Thinking Outside The Box

(PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per AMuzi:
Just replaced a cracked Ergo lever
body on a Waterford for a rider who met some new concrete
anti-car bollards at speed on a bicycle path. Broken ribs
and a punctured lung to imprint his memory of the event.

I came uncomfortably close to not seeing one last week. Was
blabbing away with my son-in-law and this thing just loomed up on
me.

Around here, they paint them white.... Dunno how many riders hit
them but they're not exactly pristine. I'd think they'd do
something with yellow/black stripes....

And reflectors, for those riding at night.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Mar 7, 1:16*pm, SMS wrote:
On 3/7/2012 9:56 AM, gpsman wrote:

On Mar 6, 7:11 pm, *wrote:

The key for riding in broad daylight and having motorists properly yield
is to employ the cyclist's version of DRLs (daytime running lights).
It's incredible how visible cyclists are in the daytime when they use a
front strobe.

It's incredible how frequently motorists slam into cop cars on
interstate shoulders with strobes and every other light flashing,

It's not because the cop cars are not visible. The reason why this
occurs is well known.
It's not just cop cars that are hit either. People
pulling over to try to "help" do not realize the distance it will take
them to stop behind the stopped vehicle and crash into it.

I'm sure that's happened but many if not most of these cop car crashes
are sideswipes at full speed unaccompanied by braking.

And who pulls over behind a cop... to help... before they can see
what's going on...? "Peoples is stupid", but those must be a pretty
rare breed.

Those who study human error factors of traffic safety, or the lack
thereof, aren't sure but suspect it may be related to inattentional
and/or change blindness, or just sloppy control/speed too fast for
conditions.

Human visual perception is not well understood and is not what most
people think it is, and lane departures seem to have surpassed
following too closely as the most common driving error.

In a 6 mile driving trip yesterday I had 6 opposing motorists
approaching well into my lane. Many people seem to not care much
about those lines on the road anymore, and many of those seem to
consider themselves driving experts.

That's why if
you do stop to assist someone stopped on on the shoulder you always go
past them and stop.

In a car. And to put their car between you and traffic, and for
acceleration reentering the roadway.

In a semi you pull over behind to position your truck between you,
them and traffic.
-----

- gpsman

On 3/7/2012 1:20 PM, DirtRoadie wrote:
On Mar 7, 10:22 am, Duane wrote:

Sure but how much time can you spend running verses cycling?

FWIW I have never been much of a runner.
_I_ can ride for hours. Run?-maybe a few minutes.

My knees bother me. I run on the treadmill at gym for a warmup before
weight training but that's only 20 minutes and not fast.

Like you, I can ride for hours. Even in the hills. I'm sure that I
burn more calories climbing for 20 minutes than I do running for 20
minutes! And it doesn't kill the knees.

On Mar 7, 11:45*am, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
DirtRoadie wrote:
On Mar 6, 3:08 pm, Frank *wrote:

To me, a bigger question is, how do people who claim to love cycling
justify mocking any claim that cycling is NOT dangerous?

--
- Frank Krygowski

Pretty easy. They value truth and accuracy over blind faith and
zealotry.
DR

So you're implying it's zealotry to say biking is NOT dangerous?

Well, yes.
There are dangers, risks, hazards, perils, etc., many of which are
beyond the control of the cyclist.
Frank, look up "Pious Fraud"
Here let me help:
http://www.skepdic.com/piousfraud.html

You find it justifiable to twist, distort, lie and misrepresent
information in your misguided method of approaching your religious
mission. Hey Frank - promoting cycling is a wonderful thing! But lying
and misrepresentation in order to do it is still lying and
misrepresentation.
And misrepresenting data or numbers is still misrepresentation.

*You're
implying it's true and accurate to say that bicycling is quite dangerous?
No, I'm implying that to represent that bicycling is free of danger or
risk is foolish, irresponsible and deceitful. So, dangerous? Yes.

And why must you always add unnecessary adjectives?
Never mind, rhetorical question, it's your fifth grade method of
reasoning/argument.

Got data?

Well since you ask -
1. Ken Kifer
2. Bruce Rosar
3. your quadriplegic friend
4. I suppose we could also add Jobst Brandt


--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank you are VERY funny, in a very, VERY sad way.
DR

Jay Beattie wrote:


I don't think its junk statistics . . . it's just statistics. Since
when have you planned your daily activities based on statistics? I
would be dead twice based on statistics.

I believe more people than you realize base decisions on statistics they
encounter. For example, have you ever seen an advertisement citing "X%
cleaner", or "Up to XX per month," or "X out of Y doctors", etc?
Professional advertisers (whose job is to convince people to spend
money) seem to see value in this approach; in fact, they bet their
careers on it.

To take another example: What's the main visual difference you see
between bicyclists of 2012 and bicyclist of 1973? I'd say it's the hat
style. How did people become convinced that garish plastic caps were
necessary for just riding a bike? By being told (for example) that "75%
of bike fatalities involve a head injury" and "helmets reduce head
injuries up to 85%" (both of which are extremely misleading).
Statements with statistics like that were hammered at people for
decades. It resulted in people planning to never ride without funny
hats, and resulted in what may be the most profitable market segment in
bicycling gear.

