HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.

On 5/19/2019 2:00 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/19/2019 11:44 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, May 19, 2019 at 6:56:10 AM UTC-7, Duane wrote:
John B. wrote:
On Sat, 18 May 2019 01:04:14 -0700, sms

wrote:

On 5/17/2019 4:12 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 17 May 2019 08:49:37 -0700, sms

wrote:

On 5/16/2019 5:54 PM, John B. wrote:

snip

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.

Yes, in a tropical climate the "hot and sweaty" issue
is a big one.

In my area, the weather is mild, most larger
companies have showering
and changing facilities, and white shirts and ties
are rare.

The bigger issues around here a
1. I need to pick up children after work or attend
their school activities.
2. I have to work late hours (very common in Silicon
Valley because
you've got a lot of conference calls late at night
when it's daytime in
Asia)
3. There's no safe route.
4. There's no secure bike parking.

We can address 2, 3, and 4, but addressing 1 is hard.

There's no helmet law for adults here, but it's rare
to see any
professionals riding without one. However
professionals are only one
segment of the cycling population. We have a lot of
seniors from China
living with their adult children and they ride
without helmets. We have
a lot of day workers that combine the bus and a bicycle.

Riding without lights is actually a bigger issue
around here, and I just
received my first shipment of 200 rechargeable lights
to give out. I
suppose we could also try to fund helmets, but really
it's unnecessary.
You can buy a new helmet for $15, sometimes even
less. The cost is not
the reason some people don't wear helmets, they just
are willing to
accept the slight extra risk and not wear one.

Taking steps to make cycling safer are more important
than imposing
helmet requirements. Just don't fall for the false
narrative that if
helmets are required then suddenly mass numbers of
people will give up
cycling in protest--there's never been any evidence
of this happening.

Making cycling safer? Is cycling safe? Or is cycling
unsafe? Or is
cycling only perceived as unsafe?

Yes, all of the above.

I ask as annually, in the U.S., approximately 750
people die while
cycling and nearly that many die falling out of bed
and since there
seems to be no concept that going to bed is
"dangerous" than it can't
be a matter of simple numbers.

Oh no, you're not going to start up with this nonsense
are you. Taking
injury and fatality numbers completely out of context
is reserved for
Frank. No one else is allowed to engage in this.

I see. Nonsense because that ~759 bicyclists die each
year? Because
some 737 die from falling out of bed? Or nonsense
because it doesn't
agree with your highly political opinion?

I suggest that the latter is the most likely truth.


Maybe he’d prefer if you talked about the percentage of
cyclists who died
cycling compared to the percentage of people that sleep
in beds who died
falling out of beds. Not that I think either activity
is very dangerous
but this nonsense is getting boring.


Various studies of bicycle "accidents" have found that
from about 30%
to as much as 60% (in at least one study) of the
accidents are the
fault of the cyclist which really does make one wonder
about the mind
set of the cyclists.

"Hey! Just use good sense and obey the traffic laws
and save your
life. "

I find it very strange that no one ever seems to
mention this simple
fact. It is free, it can save you from death, pain,
or an expensive
stay in the hospital, but it seems to be a fact that
is kept a secret
and instead we are told to "wear a helmet", or "we
gotta build safer
bicycle paths". Are the bicycle paths 30 to 60% safer?
Reports I read
seem to indicate that they are even less safe than
riding on the open
road.

Actually I mentioned this today. I stressed that while
the protected
bike lanes, for which construction begins on Monday,
will mitigate some
of the bad behavior of motorists, that they are not a
panacea. I also
mentioned about what transpired in Ohio--big increase
in cycling, but a
lot of crashes on the path (though if you read the
report carefully, not
a many as it first appears).

If I read you correctly you are really saying that
bicyclists behave
badly, do not comply with existing laws and regulations
and (horrors)
don't even display good sense and therefore special
paths and byways
must be constructed at the expense of the public to
protect them from
their own foolish actions.

Whatever happened to those rugged and stalwart folks who
through their
efforts forged a great nation out of a wilderness? All
gone? Like the
dodo?
--
cheers,

John B.

