Dangerous? Study: 77 to 1 benefit to risk

On 8/7/2011 12:26 AM, 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?
[...]

Controlled access roadways with minimum speed limits.

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

On 8/7/2011 12:16 AM, Dan wrote:
"T°m " writes:

On 8/6/2011 5:32 PM, Dan wrote:
"T°m " writes:

On 8/6/2011 3:37 PM, Dan wrote:
[...]
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.

Well, some people claim the course helped them be a lot more confident
about riding a bicycle, which is more valuable than a placebo.

[...]
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.

Maybe not in rainy Oregon, but on a hot, sunny day asphaltic pavement
can have a surface temperature up to about 65°C (150°F), which is not
something I want to put a bare foot (or a bear foot [1]) on. Not to
mention the asphalt might stick to your foot.

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.

No fiddling with a choke, easy starts when cold, no "holes" in the
throttle response, and no warm-up needed to prevent stumbling/stalling
when opening the throttle. And the front disc brake actually provide
good modulation and stopping power.

[1] As the bear would become angry at me, which is not a good thing.

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

"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?

Serious Q : are you such a complete idiot as your posts suggest?

Do you know what an "accident" is?

Are you aware that people are "human" and that things fail, and ****
happens, and adverse weather conditions affect perception?

Idiots like you make real cyclists and people who try to encourage
people to cycle look like extremist nut cases.

On 8/7/2011 1:47 AM, "T°m Sherm@n" wrote:
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?


Lots of reasons. One relevant to this thread: the potential to live
car-free and/or use a bicycle for most of your transportation.

On 8/6/2011 4:10 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
Peter considered Sat, 06 Aug 2011
14:02:15 -0400 the perfect time to write:

On 8/6/2011 11:45 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Lou Holtman wrote:

What does 7:1 etc mean? What is benefit to risk ratio?

The ratio is an estimate of the number of years of life gained for every
year of life lost due to cycling. Obviously, it's an estimate, and one
that's complicated to construct.

But researchers have previously estimated the effects on longevity of
various behaviors and environmental factors. This cycling research
attempts to aggregate those effects as they relate to cycling, vs. not
cycling (which typically means motoring).

For example, one factor is breathing various concentrations of polluted
air. (That applies to cyclists, motorists and bystanders - but "Danger!
Danger!" people like Duane make noise about only the effect on
cyclists.) Anyway, researchers can use measured data to estimate the
amount of air pollution inhaled by cyclists and by motorists, and
compute how many years of life are expected to be lost for each group.
(That one's small, and worse for motorists, BTW.)

They can also examine data on the health benefits of moderate exercise,
and use that to estimate the number of years of life gained by regular
cycling. That factor is quite large in favor of the cyclists.

Finally, the big one in most people's minds: They can look at data on
frequency of traffic crashes and see how likely a cyclist is to get
killed or seriously injured while riding. They can work that into the
computation as well. However, it turns out it's relatively tiny. Despite
the fear mongering, loss of life while cycling is a very, very tiny risk.

Again, Mayer Hillman's computations many years ago (around 1990, IIRC)
put cycling's benefit:risk at 20:1. De Hartog's came out at 7:1 or 9:1
for different groups of cyclists. This latest comes out 77:1 - i.e. for
each population year of life lost due to cycling-related factors, there
are 77 years of life gained. Cycling is tremendously beneficial.

The differences in these estimates are large, of course. But no matter
which a person chooses, it shows that fears of cycling are unjustified,
and that we don't need weird measures to reduce the mythical danger levels.


But it's like an inverse lottery. Every one is likely to get a small
benefit, but a few are destined for a big loss. Ken K. and J. Brandt
being two examples. I'd say, given (apparent) human nature, that
lotteries are an attractive form of gambling, while cycling is an
unattractive one.

But every car off the road is one less spin of the wheel, roll of the
dice, or turn of the card.
So increasing cycling at the expense of motoring reduces the number
destined for a big loss, at the same time as increasing the number of
small benefits.

In aggregate, yes, which is one reason that it makes sense to promote
cycling on a social level. As for the comparison with long-odds
gambling, in the context of risk/reward, that's a matter of
self-interest, not altruism. If one were to assume altruistic motives,
we'd live in a very different world. My comments were about the world we
live in. Human nature, for whatever reason, seems to favor gambling the
likely small loss against the unlikely large win vs. the other way
around. 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.

