There is less than one percent that people bicycling will be killed while cycling. It looks like people just do not want to cycle and use the excuse of being killed as justification for not cycling.
L.
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Taylor Winfield <taylorwinfi...@ymail.com>wrote:
> 19,162 Number of cyclists entering Toronto's core on a typical weekday > last September
> 15-20 Number of cyclists killed every year on Ontatio roads (1/4 to 1/3 in > the Toronto area)
> 60 Percentage of Ontarians who say they would cycle more but are afraid to.
> Source: Toronto Star October 25, 2011.
> John Alldredge
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Bicycle Lifestyle" group. > To post to this group, send email to bicyclelifestyle@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > bicyclelifestyle+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/bicyclelifestyle?hl=en.
Yes, there's a popular meme out there, that cycling is dangerous. Oddly, even some cyclists subscribe and promote it. On Oct 25, 2011 3:17 PM, "Lee Legrand" <krm2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There is less than one percent that people bicycling will be killed while > cycling. It looks like people just do not want to cycle and use the excuse > of being killed as justification for not cycling.
> L.
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Taylor Winfield <taylorwinfi...@ymail.com > > wrote:
>> 19,162 Number of cyclists entering Toronto's core on a typical weekday >> last September
>> 15-20 Number of cyclists killed every year on Ontatio roads (1/4 to 1/3 in >> the Toronto area)
>> 60 Percentage of Ontarians who say they would cycle more but are afraid >> to.
>> Source: Toronto Star October 25, 2011.
>> John Alldredge
>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Bicycle Lifestyle" group. >> To post to this group, send email to bicyclelifestyle@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> bicyclelifestyle+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/bicyclelifestyle?hl=en.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Bicycle Lifestyle" group. > To post to this group, send email to bicyclelifestyle@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > bicyclelifestyle+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/bicyclelifestyle?hl=en.
- Fifty-four percent of Québec residents rode a bike in 2010.
- The number of people in Québec who bike at least once per week rose from 1.6 million 2000 to 2 million in 2010.
- The number of cyclists who use their bikes as a means of transport (as opposed to exercise or recreation) has nearly doubled from 20% in 2000 to 37% in 2010.
- The total number of bikes in Québec has more than doubled since 1987.
- During the same period (1987-2010), the annual number of deaths from cycling accidents has decreased by 58%, and the number of severe injuries has declined by 72%.
> There is less than one percent that people bicycling will be killed while
> cycling. It looks like people just do not want to cycle and use the excuse
> of being killed as justification for not cycling.
> L.
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Taylor Winfield
> <taylorwinfi...@ymail.com>wrote:
> > 19,162 Number of cyclists entering Toronto's core on a typical weekday
> > last September
> > 15-20 Number of cyclists killed every year on Ontatio roads (1/4 to 1/3 in
> > the Toronto area)
> > 60 Percentage of Ontarians who say they would cycle more but are afraid to.
Kind of amazing. Well, one cyclist friend of mine is not perpetuating
that "meme", at least not after he got killed by a truck while cycling
last summer.
Cycling _is_ dangerous. So is driving. So is sitting on your couch
and getting fat.
So the thing to do isn't to try to convince people that cycling is not
dangerous, because then they compare your statement to their knowledge
of the world and conclude that you're either trying to fool them or
are a fool yourself.
Better to argue that cycling is _relatively_ safe. That the risk you
are taking is similar to the risks that people routinely take doing
other activities, like driving.
Nick
On Oct 25, 7:18 pm, Bob Sutterfield <b...@sutterfields.us> wrote:
> Yes, there's a popular meme out there, that cycling is dangerous. Oddly,
> even some cyclists subscribe and promote it.
> On Oct 25, 2011 3:17 PM, "Lee Legrand" <krm2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > There is less than one percent that people bicycling will be killed while
> > cycling. It looks like people just do not want to cycle and use the excuse
> > of being killed as justification for not cycling.
> > L.
> > On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Taylor Winfield <taylorwinfi...@ymail.com
> > > wrote:
> >> 19,162 Number of cyclists entering Toronto's core on a typical weekday
> >> last September
> >> 15-20 Number of cyclists killed every year on Ontatio roads (1/4 to 1/3 in
> >> the Toronto area)
> >> 60 Percentage of Ontarians who say they would cycle more but are afraid
> >> to.
> >> Source: Toronto Star October 25, 2011.
> >> John Alldredge
> >> --
> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> >> "Bicycle Lifestyle" group.
> >> To post to this group, send email to bicyclelifestyle@googlegroups.com.
> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> >> bicyclelifestyle+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> >> For more options, visit this group at
> >>http://groups.google.com/group/bicyclelifestyle?hl=en.
