Cycling deaths in Toronto traced back to city infrastructure

On 2015-07-04 9:21 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Saturday, July 4, 2015 at 6:22:27 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, July 4, 2015 at 8:11:48 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2015-07-04 7:24 AM, jbeattie wrote:
snip

Snipped
I wonder if they tested that driver for "recreational" drugs. The
only motor vehicles I have to watch out for on segregated bike
facilities are dirt bikers and ATV using singletrack illegally.
That's why I ride with daytime light even on some trail sections
when the vegetation is more dense.

Oh, and one has to watch out for rattlesnakes, of course.

I just returned from like a 1,000 mile ride -- O.K., it was less
than 1,000 miles, but still really epic. AND I DIDN'T DIE! (except
metaphorically on the last hills getting home). My route even
included crossing a water-body, and I didn't wear a life preserver.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=505xiKnCNDk The first part of the
ride was with a racing club that happened to roll by me and my
riding buddy. No flashers. No powerful front lights. My friend and
I looked the part (although twice as old), and they let us drop in
until our routes parted.

The remainder of the ride was on shoulderless death roads filled
with guys in pick-up trucks flying giant Americun flags and
blasting country-western music. There really were a lot of guys
flying giant flags and blasting country-western music. I guess
it's a holiday thing. I was hit seven times, maybe eight, but I
kept riding. I'm that tough. I also noted a larger than usual
accumulation of dead cyclists by the side of the road.

-- Jay Beattie.

I ride may tens of thousands of kilometres each and every year. I
ride year round with at least 50kms a day but usually between 75kms
and 100kms daily and then longer rides Sayturdays and Sundays. I've
never used daylight running lights front or rear. If a driver can't
tell thata bicyclist is on the road then that driver should not be
driving.


But they do it anyhow.


... Bright clothing is far more visible to me that any flashing
lights I've seen on any bicycle.

This thing tthat you need all this crap in order to ride the streets
of maiming and death is a surefire way to discourage any newbie
bicylist or potential bicycle commuter from ever venturing out onto
the roads. That's because tthey'll take one look at the cost of the
stuff required, like Jeoerg's $100.00 light and say "It's too
dangerous out there for me!"

Joerg, are you trying to turn people off of bicycling entirely? Same
to you SMS?


Where did I ever try to do that? I want to make it safer. Bike paths are
one way but they don't always exist. Lights are a very cheap and
effective method. Just because grandpa never had an accident yet never
owned a car with seat belts, would that also cause you not to use seat
belts if it wasn't the law?

Why do you think motorcycle daytime lights became law on many areas?

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On Sunday, July 5, 2015 at 8:08:42 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2015-07-04 3:22 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, July 4, 2015 at 8:11:48 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2015-07-04 7:24 AM, jbeattie wrote:
snip

Less so if built correctly. Maniacs like in the link can still get
you. But the vast majority aren't maniacs. They are people who
chat, text, email, put on make-up, shave, eat, haven't fully come
off their sleep medication, had way too many cocktails, are under
the influence of some "recreational" drug, and so on. The resulting
accidents look similar. Except for the booze all things drivers
simply did not do in the 70's which is why riding in the lanes was
safer back then, and I felt safer back then.

There is a simple and cheap improvement for bike lanes: Rumble
strips. That wakes up almost any distracted driver. Of course,
segregated structures are best.

Example from yesterday: I rode up to Placerville on singletrack
which requires me to also use a short county road stretch. On the
way there everything looked as usual. On the way back just 3h or so
later a heavy-gauge steel metal pole _off_ the side of that same
road was completely flattened. That must have been at least a heavy
pickup truck.


... When you move left prior to your left turn, you're still
vulnerable. When you ride on any section of road without
infrastructure, you're still vulnerable.

And putting in segregated infrastructure to protect against
the extremely rare crazies can make you more vulnerable to
ordinary folks who just don't notice you until you - surprise!
- pop out at intersections, driveway crossings and the like.


And here is the major difference that obviously many riders fail
to grasp: I do not "pop out" of there. Never. My parents taught me
as a young kid to never, ever, rely on my right of way. Especially
not when in a more vulnerable position like as a pedestrian or as a
cyclist.


No matter how much it terrifies you, it's better to be where
motorists expect vehicles to be. That's where they look, and
all but a very, very few do not want to hit you.

Well, our bike lanes are clearly marked "no homicidal lunatics
allowed." That seems to work -- usually.
http://bikeportland.org/2013/04/22/r...ike-path-85780



That path, BTW, runs down the middle of a highway bridge. I don't
even know how a car could get on it.


