A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91  
Old May 19th 19, 12:04 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Sir Ridesalot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,203
Default HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.

On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 6:50:58 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 18 May 2019 12:51:45 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Friday, May 17, 2019 at 4:28:52 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 17 May 2019 12:16:13 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 7:27:58 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 16 May 2019 18:28:00 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 5/16/2019 1:10 AM, jbeattie wrote:

Without getting into the prudence of an adult MHL, I could see a MHL causing significant drops in certain populations.

Perhaps, but that's not what happened in Australia. In fact numbers went
up right after the MHL, just not as fast as the population increase.
When that fact was noted, the AHZs insisted that the reason that cycling
numbers went up slower than the population growth was because of the
MHL--even when the data didn't support their premise they simply created
a rationalization to excuse the actual data. Of course that was of
little importance since when the actual data doesn't support their
position they just fabricate data to suit them.

If traffic is no so bad that you really need to ride a bike, then people
with a "live free or die" or "don't muss my hair" or overheat my head
mentality may not ride -- assuming there is any real effort to enforce
the law. In Amsterdam, people would probably just ignore the law, and
there would be no change. In the London scrum, they may comply because
driving is impossible and riding is objectively dangerous. In Portland,
compliance is pretty high already and enforcement would be nil, so there
would be no change. It really depends on the population. I don't see
any reason why the drop in Australia couldn't be "real" as opposed to
or the result of some confounding factor. Entire populations can become
entrenched on some relatively minor issues.

Tomorrow we kick off construction of some protected bike lanes near a
high school. These are real protected bike lanes, not some widely placed
pop-up bollards. While I would be thrilled to get the increase in
cycling that they saw in Columbus Ohio (75%)
http://www.dot.state.oh.us/engineering/OTEC/2017Presentations/72/Moorhead_72.pdf
I'd be happy with just 15%. The fact that we're doing real protected
bike lanes will hopefully mean that we see less of an increase in
non-fatal crashes than Columbus saw.

Perusing any of the studies of bicycle accidents that included an
attempt at defining who was at fault, who basically caused the
accident, shows that from about 30, to over 50 percent
( in one study) of the "accidents" between motor vehicles and bicycles
were the fault of the bicyclist, and this ignores the fact that a
substantial percentage, as many as 30%, in some studies, of all
bicycle crashes are "single vehicle crashes".

Thus it seems likely that simply building a private road for bicycles
while it may decrease bicycle versus motor vehicle crashes where the
fault lies with the motor vehicle it is not likely, as the "Columbus
Study" demonstrated, to reduce crashes significantly. In fact the
fact that the bicycles are protected from any attack by motor vehicles
will likely result in an increase in the "stupid stunts" that
bicyclists seem to do. One study, for example, listed "failure to
yield right of way", by both motor vehicles and bicycles, as a major
cause of crashes. Will being isolated from motor vehicles on the
Bicycle Road reduce the number of "failure to yield", by bicycle,
incidents? Or, for that matter, the number of single vehicle crashes?

One of the questions about the reduction in bicyclists when the
Australia helmet law went into effect was "is this a result of having
to wear a helmet?" Or is it "a result of discovering that bicycling
had become so dangerous that one must wear a helmet to be safe?"
--
cheers,

John B.

True John, but it does reduce fatalities. Single vehicle accidents only rarely end in fatalities. Though watching that Frenchman descending Mt Hamilton in the Tour of California might have given you doubts. I cannot believe a man that strong and a pro with a 7 minute lead had absolutely NO idea of how to take a corner at speed.

Does it? I wonder.

The figures I read are more in line with "of those that had a head
injury only xyz were wearing a helmet", but what is a head injury?
"Scratched your nose" is a head injury.

What I don't see is number such as "of those with fractures of the
skull or brain damage XYZ ware wearing a helmet." Probably because in
an accident that severe a bicycle helmet would do no good at all.

I recently read an article that stated that even U.S. football helmets
which are far more protective than a bicycle helmet do not protect
from brain damage so how can a Styrofoam Bennie, with holes in,
protect one from significant head or brain injury.
--
cheers,

John B.


I have not been a believer in helmets for a very long time now. But the new Bontrager (Trek) helmets are something else altogether though they certainly have a long way to go to make them more comfortable. I bought a Chinese helmet that is really comfortable but it lacks the technology of the Bontrager which has engineered the foam to actually be absorbent.

I read a bit about the New! Improved! (more expensive) Bontrager
helmet. It's claim to fame is that it allows 6mm of rotational
movement. 6 mm, think of it?

Trek's data says that this new foam has 28 times less chance of causing concussion which is the majority injury to bicyclist with severe injuries.


Data? I wonder. After all the best football helmet, and you must admit
that football helmets do a much better job of protection than bicycle
helmets, provide about 20% protection but the NEW! Improved! Bontrager
helmets provide almost a third more protection?
--
cheers,

John B.


I'd like to see helmets tested in a manner similar to automobile safety testing. that is, strap the helmet onto a dummy and then crash the bike and see what forces (including rotational) are imparted to the helmet. I wonder if ANY bicycling helmet currently in production would pass such a test? I doubt it including the newer MIPS design. I think MIPS is just another marketing gimmick. Oh, btw, I do NOT trust anything a manufacturer of helmets says. Like politicians they are seeking to sell their wares.

Cheers
Ads
  #92  
Old May 19th 19, 02:58 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,082
Default HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.

On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 8:55:35 PM UTC+1, Tom Kunich wrote:

I wouldn't assign ulterior motives to people who feel very uncomfortable riding around traffic.


+1. There are some roads that are objectively dangerous to ride on. We have several such going out of town. On the worst of these dangerous roads, there are trucks thundering along this narrow country road in both directions at maximum permitted speed, and a hard shoulder 12in wide at best, disappearing totally in some places. I've been on it, and it's an unpleasant ride with trucks thundering 18in max from your shoulders. You can't take the lane either, because there won't be enough space for the truck behind you to slow to your speed, and he can't pass you in the opposite lane because trucks are thundering towards him in that lane. I refused to ride on it with the police superintendent for this area, and a while later he was killed cycling on that road. Think on it: who should know the safe roads better than the police superintendent?

There are some places it simply isn't smart to ride a bicycle. Morons like Krygowski screeching "Danger! Danger!" and "Take the lane!" don't help; instead they leave the impression that cyclists are a bunch of reckless idiots antisocially endangering other people's lives by their insistence on riding where the speed differential is simply too large and the traffic too heavy and the sightlines for drivers too short.

