What a wonderful place to ride bike...

James wrote:
On 21/07/14 20:11, Duane wrote:
James wrote:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-0...rain-down.html


Wow. Makes me appreciate a place where it's mostly hand gestures thrown at
me if anything.

But this is the first time I've heard that cycling deaths are 2.9% of all
road deaths there. (2% in the US). Is that accurate?


In NSW, there were 14 dead cyclists from a total of 339 dead road users.

http://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov....dex.html?tab=5

A little over 4%.

I think the 2.9% is probably correct for the entire country.

Seems high given the low participation relative to drivers and
motorcyclists and other road users.

--
duane

On Monday, July 21, 2014 5:16:45 PM UTC-7, Duane wrote:
James wrote:
On 21/07/14 20:11, Duane wrote:
James wrote:


snip

But this is the first time I've heard that cycling deaths are 2.9% of all
road deaths there. (2% in the US). Is that accurate?


In NSW, there were 14 dead cyclists from a total of 339 dead road users.

http://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov....dex.html?tab=5

A little over 4%.

I think the 2.9% is probably correct for the entire country.

Seems high given the low participation relative to drivers and
motorcyclists and other road users.

Easily explained by "improper cycling".

On 7/22/2014 2:19 PM, Dan O wrote:
On Monday, July 21, 2014 5:16:45 PM UTC-7, Duane wrote:
James wrote:
On 21/07/14 20:11, Duane wrote:
James wrote:


snip

But this is the first time I've heard that cycling deaths are 2.9% of all
road deaths there. (2% in the US). Is that accurate?


In NSW, there were 14 dead cyclists from a total of 339 dead road users.

http://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov....dex.html?tab=5

A little over 4%.

I think the 2.9% is probably correct for the entire country.

Seems high given the low participation relative to drivers and
motorcyclists and other road users.

Easily explained by "improper cycling".


Well sure, I should have realized that.

On 7/22/2014 2:36 PM, Duane wrote:
On 7/22/2014 2:19 PM, Dan O wrote:
On Monday, July 21, 2014 5:16:45 PM UTC-7, Duane wrote:
James wrote:


I think the 2.9% is probably correct for the entire country.

Seems high given the low participation relative to drivers and
motorcyclists and other road users.

Easily explained by "improper cycling".


Well sure, I should have realized that.

On a more serious discussion group in which I participate, there are
people who are actually interested in the factors that cause cyclists to
become injured or killed. For example, there are people there who pay
to get the detailed police report for every bike fatality in their
state; people who have read more detailed survey-based research on the
causes of bike crashes; people who have designed and help run statewide
education programs for cyclists, etc.

There is plenty of dissatisfaction with the typical data collection.
For example, in my state, a cop can keep track of either helmet use or
the use of lights, but not both; there's only one check box. And it's
often ignored anyway.

But according to these people, it's quite certain that the great
majority of bike crashes are simple falls, most often due to road
hazards. (There is the occasional weird one, like running into a
barrier that was supposed to "protect" the bicyclist from the evil motor
vehicles.)

Almost all data on car-bike crashes seem to show a 50/50 split in
faults, although really competent cyclists do have techniques that can
greatly reduce drivers' mistakes.

There's good data showing that over a quarter of fatally injured
cyclists have high blood alcohol content.

Data on lights is sketchy, but Florida data indicates that a very high
percentage of nighttime crashes involves no-lights cyclists. (Florida
always leads our nation in bike fatalities.)

There's more, of course. In today's local paper was the tale of a kid
on bike who got hospitalized. He ran a stop sign directly in front of a
car.

If someone really wants to make bicycling safer, this stuff is the
low-hanging fruit. Things like: watch out for slippery surfaces, like
wet steel. Watch out for road obstacles, like bollards or posts. Ride
so you're very visible and in the lane, so drivers see you from way
back, or from way up ahead if they're turning left. Don't ride if you're
drunk. Use proper lights at night. Obey stop signs and traffic lights.
And so on.

It's obvious, but it gets far less attention than hat style; or mythical
parallel universes of segregated facilities that would prevent motorists
and bicyclists from ever crossing paths.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Tuesday, July 22, 2014 7:19:12 PM UTC+1, Dan O wrote:
On Monday, July 21, 2014 5:16:45 PM UTC-7, Duane wrote:

James wrote:

On 21/07/14 20:11, Duane wrote:

James wrote:





snip



But this is the first time I've heard that cycling deaths are 2.9% of all

road deaths there. (2% in the US). Is that accurate?





