The Hypocrisy in Frank Krygowski's professions of faith

On Sep 7, 2:32*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Sep 6, 1:10*am, James wrote:

On Sep 6, 2:24*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Right. *Now that I've made it into their site, I find no explanation
of the terms at all - not even of the term "serious injury."

Did I not say just that?

You did. *Do you understand how much that limits the value of their
data?

Do you realise that the study I also posted a link to that covers all
of Australia backs up this Victorian study?

"In 46 crashes (21 per cent), a motor vehicle ran into the rear
of a bicycle travelling in the same lane in the same direction."

Yes, I'd advise to wear a helmet.

And how well did that work for the young racer you mentioned earlier?

It worked quite well for several other incidents I also cited.
Personally I've not been hit square on from behind yet, unless you
include the lady who tried to bump me off while I was stationary at an
intersection, yet twice I've been side swiped and left scratches down
the length of the vehicle that failed to overtake and leave a safe
distance. Both times I kept the bike upright, thankfully.

Many incidents will be a glancing blow, that is the cyclist is shunted
to the side, some will go over the top of the car and some become a
bonnet adornment. *You don't need much imagination to see that many
situations incur a glancing blow, where the head is not subjected to
the same peak accelerations that you would get from a collision with a
flat solid object at 20 mph. *

But doesn't that also apply to pedestrians, who suffer far more
injuries and fatalities, according to you data source? *Here it is:
from 2004 through 2009, it said there were 306 pedestrian fatalities,
but only 51 cyclist fatalities. *Why are there no cries for pedestrian
helmets?

Smoke - we're discussing cycling.

That is, if you get shunted forward and
off to the side of the road, your head may not even hit the car, but
may hit the ground as you fall. *If you go over the top of the car
backwards, you may slide up the windscreen, over the car and then hit
the road. *Again, glancing blows. *It doesn't need to be a SUV. *A
helmet is likely to improve your chances under these circumstances in
my opinion.

Of course, you formed your opinion without noticing that bike helmets
have _not_ helped reduce fatalities per rider. *I believe I've posted
graphs comparing bike fatalities and ped fatalities. *Did you spot any
difference attributable to helmet use? *I didn't. *Neither has anyone
else.

The study that covers Australian statistics I cited reports:

"Examining the crashes in 2001–04, it was observed that:
In 65 of the 113 cases, helmet usage was unknown but 30 of the
cyclists were wearing a helmet and 18 were not. About one-third of
cyclists wearing a helmet died of head injuries, while about half of
those not wearing a helmet died of
head injuries."

Hmm.

So much hypothetical death in your mind, but so little actual death in
real life! *Again, YOUR data source says fewer than 9 bike fatalities
per year. *That's probably consistent with the national figure I saw
for Australia, claiming 16 million miles cycled per fatality. *How
long will it take you to ride 16 million miles?

A lot more serious injury you don't seem to worry about.

Far fewer peds would be squished if they were more observant and
careful.

So your advice to pedestrians is "be more observant and careful." *But
your advice to cyclists is only "wear a helmet." *That's very typical
of helmet promoters.

It's easy for a ped to be more observant. The only reason I'm still
cycling is because I'm extremely observant. If the average peds was
as observant as I have to be on the bike, their death toll would no
doubt be reduced significantly.

Hmm, so cyclists are more likely to be killed than motor vehicle
occupants. *Thank you, Frank.

By about 12 percent, yes. *And pedestrians are more likely to be
killed than bicyclists by *79%. *Why is that not on your radar?

We're not talking about peds, and as I've said, they need to be more
careful. There is no reason to be squashed walking across the road.
Can't say the same about cycling.

And here's Canadian data, with
discussion:http://www.vehicularcyclist.com/fatals.html

Not interested in some other part of the world. I don't cycle there.

JS.