In any event, cyclists always have other choices, recreational cyclists admittedly more than commuters. A bus driver spoke to me at the supermarket about a four-seasons commuter on one of his routes, a very narrow twisty road with many unsighted corners, asking me to speak to the fellow about the danger. I did, and he said, "I'm on that road because all the bus drivers and motor commuters know me and look out for me. The only alternative is the main drag to the city--" he watched me shudder "--and the road past the airport." That bit left me speechless, not a common occurrence. I've been on both the roads he rejected, and the only safe way to go on them is in huge convoys of cycles, as on for instance charity rides, with several big SUVs spaced out behind to break the speed of the normal motor traffic. On one such ride I joined, the organisers thought five ambulances necessary, and I couldn't help wondering what Franki-boy would say to them. I also heard insurance was hell to get, with some insurers simply refusing even to quote.

The small country road the town's premier bicycle-commuter considers "safer", we cross and recross on many small country lane rides. At one point on an otherwise really good workout ride in pretty surroundings on smooth roads with almost zero traffic, you need to ride for a couple of hundred yards on it, and somebody never fails to have a tense moment with a car or a truck on it even in those couple of hundred yards because we enter just after a blind corner, and the cars are travelling at a speed that makes it difficult for them to slow to our speed, and there's no shoulder so perforce we're in the lane, or already in the middle of the road because we want to turn across the oncoming traffic (coming around another unsighted corner; some who're otherwise keen just won't ride with us if the route will take us onto that road. At several times of the day, even just crossing that road, what with its many blind hills and blind corners, on the country lanes that cross it, can take ten minutes before there's a break in the traffic long enough to cross.

There's another ride, on an even smaller country road, but fast and wide-sweeping so that cars can see you a long way off and slow appropriately, which requires one to be on the dangerous road (the one the admirable commuter prefers to even more dangerous roads) only for about fifty yards before one of our small lanes turns off it, but we go there only on Sundays when everyone else is in church (this is a Catholic country, still) because those 50 yards lie between two black spots (a black spot is the scene of regular automobile accidents, because the road is intrinsically dangerous, and the road authorities put up warning boards with a black spot on them).

It may sound like I'd better ride intervals around my orchard, but in fact the majority of miles around here are on small, safe lanes**, all of them tarmac-topped. Since we're recreational riders, we don't mind mapping routes that keep us off the six dangerous roads out of town*. It's not worth the stress of going on them. I ran into an old pedalpal with whom I'd lost contact and he reminisced about how thirty years ago we used to go on three of those six roads (the other three were already too dangerous) after dinner in the summer, returning at about midnight when it was pitch dark, with only the inadequate bicycle lamps of the period, because there was almost no traffic and what there was proceeded at a reasonable speed, about half the rate they drive at today; he went out on one of those roads in broad daylight the other day and in less than three miles experienced so many close passes of trucks and cars that he turned off the main road and continued on the lanes. He said, "I'm cycling for my heart. Man, I was praying for Baxter's Bridge to come up so I could get the **** out of that Death Rally. I don't need that stress." I understand how he feels. A favourite downhill ride of mine ends on that road only a few hundred yards from town, but rather than ride on that road, I turn around and slog back up the hill and go home the long, hard but stressless way (or at least, via my HRM, in control of the stress).

The point I'm trying to make is that if you choose your routes well, the usual amount of common sense and alertness an adult should possess will keep you safe and make your rides a joy rather than a chore. There is no need to force your way in where you're not wanted by people going about their business at speeds you cannot and don't want to achieve.

Andre Jute
Some places "taking the lane" is a suicide note

*Beside one of which a few years ago a wooden cross was planted in memory of one "John Forester". It's a road on part of which cyclists who want to live "take the ditch", which is three feet wide, only a foot deep, and paved, quite pleasant really in dry weather. Makes one wonder whether the memorial is for that John Forester.

**Doesn't mean you don't need to take care; you had better: a schoolboy was killed on his bike on one of my favourite downhills when at the bottom of the hill he met an oncoming car whose driver never saw him around the curve until it was far too late.

  #93  
Old May 19th 19, 03:01 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,082
Default HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.

Rideablot is RBT's funniest conspiracy theorist! NFT. -- AJ

On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 5:00:37 PM UTC+1, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

I often wonder if the agenda of the "DANGER! DANGER!" people like SMS is to first get bicyclists off the roads and into bike lanes or "protected lanes" and then later to get them off the roads entirely? From what I've seen and read it seems to me that many so called bicycling advocates are in fact commuting/transportation bicyclists worst enemies. What with all their emphasis on needed safety equipment in order to even ride a bicycle it's a wonder they expect to convince anyone to take up bicycling as a means of commuting or transportation.

Cheers


  #94  
Old May 19th 19, 03:36 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
jOHN b.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 396
Default HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.

On Sat, 18 May 2019 16:04:49 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 6:50:58 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 18 May 2019 12:51:45 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Friday, May 17, 2019 at 4:28:52 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 17 May 2019 12:16:13 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 7:27:58 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 16 May 2019 18:28:00 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 5/16/2019 1:10 AM, jbeattie wrote:

Without getting into the prudence of an adult MHL, I could see a MHL causing significant drops in certain populations.

Perhaps, but that's not what happened in Australia. In fact numbers went
up right after the MHL, just not as fast as the population increase.
When that fact was noted, the AHZs insisted that the reason that cycling
numbers went up slower than the population growth was because of the
MHL--even when the data didn't support their premise they simply created
a rationalization to excuse the actual data. Of course that was of
little importance since when the actual data doesn't support their
position they just fabricate data to suit them.

If traffic is no so bad that you really need to ride a bike, then people
with a "live free or die" or "don't muss my hair" or overheat my head
mentality may not ride -- assuming there is any real effort to enforce
the law. In Amsterdam, people would probably just ignore the law, and
there would be no change. In the London scrum, they may comply because
driving is impossible and riding is objectively dangerous. In Portland,
compliance is pretty high already and enforcement would be nil, so there
would be no change. It really depends on the population. I don't see
any reason why the drop in Australia couldn't be "real" as opposed to
or the result of some confounding factor. Entire populations can become
entrenched on some relatively minor issues.

Tomorrow we kick off construction of some protected bike lanes near a
high school. These are real protected bike lanes, not some widely placed
pop-up bollards. While I would be thrilled to get the increase in
cycling that they saw in Columbus Ohio (75%)
http://www.dot.state.oh.us/engineering/OTEC/2017Presentations/72/Moorhead_72.pdf
I'd be happy with just 15%. The fact that we're doing real protected
bike lanes will hopefully mean that we see less of an increase in
non-fatal crashes than Columbus saw.