In NSW, there were 14 dead cyclists from a total of 339 dead road users.



http://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov....dex.html?tab=5



A little over 4%.



I think the 2.9% is probably correct for the entire country.



Seems high given the low participation relative to drivers and

motorcyclists and other road users.



Easily explained by "improper cycling".

Not to mention "improper drinking".

Andre Jute

You're well qualified to pick low-hanging fruit, Franki-boy. So off you go, take care of it, tararse. Tell us what part of "We'd like to discuss making helmets better, so **** Krygowski," do you fail understand?

On Tuesday, July 22, 2014 9:29:07 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On a more serious discussion group in which I participate, there are

people who are actually interested in the factors that cause cyclists to

become injured or killed. For example, there are people there who pay

to get the detailed police report for every bike fatality in their

state; people who have read more detailed survey-based research on the

causes of bike crashes; people who have designed and help run statewide

education programs for cyclists, etc.



There is plenty of dissatisfaction with the typical data collection.

For example, in my state, a cop can keep track of either helmet use or

the use of lights, but not both; there's only one check box. And it's

often ignored anyway.



But according to these people, it's quite certain that the great

majority of bike crashes are simple falls, most often due to road

hazards. (There is the occasional weird one, like running into a

barrier that was supposed to "protect" the bicyclist from the evil motor

vehicles.)



Almost all data on car-bike crashes seem to show a 50/50 split in

faults, although really competent cyclists do have techniques that can

greatly reduce drivers' mistakes.



There's good data showing that over a quarter of fatally injured

cyclists have high blood alcohol content.



Data on lights is sketchy, but Florida data indicates that a very high

percentage of nighttime crashes involves no-lights cyclists. (Florida

always leads our nation in bike fatalities.)



There's more, of course. In today's local paper was the tale of a kid

on bike who got hospitalized. He ran a stop sign directly in front of a

car.



If someone really wants to make bicycling safer, this stuff is the

low-hanging fruit. Things like: watch out for slippery surfaces, like

wet steel. Watch out for road obstacles, like bollards or posts. Ride

so you're very visible and in the lane, so drivers see you from way

back, or from way up ahead if they're turning left. Don't ride if you're

drunk. Use proper lights at night. Obey stop signs and traffic lights.

And so on.



It's obvious, but it gets far less attention than hat style; or mythical

parallel universes of segregated facilities that would prevent motorists

and bicyclists from ever crossing paths.

--

- Frank Krygowski

You're well qualified to pick low-hanging fruit, Franki-boy. So off you go, take care of it, tararse. Tell us what part of "We'd like to discuss making helmets better, so **** off Krygowski," do you fail understand?
- hide quoted text -

On Tuesday, July 22, 2014 9:29:07 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On a more serious discussion group in which I participate, there are

people who are actually interested in the factors that cause cyclists to

become injured or killed. For example, there are people there who pay

to get the detailed police report for every bike fatality in their

state; people who have read more detailed survey-based research on the

causes of bike crashes; people who have designed and help run statewide

education programs for cyclists, etc.



There is plenty of dissatisfaction with the typical data collection.

For example, in my state, a cop can keep track of either helmet use or

the use of lights, but not both; there's only one check box. And it's

often ignored anyway.



But according to these people, it's quite certain that the great

majority of bike crashes are simple falls, most often due to road

hazards. (There is the occasional weird one, like running into a

barrier that was supposed to "protect" the bicyclist from the evil motor

vehicles.)



Almost all data on car-bike crashes seem to show a 50/50 split in

faults, although really competent cyclists do have techniques that can

greatly reduce drivers' mistakes.



There's good data showing that over a quarter of fatally injured

cyclists have high blood alcohol content.



Data on lights is sketchy, but Florida data indicates that a very high

percentage of nighttime crashes involves no-lights cyclists. (Florida

always leads our nation in bike fatalities.)



There's more, of course. In today's local paper was the tale of a kid

on bike who got hospitalized. He ran a stop sign directly in front of a

car.



