Dangerous? Study: 77 to 1 benefit to risk

Dan wrote:
Frank writes:

I agree with reduced speed limits in any place where a pedestrian or
cyclist could be expected to be traveling.


Hold on a sec' - where should a cyclist *not* be expected to travel?

Around here, we have limited access highways. One would not expect a
bicyclist to travel on them, because it's illegal.

Also, FWIW, I don't see a need to reduce speed limits below the current
55 mph on country highways. I do fine riding most of those roads just
as they are.


--
- Frank Krygowski

Peter Cole wrote:
As for the comparison with long-odds
gambling... Human nature, for whatever reason, seems to favor gambling the
likely small loss against the unlikely large win vs. the other way
around.

Ropiek's book _How Risky Is It Really?_ deals with that, and with lots
more on the psychology of risk. Yes, humans are bad at making rational
decisions involving extremely unlikely events.

Perhaps a better way to promote cycling during the various "Bike
Weeks" would be to randomly give out a few large prizes rather than free
drinks and energy bars to everyone.

I think that large prize idea is a good one. (Although organizers could
do both, and maybe that's optimum.)


--
- Frank Krygowski

Peter Cole wrote:
On 8/7/2011 12:12 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

The rest of the factors you mention would not give me measurable
benefit, and would give some detriments. Even in the core of downtown
Pittsburgh at rush hour (really, gridlock hour), I've never needed a
separate bike lane to avoid vehicles jammed curb to curb.

If so, either you or Pittsburgh are unusual. Being impeded by vehicular
traffic, whether cycling or on foot, significantly detracts from the
convenience of either.

Yes, being _significantly_ impeded by anything at all does significantly
detract from the convenience of _any_ mode of transportation. That
includes weather delays when flying, trains that are late, crowds of
zoning-out walkers on a MUP, etc. This is life in our universe, like it
or not.

But I have essentially never been significantly delayed by car traffic.
Occasionally, rarely, I've missed a green light that I could have
caught; yet that doesn't meet the definition of "significant" in my
book. And contrary to the claims of some others, I've never seen a
traffic jam so curb-to-curb that I couldn't filter forward on a bike
when I chose to. As it is, I rarely choose to... but again, that's
because the delays haven't been significant.

IME, the most serious problem with downtown gridlock at 5 PM Friday is
the occasional driver's explosion of chaotic behavior. Things like the
fuming driver who suddenly says "#%$!! I'm just going to whip a U-turn
and get out of this jam!" and does something totally unexpected, with no
warning nor caution. But a stripe of paint has zero influence on such
people. You just have to learn to be alert.

But there's that "learning" thing again.

And separate
signal phases would slow everyone down even more.

Giving cyclists an "early green", for instance, might slow some
motorists slightly, but I doubt it would have any real cross-town trip
time effect. Giving cyclists a head start allows them to not have to
contend with vehicles at intersections, particularly turning vehicles.

Yeah. I get that already by not being too far to the right at an
intersection. That keeps me visible in a motorist's attention zone, and
prevents right hooks. (There's that "learning" thing again.)

Early greens and bike boxes only level the playing field slightly...

Are you aware that Portland's green bike boxes haven't been shown to
work? Last I heard, data shows just as many intersection conflicts as
before.

Cyclists have specific needs, they do not "fare best" when treated as
the operators of "vehicles", but when they're treated as cyclists. A
dogma based on a false premise is unavoidably a false dogma.

The obvious question is, what does one choose to believe? Seems most
people make their pick, then call the opposing view "dogma." And you've
chosen the dogma that says "The only way for biking to be safe and
popular is by adding facilities that change the rules of the road."

My decades of experience have shown me that the rules of the road work
really, really well.

And then, of course, there's the data confirming that...

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 8/6/2011 3:21 PM, Simon Lewis wrote:
"T°m " writes:

On 8/6/2011 3:37 PM, Dan wrote:
[...]
And the surest way to get people out of their cars and using bikes
instead is to create dedicated space and bike facilites from what is
now essentially space dedicated to cars - space that bicyclists may
have a *right* to use, but that die-hard cagers think is too dangerous
to ride in, and that cagers think belongs exclusively to them.

I prefer economic incentives to get people of of their giant cages - an
$8/gallon tax would be a start.

(Also, don't berate them as irrational cowards for their choice to
wear a helmet. It takes experience to develop a realistic concept
of the risk.)

And the uselessness of bicycle helmets.

Bicycle helmets protect the skull if it comes into contact with the
road. How is that useless?

I did not see the original post in this thread, but I expect that it was
claiming that helmets reduce the level of cycling.

As most people are well aware, there has never been any scientifically
and statistically sound survey or study that has shown that helmets,
whether mandatory or compulsory, reduce cycling levels.

Another study on the subject (for Canada), in Injury Prevention
Magazine, concluded "Helmet legislation is not associated with changes
in ridership."
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/16/4/219.abstract. But be
warned, Injury Prevention is a an international peer-reviewed journal
for health professionals and others in injury prevention. They used
actual real data. They did not stand on a corner counting some cyclists
and not counting others in order to achieve the result they desired!

Frank Krygowski writes:

Dan wrote:
"T°m " writes:

Well, the foam bicycle hat can work as a decent bump and scrape
protector (assuming you do not land on your face), but the inability
to prevent serious brain trauma is well established.


DANGER! DANGER!