Perusing any of the studies of bicycle accidents that included an
attempt at defining who was at fault, who basically caused the
accident, shows that from about 30, to over 50 percent
( in one study) of the "accidents" between motor vehicles and bicycles
were the fault of the bicyclist, and this ignores the fact that a
substantial percentage, as many as 30%, in some studies, of all
bicycle crashes are "single vehicle crashes".

Thus it seems likely that simply building a private road for bicycles
while it may decrease bicycle versus motor vehicle crashes where the
fault lies with the motor vehicle it is not likely, as the "Columbus
Study" demonstrated, to reduce crashes significantly. In fact the
fact that the bicycles are protected from any attack by motor vehicles
will likely result in an increase in the "stupid stunts" that
bicyclists seem to do. One study, for example, listed "failure to
yield right of way", by both motor vehicles and bicycles, as a major
cause of crashes. Will being isolated from motor vehicles on the
Bicycle Road reduce the number of "failure to yield", by bicycle,
incidents? Or, for that matter, the number of single vehicle crashes?

One of the questions about the reduction in bicyclists when the
Australia helmet law went into effect was "is this a result of having
to wear a helmet?" Or is it "a result of discovering that bicycling
had become so dangerous that one must wear a helmet to be safe?"
--
cheers,

John B.

True John, but it does reduce fatalities. Single vehicle accidents only rarely end in fatalities. Though watching that Frenchman descending Mt Hamilton in the Tour of California might have given you doubts. I cannot believe a man that strong and a pro with a 7 minute lead had absolutely NO idea of how to take a corner at speed.

Does it? I wonder.

The figures I read are more in line with "of those that had a head
injury only xyz were wearing a helmet", but what is a head injury?
"Scratched your nose" is a head injury.

What I don't see is number such as "of those with fractures of the
skull or brain damage XYZ ware wearing a helmet." Probably because in
an accident that severe a bicycle helmet would do no good at all.

I recently read an article that stated that even U.S. football helmets
which are far more protective than a bicycle helmet do not protect
from brain damage so how can a Styrofoam Bennie, with holes in,
protect one from significant head or brain injury.
--
cheers,

John B.

I have not been a believer in helmets for a very long time now. But the new Bontrager (Trek) helmets are something else altogether though they certainly have a long way to go to make them more comfortable. I bought a Chinese helmet that is really comfortable but it lacks the technology of the Bontrager which has engineered the foam to actually be absorbent.

I read a bit about the New! Improved! (more expensive) Bontrager
helmet. It's claim to fame is that it allows 6mm of rotational
movement. 6 mm, think of it?

Trek's data says that this new foam has 28 times less chance of causing concussion which is the majority injury to bicyclist with severe injuries.


Data? I wonder. After all the best football helmet, and you must admit
that football helmets do a much better job of protection than bicycle
helmets, provide about 20% protection but the NEW! Improved! Bontrager
helmets provide almost a third more protection?
--
cheers,

John B.


I'd like to see helmets tested in a manner similar to automobile safety testing. that is, strap the helmet onto a dummy and then crash the bike and see what forces (including rotational) are imparted to the helmet. I wonder if ANY bicycling helmet currently in production would pass such a test? I doubt it including the newer MIPS design. I think MIPS is just another marketing gimmick. Oh, btw, I do NOT trust anything a manufacturer of helmets says. Like politicians they are seeking to sell their wares.

Cheers


Mips is said to address what is said to be one of the common causes
of brain damage in crashes, (in 60% of casualties, rotational forces
are known to be a major source of brain injury) but whether the new
Bontrager helmets actually are effective doesn't seem to be known, or
at least I've yet to see the results of any tests.

I think that a helmet that provided maximum protection to the cyclist
would not sell. It would be heavy, restrict vision to some extent, and
undoubtedly be hot - think modern football helmet, F1 Helmet,
Motorcycle Racing helmets. A modern, racing motorcycle helmet weighs
more then a kilogram - The AGV Corsa, a top line racing helmet weighs
1.35kg (about 3 lbs).

I well remember the post, here, where someone (I don't remember who)
stated that to him the most important things about a helmet were (1)
that it was light in weight, and (2) cool to wear.

Also, regarding helmet tests read up on the Sharp Testing, which seems
to be a supplemental British testing agency.
https://billyscrashhelmets.co.uk/all...safety-scheme/
--
cheers,

John B.

  #95  
Old May 19th 19, 04:18 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Sir Ridesalot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,203
Default HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.

On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 10:36:42 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 18 May 2019 16:04:49 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 6:50:58 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 18 May 2019 12:51:45 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Friday, May 17, 2019 at 4:28:52 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 17 May 2019 12:16:13 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 7:27:58 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 16 May 2019 18:28:00 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 5/16/2019 1:10 AM, jbeattie wrote:

Without getting into the prudence of an adult MHL, I could see a MHL causing significant drops in certain populations.

Perhaps, but that's not what happened in Australia. In fact numbers went
up right after the MHL, just not as fast as the population increase.
When that fact was noted, the AHZs insisted that the reason that cycling
numbers went up slower than the population growth was because of the
MHL--even when the data didn't support their premise they simply created
a rationalization to excuse the actual data. Of course that was of
little importance since when the actual data doesn't support their
position they just fabricate data to suit them.

If traffic is no so bad that you really need to ride a bike, then people
with a "live free or die" or "don't muss my hair" or overheat my head
mentality may not ride -- assuming there is any real effort to enforce
the law. In Amsterdam, people would probably just ignore the law, and
there would be no change. In the London scrum, they may comply because
driving is impossible and riding is objectively dangerous. In Portland,
compliance is pretty high already and enforcement would be nil, so there
would be no change. It really depends on the population. I don't see
any reason why the drop in Australia couldn't be "real" as opposed to
or the result of some confounding factor. Entire populations can become
entrenched on some relatively minor issues.

Tomorrow we kick off construction of some protected bike lanes near a
high school. These are real protected bike lanes, not some widely placed
pop-up bollards. While I would be thrilled to get the increase in
cycling that they saw in Columbus Ohio (75%)
http://www.dot.state.oh.us/engineering/OTEC/2017Presentations/72/Moorhead_72.pdf
I'd be happy with just 15%. The fact that we're doing real protected
bike lanes will hopefully mean that we see less of an increase in
non-fatal crashes than Columbus saw.

Perusing any of the studies of bicycle accidents that included an
attempt at defining who was at fault, who basically caused the
accident, shows that from about 30, to over 50 percent
( in one study) of the "accidents" between motor vehicles and bicycles
were the fault of the bicyclist, and this ignores the fact that a
substantial percentage, as many as 30%, in some studies, of all
bicycle crashes are "single vehicle crashes".