I also don't think there is anything wrong with saying that bicycling
is a relatively safe activity.

Good.

It is, depending on where you ride and
how you ride, which again is not reflected in statistical studies
unless it is a one-person cohort (you).. Some people crash more.
Some people have more conflicts with cars.

Of _course_ there's great variability! That is true of everything. But
the fear mongers who prey on cycling don't go for nuance or subtlety.
They will say, for example, that NOBODY should ever ride a bicycle for
ANY distance in ANY conditions without a magic hat. When dunning for
dollars (as in the case of the LAB) they've sent out photocopy headlines
about rare bike fatalities, and said "We need your contribution to make
the roads safe for cycling!" - as if _all_ roads are dangerous for cycling.

Statistics just
do not capture personal risk patterns -- risk patterns that have
nothing to do with lack of skill or other controllable factors,
except in the sense that the rider could just not ride.

All I know is that there has to be that "one out of [x]" person in any
statistical study, and when that person is you, it sucks.

Statistics capture average risk patterns for the cohort being studied.
In most of the studies I've cited, national data is used. (That's how
this stuff is ALWAYS done, and the science behind it is solid.) That
means the results represent the highest probability of matching any
particular cyclist, unless that cyclist is greatly different from the
cohort in some identifiable way.

One easily identifiable difference might be this: Obedience to
fundamental traffic laws. It's easily shown that those who omit lights
at night, who ride out of in violation of motorist right-of-way, who
ride drunk, etc. are way overrepresented in bike crashes and deaths.
But those people's crashes are part of the overall average. Don't ride
stupid and your odds are that much better.

Now if someone makes some other very unusual decision - say, Zoobombing
- yeah, that's not represented in the average data. Neither is riding
Rt. 26 in the center lane at rush hour. There are limits.

But the statements that some have put up here in the past, like "You
don't know how terribly dangerous it is to ride in xxxxx!!" are largely
bull****. In some cases, I've found data for their specific locales
that proved them wrong. (And they've never forgiven me.)

We all feel special, I suppose. But we're probably a lot closer to
average than we imagine.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Mar 7, 12:23*pm, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
SMS wrote:
On 3/6/2012 12:50 PM, James wrote:

My own experience has been that several motorists have failed to giveway
to oncoming cyclists (me and others) in broad daylight. I guess me
crashing into them is better than the other way around.

The key for riding in broad daylight and having motorists properly yield
is to employ the cyclist's version of DRLs (daytime running lights).
It's incredible how visible cyclists are in the daytime when they use a
front strobe.

Of course this goes against the premise that since it's the motorist's
responsibility to yield to oncoming cyclists when turning left in front
of them (or turning right in front of them in countries where they drive
on the left) that the cyclist must not employ any means of making
themselves more conspicuous.

Fortunately, there are very few cyclists that claim to believe that
premise, and probably fewer still that actually believe it.

I will admit to what SMS would deem shocking irresponsibility. *I
actually do all my daytime bicycling without the use of DRLs (daytime
running lights) or stobes of any kind.

What's worse, have never seen _any_ cyclist riding in daytime with a
front strobe! *Even though SMS has claimed this is "key," the world of
cycling seems to be ignoring him.

Of course, AFAIK I haven't seen DR, Duane, or gpsman (to name a few)
ride. *Perhaps they are all secret disciples of SMS and his strobe
flashlight kludges.

Guys?

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank make yourself clear. It is your position that daytime running
lights can have no effect on visibility? Just asking. It's hard to
make any sense through your smarminess.
DR

On 3/7/2012 3:17 PM, DirtRoadie wrote:
On Mar 7, 12:23 pm, Frank
wrote:
SMS wrote:
On 3/6/2012 12:50 PM, James wrote:

My own experience has been that several motorists have failed to giveway
to oncoming cyclists (me and others) in broad daylight. I guess me
crashing into them is better than the other way around.

The key for riding in broad daylight and having motorists properly yield
is to employ the cyclist's version of DRLs (daytime running lights).
It's incredible how visible cyclists are in the daytime when they use a
front strobe.

Of course this goes against the premise that since it's the motorist's
responsibility to yield to oncoming cyclists when turning left in front
of them (or turning right in front of them in countries where they drive
on the left) that the cyclist must not employ any means of making
themselves more conspicuous.

Fortunately, there are very few cyclists that claim to believe that
premise, and probably fewer still that actually believe it.

I will admit to what SMS would deem shocking irresponsibility. I
actually do all my daytime bicycling without the use of DRLs (daytime
running lights) or stobes of any kind.

What's worse, have never seen _any_ cyclist riding in daytime with a
front strobe! Even though SMS has claimed this is "key," the world of
cycling seems to be ignoring him.

Of course, AFAIK I haven't seen DR, Duane, or gpsman (to name a few)
ride. Perhaps they are all secret disciples of SMS and his strobe
flashlight kludges.

Guys?

