A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Where "Safety Inflation" leads



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old October 9th 19, 04:46 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Kunich[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,047
Default Where "Safety Inflation" leads

On Wednesday, October 9, 2019 at 6:44:51 AM UTC-7, Steve Weeks wrote:
On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 12:32:33 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Here's what all that "Safety Inflation" ultimately generates:

https://www.thenational.ae/uae/trans...-push-1.920236


That's pretty much as extreme as you can get. There's got to be a happy medium somewhere. Here in Chicago, I'd like to see *any* evidence of enforcement of bike laws. A good start would be people riding the wrong way on one-way streets or blasting through red lights.
Of course, it would also be nice to see some action on cars parked in or driving down bike lanes, and other unsafe and illegal practices.
I'm not holding my breath. At least no one is snatching my bike while I'm riding it!


Occasionally I will ride through red lights. I know the ones that do not trip for bicycles and I don't even stop if it is clear. I have no intentions of waiting two or three cycles until a motor vehicle shows up going my way to cause a signal change.
Ads
  #22  
Old October 9th 19, 04:52 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Kunich[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,047
Default Where "Safety Inflation" leads

On Wednesday, October 9, 2019 at 7:11:10 AM UTC-7, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 09.10.2019 um 15:59 schrieb jbeattie:
On Wednesday, October 9, 2019 at 12:52:32 AM UTC-7, James wrote:
On 9/10/19 1:02 pm, John B. wrote:


The answer is fairly simple, simply pass a law that in a
collision the larger vehicle, subject to proof otherwise, is
deemed to be at fault and is financially liable for any and all
resulting costs. Including replacement parts or vehicle,
hospital and medical costs, loss of income, and even funeral
costs if necessary.

While this may not be politically possible in Australia it does,
in Thailand, appear to reduce bicycle accidents and according to
my neighbor, the policeman, most small motorcycle - auto crashes
have been found to be the fault of the motorcycle.

Yes, I think it would be political suicide in Australia, at least
at the moment. The very mention of similar ideas (strict
liability) results in much foaming from the mouth and calls for
bicycling licenses and registration, or bicycle prohibition from
the roads.


It would be polarizing anywhere. As a general rule in the US states,
the violation of a traffic law raises a presumption of negligence. So
if a driver violates a law and causes an injury, the driver is
presumed to be at fault. Same goes with cyclists.


This promotes compliance with the traffic laws by cyclists and
drivers. Why would you want to presume a driver is at fault for
merely driving a car and not violating any laws?


In Europe (including UK), motorized vehicles are classified as
"dangerous machinery" and hence are liable for damage caused even if no
operating error is involved and nobody is at fault. This liability
obviously is superseded by a direct liability due to negligence on
behalf of the other party. One condition of operating dangerous
machinery in the public is also the existence of an appropriate
liability insurance.

The "larger
vehicle" rule would favor a lot of road users who have proved (to me)
that they do not follow the laws, including skateboarders and
escooter "drivers."


In Europe, an Escooter is classified as "dangerous machinery" due to
being propelled by a motor and the bicycle is not due to being propelled
by muscle only.

A bicycle, being a larger vehicle, would be presumed at fault. One
of my greatest hazards around here are pedestrians who just step off
curbs, against lights, looking down at cell phones.


This trick seems to have worked against a cyclist in London recently
even without the bicycle being classified as "dangerous machinery".


Those seem more reasonable. Instead of strongly enforced traffic laws, here in California they simply put traffic lights everywhere impeding traffic for no reason at all in many cases. Intersections will often had a forward traffic light, a left turn traffic light and in some cases even a right turn traffic light and so it isn't a surprise when people will NOT allow traffic in from non-lighted cross streets even in stopped traffic.
  #23  
Old October 9th 19, 04:57 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,677
Default Where "Safety Inflation" leads

On 10/9/2019 6:44 AM, Steve Weeks wrote:
On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 12:32:33 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Here's what all that "Safety Inflation" ultimately generates:

https://www.thenational.ae/uae/trans...-push-1.920236


That's pretty much as extreme as you can get.