I wonder if they tested that driver for "recreational" drugs. The
only motor vehicles I have to watch out for on segregated bike
facilities are dirt bikers and ATV using singletrack illegally.
That's why I ride with daytime light even on some trail sections
when the vegetation is more dense.

Oh, and one has to watch out for rattlesnakes, of course.

I just returned from like a 1,000 mile ride -- O.K., it was less than
1,000 miles, but still really epic. AND I DIDN'T DIE! (except
metaphorically on the last hills getting home). My route even
included crossing a water-body, and I didn't wear a life preserver.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=505xiKnCNDk


That's cheating. This is the real way to do it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwmRudKii3E

And watch your speed:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdtpsG--V3I


... The first part of the
ride was with a racing club that happened to roll by me and my riding
buddy. No flashers. No powerful front lights. My friend and I looked
the part (although twice as old), and they let us drop in until our
routes parted.


"Grandpa tooled around in his Studebaker and it didn't even have safety
belts".

Grandpa was on a SuperSix along with a bunch of others out for a training ride. I have no problem with people using DRLs -- unless they are super-bright and annoying -- but the assertion that I need a 1000 lumen headlight for riding in the country on a sunny day is bizarre. A little front and rear flasher on a dreary day, maybe, but a blasting headlamp in bright sunlight? I can conceive of places where a flasher would be helpful in dappled sunlight under heavy tree canopy, but so far, I haven't had problems -- and when I encounter cross traffic in those situations, I take the lane and pay attention. With your bleached, rolling hills and lack of tree canopy, I can't imagine why you would need a light. You would stand out like a sore thumb in a fluorescent jersey.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 7/5/2015 11:08 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2015-07-04 3:22 PM, jbeattie wrote:

... The first part of the
ride was with a racing club that happened to roll by me and my riding
buddy. No flashers. No powerful front lights. My friend and I looked
the part (although twice as old), and they let us drop in until our
routes parted.


"Grandpa tooled around in his Studebaker and it didn't even have safety
belts".

What's your point? That if ANY device is advertised as a "safety"
device, we must use it? We shouldn't exercise judgment about what's
really necessary and what's alarmist overkill?

Do you have a six foot tall flippy flag on your bike?
http://www.gettysburgflag.com/images/BikeFlagChild.jpg
Once upon a time, certain bike touring companies made every client use
those things. But they seem to have gone the way of Grandpa's
Studebaker. Why, oh why??


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 7/5/2015 11:12 AM, Joerg wrote:
Just because grandpa never had an accident yet never
owned a car with seat belts, would that also cause you not to use seat
belts if it wasn't the law?

My very good friend has a 1930s Ford Model A. It has no seatbelts. It
also has no airbags, no anti-lock brakes, no crumple zones, etc.

Should we never, ever ride in such a car? Should antique cars be illegal?


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 2015-07-05 10:05 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, July 5, 2015 at 8:08:42 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2015-07-04 3:22 PM, jbeattie wrote:

[...]


... The first part of the ride was with a racing club that
happened to roll by me and my riding buddy. No flashers. No
powerful front lights. My friend and I looked the part (although
twice as old), and they let us drop in until our routes parted.


"Grandpa tooled around in his Studebaker and it didn't even have
safety belts".

Grandpa was on a SuperSix along with a bunch of others out for a
training ride. I have no problem with people using DRLs -- unless
they are super-bright and annoying -- but the assertion that I need a
1000 lumen headlight for riding in the country on a sunny day is
bizarre. ...


On roads I switch mine down to the 200-300 lumen level, even at night
unless I ride fast and the road is poorly or not lit. On singletrack,
different story. At night I need all the lumens I can get in order to be
able to ride at a good clip. During the day I sometimes turn it on at
treacherous trail sections where there is a chance of a head-on with a
dirt biker. Those things often don't even have lights.


... A little front and rear flasher on a dreary day, maybe, but
a blasting headlamp in bright sunlight? I can conceive of places
where a flasher would be helpful in dappled sunlight under heavy tree
canopy, but so far, I haven't had problems -- and when I encounter
cross traffic in those situations, I take the lane and pay attention.
With your bleached, rolling hills and lack of tree canopy, I can't
imagine why you would need a light. You would stand out like a sore
thumb in a fluorescent jersey.