Thus it seems likely that simply building a private road for bicycles
while it may decrease bicycle versus motor vehicle crashes where the
fault lies with the motor vehicle it is not likely, as the "Columbus
Study" demonstrated, to reduce crashes significantly. In fact the
fact that the bicycles are protected from any attack by motor vehicles
will likely result in an increase in the "stupid stunts" that
bicyclists seem to do. One study, for example, listed "failure to
yield right of way", by both motor vehicles and bicycles, as a major
cause of crashes. Will being isolated from motor vehicles on the
Bicycle Road reduce the number of "failure to yield", by bicycle,
incidents? Or, for that matter, the number of single vehicle crashes?

One of the questions about the reduction in bicyclists when the
Australia helmet law went into effect was "is this a result of having
to wear a helmet?" Or is it "a result of discovering that bicycling
had become so dangerous that one must wear a helmet to be safe?"
--
cheers,

John B.

True John, but it does reduce fatalities. Single vehicle accidents only rarely end in fatalities. Though watching that Frenchman descending Mt Hamilton in the Tour of California might have given you doubts. I cannot believe a man that strong and a pro with a 7 minute lead had absolutely NO idea of how to take a corner at speed.

Does it? I wonder.

The figures I read are more in line with "of those that had a head
injury only xyz were wearing a helmet", but what is a head injury?
"Scratched your nose" is a head injury.

What I don't see is number such as "of those with fractures of the
skull or brain damage XYZ ware wearing a helmet." Probably because in
an accident that severe a bicycle helmet would do no good at all.

I recently read an article that stated that even U.S. football helmets
which are far more protective than a bicycle helmet do not protect
from brain damage so how can a Styrofoam Bennie, with holes in,
protect one from significant head or brain injury.
--
cheers,

John B.

I have not been a believer in helmets for a very long time now. But the new Bontrager (Trek) helmets are something else altogether though they certainly have a long way to go to make them more comfortable. I bought a Chinese helmet that is really comfortable but it lacks the technology of the Bontrager which has engineered the foam to actually be absorbent.

I read a bit about the New! Improved! (more expensive) Bontrager
helmet. It's claim to fame is that it allows 6mm of rotational
movement. 6 mm, think of it?

Trek's data says that this new foam has 28 times less chance of causing concussion which is the majority injury to bicyclist with severe injuries.

Data? I wonder. After all the best football helmet, and you must admit
that football helmets do a much better job of protection than bicycle
helmets, provide about 20% protection but the NEW! Improved! Bontrager
helmets provide almost a third more protection?
--
cheers,

John B.


I'd like to see helmets tested in a manner similar to automobile safety testing. that is, strap the helmet onto a dummy and then crash the bike and see what forces (including rotational) are imparted to the helmet. I wonder if ANY bicycling helmet currently in production would pass such a test? I doubt it including the newer MIPS design. I think MIPS is just another marketing gimmick. Oh, btw, I do NOT trust anything a manufacturer of helmets says. Like politicians they are seeking to sell their wares.

Cheers


Mips is said to address what is said to be one of the common causes
of brain damage in crashes, (in 60% of casualties, rotational forces
are known to be a major source of brain injury) but whether the new
Bontrager helmets actually are effective doesn't seem to be known, or
at least I've yet to see the results of any tests.

I think that a helmet that provided maximum protection to the cyclist
would not sell. It would be heavy, restrict vision to some extent, and
undoubtedly be hot - think modern football helmet, F1 Helmet,
Motorcycle Racing helmets. A modern, racing motorcycle helmet weighs
more then a kilogram - The AGV Corsa, a top line racing helmet weighs
1.35kg (about 3 lbs).

I well remember the post, here, where someone (I don't remember who)
stated that to him the most important things about a helmet were (1)
that it was light in weight, and (2) cool to wear.

Also, regarding helmet tests read up on the Sharp Testing, which seems
to be a supplemental British testing agency.
https://billyscrashhelmets.co.uk/all...safety-scheme/
--
cheers,

John B.


Interesting. Also interesting are the comments about a=ANSI and SNELL anti-penetration requirements especially the comment that a super rigid non-flexible outer hard shell transmits more energy to the liner than a less rigid shell. With the ultra thin shells on bicycle helmets that would mean that ALL of energy has to be absorbed by the liner. I've seen many cracked helmets or images of the same wherein people point at them and said the helmet worked. I tell them that because the helmet broke it means the impact SURPASSED what the helmet was capable of protecting from. I really would like to see some test by independents that tested the helmets in a manner that mimics real world use. The current standards and tests are ridiculously low.

Cheers
  #96  
Old May 19th 19, 06:11 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
jOHN b.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 396
Default HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.

On Sat, 18 May 2019 20:18:32 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 10:36:42 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 18 May 2019 16:04:49 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 6:50:58 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 18 May 2019 12:51:45 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Friday, May 17, 2019 at 4:28:52 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 17 May 2019 12:16:13 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 7:27:58 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 16 May 2019 18:28:00 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 5/16/2019 1:10 AM, jbeattie wrote:

Without getting into the prudence of an adult MHL, I could see a MHL causing significant drops in certain populations.

Perhaps, but that's not what happened in Australia. In fact numbers went
up right after the MHL, just not as fast as the population increase.
When that fact was noted, the AHZs insisted that the reason that cycling
numbers went up slower than the population growth was because of the
MHL--even when the data didn't support their premise they simply created
a rationalization to excuse the actual data. Of course that was of
little importance since when the actual data doesn't support their
position they just fabricate data to suit them.

If traffic is no so bad that you really need to ride a bike, then people
with a "live free or die" or "don't muss my hair" or overheat my head
mentality may not ride -- assuming there is any real effort to enforce
the law. In Amsterdam, people would probably just ignore the law, and
there would be no change. In the London scrum, they may comply because
driving is impossible and riding is objectively dangerous. In Portland,
compliance is pretty high already and enforcement would be nil, so there
would be no change. It really depends on the population. I don't see
any reason why the drop in Australia couldn't be "real" as opposed to
or the result of some confounding factor. Entire populations can become
entrenched on some relatively minor issues.

Tomorrow we kick off construction of some protected bike lanes near a
high school. These are real protected bike lanes, not some widely placed
pop-up bollards. While I would be thrilled to get the increase in
cycling that they saw in Columbus Ohio (75%)
http://www.dot.state.oh.us/engineering/OTEC/2017Presentations/72/Moorhead_72.pdf
I'd be happy with just 15%. The fact that we're doing real protected
bike lanes will hopefully mean that we see less of an increase in
non-fatal crashes than Columbus saw.

