|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
another Chicago cyclist
https://wbbm780.radio.com/dodge-char...h-pulaski-park
-- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
another Chicago cyclist
On 9/24/2018 11:30 AM, AMuzi wrote:
https://wbbm780.radio.com/dodge-char...h-pulaski-park The guy almost certainly was a cyclist, since he was standing with a bike. But this should be counted as a pedestrian death, not a bicycling death, because he was _standing_ with a bike. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
another Chicago cyclist
On 9/24/2018 11:09 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/24/2018 11:30 AM, AMuzi wrote: https://wbbm780.radio.com/dodge-char...h-pulaski-park The guy almost certainly was a cyclist, since he was standing with a bike. But this should be counted as a pedestrian death, not a bicycling death, because he was _standing_ with a bike. Report omits his helmet (+ / -) status. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
another Chicago cyclist
On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 12:09:32 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 9/24/2018 11:30 AM, AMuzi wrote: https://wbbm780.radio.com/dodge-char...h-pulaski-park The guy almost certainly was a cyclist, since he was standing with a bike. But this should be counted as a pedestrian death, not a bicycling death, because he was _standing_ with a bike. I beg to differ. I researched this type of statistical problem a few years ago. However, I'm not sure I can recall the exactly logic and standards. As I understand it, the means of transportation involved in the accident is on the basis of whether the vehicle was involved in the accident. The term "involved" is key here, as it can include a wide variety of ways a person might be involved. If someone stopped their car on a freeway, got out of the car, and was hit by passing traffic, that person would NOT be considered a pedestrian simply because they were not sitting in their car. It would be a vehicle accident because a car was "involved". Similarly, if someone was riding their bicycle, dismounted and was hit by a car, it would still be a cycling accident because the vehicle "involved" was a bicycle. There is also something involving a persons intent to travel in some manner. If their intent was to ride a bicycle or drive a car, even though they were not riding or driving at that exact moment in time, they would still be considered a bicycle rider or car driver, rather than a pedestrian. However, I don't know exactly how the statistics are tabulated. Does a car versus bicycle accident count as one accident or two (one each for the car and for the bicycle)? I thought it might be buried in here, but I guess not: https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812507 There should be something on the NHTSA site, but I couldn't find it. https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
another Chicago cyclist
On 9/24/2018 12:04 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 12:09:32 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 9/24/2018 11:30 AM, AMuzi wrote: https://wbbm780.radio.com/dodge-char...h-pulaski-park The guy almost certainly was a cyclist, since he was standing with a bike. But this should be counted as a pedestrian death, not a bicycling death, because he was _standing_ with a bike. I beg to differ. I researched this type of statistical problem a few years ago. However, I'm not sure I can recall the exactly logic and standards. As I understand it, the means of transportation involved in the accident is on the basis of whether the vehicle was involved in the accident. The term "involved" is key here, as it can include a wide variety of ways a person might be involved. If someone stopped their car on a freeway, got out of the car, and was hit by passing traffic, that person would NOT be considered a pedestrian simply because they were not sitting in their car. It would be a vehicle accident because a car was "involved". Similarly, if someone was riding their bicycle, dismounted and was hit by a car, it would still be a cycling accident because the vehicle "involved" was a bicycle. There is also something involving a persons intent to travel in some manner. If their intent was to ride a bicycle or drive a car, even though they were not riding or driving at that exact moment in time, they would still be considered a bicycle rider or car driver, rather than a pedestrian. However, I don't know exactly how the statistics are tabulated. Does a car versus bicycle accident count as one accident or two (one each for the car and for the bicycle)? I thought it might be buried in here, but I guess not: https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812507 There should be something on the NHTSA site, but I couldn't find it. https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov I don't know. However if one is drunk and asleep in a car with keys in pocket, car not running, it's still a DUI under WI statute. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
another Chicago cyclist
Frank Krygowski wrote:
:On 9/24/2018 11:30 AM, AMuzi wrote: : https://wbbm780.radio.com/dodge-char...h-pulaski-park Also, that is no pulaski park. There is a pulaski park, which is why the **** south, but it's just a park, not a neighborhood. this is north park. (I live a mile south of there, also in North park.) Some idiot pulbished a map of chicago neighorhoods, and got lots of them wrong. And of course, WLS routinely relys on it, rather than getting facts. -- sig 29 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
another Chicago cyclist
On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 10:04:21 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote: On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 12:09:32 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 9/24/2018 11:30 AM, AMuzi wrote: https://wbbm780.radio.com/dodge-char...h-pulaski-park The guy almost certainly was a cyclist, since he was standing with a bike. But this should be counted as a pedestrian death, not a bicycling death, because he was _standing_ with a bike. I beg to differ. I researched this type of statistical problem a few years ago. However, I'm not sure I can recall the exactly logic and standards. As I understand it, the means of transportation involved in the accident is on the basis of whether the vehicle was involved in the accident. The term "involved" is key here, as it can include a wide variety of ways a person might be involved. If someone stopped their car on a freeway, got out of the car, and was hit by passing traffic, that person would NOT be considered a pedestrian simply because they were not sitting in their car. So if I was to go to a public toilet, and was run over after leaving, that would be a "****ing accident" ? []'s -- Don't be evil - Google 2004 We have a new policy - Google 2012 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
another Chicago cyclist
On 9/24/2018 1:04 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 12:09:32 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 9/24/2018 11:30 AM, AMuzi wrote: https://wbbm780.radio.com/dodge-char...h-pulaski-park The guy almost certainly was a cyclist, since he was standing with a bike. But this should be counted as a pedestrian death, not a bicycling death, because he was _standing_ with a bike. I beg to differ. I researched this type of statistical problem a few years ago. However, I'm not sure I can recall the exactly logic and standards. As I understand it, the means of transportation involved in the accident is on the basis of whether the vehicle was involved in the accident. The term "involved" is key here, as it can include a wide variety of ways a person might be involved. If someone stopped their car on a freeway, got out of the car, and was hit by passing traffic, that person would NOT be considered a pedestrian simply because they were not sitting in their car. It would be a vehicle accident because a car was "involved". Similarly, if someone was riding their bicycle, dismounted and was hit by a car, it would still be a cycling accident because the vehicle "involved" was a bicycle. OK, on following a link, I see that he had been riding and stopped, perhaps for a stop sign or red light when he was hit. I agree, that should be tabulated as a bike crash. But IIRC, the woman killed by the self-driving car a while back was walking her bike across the road. Seems to me that should be treated as a pedestrian incident. The presence of the bike was incidental. Two days ago, my wife walked a kid's bike back to the kid's house from a nearby park. If she had been injured, that too should be a pedestrian incident. The presence of a bike was incidental. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
another Chicago cyclist
On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 17:09:49 -0300, Shadow wrote:
So if I was to go to a public toilet, and was run over after leaving, that would be a "****ing accident" ? []'s Only if you were using the toilet for transportation. https://www.google.com/search?q=toilet+bicycle&tbm=isch I'm not sure if there is a distinction between a bicycle with a toilet seat saddle and a bicycle powered toilet. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
another Chicago cyclist
On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 17:28:08 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote: But IIRC, the woman killed by the self-driving car a while back was walking her bike across the road. Seems to me that should be treated as a pedestrian incident. The presence of the bike was incidental. I think we can solve the problem by simply asking the end to end distance traveled and how much of that was walking versus riding. If the entire distance traveled was walking a bicycle, then I would concede that it was a pedestrian accident. However, if the majority of the distance was riding the bicycle, and the walking the bicycle was only across one road, I would say that it was a bicycle accident. I have no idea if this is the way it's handled for statistics or in the courts. Two days ago, my wife walked a kid's bike back to the kid's house from a nearby park. If she had been injured, that too should be a pedestrian incident. The presence of a bike was incidental. If your wife was unable to ride the kids bicycle, then I would agree. She was transporting the bicycle, the bicycle was not transporting her. However, if she could have ridden the bicycle, a determination as to which was doing the transporting might first need to be made. Solomon was better at this. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|