On Sep 7, 6:26*pm, James wrote:
On Sep 7, 2:32*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Sep 6, 1:10*am, James wrote:

On Sep 6, 2:24*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Right. *Now that I've made it into their site, I find no explanation
of the terms at all - not even of the term "serious injury."

Did I not say just that?

You did. *Do you understand how much that limits the value of their
data?

Do you realise that the study I also posted a link to that covers all
of Australia backs up this Victorian study?

"In 46 crashes (21 per cent), a motor vehicle ran into the rear
of a bicycle travelling in the same lane in the same direction."

Again, you seem to be visualizing all those as being cases where
someone absolutely didn't see the cyclist who was riding perfectly
properly, and ran directly into them from the rear - a situation you
claim is impossible to defend.

I suspect that those incidents include cases where a cyclist swerved
into the path of a motor vehicle, since such incidents are separately
listed in other studies (and I've linked to articles based on their
data). Furthermore, I'd bet a lot that those incidents also include
cases where a cyclist rides in the gutter, hoping to appease motorists
trying to pass in a 3 meter lane. It probably also includes many -
perhaps, as in the US a majority of such cases - where the struck
cyclist was riding at night, and using no lights or reflectors.

Yes, I'd advise to wear a helmet.

And how well did that work for the young racer you mentioned earlier?

It worked quite well for several other incidents I also cited.

It did not work for the one you gave the most attention to. It also
did not work for many, many others. If it had, then bike fatality and
serious injury data for Australia would have shown great improvement
at the time that helmets became strongly mandated. No such
improvement has been shown - especially on a per-cyclist basis.

What helmets have done is generate lots of "my helmet saved me!"
stories. If Oz had mandated styrofoam clown shoes, I suppose there'd
have been lots of people claiming "My fragile clown shoe broke! It
saved me from lifetime in a wheelchair!"


Personally I've not been hit square on from behind yet, unless you
include the lady who tried to bump me off while I was stationary at an
intersection, yet twice I've been side swiped and left scratches down
the length of the vehicle that failed to overtake and leave a safe
distance. *Both times I kept the bike upright, thankfully.

Sounds to me like you're firmly in the gutter bunny camp. Move out
and control the lane when the lane is too narrow to share. They'll
wait and pass only when it's clear. That's very common knowledge.




Many incidents will be a glancing blow, that is the cyclist is shunted
to the side, some will go over the top of the car and some become a
bonnet adornment. *You don't need much imagination to see that many
situations incur a glancing blow, where the head is not subjected to
the same peak accelerations that you would get from a collision with a
flat solid object at 20 mph. *

But doesn't that also apply to pedestrians, who suffer far more
injuries and fatalities, according to you data source? *Here it is:
from 2004 through 2009, it said there were 306 pedestrian fatalities,
but only 51 cyclist fatalities. *Why are there no cries for pedestrian
helmets?

Smoke - we're discussing cycling.

Of course you're discussing only cycling. Helmet promoters are
excellent at pretending cycling is the riskiest mode of transport, and
the most important source of serious brain injuries. Never mind the
data! Never mind all those killed walkers! Never mind that cyclists
are about 1% of society's brain injury problem! Never mind that
helmets haven't reduced that percentage at all! Never mind the facts,
dammit! Nobody must ever ride a bike without wearing a bike helmet!

And pedestrians are more likely to be
killed than bicyclists by *79%. *Why is that not on your radar?

We're not talking about peds, and as I've said, they need to be more
careful. *There is no reason to be squashed walking across the road.
Can't say the same about cycling.

They need to be more careful - that is, they need to get out of the
gutter to prevent hits-from-behind or sideswipes, plus hook and cross
collisions.

And here's Canadian data, with
discussion:http://www.vehicularcyclist.com/fatals.html

Not interested in some other part of the world. *I don't cycle there.

So Australia runs by different laws of traffic and physics?

http://www.cycle-helmets.com/

- Frank Krygowski

On Sep 8, 9:00*am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Sep 7, 6:26*pm, James wrote:

"In 46 crashes (21 per cent), a motor vehicle ran into the rear
of a bicycle travelling in the same lane in the same direction."