Well the original poster had to go all the way to Abu Dhabi to find an
example of "Safety Inflation" so that's a pretty good indication that
the rest of the world is not going to such extremes.

There's got to be a happy medium somewhere. Here in Chicago, I'd like to see *any* evidence of enforcement of bike laws. A good start would be people riding the wrong way on one-way streets or blasting
through red lights.


Be nice to also see some enforcement of cars, trucks, and buses blasting
through red lights, a much more common occurrence.

Of course, it would also be nice to see some action on cars parked in or driving down bike lanes, and other unsafe and illegal practices.
I'm not holding my breath. At least no one is snatching my bike while I'm riding it!


The solution to cars in bike lanes is to have protected bike lanes.
Trying to solve this problem through enforcement is a losing battle,
though I do call the police when I see this and they do come out, at
least in smaller cities, and issue a ticket. If I called in San
Francisco or San Jose they would be unlikely to respond and would
probably start laughing hysterically.

I called San Francisco Police Department once about a parking issue on
my mother-in-law's street the response was "yes it's illegal for people
to do that, no we won't come out and do anything, and no there's no one
else you can call that will do anything either," at least they were
perfectly clear.
  #24  
Old October 9th 19, 05:06 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,677
Default Where "Safety Inflation" leads

On 10/9/2019 2:37 AM, John B. wrote:

The problem with all the "solutions" is that they are usually not
strictly enforced.


Exactly.

snip

The secret was, they enforced the law, rigorously.


That works. And you don't need to do it continuously, just enough for
people to get the message, and then do periodic enforcement.

A few weeks ago I told my City Manager that I was really annoyed at all
the illegally placed "Open House" signs. They were in bike lanes,
blocking sidewalks, blocking wheelchair and stroller ramps, etc.. But
because this happens mostly on the weekend, when we don't have enough
Code Enforcement people on duty, they get away with it.

The City Manager authorized some overtime pay and there were 62
illegally placed signs collected. The fine is minuscule, but it's a
hassle for the agents to go pick up their signs.

The next weekend, there were almost no illegally placed signs in our
city, though the neighboring cities still have the problem.
  #25  
Old October 9th 19, 05:16 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Sir Ridesalot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,604
Default Where "Safety Inflation" leads

On Wednesday, 9 October 2019 11:57:05 UTC-4, sms wrote:
On 10/9/2019 6:44 AM, Steve Weeks wrote:
On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 12:32:33 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Here's what all that "Safety Inflation" ultimately generates:

https://www.thenational.ae/uae/trans...-push-1.920236


That's pretty much as extreme as you can get.


Well the original poster had to go all the way to Abu Dhabi to find an
example of "Safety Inflation" so that's a pretty good indication that
the rest of the world is not going to such extremes.

There's got to be a happy medium somewhere. Here in Chicago, I'd like to see *any* evidence of enforcement of bike laws. A good start would be people riding the wrong way on one-way streets or blasting
through red lights.


Be nice to also see some enforcement of cars, trucks, and buses blasting
through red lights, a much more common occurrence.

Of course, it would also be nice to see some action on cars parked in or driving down bike lanes, and other unsafe and illegal practices.
I'm not holding my breath. At least no one is snatching my bike while I'm riding it!


The solution to cars in bike lanes is to have protected bike lanes.
Trying to solve this problem through enforcement is a losing battle,
though I do call the police when I see this and they do come out, at
least in smaller cities, and issue a ticket. If I called in San
Francisco or San Jose they would be unlikely to respond and would
probably start laughing hysterically.

I called San Francisco Police Department once about a parking issue on
my mother-in-law's street the response was "yes it's illegal for people
to do that, no we won't come out and do anything, and no there's no one
else you can call that will do anything either," at least they were
perfectly clear.


Just what do bicyclists do when the "protected" bicycle lane ends or crosses any of many intersections such as driveways or streets? If bicyclist were to ONLY ride in "protected" bicycle lanes then where do they learn the skills needed to ride safely in traffic when the "protected" bike lane ends or there is no "protected" bike lane?