Perusing any of the studies of bicycle accidents that included an
attempt at defining who was at fault, who basically caused the
accident, shows that from about 30, to over 50 percent
( in one study) of the "accidents" between motor vehicles and bicycles
were the fault of the bicyclist, and this ignores the fact that a
substantial percentage, as many as 30%, in some studies, of all
bicycle crashes are "single vehicle crashes".

Thus it seems likely that simply building a private road for bicycles
while it may decrease bicycle versus motor vehicle crashes where the
fault lies with the motor vehicle it is not likely, as the "Columbus
Study" demonstrated, to reduce crashes significantly. In fact the
fact that the bicycles are protected from any attack by motor vehicles
will likely result in an increase in the "stupid stunts" that
bicyclists seem to do. One study, for example, listed "failure to
yield right of way", by both motor vehicles and bicycles, as a major
cause of crashes. Will being isolated from motor vehicles on the
Bicycle Road reduce the number of "failure to yield", by bicycle,
incidents? Or, for that matter, the number of single vehicle crashes?

One of the questions about the reduction in bicyclists when the
Australia helmet law went into effect was "is this a result of having
to wear a helmet?" Or is it "a result of discovering that bicycling
had become so dangerous that one must wear a helmet to be safe?"
--
cheers,

John B.

True John, but it does reduce fatalities. Single vehicle accidents only rarely end in fatalities. Though watching that Frenchman descending Mt Hamilton in the Tour of California might have given you doubts. I cannot believe a man that strong and a pro with a 7 minute lead had absolutely NO idea of how to take a corner at speed.

Does it? I wonder.

The figures I read are more in line with "of those that had a head
injury only xyz were wearing a helmet", but what is a head injury?
"Scratched your nose" is a head injury.

What I don't see is number such as "of those with fractures of the
skull or brain damage XYZ ware wearing a helmet." Probably because in
an accident that severe a bicycle helmet would do no good at all.

I recently read an article that stated that even U.S. football helmets
which are far more protective than a bicycle helmet do not protect
from brain damage so how can a Styrofoam Bennie, with holes in,
protect one from significant head or brain injury.
--
cheers,

John B.

I have not been a believer in helmets for a very long time now. But the new Bontrager (Trek) helmets are something else altogether though they certainly have a long way to go to make them more comfortable. I bought a Chinese helmet that is really comfortable but it lacks the technology of the Bontrager which has engineered the foam to actually be absorbent.

I read a bit about the New! Improved! (more expensive) Bontrager
helmet. It's claim to fame is that it allows 6mm of rotational
movement. 6 mm, think of it?

Trek's data says that this new foam has 28 times less chance of causing concussion which is the majority injury to bicyclist with severe injuries.

Data? I wonder. After all the best football helmet, and you must admit
that football helmets do a much better job of protection than bicycle
helmets, provide about 20% protection but the NEW! Improved! Bontrager
helmets provide almost a third more protection?
--
cheers,

John B.

I'd like to see helmets tested in a manner similar to automobile safety testing. that is, strap the helmet onto a dummy and then crash the bike and see what forces (including rotational) are imparted to the helmet. I wonder if ANY bicycling helmet currently in production would pass such a test? I doubt it including the newer MIPS design. I think MIPS is just another marketing gimmick. Oh, btw, I do NOT trust anything a manufacturer of helmets says. Like politicians they are seeking to sell their wares.

Cheers


Mips is said to address what is said to be one of the common causes
of brain damage in crashes, (in 60% of casualties, rotational forces
are known to be a major source of brain injury) but whether the new
Bontrager helmets actually are effective doesn't seem to be known, or
at least I've yet to see the results of any tests.

I think that a helmet that provided maximum protection to the cyclist
would not sell. It would be heavy, restrict vision to some extent, and
undoubtedly be hot - think modern football helmet, F1 Helmet,
Motorcycle Racing helmets. A modern, racing motorcycle helmet weighs
more then a kilogram - The AGV Corsa, a top line racing helmet weighs
1.35kg (about 3 lbs).

I well remember the post, here, where someone (I don't remember who)
stated that to him the most important things about a helmet were (1)
that it was light in weight, and (2) cool to wear.

Also, regarding helmet tests read up on the Sharp Testing, which seems
to be a supplemental British testing agency.
https://billyscrashhelmets.co.uk/all...safety-scheme/
--
cheers,

John B.


Interesting. Also interesting are the comments about a=ANSI and SNELL anti-penetration requirements especially the comment that a super rigid non-flexible outer hard shell transmits more energy to the liner than a less rigid shell. With the ultra thin shells on bicycle helmets that would mean that ALL of energy has to be absorbed by the liner. I've seen many cracked helmets or images of the same wherein people point at them and said the helmet worked. I tell them that because the helmet broke it means the impact SURPASSED what the helmet was capable of protecting from. I really would like to see some test by independents that tested the helmets in a manner that mimics real world use. The current standards and tests are ridiculously low.

Cheers


Ridiculously low:

Some time ago I read an article that I believe was written by the head
of the British unit that certifies bike helmets. He said, in the
article, that today's standards for bicycle helmets are lower than the
original standards and implied (I assumed) that the standards had been
lowered to make helmets cheaper to manufacture.

I had a look at a site: https://helmets.org that stated that they
tested helmets by dropping them on a shape similar to a curb stone
from a distance of 1 - 2 meters. Using information from their site I
find that a drop of one meter is equal to a speed of 15.9 KPH and a 2
meter drop is equal to a speed of 22.5 KPH, which are equal to a speed
in miles per hour of 9.879 and 13.980.

Obviously no one rides a bicycle faster than 13.98 mph. Never, Ever,
No Way!
--
cheers,

John B.

  #97  
Old May 19th 19, 02:56 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Duane[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,486
Default HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.

John B. wrote:
On Sat, 18 May 2019 01:04:14 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 5/17/2019 4:12 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 17 May 2019 08:49:37 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 5/16/2019 5:54 PM, John B. wrote:

snip

It seems likely that there are a multitude of reasons for people not
commuting by bicycle ranging from "Oh! I just had my hair done", to
"OH! But 3 miles is too far to go by bicycle", to "Good Lord! It's
raining", to "Oh My God! My head hurts. No more booze on weekdays!",
to "I don't wanna wear a Helmet!".

When I was working in Jakarta I used to ride 100 km every Sunday
morning but wouldn't have dreamed of commuting to work by bike.
Partially because a chauffeur driven car was one of the perks of the
job, partially because a white shirt and tie was more or less the
standard uniform for managers in the business and one didn't want to
be calling on clients looking all hot and sweaty, and partially
because I spent the ride to work planning my day.