If someone really wants to make bicycling safer, this stuff is the

low-hanging fruit. Things like: watch out for slippery surfaces, like

wet steel. Watch out for road obstacles, like bollards or posts. Ride

so you're very visible and in the lane, so drivers see you from way

back, or from way up ahead if they're turning left. Don't ride if you're

drunk. Use proper lights at night. Obey stop signs and traffic lights.

And so on.



It's obvious, but it gets far less attention than hat style; or mythical

parallel universes of segregated facilities that would prevent motorists

and bicyclists from ever crossing paths.

--

- Frank Krygowski

On Tuesday, July 22, 2014 4:29:07 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/22/2014 2:36 PM, Duane wrote:

On 7/22/2014 2:19 PM, Dan O wrote:

On Monday, July 21, 2014 5:16:45 PM UTC-7, Duane wrote:

James wrote:





I think the 2.9% is probably correct for the entire country.



Seems high given the low participation relative to drivers and

motorcyclists and other road users.



Easily explained by "improper cycling".





Well sure, I should have realized that.



On a more serious discussion group in which I participate, there are

people who are actually interested in the factors that cause cyclists to

become injured or killed. For example, there are people there who pay

to get the detailed police report for every bike fatality in their

state; people who have read more detailed survey-based research on the

causes of bike crashes; people who have designed and help run statewide

education programs for cyclists, etc.



There is plenty of dissatisfaction with the typical data collection.

For example, in my state, a cop can keep track of either helmet use or

the use of lights, but not both; there's only one check box. And it's

often ignored anyway.



But according to these people, it's quite certain that the great

majority of bike crashes are simple falls, most often due to road

hazards. (There is the occasional weird one, like running into a

barrier that was supposed to "protect" the bicyclist from the evil motor

vehicles.)



Almost all data on car-bike crashes seem to show a 50/50 split in

faults, although really competent cyclists do have techniques that can

greatly reduce drivers' mistakes.



There's good data showing that over a quarter of fatally injured

cyclists have high blood alcohol content.



Data on lights is sketchy, but Florida data indicates that a very high

percentage of nighttime crashes involves no-lights cyclists. (Florida

always leads our nation in bike fatalities.)



There's more, of course. In today's local paper was the tale of a kid

on bike who got hospitalized. He ran a stop sign directly in front of a

car.



If someone really wants to make bicycling safer, this stuff is the

low-hanging fruit. Things like: watch out for slippery surfaces, like

wet steel. Watch out for road obstacles, like bollards or posts. Ride

so you're very visible and in the lane, so drivers see you from way

back, or from way up ahead if they're turning left. Don't ride if you're

drunk. Use proper lights at night. Obey stop signs and traffic lights.

And so on.



It's obvious, but it gets far less attention than hat style; or mythical

parallel universes of segregated facilities that would prevent motorists

and bicyclists from ever crossing paths.



--

- Frank Krygowski

Sometimes no matter how careful and prepared you are the unexpected happens. The term for that is "accident'. People don't sit around and then decide, "I think I'll go for a bicycle ride and have an accident."

Cheers

On Tuesday, July 22, 2014 4:29:07 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/22/2014 2:36 PM, Duane wrote:

On 7/22/2014 2:19 PM, Dan O wrote:

On Monday, July 21, 2014 5:16:45 PM UTC-7, Duane wrote:

James wrote:





I think the 2.9% is probably correct for the entire country.



Seems high given the low participation relative to drivers and

motorcyclists and other road users.



Easily explained by "improper cycling".





Well sure, I should have realized that.



On a more serious discussion group in which I participate, there are

people who are actually interested in the factors that cause cyclists to

become injured or killed. For example, there are people there who pay

to get the detailed police report for every bike fatality in their

state; people who have read more detailed survey-based research on the

causes of bike crashes; people who have designed and help run statewide

education programs for cyclists, etc.



There is plenty of dissatisfaction with the typical data collection.

For example, in my state, a cop can keep track of either helmet use or

the use of lights, but not both; there's only one check box. And it's

often ignored anyway.



But according to these people, it's quite certain that the great

majority of bike crashes are simple falls, most often due to road

hazards. (There is the occasional weird one, like running into a

barrier that was supposed to "protect" the bicyclist from the evil motor

vehicles.)