Again, you seem to be visualizing all those as being cases where
someone absolutely didn't see the cyclist who was riding perfectly
properly, and ran directly into them from the rear - a situation you
claim is impossible to defend.

Again, you seem to think that fear from the rear is imagined, whereas
I've shown that in Australia at least it is not.

You also seem to think that the cyclist was to blame for all the
incidents I mentioned and the statistics from the paper I cited,
clearly not true.

I suspect that those incidents include cases where a cyclist swerved
into the path of a motor vehicle, since such incidents are separately
listed in other studies (and I've linked to articles based on their
data). *Furthermore, I'd bet a lot that those incidents also include
cases where a cyclist rides in the gutter, hoping to appease motorists
trying to pass in a 3 meter lane. *It probably also includes many -
perhaps, as in the US a majority of such cases - where the struck
cyclist was riding at night, and using no lights or reflectors.

So all the cyclists were weaving all over the road hoping to be hit by
an overtaking motorist? You must be a crack pot.

Yes, I'd advise to wear a helmet.

And how well did that work for the young racer you mentioned earlier?

It worked quite well for several other incidents I also cited.

It did not work for the one you gave the most attention to.

What are you talking about? I recalled several incidents from memory
and a link to one news article to which you refer.

You've gone off the deep end, Frank. I cannot fathom your line of
reason. From here on I must assume you are beyond reason and shall
desist from informing you that the world is not as your backyard
appears to be.

Sounds to me like you're firmly in the gutter bunny camp. *Move out
and control the lane when the lane is too narrow to share. *They'll
wait and pass only when it's clear. *That's very common knowledge.

Oh, yeah. You know all the tricks, Frank. Come try that here and see
how far it gets you. It works most of the time, but keep your ears
tuned and reflexes sharp. Just the other day a bus driver skimmed
past with at most about 6" to spare. Imagine you had to dodge
something just as it came past. You know, by law they're supposed to
give 1m. Try taking control of the lane up Mt Dandenong and see how
often the F**kwits overtake on blind corners. And for the record I
usually ride about half a meter out, and if there are two or more we
ride two abreast to make an even bigger presence on the road. At
times that generates more anger, and you have items thrown at you,
like spark plugs, beer bottles and MacDonalds soft drink mugs half
full - speaking from experience. F**k me, you haven't got a clue.
Stop boring me with your common knowledge insults.

Not interested in some other part of the world. *I don't cycle there.

So Australia runs by different laws of traffic and physics?

My goodness you're slow. Different culture toward cyclists.

I cannot be bothered discussing further with you, Frank. Your closed
mind and obsessive nature is out of control.

I won't tell you or anyone to wear a helmet. I might advise it, and
particularly in my own backyard where I know the road culture and
risks. As long as you stick to your side of the fishpond, you'll be
safe enough I guess.

JS.

On Sep 6, 9:52 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Sep 6, 3:16 am, Dan O wrote:

On Sep 5, 8:00 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
If you're
specifically uninterested in facts about helmets, why are you reading
helmet threads?
You know that kid who hangs around at the bike shop? The one who just
won't leave? And listens to *everything*? :-)

Yeah. But if that kid repeatedly said "Why are you guys talking about
_that_? It's boring!" we'd have chased him out.

Usenet and Google Groups has no requirement that you read every post.
Skip the ones you aren't interested in. Don't argue in them, then say
you won't read facts others raise, because they aren't interesting.
Won't read?! Won't read what? (Don't tell me it's in that library
where you work, either.)
You don't offer anything to read. When you have, I've read it - at
least looked at and considered it. No, you just say, "Go and research
this yourself, just like I have, or I will simply disregard what you
say."

I believe that's been said only when you've aggressively asked me for
data that's both been previously cited, and is easily found.