I don't wear jerseys (allergy against all things plastic) and it would
be covered anyhow by my backpack. Even when in my car I find that I see
cyclists with daytime lights much earlier than those without. A few days
ago I talked with a retired sheriff's deputy about it and he said the
same. Those guys know, and they are among the ones who are called out
and see the mess first hand when things went wrong.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 2015-07-05 11:31 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/5/2015 11:12 AM, Joerg wrote:
Just because grandpa never had an accident yet never
owned a car with seat belts, would that also cause you not to use seat
belts if it wasn't the law?

My very good friend has a 1930s Ford Model A. It has no seatbelts. It
also has no airbags, no anti-lock brakes, no crumple zones, etc.

Should we never, ever ride in such a car? Should antique cars be illegal?


In California that car would be illegal. A friend has one as well and
here they must be equipped with two upgrades if planned for real road use:

a. Safety belts. At least lap belts.
b. Hydraulic brakes.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 7/6/2015 9:49 AM, Phil W Lee wrote:
Frank Krygowski considered Sun, 05 Jul 2015
14:31:06 -0400 the perfect time to write:

On 7/5/2015 11:12 AM, Joerg wrote:
Just because grandpa never had an accident yet never
owned a car with seat belts, would that also cause you not to use seat
belts if it wasn't the law?

My very good friend has a 1930s Ford Model A. It has no seatbelts. It
also has no airbags, no anti-lock brakes, no crumple zones, etc.

If what I've heard of the model A is accurate, the "braking system"
doesn't lock the wheels.
On the other hand, it doesn't stop the car, either.

Should we never, ever ride in such a car? Should antique cars be illegal?

Maybe, maybe not. Which year Model A?
See PDF link he

http://www.plucks329s.org/brakes.htm

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

On 7/6/2015 10:45 AM, Joerg wrote:
Even when in my car I find that I see
cyclists with daytime lights much earlier than those without. A few days
ago I talked with a retired sheriff's deputy about it and he said the
same. Those guys know, and they are among the ones who are called out
and see the mess first hand when things went wrong.

Several of my riding friends are cops. They ride without daytime
flashing lights.

And if you're claiming that in bright daylight, someone can see a bike
much earlier if it has a flashing light, a) you must be talking about
one hell of a bright light; and b) what does it matter? Your objective
is to be seen in plenty of time. A few hundred yards is sufficient.
Being spotted from a mile away does nothing for your safety.

Again, I've driven sag for our annual century for many, many years. Not
once has a bicyclist's flashing light made a practical difference,
despite bad lighting (e.g. riders starting at dawn), heavy tree cover, etc.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 7/6/2015 10:49 AM, Phil W Lee wrote:
Frank Krygowski considered Sun, 05 Jul 2015
14:31:06 -0400 the perfect time to write:

On 7/5/2015 11:12 AM, Joerg wrote:
Just because grandpa never had an accident yet never
owned a car with seat belts, would that also cause you not to use seat
belts if it wasn't the law?

My very good friend has a 1930s Ford Model A. It has no seatbelts. It
also has no airbags, no anti-lock brakes, no crumple zones, etc.

If what I've heard of the model A is accurate, the "braking system"
doesn't lock the wheels.
On the other hand, it doesn't stop the car, either.

The original brakes were crap. My friend has installed hydraulic
brakes. However, he has not installed anti-lock brakes. And indeed, I
don't have anti-lock brakes on my older (1990) car, nor on my motorcycle.

According to the "Danger! Danger!" crowd, I should never let those
vehicles leave my garage.


--
- Frank Krygowski

Am 06.07.2015 um 16:47 schrieb Joerg:
On 2015-07-05 11:31 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/5/2015 11:12 AM, Joerg wrote:

Just because grandpa never had an accident yet never
owned a car with seat belts, would that also cause you not to use seat
belts if it wasn't the law?

My very good friend has a 1930s Ford Model A. It has no seatbelts. It
also has no airbags, no anti-lock brakes, no crumple zones, etc.

Should we never, ever ride in such a car? Should antique cars be
illegal?

In California that car would be illegal. A friend has one as well and
here they must be equipped with two upgrades if planned for real road use:

a. Safety belts. At least lap belts.
b. Hydraulic brakes.

This sounds like the chaos-system we have in Germany for trains.
For cars, the simple rule is: each car must comply to the rules valid at
the time of approving the vehicle for operation on the road.
A friend of mine drives a 1962 VW Beetle, naturally without any seat
belts, and he is allowed to continue driving it until it cannot be repaired.