Cheers
  #26  
Old October 9th 19, 05:21 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Sir Ridesalot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,604
Default Where "Safety Inflation" leads

On Wednesday, 9 October 2019 09:44:51 UTC-4, Steve Weeks wrote:
On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 12:32:33 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Here's what all that "Safety Inflation" ultimately generates:

https://www.thenational.ae/uae/trans...-push-1.920236


That's pretty much as extreme as you can get. There's got to be a happy medium somewhere. Here in Chicago, I'd like to see *any* evidence of enforcement of bike laws. A good start would be people riding the wrong way on one-way streets or blasting through red lights.
Of course, it would also be nice to see some action on cars parked in or driving down bike lanes, and other unsafe and illegal practices.
I'm not holding my breath. At least no one is snatching my bike while I'm riding it!


I was riding along a side street in a city near to me and came to a cross street that had a sign ONE WAY Bicycles Excepted. No to me that's a pretty stupid thing to do since any automobile entering that one way street would NOT be expecting a bicyclist to turn up that street going what the automobile driver would think is the wrong way. It's a brilliant setup for an accident waiting to happen.

Cheers
  #27  
Old October 10th 19, 02:07 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Sir Ridesalot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,604
Default Where "Safety Inflation" leads

On Wednesday, 9 October 2019 14:10:31 UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/9/2019 12:21 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, 9 October 2019 09:44:51 UTC-4, Steve Weeks wrote:
On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 12:32:33 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Here's what all that "Safety Inflation" ultimately generates:

https://www.thenational.ae/uae/trans...-push-1.920236

That's pretty much as extreme as you can get. There's got to be a happy medium somewhere. Here in Chicago, I'd like to see *any* evidence of enforcement of bike laws. A good start would be people riding the wrong way on one-way streets or blasting through red lights.
Of course, it would also be nice to see some action on cars parked in or driving down bike lanes, and other unsafe and illegal practices.
I'm not holding my breath. At least no one is snatching my bike while I'm riding it!


I was riding along a side street in a city near to me and came to a cross street that had a sign ONE WAY Bicycles Excepted. No to me that's a pretty stupid thing to do since any automobile entering that one way street would NOT be expecting a bicyclist to turn up that street going what the automobile driver would think is the wrong way. It's a brilliant setup for an accident waiting to happen.


Actually, that can work quite well. A contraflow bicycle lane is one
place that I approve of striping special lanes for bikes. Such lanes can
save considerable travel distance for cyclists, and if done properly can
be adequately safe. See
http://www.bikexprt.com/research/con...ngerichtet.htm for
example.

But the details have to be done right.
http://www.bikexprt.com/massfacil/ca...q/litlconc.htm


--
- Frank Krygowski


That one way road where bicycles are allowed to ride counter to traffic flow is a narrow side street WITH NO bike lane. Just imagine it. You're driving down this street and approaching the intersection when suddenly a bicyclists turns left from that other street and is now on your right side. You're not expecting a bicyclist to do that. It'd be bad enough in daylight but it'd be a LOT WORSE at night especially if the bicyclist did not have adequate lighting if they had any lighting at all. Like I said, it's an accident waiting to happen.

Cheers
  #28  
Old October 10th 19, 02:22 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,869
Default Where "Safety Inflation" leads

On 10/9/2019 8:07 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, 9 October 2019 14:10:31 UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/9/2019 12:21 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, 9 October 2019 09:44:51 UTC-4, Steve Weeks wrote:
On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 12:32:33 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Here's what all that "Safety Inflation" ultimately generates:

https://www.thenational.ae/uae/trans...-push-1.920236

That's pretty much as extreme as you can get. There's got to be a happy medium somewhere. Here in Chicago, I'd like to see *any* evidence of enforcement of bike laws. A good start would be people riding the wrong way on one-way streets or blasting through red lights.
Of course, it would also be nice to see some action on cars parked in or driving down bike lanes, and other unsafe and illegal practices.
I'm not holding my breath. At least no one is snatching my bike while I'm riding it!