I'm sorry, Frank, but practically no one else is going to
devote their life to it the way you have. That doesn't mean I'm dumb.
To get a meaningful understanding of just one of those studies, I
would want in depth and *complete* details of everything. There will
be missing information. I will have questions. It will take more
time, and more digging, and more work... And this would just be any
*one* study. Meanwhile, I'm not getting any better at wheelbuilding,
or getting that treehouse built, or...

If that's what interests you, then go build wheels or treehouses or
whatever. All you've been doing here is nagging about imagined
slights, giving elaborate excuses for not bothering to learn, and
complaining about those of us who have bothered to learn.

I'd welcome interesting questions from you, or anyone else. Peter
Cole (IIRC) introduced an interesting topic, on details of risk
compensation, which illustrates there are new directions that this
discussion could go. There's still more to learn.

I'd welcome interesting questions, but if you're not really
interested, you shouldn't be wasting your time, nor ours.


Gee, thanks.

On Sep 7, 8:58*pm, James wrote:
On Sep 8, 9:00*am, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Sep 7, 6:26*pm, James wrote:
"In 46 crashes (21 per cent), a motor vehicle ran into the rear
of a bicycle travelling in the same lane in the same direction."

Again, you seem to be visualizing all those as being cases where
someone absolutely didn't see the cyclist who was riding perfectly
properly, and ran directly into them from the rear - a situation you
claim is impossible to defend.

Again, you seem to think that fear from the rear is imagined, whereas
I've shown that in Australia at least it is not.

I'm sure that you've proven to yourself that your particular riding
area is very dangerous; that at any moment, you might get run down
from behind; that there is nothing you can do to prevent it; but that
a certified -for-14-mph helmet is very likely to prevent your death.

But no, you haven't proven it to me. National data for Australia
claims 16 million miles ridden between fatalities, which is better
than national data for the US (and US data is not very scary,
either). Pure "didn't see him" run-down-from-behind crashes of
legally correct cyclists are rare in every other jurisdiction I've
read about, so I strongly suspect they're rare in Oz too, especially
given the coarseness of your data bins. I know there are techniques
to prevent being run down from behind, because I employ them and have
taught them. And no matter what you believe, Australian data clearly
shows bike helmets are not saving tons of lives. Unless, that is, you
consider reducing cycling to be a wonderful way of saving lives.

You also seem to think that the cyclist was to blame for all the
incidents I mentioned and the statistics from the paper I cited,
clearly not true.

I don't think cyclists were responsible for all crashes. I suspect
they could have prevented many, if not most. But your data
classifications lack the detail to prove or disprove this.

I suspect that those incidents include cases where a cyclist swerved
into the path of a motor vehicle, since such incidents are separately
listed in other studies (and I've linked to articles based on their
data). *Furthermore, I'd bet a lot that those incidents also include
cases where a cyclist rides in the gutter, hoping to appease motorists
trying to pass in a 3 meter lane. *It probably also includes many -
perhaps, as in the US a majority of such cases - where the struck
cyclist was riding at night, and using no lights or reflectors.

So all the cyclists were weaving all over the road hoping to be hit by
an overtaking motorist?

Again: In other places, roughly 2/3 of hit-from-behind cyclists have
no rear lights or reflectors when riding in the dark on country
roads. Are Oz cyclists better at that? It would be nice to have some
information, if available.

Yes, I'd advise to wear a helmet.

It did not work for the one you gave the most attention to.

What are you talking about? *I recalled several incidents from memory
and a link to one news article to which you refer.

What was that young racer's name? You spotlighted the article on his
death. Was he not wearing a helmet when he was run down from behind?
It didn't save his life, did it?

I cannot fathom your line of reason. *

Yes, that's obvious.

My line of reason usually involves detailed examination of data.
Unfortunately, the data you've provided to bolster your claims doesn't
allow that - it apparently groups many different crash typed into
one.