You're misunderstanding the conversation, Dan. I don't recall Tom
every claiming that bicycling is very dangerous. Quite the opposite.


DANGER! DANGER! ... is what the die-hard cager too afraid to take the
plunge is going to hear when you say something like, "... inability to
prevent serious brain trauma is well established."

My present point in this discussion is what is "the surest way to get
cagers out of their cars an dusing bikes instead".

I don't care for typical bicycle helmets without a hard shell. My
*extensive* relevant experience leads me to conclude that my bicycle
helmet is an excellent bump and scrape protector.

Of course, you should realize you're some of the best living evidence
for the principle of risk compensation.


Heh. Fat lot you know. I might put it on the flip side: I know how
and when to be more cautious than normal.

I think this would offer much more benefit for those people:
http://cyclingsavvy.org/about/3-part-course/.

Active safety passive safety.


Three hours in a parking lot watching each other take turns learning to
stop and go and balance and steer?

Three hours in a classroom discussing video and animation? (Uh-oh,
"Students discover that bicycle drivers are equal road users, with the
right and ability to control their space.")

A three hour experiential tour of Orlando roads? In a *group*? Stopping
to survey and discuss each exercise location? (The picture even shows
the group standing around *looking* at the road.) Not much experience,
if you ask me.

What was it about your life that gave you such an anti-education bent?

Whether it was playing sports, doing engineering, playing a musical
instrument, riding bike or whatever, I've found that getting some good
instruction made skills much easier to acquire.

That doesn't mean that one plays like Joshua Bell or Kevin Burke after
three hours of fiddle lessons. But it does mean that nobody plays
like Joshua Bell or Kevin Burke if they've never had a lesson.


I am all about education - *love* it! Especially the public schools -
one of the best things going - a great equalizer that kids all deserve.

And I said - and you snipped - without indication - that that sort of
education course may be good for the kind of people that that sort of
thing does any good.

My present point in this discussion is what is "the surest way to get
cagers out of their cars and using bikes instead", and I maintain that
experience riding is the only best way for them to realize that bi-
cycling is not so dangerous as they seem to believe, and that facilities
are the surest way to get them to take the plunge, and that they don't
need anyone treating them like idiot, chicken**** babies if they a
helmet makes them more comfortable and give them the extra sense of
security that lets them keep riding long enough to learn how it really
is.

On 8/7/2011 11:32 AM, SMS wrote:
On 8/6/2011 3:21 PM, Simon Lewis wrote:
"T°m " writes:

[...]
And the uselessness of bicycle helmets.

Bicycle helmets protect the skull if it comes into contact with the
road. How is that useless?

I did not see the original post in this thread,

Then have the basic decency not to comment.

snip Scharfian delusionalism

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On 8/7/2011 11:52 AM, Dan wrote:
[...]
I am all about education - *love* it! Especially the public schools -
one of the best things going - a great equalizer that kids all deserve.
[...]

Including the indoctrination in "American Exceptionalism" and crony
capitalism?

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
I am a vehicular cyclist.

"T°m Sherm@n" " writes:

On 8/7/2011 11:52 AM, Dan wrote:
[...]
I am all about education - *love* it! Especially the public schools -
one of the best things going - a great equalizer that kids all deserve.
[...]

Including the indoctrination in "American Exceptionalism" and crony
capitalism?


Okay, admittedly not all kids are raised - as mine have quite
successfully I can proudly say - to think for themselves, but
in my experience many fine public school teachers *and* school systems
*do* make this a priority and can make up for some of this that is
missing from the home and other influences.

I was thinking more along the lines of access, and of the uplifting
effect that said equal access and a few good teachers can offer.

(I also love PBS.)

Op 7-8-2011 19:21, "T°m Sherm@n" schreef:
On 8/7/2011 11:52 AM, Dan wrote:
[...]
I am all about education - *love* it! Especially the public schools -
one of the best things going - a great equalizer that kids all deserve.
[...]

Including the indoctrination in "American Exceptionalism" and crony
capitalism?



Man, you must have a tough life getting upset about so many things.

Lou

Phil W Lee writes:

Frank Krygowski considered Sun, 07 Aug
2011 12:04:26 -0400 the perfect time to write:

Peter Cole wrote:
As for the comparison with long-odds
gambling... Human nature, for whatever reason, seems to favor gambling the
likely small loss against the unlikely large win vs. the other way
around.

Ropiek's book _How Risky Is It Really?_ deals with that, and with lots
more on the psychology of risk. Yes, humans are bad at making rational
decisions involving extremely unlikely events.

Perhaps a better way to promote cycling during the various "Bike
Weeks" would be to randomly give out a few large prizes rather than free
drinks and energy bars to everyone.

I think that large prize idea is a good one. (Although organizers could
do both, and maybe that's optimum.)

Well, that's what lotteries do as well - keep handing out lots of
little prizes, just to keep people playing, with the occasional well
publicised big win.

In a cycling promotion context, that would be handing out the free
drinks, energy bars, etc, with a few sets of panniers, new chains, or
service vouchers, and an annual draw for a custom built bike.

Cagers don't care about any of that stuff (well, maybe the bike - which
they figure they can sell for cash). And even not quite committed
bicyclists won't be motivated to ditch the car by prizes - even if
you keep giving them and keep giving them. The will to ride day in
and day out can only come from within - the joy of riding itself (or
maybe sometimes the need to get fit or die).