I was riding along a side street in a city near to me and came to a cross street that had a sign ONE WAY Bicycles Excepted. No to me that's a pretty stupid thing to do since any automobile entering that one way street would NOT be expecting a bicyclist to turn up that street going what the automobile driver would think is the wrong way. It's a brilliant setup for an accident waiting to happen.


Actually, that can work quite well. A contraflow bicycle lane is one
place that I approve of striping special lanes for bikes. Such lanes can
save considerable travel distance for cyclists, and if done properly can
be adequately safe. See
http://www.bikexprt.com/research/con...ngerichtet.htm for
example.

But the details have to be done right.
http://www.bikexprt.com/massfacil/ca...q/litlconc.htm


--
- Frank Krygowski


That one way road where bicycles are allowed to ride counter to traffic flow is a narrow side street WITH NO bike lane. Just imagine it. You're driving down this street and approaching the intersection when suddenly a bicyclists turns left from that other street and is now on your right side. You're not expecting a bicyclist to do that. It'd be bad enough in daylight but it'd be a LOT WORSE at night especially if the bicyclist did not have adequate lighting if they had any lighting at all. Like I said, it's an accident waiting to happen.

Cheers


'Twas ever thus.
"We're from The Government. We're here to help you."

Anything short of machine guns into crowds qualifies as
enlightened rule.

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


  #29  
Old October 10th 19, 03:21 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
jOHN b.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,148
Default Where "Safety Inflation" leads

On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 06:59:03 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Wednesday, October 9, 2019 at 12:52:32 AM UTC-7, James wrote:
On 9/10/19 1:02 pm, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 12:36:41 +1100, James
wrote:

On 9/10/19 4:32 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
"Bicycling is dangerous! You need to wear a helmet, use bright lights in
the daytime and wear Day-Glo clothing. You need bike lanes, and you need
to stay in them. Knee pads and elbow pads wouldn't hurt either! And you
really ought to just load your bike in your car and take it out to a
nice safe bike trail. Riding in a city just isn't safe."

Here's what all that "Safety Inflation" ultimately generates:

https://www.thenational.ae/uae/trans...-push-1.920236



Bicycling can be dangerous. People die doing it, as they do falling
from bed, I know the rhetoric.

It is understandable to infer the message is "Bicycling is dangerous!",
but it is often put as "For your safety, wear a helmet & hi vis, use
lights & reflectors, etc."

In other words, "You will be much safer (or 'safe') if you take these
precautions..."

Trouble is, you are not made 'safe' by taking those precautions at all.

Sure lights are pretty important at night or during times of poor
visibility, but safety comes more from keeping your wits about you. Not
riding in the door zone. Watching all turning traffic for failure to
give way and having an escape route. Reducing speed when it is wet and
slippery. Riding in a prominent position on the road and being aware of
what all the other blind vehicle operators around you might be doing, etc.

It's like dancing with multiple vision impaired partners simultaneously,
knowing that they're swinging punches and by getting too close to any
one of them can result in a punch to the head if you're not careful.

Keeping your wits about you is probably more important than all of the
usual recommendations put together!

Of course riding in a country where the drivers better accommodate
cyclists is next on the list. Italy was pretty good. Much better than
Australia.


The answer is fairly simple, simply pass a law that in a collision the
larger vehicle, subject to proof otherwise, is deemed to be at fault
and is financially liable for any and all resulting costs. Including
replacement parts or vehicle, hospital and medical costs, loss of
income, and even funeral costs if necessary.

While this may not be politically possible in Australia it does, in
Thailand, appear to reduce bicycle accidents and according to my
neighbor, the policeman, most small motorcycle - auto crashes have
been found to be the fault of the motorcycle.


Yes, I think it would be political suicide in Australia, at least at the
moment. The very mention of similar ideas (strict liability) results in
much foaming from the mouth and calls for bicycling licenses and
registration, or bicycle prohibition from the roads.