Uh oh, bicycles are suicide machines in the EU!
Particularly where there is developed bicycle
infrastructure. https://tinyurl.com/y4r935l4 NL is like
the killing fields.

The author serves a few tidbits of real knowledge in a stew
of misinformation.

I'd be interested in his source for "In the U.S., as in
Europe, the car’s culpability is mostly a myth: just 29
per cent of bicycle fatalities involved autos." I think
that's completely wrong.



As measured by actual court decisions or merely by a
disinterested omniscient being?

I can see different conclusions drawn using different
filters/methods.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Sunday, May 19, 2019 at 3:00:42 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/19/2019 11:44 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, May 19, 2019 at 6:56:10 AM UTC-7, Duane wrote:
John B. wrote:
On Sat, 18 May 2019 01:04:14 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 5/17/2019 4:12 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 17 May 2019 08:49:37 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 5/16/2019 5:54 PM, John B. wrote:

snip

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.

Yes, in a tropical climate the "hot and sweaty" issue is a big one..

In my area, the weather is mild, most larger companies have showering
and changing facilities, and white shirts and ties are rare.

The bigger issues around here a
1. I need to pick up children after work or attend their school activities.
2. I have to work late hours (very common in Silicon Valley because
you've got a lot of conference calls late at night when it's daytime in
Asia)
3. There's no safe route.
4. There's no secure bike parking.

We can address 2, 3, and 4, but addressing 1 is hard.

There's no helmet law for adults here, but it's rare to see any
professionals riding without one. However professionals are only one
segment of the cycling population. We have a lot of seniors from China
living with their adult children and they ride without helmets. We have
a lot of day workers that combine the bus and a bicycle.

Riding without lights is actually a bigger issue around here, and I just
received my first shipment of 200 rechargeable lights to give out. I
suppose we could also try to fund helmets, but really it's unnecessary.
You can buy a new helmet for $15, sometimes even less. The cost is not
the reason some people don't wear helmets, they just are willing to
accept the slight extra risk and not wear one.

Taking steps to make cycling safer are more important than imposing
helmet requirements. Just don't fall for the false narrative that if
helmets are required then suddenly mass numbers of people will give up
cycling in protest--there's never been any evidence of this happening.

Making cycling safer? Is cycling safe? Or is cycling unsafe? Or is
cycling only perceived as unsafe?

Yes, all of the above.

I ask as annually, in the U.S., approximately 750 people die while
cycling and nearly that many die falling out of bed and since there
seems to be no concept that going to bed is "dangerous" than it can't
be a matter of simple numbers.

Oh no, you're not going to start up with this nonsense are you. Taking
injury and fatality numbers completely out of context is reserved for
Frank. No one else is allowed to engage in this.

I see. Nonsense because that ~759 bicyclists die each year? Because
some 737 die from falling out of bed? Or nonsense because it doesn't
agree with your highly political opinion?

I suggest that the latter is the most likely truth.



Maybe he’d prefer if you talked about the percentage of cyclists who died
cycling compared to the percentage of people that sleep in beds who died
falling out of beds. Not that I think either activity is very dangerous
but this nonsense is getting boring.


Various studies of bicycle "accidents" have found that from about 30%
to as much as 60% (in at least one study) of the accidents are the
fault of the cyclist which really does make one wonder about the mind
set of the cyclists.

"Hey! Just use good sense and obey the traffic laws and save your
life. "

I find it very strange that no one ever seems to mention this simple
fact. It is free, it can save you from death, pain, or an expensive
stay in the hospital, but it seems to be a fact that is kept a secret
and instead we are told to "wear a helmet", or "we gotta build safer
bicycle paths". Are the bicycle paths 30 to 60% safer? Reports I read
seem to indicate that they are even less safe than riding on the open
road.

Actually I mentioned this today. I stressed that while the protected
bike lanes, for which construction begins on Monday, will mitigate some
of the bad behavior of motorists, that they are not a panacea. I also
mentioned about what transpired in Ohio--big increase in cycling, but a
lot of crashes on the path (though if you read the report carefully, not
a many as it first appears).