While a dedicated bicyclist might argue that these are all
surmountable problems the whole point is that they were sufficient,
for me to decide not to ride a bike to work.

Yes, in a tropical climate the "hot and sweaty" issue is a big one.

In my area, the weather is mild, most larger companies have showering
and changing facilities, and white shirts and ties are rare.

The bigger issues around here a
1. I need to pick up children after work or attend their school activities.
2. I have to work late hours (very common in Silicon Valley because
you've got a lot of conference calls late at night when it's daytime in
Asia)
3. There's no safe route.
4. There's no secure bike parking.

We can address 2, 3, and 4, but addressing 1 is hard.

There's no helmet law for adults here, but it's rare to see any
professionals riding without one. However professionals are only one
segment of the cycling population. We have a lot of seniors from China
living with their adult children and they ride without helmets. We have
a lot of day workers that combine the bus and a bicycle.

Riding without lights is actually a bigger issue around here, and I just
received my first shipment of 200 rechargeable lights to give out. I
suppose we could also try to fund helmets, but really it's unnecessary.
You can buy a new helmet for $15, sometimes even less. The cost is not
the reason some people don't wear helmets, they just are willing to
accept the slight extra risk and not wear one.

Taking steps to make cycling safer are more important than imposing
helmet requirements. Just don't fall for the false narrative that if
helmets are required then suddenly mass numbers of people will give up
cycling in protest--there's never been any evidence of this happening.

Making cycling safer? Is cycling safe? Or is cycling unsafe? Or is
cycling only perceived as unsafe?


Yes, all of the above.

I ask as annually, in the U.S., approximately 750 people die while
cycling and nearly that many die falling out of bed and since there
seems to be no concept that going to bed is "dangerous" than it can't
be a matter of simple numbers.


Oh no, you're not going to start up with this nonsense are you. Taking
injury and fatality numbers completely out of context is reserved for
Frank. No one else is allowed to engage in this.

I see. Nonsense because that ~759 bicyclists die each year? Because
some 737 die from falling out of bed? Or nonsense because it doesn't
agree with your highly political opinion?

I suggest that the latter is the most likely truth.



Maybe he’d prefer if you talked about the percentage of cyclists who died
cycling compared to the percentage of people that sleep in beds who died
falling out of beds. Not that I think either activity is very dangerous
but this nonsense is getting boring.


Various studies of bicycle "accidents" have found that from about 30%
to as much as 60% (in at least one study) of the accidents are the
fault of the cyclist which really does make one wonder about the mind
set of the cyclists.

"Hey! Just use good sense and obey the traffic laws and save your
life. "

I find it very strange that no one ever seems to mention this simple
fact. It is free, it can save you from death, pain, or an expensive
stay in the hospital, but it seems to be a fact that is kept a secret
and instead we are told to "wear a helmet", or "we gotta build safer
bicycle paths". Are the bicycle paths 30 to 60% safer? Reports I read
seem to indicate that they are even less safe than riding on the open
road.


Actually I mentioned this today. I stressed that while the protected
bike lanes, for which construction begins on Monday, will mitigate some
of the bad behavior of motorists, that they are not a panacea. I also
mentioned about what transpired in Ohio--big increase in cycling, but a
lot of crashes on the path (though if you read the report carefully, not
a many as it first appears).


If I read you correctly you are really saying that bicyclists behave
badly, do not comply with existing laws and regulations and (horrors)
don't even display good sense and therefore special paths and byways
must be constructed at the expense of the public to protect them from
their own foolish actions.

Whatever happened to those rugged and stalwart folks who through their
efforts forged a great nation out of a wilderness? All gone? Like the
dodo?
--
cheers,

John B.





--
duane
  #98  
Old May 19th 19, 02:56 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Duane[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,486
Default HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.

Andre Jute wrote:
On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 8:55:35 PM UTC+1, Tom Kunich wrote:

I wouldn't assign ulterior motives to people who feel very uncomfortable
riding around traffic.


+1. There are some roads that are objectively dangerous to ride on. We
have several such going out of town. On the worst of these dangerous
roads, there are trucks thundering along this narrow country road in both
directions at maximum permitted speed, and a hard shoulder 12in wide at
best, disappearing totally in some places. I've been on it, and it's an
unpleasant ride with trucks thundering 18in max from your shoulders. You
can't take the lane either, because there won't be enough space for the
truck behind you to slow to your speed, and he can't pass you in the
opposite lane because trucks are thundering towards him in that lane. I
refused to ride on it with the police superintendent for this area, and a
while later he was killed cycling on that road. Think on it: who should
know the safe roads better than the police superintendent?

There are some places it simply isn't smart to ride a bicycle. Morons
like Krygowski screeching "Danger! Danger!" and "Take the lane!" don't
help; instead they leave the impression that cyclists are a bunch of
reckless idiots antisocially endangering other people's lives by their
insistence on riding where the speed differential is simply too large and
the traffic too heavy and the sightlines for drivers too short.

In any event, cyclists always have other choices, recreational cyclists
admittedly more than commuters. A bus driver spoke to me at the
supermarket about a four-seasons commuter on one of his routes, a very
narrow twisty road with many unsighted corners, asking me to speak to the
fellow about the danger. I did, and he said, "I'm on that road because
all the bus drivers and motor commuters know me and look out for me. The
only alternative is the main drag to the city--" he watched me shudder
"--and the road past the airport." That bit left me speechless, not a
common occurrence. I've been on both the roads he rejected, and the only
safe way to go on them is in huge convoys of cycles, as on for instance
charity rides, with several big SUVs spaced out behind to break the speed
of the normal motor traffic. On one such ride I joined, the organisers
thought five ambulances necessary, and I couldn't help wondering what
Franki-boy would say to them. I also heard insurance was hell to get,
with some insurers simply refusing even to quote.

The small country road the town's premier bicycle-commuter considers
"safer", we cross and recross on many small country lane rides. At one
point on an otherwise really good workout ride in pretty surroundings on
smooth roads with almost zero traffic, you need to ride for a couple of
hundred yards on it, and somebody never fails to have a tense moment with
a car or a truck on it even in those couple of hundred yards because we
enter just after a blind corner, and the cars are travelling at a speed
that makes it difficult for them to slow to our speed, and there's no
shoulder so perforce we're in the lane, or already in the middle of the
road because we want to turn across the oncoming traffic (coming around
another unsighted corner; some who're otherwise keen just won't ride with
us if the route will take us onto that road. At several times of the day,
even just crossing that road, what with its many blind hills and blind
corners, on the country lanes that cross it, can take ten minutes before
there's a break in the traffic long enough to cross.

