Dangerous? Study: 77 to 1 benefit to risk

On 8/6/2011 3:01 PM, AMuzi wrote:
SMS wrote:
On 8/6/2011 10:50 AM, Peter Cole wrote:
I'd like the same in the city. I hate queuing
up behind long lines of hot, exhaust spewing vehicles jammed curb to
curb.

That's a big advantage of a bike lane, you go to the front rather than
sit stuck behind a line of cars.

I'd like to take a little space from the road hogs. Ideally, I'd
like my own signals, or even signal timings, and I'd like exemptions
from traffic controls along the lines of "Idaho stops". I'd like to see
a reduction in urban areas from the default thickly settled speed limit
of 30 mph to a more reasonable 20. Simple stuff that would make cycling
safer, more pleasant and more convenient.

All good ideas. Turning stop signs into yield signs for bicyclists on
low speed roads would be a big help.


Sure, that would remove some of the extraneous pedestrians, but it might
cost something to clear the bodies from the street.


Apparently that hasn't happened in Idaho, and they've been doing it for
something like 25 years.

On 8/6/2011 4:21 PM, "T°m Sherm@n" wrote:
On 8/6/2011 12:50 PM, Peter Cole wrote:
[...]
I hate queuing up behind long lines of hot, exhaust spewing vehicles
jammed curb to curb.[...]

That only happens a few times a year (at special events) where I live in
Iowa.


I can believe that, but the context of my comments was dense urban areas.

Dan wrote:
Frank writes:

Dan wrote:
Frank writes:

Many years ago, the eminent British researcher...


snip


Really, how safe does cycling have to be, and by how much do its
benefits have to exceed the tiny risk, before we say "Stop
worrying. It's safe enough"?


Safe enough for what? Safe enough to do? Don't we all do it?

No, not for some definitions of "we."


Who is your audience for this post?

Your "we" could have referred to the audience of your post, or the
people of your town, or Americans as a group, or residents of Earth.

In any case, there are plenty of people who do not ride bikes because
they falsely believe the risks outweigh the benefits. I believe the
readers of this newsgroup, _and_ the writers of "safety" articles, _and_
Safe Kids Inc., _and_ legislators, _and_ bicycle advocates should all be
saying "Stop worrying. Cycling is safe enough."

If you want to improve some specific danger area, fine. I'd suggest
starting with door zone bike lanes. But on average, cycling is
certainly safe enough.


..I'm mostly
just in it to Ride Bike. You go ahead on and make the world a better
place - and go ahead and share information with us FWIW (and thanks
for both); but give *us* some credit and spare us the lectures.

Dan, as always, you're welcome to stop reading at any moment. None of
this is mandatory. But it is a discussion group, and I will discuss things.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Peter Cole wrote:


That's really the issue. It's not whether, as you say, cycling is safe
enough to do -- we apparently all agree that it is -- but could it
(easily) be made safer...

Of course "... can be made safer..." applies to every activity on earth.

... -- and I'd add -- more convenient and more
pleasant. On our local expressways we have "HOV" (high occupancy
vehicle) dedicated lanes. I'd like the same in the city. I hate queuing
up behind long lines of hot, exhaust spewing vehicles jammed curb to
curb. I'd like to take a little space from the road hogs. Ideally, I'd
like my own signals, or even signal timings, and I'd like exemptions
from traffic controls along the lines of "Idaho stops". I'd like to see
a reduction in urban areas from the default thickly settled speed limit
of 30 mph to a more reasonable 20. Simple stuff that would make cycling
safer, more pleasant and more convenient.

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

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. And separate
signal phases would slow everyone down even more.

And such wish lists so seldom mention any education efforts!


--
- Frank Krygowski

Peter Cole wrote:
On 8/6/2011 11:22 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:


[Cycling is] Safe enough to dispense with the cries that "We need bike tracks and
bike boxes and bike lanes and bike paths because ordinary roads are so
dangerous."

If people, currently cycling or not, want to ride with some separation
from vehicular traffic, why stand in their way? To each their own.

I don't believe I have ever prevented anyone from riding separated from
motor vehicle traffic. I may think hanging your bike on your car,
driving 15 miles to a bike path, riding back and forth, then driving
home is silly, but I've never prevented it.

What I'd like to prevent is people saying "Riding a bike is too
dangerous unless you're separated from motor vehicle traffic." I
dispute that statement just as you might dispute "We need to invade
Saudi Arabia to ensure our oil supply."

You can't control the world, you should stop trying.

:-) You can't control my saying "Bicycling is safe." You should stop
trying.

Cyclists seem astonishingly willing to accept anti-bike propaganda, and
to claim they would have died if not for their special hat, or special
paint on the road.

Why do you care what some people think? I don't. I'm ambivalent about
helmets but utterly opposed to MHL's. What's so hard? Live and let live.

Why do I care about the helmet hysteria? Because helmeteers have the
stated goal of making it illegal to ride without a helmet. Because they
routinely misrepresent cycling as dangerous. Because there have been
attempts - a few successful - to portray a cyclist as having been
negligent for not using a helmet to protect himself from a careless
motorist. Because helmeteers have used dishonest arguments, underhanded
politics, and falsified data in pursuit of their agenda. And so on.

"Live and let live" works well when everyone plays by that same rule.
It doesn't work so well when others say "I'm going to make you live the
way I want you to live."


--
- Frank Krygowski

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 ...

Really? Seems to me that public bike share systems have been much more
successful than bike lanes.

(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.)