If I read you correctly you are really saying that bicyclists behave
badly, do not comply with existing laws and regulations and (horrors)
don't even display good sense and therefore special paths and byways
must be constructed at the expense of the public to protect them from
their own foolish actions.

Whatever happened to those rugged and stalwart folks who through their
efforts forged a great nation out of a wilderness? All gone? Like the
dodo?
--
cheers,

John B.

Uh oh, bicycles are suicide machines in the EU! Particularly where there is developed bicycle infrastructure. https://tinyurl.com/y4r935l4 NL is like the killing fields.

The author serves a few tidbits of real knowledge in a stew of
misinformation.

I'd be interested in his source for "In the U.S., as in Europe, the
car’s culpability is mostly a myth: just 29 per cent of bicycle
fatalities involved autos." I think that's completely wrong.


--
- Frank Krygowski

Source? Otherwise it's pure conjecture on your part Frank. Where are the statistics to disprove that 29%?

Here in Waterloo Region (Canada) I see many bicyclists flagrantly disobeying traffic laws. They cause many drivers to have to slam on the brakes or take evasive action by moving left sometimes into an oncoming lane. Many bicyclists themselves hereabouts are also a hazard to other bicyclists especially on MUPs or rail-trails. There's almost always some bicyclist, pairs of bicyclist or even groups of bicyclists on MUPs or rail-trails who seem to think that those utilities are their own private race training grounds. I've seen many cases where such "race training fast riding" bicyclists have hit another bicyclist or forced then off the path or trail and caused them to crash. I've also seen many instances of a bicyclist blowing through a red light or stop sign and just narrowly being hit by a vehicle with the right of way.

I'm not surprised there are as many bicycle crashes as there are (as few as those may be overall) but I am surprised there aren't a lot more of them.

In summer I avoid both the MUPs and the rail-trails due to the number of inconsiderate bicyclists riding them at speed with no consideration that there are others on those same trails, perhaps even coming around that blind curve.

Cheers

On Sunday, May 19, 2019 at 8:31:49 PM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
[about this from the article Jay linked:]
"In the U.S., as in
Europe, the car’s culpability is mostly a myth: just 29
per cent of bicycle fatalities involved autos."

As measured by actual court decisions or merely by a
disinterested omniscient being?

I can see different conclusions drawn using different
filters/methods.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

In an incident involving a car and a bicycle and a fatality, the bicyclist is far more likely to be the fatality than the driver. It's just human nature for the survivor, the only one able to tell the story, the motorist, to say the dead cyclist did something illegal, reckless, stupid. It amazes me that cyclists are so eager to jump on the motorist's bandwagon and condemn their fellow-cyclists with uncollated anecdotes of the odd cyclist committing traffic offence.

Andre Jute
Brother, can you spare an energy bar?

On Sun, 19 May 2019 08:44:04 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Sunday, May 19, 2019 at 6:56:10 AM UTC-7, Duane wrote:
John B. wrote:
On Sat, 18 May 2019 01:04:14 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 5/17/2019 4:12 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 17 May 2019 08:49:37 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 5/16/2019 5:54 PM, John B. wrote:

snip

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.

Yes, in a tropical climate the "hot and sweaty" issue is a big one.

In my area, the weather is mild, most larger companies have showering
and changing facilities, and white shirts and ties are rare.

The bigger issues around here a
1. I need to pick up children after work or attend their school activities.
2. I have to work late hours (very common in Silicon Valley because
you've got a lot of conference calls late at night when it's daytime in
Asia)
3. There's no safe route.
4. There's no secure bike parking.

We can address 2, 3, and 4, but addressing 1 is hard.

There's no helmet law for adults here, but it's rare to see any
professionals riding without one. However professionals are only one
segment of the cycling population. We have a lot of seniors from China
living with their adult children and they ride without helmets. We have
a lot of day workers that combine the bus and a bicycle.