FWIW, I have two sets of friends who have bicycle toured extensively
in Australia. None of those folks mentioned anything unusual about
risks, traffic patterns, near misses, etc. I assume that's because
things were not much different there. Certainly, I've never
encountered any articles on the uniqueness of Australian road riding -
the unique need to be ever-alert for murderous motorists, for example.

Sounds to me like you're firmly in the gutter bunny camp. *Move out
and control the lane when the lane is too narrow to share. *They'll
wait and pass only when it's clear. *That's very common knowledge.

Oh, yeah. *You know all the tricks, Frank. *Come try that here and see
how far it gets you. *It works most of the time, but keep your ears
tuned and reflexes sharp. *Just the other day a bus driver skimmed
past with at most about 6" to spare. *Imagine you had to dodge
something just as it came past. *You know, by law they're supposed to
give 1m. *Try taking control of the lane up Mt Dandenong and see how
often the F**kwits overtake on blind corners. *And for the record I
usually ride about half a meter out...

Half a meter out _is_ gutter bunny territory. That alone explains
your experience with near-sideswipes. Try reading _Cyclecraft_ by
John Franklin. There are things you need to learn.

and if there are two or more we
ride two abreast to make an even bigger presence on the road. *At
times that generates more anger, and you have items thrown at you,
like spark plugs, beer bottles and MacDonalds soft drink mugs half
full - speaking from experience. *F**k me, you haven't got a clue.
Stop boring me with your common knowledge insults.

OK, never mind. You are, apparently, a hell of a man to continue
cycling in a place so dangerous that any other mere mortal would be
road kill! I'd probably be smashed flat within half an hour of
arriving, because my riding techniques would be useless. That is true
even though they worked for me in at least 40 US states, in several
Canadian provinces, in England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Sweden,
Finland, Estonia, Poland, the Czech Republic, Austria, Italy, and
Switzerland.

You're also very perceptive to realize that ordinary physics does not
apply to bike helmets, at least in Australia. And that ordinary data
analysis does not apply to Australian road dangers. And that even
though, on average, it takes 16 million miles to produce a biking
fatality, in your case it almost happens every day - and that your
helmet is the main thing saving your life.

I do hope some mainstream scientists make the trek to explore the
wonders of your area. If the dangers are as great as you say (um,
despite data to the contrary) and if a little styrofoam is so much
more effective than physics predicts, they should stop working on
whatever they're doing and talk to you. Just think - military tanks
could be so much lighter, if styrofoam replaces battle armor! And a
little styrofoam around the perimeter of a motor vehicle would
probably make motorist traffic deaths just an unpleasant memory!

(I could point out that motorist traffic deaths are FAR more common
than bicycle traffic deaths, but I'm sure you've already worked that
into your philosophy.)

- Frank Krygowski

"James" wrote in message ...
On Sep 8, 9:00 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Sep 7, 6:26 pm, James wrote:

"In 46 crashes (21 per cent), a motor vehicle ran into the rear
of a bicycle travelling in the same lane in the same direction."

Again, you seem to be visualizing all those as being cases where
someone absolutely didn't see the cyclist who was riding perfectly
properly, and ran directly into them from the rear - a situation you
claim is impossible to defend.

Again, you seem to think that fear from the rear is imagined, whereas
I've shown that in Australia at least it is not.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1568952/

Nor in Quebec apparently. BTW subsequent investigations showed that this
guy was working a double and fell asleep with the cruise control on.
These riders were training and from witness accounts were doing nothing
wrong.

On Sep 8, 9:03*am, "Duane Hebert" wrote:
"James" wrote in ...
On Sep 8, 9:00 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Sep 7, 6:26 pm, James wrote:

"In 46 crashes (21 per cent), a motor vehicle ran into the rear
of a bicycle travelling in the same lane in the same direction."

Again, you seem to be visualizing all those as being cases where
someone absolutely didn't see the cyclist who was riding perfectly
properly, and ran directly into them from the rear - a situation you
claim is impossible to defend.

