Before & after bike ghettos

On 10/5/2010 3:57 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

As one piece of evidence, I have spoken before various groups on bike
safety - or more accurately, on the fact that the dangers of cycling
are being exaggerated. My talk is based on this article:
http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetyS...SafetyQuiz.htm

As another piece of evidence, I'd cite my wife, who has bike commuted
for the last decade. As I recall, she's had 3 incidents in that time: 2
falls, one from pothole, one from black ice, and one case where a
landscaper's trailer struck her pannier hard enough to leave a mark.

All three incidents are consistent with the bike studies you cite --
she's actually under that radar, since there were no medical expenses or
property damage to speak of -- yet, she has a long-term elbow injury,
limped for 6 weeks on an injured ankle, and obviously escaped a serious
collision injury by literal inches.

Statistically, she is ahead of the game. Realistically, although she
still continues to bike commute, she has an appreciation for the risks.
They're not trivial.

You can call such attitudes ignorant, or claim they are significantly
reinforced by helmet campaigns (still needing burden of proof), but that
those attitudes exist and are dominant is consistently revealed by polls
and the demographics of ridership in low modal share regions.

Yes, do keep agreeing with me!

I do, and don't. Cyclists are vulnerable to falls and collisions. People
don't think statistically, but they (usually) perceive their
vulnerability. Collisions and falls that result in serious injury may be
rare, but other common collisions and injuries are frightening and may
have negative experiences that don't show up on your studies.

You paint too simple a picture.

What if we started
pointing out that cycling is actually quite safe, and that its
benefits greatly outweigh its tiny risks?

Well, that would be somewhat misleading, relative to the other modes.

... like walking down the street? False.

Perhaps, but an even smaller segment of the population qualifies as
being able to walk-commute. I was thinking of driving or taking transit.

I don't have an issue with the claim that net health effects are
positive, that seems to be well supported by research. The net health
benefits of visits to the dentist are positive, too -- that doesn't make
it fun.


What if kids were taught how
to ride properly, and encouraged to bike to school?

Necessary, but not sufficient.

What if motorists
were bombarded with lessons about sharing the road and being
courteous?

Ditto.

What if they were prosecuted when they weren't?

Ditto.

If "necessary but not sufficient" were universally used to prevent
action, nothing would ever get done. But my point is that the
strategies I listed could be employed at modest expense, could be
effective in the long run, and would certainly have more benefits than
detriments.

Well, other than your cost/benefit being merely speculative, I have no
problem with any of those initiatives. Mostly they are standard practice
in developed countries with high cycling rates.


More important, they needn't be done dishonestly. This is in contrast
to the bike lane strategy,

These are also the rule in the aforementioned countries. It's possible
that they are not an effective contributor, but the burden of proof
weighs heavily on those who claim that.


I recognize that some people feel that lying for what they consider a
good cause is not a problem. But dishonesty like that irritates me.

You are indicting a very large and well-established community of
professionals who have studied and invested for decades, and more
importantly have achieved usage and safety rates unthinkable in the US.
You've got rocks, Frank.