Riding without lights is actually a bigger issue around here, and I just
received my first shipment of 200 rechargeable lights to give out. I
suppose we could also try to fund helmets, but really it's unnecessary.
You can buy a new helmet for $15, sometimes even less. The cost is not
the reason some people don't wear helmets, they just are willing to
accept the slight extra risk and not wear one.

Taking steps to make cycling safer are more important than imposing
helmet requirements. Just don't fall for the false narrative that if
helmets are required then suddenly mass numbers of people will give up
cycling in protest--there's never been any evidence of this happening.

Making cycling safer? Is cycling safe? Or is cycling unsafe? Or is
cycling only perceived as unsafe?

Yes, all of the above.

I ask as annually, in the U.S., approximately 750 people die while
cycling and nearly that many die falling out of bed and since there
seems to be no concept that going to bed is "dangerous" than it can't
be a matter of simple numbers.

Oh no, you're not going to start up with this nonsense are you. Taking
injury and fatality numbers completely out of context is reserved for
Frank. No one else is allowed to engage in this.

I see. Nonsense because that ~759 bicyclists die each year? Because
some 737 die from falling out of bed? Or nonsense because it doesn't
agree with your highly political opinion?

I suggest that the latter is the most likely truth.



Maybe he’d prefer if you talked about the percentage of cyclists who died
cycling compared to the percentage of people that sleep in beds who died
falling out of beds. Not that I think either activity is very dangerous
but this nonsense is getting boring.


Various studies of bicycle "accidents" have found that from about 30%
to as much as 60% (in at least one study) of the accidents are the
fault of the cyclist which really does make one wonder about the mind
set of the cyclists.

"Hey! Just use good sense and obey the traffic laws and save your
life. "

I find it very strange that no one ever seems to mention this simple
fact. It is free, it can save you from death, pain, or an expensive
stay in the hospital, but it seems to be a fact that is kept a secret
and instead we are told to "wear a helmet", or "we gotta build safer
bicycle paths". Are the bicycle paths 30 to 60% safer? Reports I read
seem to indicate that they are even less safe than riding on the open
road.

Actually I mentioned this today. I stressed that while the protected
bike lanes, for which construction begins on Monday, will mitigate some
of the bad behavior of motorists, that they are not a panacea. I also
mentioned about what transpired in Ohio--big increase in cycling, but a
lot of crashes on the path (though if you read the report carefully, not
a many as it first appears).

If I read you correctly you are really saying that bicyclists behave
badly, do not comply with existing laws and regulations and (horrors)
don't even display good sense and therefore special paths and byways
must be constructed at the expense of the public to protect them from
their own foolish actions.

Whatever happened to those rugged and stalwart folks who through their
efforts forged a great nation out of a wilderness? All gone? Like the
dodo?
--
cheers,

John B.

Uh oh, bicycles are suicide machines in the EU! Particularly where there is developed bicycle infrastructure. https://tinyurl.com/y4r935l4 NL is like the killing fields.

-- Jay Beattie.


Good Lord! Why hasn't something been done about this? We must make
laws to protect those two wheel fools from themselves!
--
cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 19 May 2019 15:00:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/19/2019 11:44 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, May 19, 2019 at 6:56:10 AM UTC-7, Duane wrote:
John B. wrote:
On Sat, 18 May 2019 01:04:14 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 5/17/2019 4:12 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 17 May 2019 08:49:37 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 5/16/2019 5:54 PM, John B. wrote:

snip

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.

Yes, in a tropical climate the "hot and sweaty" issue is a big one.

In my area, the weather is mild, most larger companies have showering
and changing facilities, and white shirts and ties are rare.

The bigger issues around here a
1. I need to pick up children after work or attend their school activities.
2. I have to work late hours (very common in Silicon Valley because
you've got a lot of conference calls late at night when it's daytime in
Asia)
3. There's no safe route.
4. There's no secure bike parking.

We can address 2, 3, and 4, but addressing 1 is hard.

There's no helmet law for adults here, but it's rare to see any
professionals riding without one. However professionals are only one
segment of the cycling population. We have a lot of seniors from China
living with their adult children and they ride without helmets. We have
a lot of day workers that combine the bus and a bicycle.