Almost all data on car-bike crashes seem to show a 50/50 split in

faults, although really competent cyclists do have techniques that can

greatly reduce drivers' mistakes.



There's good data showing that over a quarter of fatally injured

cyclists have high blood alcohol content.



Data on lights is sketchy, but Florida data indicates that a very high

percentage of nighttime crashes involves no-lights cyclists. (Florida

always leads our nation in bike fatalities.)



There's more, of course. In today's local paper was the tale of a kid

on bike who got hospitalized. He ran a stop sign directly in front of a

car.



If someone really wants to make bicycling safer, this stuff is the

low-hanging fruit. Things like: watch out for slippery surfaces, like

wet steel. Watch out for road obstacles, like bollards or posts. Ride

so you're very visible and in the lane, so drivers see you from way

back, or from way up ahead if they're turning left. Don't ride if you're

drunk. Use proper lights at night. Obey stop signs and traffic lights.

And so on.



It's obvious, but it gets far less attention than hat style; or mythical

parallel universes of segregated facilities that would prevent motorists

and bicyclists from ever crossing paths.



--

- Frank Krygowski

lllllllllllllllllllll

Yes, frum wat Ive gathered over the years....points K makes are warts on Down Under's behind.

As for Florida, more of the same but worser. Florida exists on handouts. I doahn believe the pop could exist in a value/production existence. The pop is incomparable to other large areas with population density. So many out of it groups...senile oldsters, oldsters no reflexs, below average intelligence prostitutes..with cars now empowered whereas elsewhere NOT. And hurricanes a the end of the road. No incentives for biz except....

probs expressed in Cal's midsection are profilable and experienced on the road. Travels from N-S-N on the west coast definitely support the profile accuracy as a percentage for judgment.

As whom would you rather drive with...farmers from South Dakota or a Mexicans from Brownsville?

Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Tuesday, July 22, 2014 4:29:07 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/22/2014 2:36 PM, Duane wrote:

On 7/22/2014 2:19 PM, Dan O wrote:

On Monday, July 21, 2014 5:16:45 PM UTC-7, Duane wrote:

James wrote:





I think the 2.9% is probably correct for the entire country.



Seems high given the low participation relative to drivers and

motorcyclists and other road users.



Easily explained by "improper cycling".





Well sure, I should have realized that.



On a more serious discussion group in which I participate, there are

people who are actually interested in the factors that cause cyclists to

become injured or killed. For example, there are people there who pay

to get the detailed police report for every bike fatality in their

state; people who have read more detailed survey-based research on the

causes of bike crashes; people who have designed and help run statewide

education programs for cyclists, etc.



There is plenty of dissatisfaction with the typical data collection.

For example, in my state, a cop can keep track of either helmet use or

the use of lights, but not both; there's only one check box. And it's

often ignored anyway.



But according to these people, it's quite certain that the great

majority of bike crashes are simple falls, most often due to road

hazards. (There is the occasional weird one, like running into a

barrier that was supposed to "protect" the bicyclist from the evil motor

vehicles.)



Almost all data on car-bike crashes seem to show a 50/50 split in

faults, although really competent cyclists do have techniques that can

greatly reduce drivers' mistakes.



There's good data showing that over a quarter of fatally injured

cyclists have high blood alcohol content.



Data on lights is sketchy, but Florida data indicates that a very high

percentage of nighttime crashes involves no-lights cyclists. (Florida

always leads our nation in bike fatalities.)



There's more, of course. In today's local paper was the tale of a kid

on bike who got hospitalized. He ran a stop sign directly in front of a

car.



If someone really wants to make bicycling safer, this stuff is the

low-hanging fruit. Things like: watch out for slippery surfaces, like

wet steel. Watch out for road obstacles, like bollards or posts. Ride

so you're very visible and in the lane, so drivers see you from way

back, or from way up ahead if they're turning left. Don't ride if you're

drunk. Use proper lights at night. Obey stop signs and traffic lights.

And so on.



It's obvious, but it gets far less attention than hat style; or mythical

parallel universes of segregated facilities that would prevent motorists

and bicyclists from ever crossing paths.



--

- Frank Krygowski

Sometimes no matter how careful and prepared you are the unexpected
happens. The term for that is "accident'. People don't sit around and
then decide, "I think I'll go for a bicycle ride and have an accident."

Cheers

+1

--
duane