I'm not aware of anyone using the word "coward" in that context. But
please, don't pretend that the natural order is for people to
automatically strap styrofoam to their heads for simple bike rides.
That never happened until there were years of advertisements, fear
mongering, propaganda, lies, regulations and laws.

--
- Frank Krygowski

"T°m Sherm@n" " writes:

On 8/6/2011 5:32 PM, Dan 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.


I'm all about that, too.

Especially the "I need a big vehicle for safety" (and screw other road
users) people. How about taking driving seriously, so you do not get
into accidents in the first place?


You said it, brother. (You know I'm all about that, too... but it's
not exactly "the surest way to get people out of their cars and using
bikes instead".)

(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.


My relevant experience is significant and leads me to a different
conclusion, even though I have a pretty good idea of the low risk
of head injuries, and of the limitations of a helmet to prevent them.

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!

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. The skull and head
assembly itself seems to provide very good protection against serious
brain trauma - such that it's kind of hard to practically augment
much. That said, the hard shell of my bicycle helmet is capable of
deflecting things that might conceivably even penetrate the skull
otherwise, and the foam liner of diffusing forces that might otherwise
crack the skull open, and the whole business of protecting against all
sorts of other unpleasantness, not to mention (or, I guess I am about
to) that the freedom to tumble in a crash without awkwardly protecting
your head against every bump and scrape could conceivably prevent a
broken leg ;-)

I don't kid myself about the limitations of the foam liner in
attenuating brain slosh, though it may help a little.

(Why do I feel like I've let myself get sucked into a religious
argument?) In any case, I was talking about...

In any case, I was talking above about humoring the peace of mind that
fledgling bicyclists need to get on the road and eventually gain the
experience that will offer them a more realistic concept of the risk.
It's fine to offer them imformation that puts the risks and benefits
in context, but there is no subsititute for experience, and branding
them unduly fearful suckers won't encourage them to take the plunge.
If wearing a helmet is the placebo they need to get out there and to
stick with it, they'll find out that it's not so scary after all.

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.

I'm not saying it wouldn't be good for the kind people that sort of
thing does any good, but do you really think telling people that riding
a bike is just like driving their car will be the surest way for them
to overcome their unrealistic fears and get out of their cars and use
bikes instead?

There is no substitute for experience in offering a realization. Humor
them their placebo if that's what it takes.

I feel no significant additional danger when I ride a
bike/trike/velomobile without a foam hat, but always wear a Snell
2010M certified full-face helmet on a scooter (powered, not push) [1]
or motorcycle.


Most of my bicycle rides are bareheaded, and when I rode motorcycles,
even that was sometimes sans helmet.

I like having serious abrasion protection.

E.g.http://www.flickr.com/photos/19704682@N08/6003841817/in/set-72157627344771070/.


Neat bike. I would probably ride that bareheaded *and* barefooted.

With all the nasty stuff on the road, at least sandals are indicated.


Good point, though even with shoes on I don't put my foot down without
looking to see what I might be stepping on.

Unlike your (or your parents') Vespa of yesteryear, current Honda
scooters have 4-cycle engines, fuel injection, electronic engine
management, and a 3-way catalytic converter. No rattle from "piston
slap", smoke, or exhaust smell.


Oh, yes - they're nice. I notice that pickup trucks have gotten a lot
fancier, too.

Frank Krygowski writes:

Peter Cole wrote:


That's really the issue. It's not whether, as you say, cycling is safe
enough to do -- we apparently all agree that it is -- but could it
(easily) be made safer...

Of course "... can be made safer..." applies to every activity on earth.

... -- and I'd add -- more convenient and more
pleasant. On our local expressways we have "HOV" (high occupancy
vehicle) dedicated lanes. I'd like the same in the city. I hate queuing
up behind long lines of hot, exhaust spewing vehicles jammed curb to
curb. I'd like to take a little space from the road hogs. Ideally, I'd
like my own signals, or even signal timings, and I'd like exemptions
from traffic controls along the lines of "Idaho stops". I'd like to see
a reduction in urban areas from the default thickly settled speed limit
of 30 mph to a more reasonable 20. Simple stuff that would make cycling
safer, more pleasant and more convenient.

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?

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.

Oh, *you* haven't needed it, so it would not give *you* measurable
benefit. Got it.

And
separate signal phases would slow everyone down even more.


And your reduced speed limits every place there could be somebody
walking or riding a bike?

And such wish lists so seldom mention any education efforts!


What for. I thought you said it was safe enough already.

Frank Krygowski writes:

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 ...

Really? Seems to me that public bike share systems have been much
more successful than bike lanes.


I'll bet you money that there aren't any public bike share programs
in any places that don't have bike lanes.

(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.)

I'm not aware of anyone using the word "coward"

**** you.

... in that context. But
please, don't pretend that the natural order is for people to
automatically strap styrofoam to their heads for simple bike
rides.

**** you, asshole!

That never happened until there were years of advertisements,
fear mongering, propaganda, lies, regulations and laws.


The work of "helmeteers", I suppose.

On 8/6/2011 10:26 PM, Peter Cole wrote:
On 8/6/2011 4:21 PM, "T°m Sherm@n" wrote:
On 8/6/2011 12:50 PM, Peter Cole wrote:
[...]
I hate queuing up behind long lines of hot, exhaust spewing vehicles
jammed curb to curb.[...]

That only happens a few times a year (at special events) where I live in
Iowa.


I can believe that, but the context of my comments was dense urban areas.

Yes, but why would sane people choose to live in such places?

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