush down the middle.Â* A pickup truck, going in the opposite
direction, moved left just enough to spray me with slush as it passed.
No doubt in my mind that it was deliberate.

I once had something very similar happen to me when I was walking on a
sidewalk. The driver swerved to hit a curbside puddle.

Some people are just jerks. I don't think there's a cure.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sun, 26 May 2019 11:36:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/26/2019 2:39 AM, sms wrote:
On 5/25/2019 11:47 AM, AMuzi wrote:

snip

People who ride, ride and you can't stop us.
People who don't ride, don't and you can't make them.

But apparently you can get a substantial number of people that didn't
ride to ride by providing certain types of infrastructure.

I think we were all rather surprised by the 75% increase in the number
of cyclists in Columbus Ohio on Summit Street following the installation
of protected bike lanes
http://www.dot.state.oh.us/engineering/OTEC/2017Presentations/72/Moorhead_72.pdf.
Of course some of those additional cyclists could have switched from
other streets.

The negative about that project was an increase in non-fatal crashes,
but from the photos that appears to be a particularly bad implementation
of a protected bike lane--a two way protected bike lane on a one way
street. In my city we looked, briefly, at two-way protected bike lanes
and quickly abandoned that idea because the only appeal was lower cost.

Last week we broke ground on a section of protected bike lane in my
city. When I spoke, I mentioned the Columbus project but said that I'd
be thrilled with just a 15% increase!
https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/city-news/mcclellan-road-protected-bikeways-project.

Being a politician, I'm sure you didn't mention Columbus's more than
700% increases in crashes on their "protected" bikeway.

And you didn't point out that crashes increasing ten times as much as
riding indicates a problem.

Heavens to Betsy! If he did that they wouldn't be able to built those
brand spanking new segregated bicycle paths and nobody would ever
again ride a bicycle in his little town.

You see Frank it isn't whether cyclists are actually safer just as
long as they perceive themselves to be safer :-)

And if they perceive themselves to be safe than they will multiply
like rabbets and he will become famous as the bloke that influenced so
many people to ride bicycles that the car dealers of southern
California all went bankrupt.

And he will be elected again and again and will be able to give up his
gorilla marketing project.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 26 May 2019 16:57:06 -0400, Bertrand
wrote:

Truly? Are people in the U.S. actually so vicious? To deliberately
pass very closely when passing bicycles?

Once I was riding in the winter on a road that was mostly clear but had a line
of slush down the middle. A pickup truck, going in the opposite direction,
moved left just enough to spray me with slush as it passed. No doubt in my mind
that it was deliberate.

Yes, as they say "although one is paranoid it doesn't mean that
someone is not out to get you".
--
cheers,

John B.