Again, you seem to think that fear from the rear is imagined, whereas
I've shown that in Australia at least it is not.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ee-quebec-cycl...

Nor in Quebec apparently. *BTW subsequent investigations showed that this
guy was working a double and fell asleep with the cruise control on.
These riders were training and from witness accounts were doing nothing
wrong.

And they were apparently wearing helmets, which did not save them.

"There were speed bikes, helmets, sunglasses and even a sports watch
scattered across a large distance..."

So how does this incident fit into a helmet promotion scheme?

Nobody has ever said that such tragic events never happen. They are,
however, very rare, and one of the smallest parts of the bike safety
problem - if you can call it a problem at all. For each cycling
fatality, you _could_ do newspaper articles on several pedestrian
fatalities, and make them sound just as horrible. This is true in the
US (where about six peds die for every cyclist), in Australia and in
Canada. It's probably true most everywhere.

But nobody would expect that the pedestrians should have worn
helmets.

- Frank Krygowski

On Sep 9, 2:17*am, Phil W Lee wrote:
James considered Tue, 7 Sep 2010 17:58:56
-0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:

Half a metre IS gutter hugging - any closer and you'd be risking a
kerb strike with a pedal.

What drugs are you on? Have you ever watched the cyclists in the TDF
on the final stage ride down the gutter to avoid the cobbles?

Man, if you can strike a pedal on the gutter from 500mm out you must
have the widest set of cranks and pedals known to man. Do you know
how far 500mm is?

In Australia the concrete gutter I would guess is at least 200mm wide,
and I ride about half a metre from the edge of the concrete - hence
half a metre from the gutter. It is not advisable to ride so close
that you actually ride on the concrete of the gutter because there is
often a lip between the asphalt and the concrete that can make
traversal dangerous for the uninitiated.

Try two metres - it is about the distance from the kerb that the
driver of a motor vehicle sits, and is where you need to be if you
want to be sure that they notice you.

LOL~! ROTFL~! 2 metres if you want to be sure of not only abuse but
at least a confrontation, and probably side swipes before someone runs
you off the road and beats the living **** out of you - that's if you
don't get knocked off first.

Jeez, we spent 2 hours at the Ringwood police station not long ago
giving statements because some nutter drove a group of us off the road
and got out for a fight. Not that long ago a regular TV celebrity
broke a cyclists finger during an altercation about riding too far
from the gutter.

Just move over (to about 1-1.5 metres) to let them past when it IS
safe for them to do so.

You're as nutty as Frank. Try that in Melbourne or Sydney for any
length of time and see how you go. I hear Brisbane is more friendly
when you chicken out.

You seem to have difficulty with the difference between riding
assertively and riding obnoxiously.

You seem to have difficulty understanding the road users culture and
attitude toward cyclists where I live.

Of course, if you ride like a prat you will be treated like one.
There may be a very small minority of drivers who treat all riders
like that, but at least you can be sure that they have seen you - and
a soft drink isn't nearly as likely to kill you as the motorist who
doesn't even know you are there.

I don't know when I'll stop laughing at you, Phil.

You should still report assault to the police though, and collect the
projectile as evidence.

Please don't get me started. The police here don't know that cyclists
are allowed to ride two abreast, or that cyclists are permitted - if
not encouraged- to make a hook turn at any intersection that they want
to turn right by http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/. I just had the hook
turn argument with a police officer at Ringwood station!

That's the result of discriminating against cyclists with things like
MHLs, or maybe the cause. *You still don't have to accept it.

No, it's because cycling is not part of the Australian culture as it
is in other parts of the globe. I've ridden in the UK, and I have
friends and family who've cycled and raced in Europe. It is true that
cyclists on the roads in these places are far more accepted by the
motorists. Cadel Evans has said as much to the media. He was abused
while out training several times when he returned here at the end of
last season.

JS.