Riding without lights is actually a bigger issue around here, and I just
received my first shipment of 200 rechargeable lights to give out. I
suppose we could also try to fund helmets, but really it's unnecessary.
You can buy a new helmet for $15, sometimes even less. The cost is not
the reason some people don't wear helmets, they just are willing to
accept the slight extra risk and not wear one.

Taking steps to make cycling safer are more important than imposing
helmet requirements. Just don't fall for the false narrative that if
helmets are required then suddenly mass numbers of people will give up
cycling in protest--there's never been any evidence of this happening.

Making cycling safer? Is cycling safe? Or is cycling unsafe? Or is
cycling only perceived as unsafe?

Yes, all of the above.

I ask as annually, in the U.S., approximately 750 people die while
cycling and nearly that many die falling out of bed and since there
seems to be no concept that going to bed is "dangerous" than it can't
be a matter of simple numbers.

Oh no, you're not going to start up with this nonsense are you. Taking
injury and fatality numbers completely out of context is reserved for
Frank. No one else is allowed to engage in this.

I see. Nonsense because that ~759 bicyclists die each year? Because
some 737 die from falling out of bed? Or nonsense because it doesn't
agree with your highly political opinion?

I suggest that the latter is the most likely truth.



Maybe he’d prefer if you talked about the percentage of cyclists who died
cycling compared to the percentage of people that sleep in beds who died
falling out of beds. Not that I think either activity is very dangerous
but this nonsense is getting boring.


Various studies of bicycle "accidents" have found that from about 30%
to as much as 60% (in at least one study) of the accidents are the
fault of the cyclist which really does make one wonder about the mind
set of the cyclists.

"Hey! Just use good sense and obey the traffic laws and save your
life. "

I find it very strange that no one ever seems to mention this simple
fact. It is free, it can save you from death, pain, or an expensive
stay in the hospital, but it seems to be a fact that is kept a secret
and instead we are told to "wear a helmet", or "we gotta build safer
bicycle paths". Are the bicycle paths 30 to 60% safer? Reports I read
seem to indicate that they are even less safe than riding on the open
road.

Actually I mentioned this today. I stressed that while the protected
bike lanes, for which construction begins on Monday, will mitigate some
of the bad behavior of motorists, that they are not a panacea. I also
mentioned about what transpired in Ohio--big increase in cycling, but a
lot of crashes on the path (though if you read the report carefully, not
a many as it first appears).

If I read you correctly you are really saying that bicyclists behave
badly, do not comply with existing laws and regulations and (horrors)
don't even display good sense and therefore special paths and byways
must be constructed at the expense of the public to protect them from
their own foolish actions.

Whatever happened to those rugged and stalwart folks who through their
efforts forged a great nation out of a wilderness? All gone? Like the
dodo?
--
cheers,

John B.

Uh oh, bicycles are suicide machines in the EU! Particularly where there is developed bicycle infrastructure. https://tinyurl.com/y4r935l4 NL is like the killing fields.

The author serves a few tidbits of real knowledge in a stew of
misinformation.

I'd be interested in his source for "In the U.S., as in Europe, the
car’s culpability is mostly a myth: just 29 per cent of bicycle
fatalities involved autos." I think that's completely wrong.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...69847816300699
for the trend and
https://www.iamexpat.nl/expat-info/d...ds-not-falling
for a percentage.

And for your favorite passion see
https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1261.html
--
cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 20 May 2019 05:50:04 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Sun, 19 May 2019 08:44:04 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Sunday, May 19, 2019 at 6:56:10 AM UTC-7, Duane wrote:
John B. wrote:
On Sat, 18 May 2019 01:04:14 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 5/17/2019 4:12 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 17 May 2019 08:49:37 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 5/16/2019 5:54 PM, John B. wrote:

snip

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.

Yes, in a tropical climate the "hot and sweaty" issue is a big one.

In my area, the weather is mild, most larger companies have showering
and changing facilities, and white shirts and ties are rare.