There's another ride, on an even smaller country road, but fast and
wide-sweeping so that cars can see you a long way off and slow
appropriately, which requires one to be on the dangerous road (the one
the admirable commuter prefers to even more dangerous roads) only for
about fifty yards before one of our small lanes turns off it, but we go
there only on Sundays when everyone else is in church (this is a Catholic
country, still) because those 50 yards lie between two black spots (a
black spot is the scene of regular automobile accidents, because the road
is intrinsically dangerous, and the road authorities put up warning
boards with a black spot on them).

It may sound like I'd better ride intervals around my orchard, but in
fact the majority of miles around here are on small, safe lanes**, all of
them tarmac-topped. Since we're recreational riders, we don't mind
mapping routes that keep us off the six dangerous roads out of town*.
It's not worth the stress of going on them. I ran into an old pedalpal
with whom I'd lost contact and he reminisced about how thirty years ago
we used to go on three of those six roads (the other three were already
too dangerous) after dinner in the summer, returning at about midnight
when it was pitch dark, with only the inadequate bicycle lamps of the
period, because there was almost no traffic and what there was proceeded
at a reasonable speed, about half the rate they drive at today; he went
out on one of those roads in broad daylight the other day and in less
than three miles experienced so many close passes of trucks and cars that
he turned off the main road and continued on the lanes. He said, "I'm
cycling for my heart. Man, I was praying for Baxter's Bridge to come up
so I could get the **** out of that Death Rally. I don't need that
stress." I understand how he feels. A favourite downhill ride of mine
ends on that road only a few hundred yards from town, but rather than
ride on that road, I turn around and slog back up the hill and go home
the long, hard but stressless way (or at least, via my HRM, in control of the stress).

The point I'm trying to make is that if you choose your routes well, the
usual amount of common sense and alertness an adult should possess will
keep you safe and make your rides a joy rather than a chore. There is no
need to force your way in where you're not wanted by people going about
their business at speeds you cannot and don't want to achieve.

Andre Jute
Some places "taking the lane" is a suicide note

*Beside one of which a few years ago a wooden cross was planted in memory
of one "John Forester". It's a road on part of which cyclists who want to
live "take the ditch", which is three feet wide, only a foot deep, and
paved, quite pleasant really in dry weather. Makes one wonder whether the
memorial is for that John Forester.

**Doesn't mean you don't need to take care; you had better: a schoolboy
was killed on his bike on one of my favourite downhills when at the
bottom of the hill he met an oncoming car whose driver never saw him
around the curve until it was far too late.



I’ll +1 your +1.

--
duane
  #99  
Old May 19th 19, 04:44 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,886
Default HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.

On Sunday, May 19, 2019 at 6:56:10 AM UTC-7, Duane wrote:
John B. wrote:
On Sat, 18 May 2019 01:04:14 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 5/17/2019 4:12 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 17 May 2019 08:49:37 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 5/16/2019 5:54 PM, John B. wrote:

snip

It seems likely that there are a multitude of reasons for people not
commuting by bicycle ranging from "Oh! I just had my hair done", to
"OH! But 3 miles is too far to go by bicycle", to "Good Lord! It's
raining", to "Oh My God! My head hurts. No more booze on weekdays!",
to "I don't wanna wear a Helmet!".

When I was working in Jakarta I used to ride 100 km every Sunday
morning but wouldn't have dreamed of commuting to work by bike.
Partially because a chauffeur driven car was one of the perks of the
job, partially because a white shirt and tie was more or less the
standard uniform for managers in the business and one didn't want to
be calling on clients looking all hot and sweaty, and partially
because I spent the ride to work planning my day.

While a dedicated bicyclist might argue that these are all
surmountable problems the whole point is that they were sufficient,
for me to decide not to ride a bike to work.

Yes, in a tropical climate the "hot and sweaty" issue is a big one.

In my area, the weather is mild, most larger companies have showering
and changing facilities, and white shirts and ties are rare.

The bigger issues around here a
1. I need to pick up children after work or attend their school activities.
2. I have to work late hours (very common in Silicon Valley because
you've got a lot of conference calls late at night when it's daytime in
Asia)
3. There's no safe route.
4. There's no secure bike parking.

We can address 2, 3, and 4, but addressing 1 is hard.

There's no helmet law for adults here, but it's rare to see any
professionals riding without one. However professionals are only one
segment of the cycling population. We have a lot of seniors from China
living with their adult children and they ride without helmets. We have
a lot of day workers that combine the bus and a bicycle.

Riding without lights is actually a bigger issue around here, and I just
received my first shipment of 200 rechargeable lights to give out. I
suppose we could also try to fund helmets, but really it's unnecessary.
You can buy a new helmet for $15, sometimes even less. The cost is not
the reason some people don't wear helmets, they just are willing to
accept the slight extra risk and not wear one.

Taking steps to make cycling safer are more important than imposing
helmet requirements. Just don't fall for the false narrative that if
helmets are required then suddenly mass numbers of people will give up
cycling in protest--there's never been any evidence of this happening.

Making cycling safer? Is cycling safe? Or is cycling unsafe? Or is
cycling only perceived as unsafe?

Yes, all of the above.

I ask as annually, in the U.S., approximately 750 people die while
cycling and nearly that many die falling out of bed and since there
seems to be no concept that going to bed is "dangerous" than it can't
be a matter of simple numbers.

Oh no, you're not going to start up with this nonsense are you. Taking
injury and fatality numbers completely out of context is reserved for
Frank. No one else is allowed to engage in this.

I see. Nonsense because that ~759 bicyclists die each year? Because
some 737 die from falling out of bed? Or nonsense because it doesn't
agree with your highly political opinion?

I suggest that the latter is the most likely truth.



Maybe he’d prefer if you talked about the percentage of cyclists who died
cycling compared to the percentage of people that sleep in beds who died
falling out of beds. Not that I think either activity is very dangerous
but this nonsense is getting boring.


Various studies of bicycle "accidents" have found that from about 30%
to as much as 60% (in at least one study) of the accidents are the
fault of the cyclist which really does make one wonder about the mind
set of the cyclists.

"Hey! Just use good sense and obey the traffic laws and save your
life. "

I find it very strange that no one ever seems to mention this simple
fact. It is free, it can save you from death, pain, or an expensive
stay in the hospital, but it seems to be a fact that is kept a secret
and instead we are told to "wear a helmet", or "we gotta build safer
bicycle paths". Are the bicycle paths 30 to 60% safer? Reports I read
seem to indicate that they are even less safe than riding on the open
road.