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank make yourself clear. It is your position that daytime running
lights can have no effect on visibility? Just asking. It's hard to
make any sense through your smarminess.

Frank has problems with the "us and them" thing. Anytime that one
person disagrees with him over one thing he lumps everyone that
disagrees with him into the same group. That way he can accuse the
OTHER guys of religious zealotry. I suggest just ignoring him. He
doesn't need anyone's help to allow him to continue ranting.

DirtRoadie wrote:
On Mar 7, 11:45 am, Frank
wrote:


So you're implying it's zealotry to say biking is NOT dangerous?

Well, yes.

Ah. Interesting attitude.


You're
implying it's true and accurate to say that bicycling is quite dangerous?
No, I'm implying that to represent that bicycling is free of danger or
risk is foolish, irresponsible and deceitful.

You will never find even _one_ quotation where I said "bicycling is free
of danger."

So, dangerous? Yes.

And James claims my "Danger! Danger!" parodies are inaccurate. ;-)


Got data?

Well since you ask -
1. Ken Kifer
2. Bruce Rosar
3. your quadriplegic friend
4. I suppose we could also add Jobst Brandt

So you really don't understand the difference between anecdote and data!

As a hint: In any given year, you could find roughly 700 such names to
add to the list of fatally injured cyclists. But you could find about
4,000 pedestrians, 40,000 motorists, and about 700,000 heart disease
victims. Listing two fatalities (and one injured cyclist) out of the
past 10 years is NOT "data."

And while you shouldn't bring my quadriplegic friend into this, his
injury happened on a motorized off-road 4-wheeler. I'm sure he wishes
he'd spent that time bicycling instead.



--
- Frank Krygowski

DirtRoadie wrote:
On Mar 7, 12:23 pm, Frank
wrote:
SMS wrote:
On 3/6/2012 12:50 PM, James wrote:

My own experience has been that several motorists have failed to giveway
to oncoming cyclists (me and others) in broad daylight. I guess me
crashing into them is better than the other way around.

The key for riding in broad daylight and having motorists properly yield
is to employ the cyclist's version of DRLs (daytime running lights).
It's incredible how visible cyclists are in the daytime when they use a
front strobe.

Of course this goes against the premise that since it's the motorist's
responsibility to yield to oncoming cyclists when turning left in front
of them (or turning right in front of them in countries where they drive
on the left) that the cyclist must not employ any means of making
themselves more conspicuous.

Fortunately, there are very few cyclists that claim to believe that
premise, and probably fewer still that actually believe it.

I will admit to what SMS would deem shocking irresponsibility. I
actually do all my daytime bicycling without the use of DRLs (daytime
running lights) or stobes of any kind.

What's worse, have never seen _any_ cyclist riding in daytime with a
front strobe! Even though SMS has claimed this is "key," the world of
cycling seems to be ignoring him.

Of course, AFAIK I haven't seen DR, Duane, or gpsman (to name a few)
ride. Perhaps they are all secret disciples of SMS and his strobe
flashlight kludges.

Guys?

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank make yourself clear. It is your position that daytime running
lights can have no effect on visibility? Just asking.

Nope. I'm sure that flashing a super-bright strobe or other DRL can
make a cyclist more conspicuous.

I just disagree that it's "The key for riding in broad daylight and
having motorists properly yield," as SMS claimed. In fact, I disagree
that it's necessary or even desirable for 99.9+% of the world's cyclists.

So how about you? Do you ride with a daytime strobe or other DRL? Do
you find it "the key"?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Mar 7, 1:51*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
DirtRoadie wrote:
On Mar 7, 12:23 pm, Frank
wrote:
SMS wrote:
On 3/6/2012 12:50 PM, James wrote:

My own experience has been that several motorists have failed to giveway
to oncoming cyclists (me and others) in broad daylight. I guess me
crashing into them is better than the other way around.

The key for riding in broad daylight and having motorists properly yield
is to employ the cyclist's version of DRLs (daytime running lights).
It's incredible how visible cyclists are in the daytime when they use a
front strobe.

Of course this goes against the premise that since it's the motorist's
responsibility to yield to oncoming cyclists when turning left in front
of them (or turning right in front of them in countries where they drive
on the left) that the cyclist must not employ any means of making
themselves more conspicuous.

Fortunately, there are very few cyclists that claim to believe that
premise, and probably fewer still that actually believe it.

I will admit to what SMS would deem shocking irresponsibility. *I
actually do all my daytime bicycling without the use of DRLs (daytime
running lights) or stobes of any kind.

What's worse, have never seen _any_ cyclist riding in daytime with a
front strobe! *Even though SMS has claimed this is "key," the world of
cycling seems to be ignoring him.

Of course, AFAIK I haven't seen DR, Duane, or gpsman (to name a few)
ride. *Perhaps they are all secret disciples of SMS and his strobe
flashlight kludges.

Guys?

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank make yourself clear. It is your position that daytime running
lights can have no effect on visibility? Just asking.

Nope. *I'm sure that flashing a super-bright strobe or other DRL can
make a cyclist more conspicuous.

That's all I wanted to know. Thanks.
DR