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

Yes, but the key word being "easier". There's always a point of
diminishing returns in risk reduction -- the location of which is
usually where the argument rages, this case being no exception.


... -- 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.

I would assume by that you mean the only exception would be limited
access highways. I think that exception should be obvious and not
particularly relevant to dense urban areas.


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. By reducing the advantage of cycling it is made
less attractive as an alternative. If priority is given to vehicular
traffic over other modes it is discriminatory and an effective social
subsidy of motor traffic. I think the only thing that could make this
not painfully obvious is some form of dogmatic myopia.

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.
It is similar in principle to pedestrian signal phases -- a slight
inconvenience to motorists, but a big convenience to others.

Early greens and bike boxes only level the playing field slightly, but
in such a distorted landscape even that tiny bit seems huge. Motorist
convenience has been the driving force behind road design for so long
that people don't see the bias. It's not helpful when cyclists become
the blind leading the blind. Bicycles are "vehicles" only in an absurdly
pedantic sense. In the end it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy: roads
are designed for motorists because only motorists use them.


And such wish lists so seldom mention any education efforts!

Again, the context of my comments was specifically dense urban environs.
I don't believe there's anything about them that makes education more or
less beneficial.

The thing that does distinguish rural vs. urban risks to cyclists is the
greater degree of hazard presented by vehicles in urban settings. This
translates into a greater percentage of "cyclist not at fault"
incidents. One could then argue that a well educated cyclist might be at
a much lower risk in a rural setting, while the benefit of education
might be reduced comparatively in the city. A specific counter-example
might be dooring hazard, where one could argue that education ("don't
ride there") provides the most effective strategy, but as successful as
that may be as a pragmatic approach, it still has the unfortunate side
effect of putting the onus on the cyclist even though the fault
obviously lies elsewhere. In this manner, education alone, takes on an
inescapable "blame the victim" bias. An alternative would be to simply
remove the risk of dooring by eliminating parallel parking. Given the
impracticality of doing this in all places it seems reasonable to
continue with education and legal approaches to lower the hazard, but
specific modifications to bike routes (AKA facilities) make more sense
than an education-only approach.

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.

On 8/7/2011 2:26 AM, Simon Lewis wrote:
"T°m " 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?

Serious Q : are you such a complete idiot as your posts suggest?

Do you know what an "accident" is?

Are you aware that people are "human" and that things fail, and ****
happens, and adverse weather conditions affect perception?

Pulling one's head out of one's ass and learning to drive a vehicle with
proper brakes and handling is much safer that relying on the sheer bulk
of a rolling living room, and much less dangerous to others. No it will
not save everyone all the time, but neither will planting one's fat ass
in a fat ass SUV.

I think we should make everyone ride motorcycles, as it would soon thin
the herd by weeding out the incompetent.

As for inclement weather, slow the hell down to a safe speed. Duh.

Idiots like you make real cyclists and people who try to encourage
people to cycle look like extremist nut cases.

A nut case is believing all the crap shoveled out by the anti-cycling
farcilities (sic) promoters and the Liddite foam bicycle hat sellers.

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

On 8/7/2011 8:10 AM, Peter Cole wrote:
On 8/7/2011 12:12 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
[...]
I agree with reduced speed limits in any place where a pedestrian or
cyclist could be expected to be traveling.

I would assume by that you mean the only exception would be limited
access highways. I think that exception should be obvious and not
particularly relevant to dense urban areas.[...]

The problem with controlled access roads in dense urban areas is too
much access. Get rid of the interchanges in the cities, and it would
make it much quicker to traverse them on the way to one's destination.

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

On 8/7/2011 6:43 AM, Peter Cole wrote:
On 8/7/2011 1:47 AM, "T°m Sherm@n" wrote:
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?


Lots of reasons. One relevant to this thread: the potential to live
car-free and/or use a bicycle for most of your transportation.

People can do that in areas with less than a quarter of a million
people, without all the negatives huge population concentrations bring.

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

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.

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.

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.

- Frank Krygowski