Actually I mentioned this today. I stressed that while the protected
bike lanes, for which construction begins on Monday, will mitigate some
of the bad behavior of motorists, that they are not a panacea. I also
mentioned about what transpired in Ohio--big increase in cycling, but a
lot of crashes on the path (though if you read the report carefully, not
a many as it first appears).


If I read you correctly you are really saying that bicyclists behave
badly, do not comply with existing laws and regulations and (horrors)
don't even display good sense and therefore special paths and byways
must be constructed at the expense of the public to protect them from
their own foolish actions.

Whatever happened to those rugged and stalwart folks who through their
efforts forged a great nation out of a wilderness? All gone? Like the
dodo?
--
cheers,

John B.


Uh oh, bicycles are suicide machines in the EU! Particularly where there is developed bicycle infrastructure. https://tinyurl.com/y4r935l4 NL is like the killing fields.

-- Jay Beattie.
  #100  
Old May 19th 19, 08:00 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,258
Default HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.

On 5/19/2019 11:44 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, May 19, 2019 at 6:56:10 AM UTC-7, Duane wrote:
John B. wrote:
On Sat, 18 May 2019 01:04:14 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 5/17/2019 4:12 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 17 May 2019 08:49:37 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 5/16/2019 5:54 PM, John B. wrote:

snip

It seems likely that there are a multitude of reasons for people not
commuting by bicycle ranging from "Oh! I just had my hair done", to
"OH! But 3 miles is too far to go by bicycle", to "Good Lord! It's
raining", to "Oh My God! My head hurts. No more booze on weekdays!",
to "I don't wanna wear a Helmet!".

When I was working in Jakarta I used to ride 100 km every Sunday
morning but wouldn't have dreamed of commuting to work by bike.
Partially because a chauffeur driven car was one of the perks of the
job, partially because a white shirt and tie was more or less the
standard uniform for managers in the business and one didn't want to
be calling on clients looking all hot and sweaty, and partially
because I spent the ride to work planning my day.

While a dedicated bicyclist might argue that these are all
surmountable problems the whole point is that they were sufficient,
for me to decide not to ride a bike to work.

Yes, in a tropical climate the "hot and sweaty" issue is a big one.

In my area, the weather is mild, most larger companies have showering
and changing facilities, and white shirts and ties are rare.

The bigger issues around here a
1. I need to pick up children after work or attend their school activities.
2. I have to work late hours (very common in Silicon Valley because
you've got a lot of conference calls late at night when it's daytime in
Asia)
3. There's no safe route.
4. There's no secure bike parking.

We can address 2, 3, and 4, but addressing 1 is hard.

There's no helmet law for adults here, but it's rare to see any
professionals riding without one. However professionals are only one
segment of the cycling population. We have a lot of seniors from China
living with their adult children and they ride without helmets. We have
a lot of day workers that combine the bus and a bicycle.

Riding without lights is actually a bigger issue around here, and I just
received my first shipment of 200 rechargeable lights to give out. I
suppose we could also try to fund helmets, but really it's unnecessary.
You can buy a new helmet for $15, sometimes even less. The cost is not
the reason some people don't wear helmets, they just are willing to
accept the slight extra risk and not wear one.

Taking steps to make cycling safer are more important than imposing
helmet requirements. Just don't fall for the false narrative that if
helmets are required then suddenly mass numbers of people will give up
cycling in protest--there's never been any evidence of this happening.

Making cycling safer? Is cycling safe? Or is cycling unsafe? Or is
cycling only perceived as unsafe?

Yes, all of the above.

I ask as annually, in the U.S., approximately 750 people die while
cycling and nearly that many die falling out of bed and since there
seems to be no concept that going to bed is "dangerous" than it can't
be a matter of simple numbers.

Oh no, you're not going to start up with this nonsense are you. Taking
injury and fatality numbers completely out of context is reserved for
Frank. No one else is allowed to engage in this.

I see. Nonsense because that ~759 bicyclists die each year? Because
some 737 die from falling out of bed? Or nonsense because it doesn't
agree with your highly political opinion?

I suggest that the latter is the most likely truth.



Maybe he’d prefer if you talked about the percentage of cyclists who died
cycling compared to the percentage of people that sleep in beds who died
falling out of beds. Not that I think either activity is very dangerous
but this nonsense is getting boring.


Various studies of bicycle "accidents" have found that from about 30%
to as much as 60% (in at least one study) of the accidents are the
fault of the cyclist which really does make one wonder about the mind
set of the cyclists.

"Hey! Just use good sense and obey the traffic laws and save your
life. "

I find it very strange that no one ever seems to mention this simple
fact. It is free, it can save you from death, pain, or an expensive
stay in the hospital, but it seems to be a fact that is kept a secret
and instead we are told to "wear a helmet", or "we gotta build safer
bicycle paths". Are the bicycle paths 30 to 60% safer? Reports I read
seem to indicate that they are even less safe than riding on the open
road.

Actually I mentioned this today. I stressed that while the protected
bike lanes, for which construction begins on Monday, will mitigate some
of the bad behavior of motorists, that they are not a panacea. I also
mentioned about what transpired in Ohio--big increase in cycling, but a
lot of crashes on the path (though if you read the report carefully, not
a many as it first appears).

If I read you correctly you are really saying that bicyclists behave
badly, do not comply with existing laws and regulations and (horrors)
don't even display good sense and therefore special paths and byways
must be constructed at the expense of the public to protect them from
their own foolish actions.

Whatever happened to those rugged and stalwart folks who through their
efforts forged a great nation out of a wilderness? All gone? Like the
dodo?
--
cheers,

John B.


Uh oh, bicycles are suicide machines in the EU! Particularly where there is developed bicycle infrastructure. https://tinyurl.com/y4r935l4 NL is like the killing fields.


The author serves a few tidbits of real knowledge in a stew of
misinformation.

I'd be interested in his source for "In the U.S., as in Europe, the
car’s culpability is mostly a myth: just 29 per cent of bicycle
fatalities involved autos." I think that's completely wrong.


--
- Frank Krygowski
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is cycling dangerous? Bertie Wooster[_2_] UK 20 March 17th 14 09:43 PM
Cycling casualties plummet despite rise in numbers Simon Mason[_4_] UK 7 April 6th 12 08:06 AM
"Cycling is not dangerous. Cars are dangerous." Doug[_3_] UK 56 September 14th 09 05:57 PM
Help Texas Cycling call these numbers throughout the weekend Anton Berlin Racing 4 June 25th 09 08:58 PM
Cycling is dangerous Garry Jones General 375 November 21st 03 05:52 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.