The bigger issues around here a
1. I need to pick up children after work or attend their school activities.
2. I have to work late hours (very common in Silicon Valley because
you've got a lot of conference calls late at night when it's daytime in
Asia)
3. There's no safe route.
4. There's no secure bike parking.

We can address 2, 3, and 4, but addressing 1 is hard.

There's no helmet law for adults here, but it's rare to see any
professionals riding without one. However professionals are only one
segment of the cycling population. We have a lot of seniors from China
living with their adult children and they ride without helmets. We have
a lot of day workers that combine the bus and a bicycle.

Riding without lights is actually a bigger issue around here, and I just
received my first shipment of 200 rechargeable lights to give out. I
suppose we could also try to fund helmets, but really it's unnecessary.
You can buy a new helmet for $15, sometimes even less. The cost is not
the reason some people don't wear helmets, they just are willing to
accept the slight extra risk and not wear one.

Taking steps to make cycling safer are more important than imposing
helmet requirements. Just don't fall for the false narrative that if
helmets are required then suddenly mass numbers of people will give up
cycling in protest--there's never been any evidence of this happening.

Making cycling safer? Is cycling safe? Or is cycling unsafe? Or is
cycling only perceived as unsafe?

Yes, all of the above.

I ask as annually, in the U.S., approximately 750 people die while
cycling and nearly that many die falling out of bed and since there
seems to be no concept that going to bed is "dangerous" than it can't
be a matter of simple numbers.

Oh no, you're not going to start up with this nonsense are you. Taking
injury and fatality numbers completely out of context is reserved for
Frank. No one else is allowed to engage in this.

I see. Nonsense because that ~759 bicyclists die each year? Because
some 737 die from falling out of bed? Or nonsense because it doesn't
agree with your highly political opinion?

I suggest that the latter is the most likely truth.



Maybe he’d prefer if you talked about the percentage of cyclists who died
cycling compared to the percentage of people that sleep in beds who died
falling out of beds. Not that I think either activity is very dangerous
but this nonsense is getting boring.


Various studies of bicycle "accidents" have found that from about 30%
to as much as 60% (in at least one study) of the accidents are the
fault of the cyclist which really does make one wonder about the mind
set of the cyclists.

"Hey! Just use good sense and obey the traffic laws and save your
life. "

I find it very strange that no one ever seems to mention this simple
fact. It is free, it can save you from death, pain, or an expensive
stay in the hospital, but it seems to be a fact that is kept a secret
and instead we are told to "wear a helmet", or "we gotta build safer
bicycle paths". Are the bicycle paths 30 to 60% safer? Reports I read
seem to indicate that they are even less safe than riding on the open
road.

Actually I mentioned this today. I stressed that while the protected
bike lanes, for which construction begins on Monday, will mitigate some
of the bad behavior of motorists, that they are not a panacea. I also
mentioned about what transpired in Ohio--big increase in cycling, but a
lot of crashes on the path (though if you read the report carefully, not
a many as it first appears).

If I read you correctly you are really saying that bicyclists behave
badly, do not comply with existing laws and regulations and (horrors)
don't even display good sense and therefore special paths and byways
must be constructed at the expense of the public to protect them from
their own foolish actions.

Whatever happened to those rugged and stalwart folks who through their
efforts forged a great nation out of a wilderness? All gone? Like the
dodo?
--
cheers,

John B.

Uh oh, bicycles are suicide machines in the EU! Particularly where there is developed bicycle infrastructure. https://tinyurl.com/y4r935l4 NL is like the killing fields.

-- Jay Beattie.


Good Lord! Why hasn't something been done about this? We must make
laws to protect those two wheel fools from themselves!

After some consideration I realized that if the U.S. would simply ban
all bicycles there would be a savings of ~750 lives a year and prevent
an almost unimaginable number of injuries.

This carnage MUST stop!
--
cheers,

John B.

On 5/19/2019 3:31 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/19/2019 2:00 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/19/2019 11:44 AM, jbeattie wrote:

Uh oh, bicycles are suicide machines in the EU!
Particularly where there is developed bicycle
infrastructure. https://tinyurl.com/y4r935l4 NL is like
the killing fields.