It would be polarizing anywhere. As a general rule in the US states, the violation of a traffic law raises a presumption of negligence. So if a driver violates a law and causes an injury, the driver is presumed to be at fault. Same goes with cyclists. This promotes compliance with the traffic laws by cyclists and drivers. Why would you want to presume a driver is at fault for merely driving a car and not violating any laws? The "larger vehicle" rule would favor a lot of road users who have proved (to me) that they do not follow the laws, including skateboarders and escooter "drivers." A bicycle, being a larger vehicle, would be presumed at fault. One of my greatest hazards around here are pedestrians who just step off curbs, against lights, looking down at cell phones.

-- Jay Beattie.


The point isn't that it is "fair" or unfair, it is the point that
there is a definite set of rules that are adhered to... and people are
penalized for not adhering..

Singapore law, for example states that the penalty for possession of
two grams of Heroin is death. If you are caught with drugs the drugs
are sent to the National Laborites and purified and than weighed. If
it is two grams or more than you go before the judge who hands down
the mandatory sentence - death. Since 2013 if the accused can prove
that he/she is only a drug courier; that they suffer from some mental
disability; and they must have helped the Central Narcotics Bureau in
some substantive way, the sentence may be commuted to life
imprisonment.

The results?

The law is consistent with Singapore's authoritarian law enforcement
culture' harsh laws, mercilessly applied, are thought to work best at
deterring social evils like drug use.

Singapore's top diplomat in the UK, Michael Teo, defended Singapore's
harsh drug laws by pointing to the country's lower rates for drug use.
"8.2% of the UK population are cannabis abusers; in Singapore, it is
0.005%. For ecstasy, the figures are 1.8% for the UK and 0.003% for
Singapore; and for opiates\u2014such as heroin, opium, and morphine -
0.9% for the UK and 0.005% for Singapore,"
--
cheers,

John B.

  #30  
Old October 10th 19, 11:56 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Sepp Ruf
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 267
Default Where "Safety Inflation" leads

Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, 9 October 2019 14:10:31 UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/9/2019 12:21 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:


I was riding along a side street in a city near to me and came to a
cross street that had a sign ONE WAY Bicycles Excepted. No to me
that's a pretty stupid thing to do since any automobile entering that
one way street would NOT be expecting a bicyclist to turn up that
street going what the automobile driver would think is the wrong way.
It's a brilliant setup for an accident waiting to happen.


Actually, that can work quite well. A contraflow bicycle lane is one
place that I approve of striping special lanes for bikes. Such lanes
can save considerable travel distance for cyclists, and if done
properly can be adequately safe. See
http://www.bikexprt.com/research/con...ngerichtet.htm for
example.

But the details have to be done right.
http://www.bikexprt.com/massfacil/ca...q/litlconc.htm


Warmies... they never think of a snow cover.

That one way road where bicycles are allowed to ride counter to traffic
flow is a narrow side street WITH NO bike lane. Just imagine it. You're
driving down this street and approaching the intersection when suddenly a
bicyclists turns left from that other street and is now on your right
side. You're not expecting a bicyclist to do that. It'd be bad enough in
daylight but it'd be a LOT WORSE at night especially if the bicyclist did
not have adequate lighting if they had any lighting at all. Like I said,
it's an accident waiting to happen.


FUD. Read Frank's first link. In "narrow side streets with no bike lane
markings," the accident tsunami expected by motorists and conservative
politics has not happened. Though admittedly, it might have something to do
with the European transportational cyclists' higher accident-avoidance
competence levels than in the second link (US university affiliated);-)
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"Blackfriars cyclist safety debate 'evaded by Tories'" Doug[_12_] UK 11 September 27th 11 12:10 PM
"Blackfriars cyclist safety debate 'evaded by Tories'" Doug[_10_] UK 14 June 11th 11 04:22 AM
"Cycle safety mirrors to be mounted to Londonís traffic lights" Doug[_10_] UK 7 June 28th 10 08:03 PM
"Biking off-road leads to trail erosion and tree root damage" Mike Vandeman Mountain Biking 2 June 30th 07 02:21 AM
"Biking off-road leads to trail erosion and tree root damage" Mike Vandeman Social Issues 1 June 29th 07 05:23 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2019 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.