The author serves a few tidbits of real knowledge in a stew
of misinformation.

I'd be interested in his source for "In the U.S., as in
Europe, the car’s culpability is mostly a myth: just 29
per cent of bicycle fatalities involved autos." I think
that's completely wrong.



As measured by actual court decisions or merely by a disinterested
omniscient being?

I can see different conclusions drawn using different filters/methods.

I'm not talking about the culpability part. I'm talking about the claim
that just 29 percent involved autos at all.

Even if the cyclist were riding at night with no lights going the wrong
way and killed himself by riding into a car that was barely moving, that
fatality would still involve an auto.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/19/2019 7:12 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 19 May 2019 15:00:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:


I'd be interested in his source for "In the U.S., as in Europe, the
car’s culpability is mostly a myth: just 29 per cent of bicycle
fatalities involved autos." I think that's completely wrong.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...69847816300699
for the trend and
https://www.iamexpat.nl/expat-info/d...ds-not-falling
for a percentage.

From that link, regarding the Netherlands, where there is FAR more bike
use per capita than the U.S. (or almost anywhere else):

"Almost half of all cyclists who died in traffic accidents did so by
colliding with a car."

If Dutch bike fatalities are "almost half" by car-bike crashes, then the
statement "just 29 per cent of bicycle fatalities involved autos" is not
true anywhere.

Again, I'm not talking about culpability. I'm refuting the claim that
lots of cyclists die with no car present.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Monday, May 20, 2019 at 1:24:28 AM UTC+1, John B. wrote:

After some consideration I realized that if the U.S. would simply ban
all bicycles there would be a savings of ~750 lives a year and prevent
an almost unimaginable number of injuries.

This carnage MUST stop!

No need to overreact, Slow Johnny. What we're discussing, any time you and Krygowski give us a chance to get out a complete sentence before you say something stupid that you've said 2000 and umpteen times before, is which part of the 750 lives are needlessly cut short by the idiotic refusal to sanction a mandatory helmet law, and which part would live longer if clowns like you didn't overreact and instead condemn them to dying early anyway from congestive heart failure brought on by sitting in traffic jams eating rubbish calories. See, I've already proved (from the New York compilation) that a very large part of those 750 cyclists dead on American roads every year would live if there were a mandatory helmet law.

***
I'm bored with all this iterative talk. We're no further forward than we were when I arrived here c2010. Why don't we speed up matters by holding a Nuremberg Trial for the CINOs (cyclists in name only) who do more harm than good. We could start with Slow Johnny and Krygowski in the dock.

Andre Jute
Patience is not an endless commodity

On Sun, 19 May 2019 21:04:04 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/19/2019 3:31 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/19/2019 2:00 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/19/2019 11:44 AM, jbeattie wrote:

Uh oh, bicycles are suicide machines in the EU!
Particularly where there is developed bicycle
infrastructure. https://tinyurl.com/y4r935l4 NL is like
the killing fields.

The author serves a few tidbits of real knowledge in a stew
of misinformation.

I'd be interested in his source for "In the U.S., as in
Europe, the car’s culpability is mostly a myth: just 29
per cent of bicycle fatalities involved autos." I think
that's completely wrong.



As measured by actual court decisions or merely by a disinterested
omniscient being?

I can see different conclusions drawn using different filters/methods.

I'm not talking about the culpability part. I'm talking about the claim
that just 29 percent involved autos at all.

Even if the cyclist were riding at night with no lights going the wrong
way and killed himself by riding into a car that was barely moving, that
fatality would still involve an auto.

You are straining just a bit there, aren't you? What about a parked
auto? Or even an abandoned auto with no wheels?

But I did come across some statistics that might be of interest. From
CYCLING FACTS, Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis
(KIM)

Total numbers of bicycle deaths as percent of total Road Deaths - 30%
Total numbers of motor car/truck deaths as percent of total road
deaths- 39%
Total percent of serious road injuries as bicycle-auto collisions-
11%
Total percent of serious road injuries as bicycle - without auto
collisions - 52%
--
cheers,

John B.