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Bicycle Lifestyle" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to bicyclelifestyle@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > bicyclelifestyle+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/bicyclelifestyle?hl=en.
I haven't been to Québec for a few years but the last two times I went I was absolutely delighted to see the great numbers of cyclists both in Québec City and in Montréal. I like the way that bike lanes extend for many kilometers out of the city in Québec even on main roads.
John Alldredge
________________________________ From: hurley <bhur...@mac.com> To: bicyclelifestyle@googlegroups.com Cc: PiperAlldredge <piper.alldre...@gmail.com>; Taylor Winfield <taylorwinfi...@ymail.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 9:55:56 PM Subject: Re: Some Toronto Ontario recent cycling stats
Some statistics for the province of Québec: * Fifty-four percent of Québec residents rode a bike in 2010.
* The number of people in Québec who bike at least once per week rose from 1.6 million 2000 to 2 million in 2010.
* The number of cyclists who use their bikes as a means of transport (as opposed to exercise or recreation) has nearly doubled from 20% in 2000 to 37% in 2010.
* The total number of bikes in Québec has more than doubled since 1987.
* During the same period (1987-2010), the annual number of deaths from cycling accidents has decreased by 58%, and the number of severe injuries has declined by 72%.
In Toronto, often when a cyclist is killed by a car or truck, there is a big kerfuffle. Cyclists gather enmasse, make a lot of noise, go for a ride with banners flying, provoke impatient car drivers & so forth.
I understand the sentiment being expressed perfectly well but I think it (wrongly, I feel), puts off bicycle commuter wannabes. I don't know if there is any solution to this.
John Alldredge
________________________________ From: Lee Legrand <krm2...@gmail.com> To: bicyclelifestyle@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 6:17:37 PM Subject: Re: {BL} Some Toronto Ontario recent cycling stats
There is less than one percent that people bicycling will be killed while cycling. It looks like people just do not want to cycle and use the excuse of being killed as justification for not cycling.
L.
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Taylor Winfield <taylorwinfi...@ymail.com> wrote:
19,162 Number of cyclists entering Toronto's core on a typical weekday last September
> >15-20 Number of cyclists killed every year on Ontatio roads (1/4 to 1/3 in the Toronto area) > >60 Percentage of Ontarians who say they would cycle more but are afraid to. > >Source: Toronto Star October 25, 2011.
>John Alldredge -- >You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bicycle Lifestyle" group. >To post to this group, send email to bicyclelifestyle@googlegroups.com. >To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bicyclelifestyle+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. >For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bicyclelifestyle?hl=en.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bicycle Lifestyle" group. To post to this group, send email to bicyclelifestyle@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bicyclelifestyle+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bicyclelifestyle?hl=en.
i particularly like the stat that the bicycling fatality rate per
million exposure hours is less than motoring which is less than
living!. I guess that proves one is more alive when biking. another
good one is the "dangerous hamburger". one has about the same chance
of dying in ones lifetime from eating a salmonella laced hamburger as
from dying on the bike.
But put biking risks in perspective with the health benefits. Now if
we could calculate only how many more days one lives by biking as
opposed to motoring or other sedentary activites. That might quiet the
fear mongers.
as we all know be careful with statistics.
On Oct 25, 4:40 pm, Taylor Winfield <taylorwinfi...@ymail.com> wrote:
> 19,162 Number of cyclists entering Toronto's core on a typical weekday last September
>
> 15-20 Number of cyclists killed every year on Ontatio roads (1/4 to 1/3 in the Toronto area)
>
> 60 Percentage of Ontarians who say they would cycle more but are afraid to.
>
> Source: Toronto Star October 25, 2011.
On 2011-10-26, at 10:37 PM, heinrich schulz wrote:
> Now if > we could calculate only how many more days one lives by biking as > opposed to motoring or other sedentary activites. That might quiet the > fear mongers.
At risk of raising of sad and familiar subject for many on this list, it should be noted that Ken Kifer was killed by a drunk driver some years back. I say that not to counter his points, with which I agree -- but just to initiate a moment of (internet) silence.
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 10:48 PM, David Chase <dr2ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2011-10-26, at 10:37 PM, heinrich schulz wrote: > > Now if > > we could calculate only how many more days one lives by biking as > > opposed to motoring or other sedentary activites. That might quiet the > > fear mongers.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Bicycle Lifestyle" group. > To post to this group, send email to bicyclelifestyle@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > bicyclelifestyle+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/bicyclelifestyle?hl=en.
thanks for that article david.
Lon Haldeman has promoted high intensity training (1 hour per week at
90% of your max heart rate ) to achieve maximum cardiovascular
fitness. He says he wasted a lot of time doing long duration lower
intensity training.
On Oct 26, 10:48 pm, David Chase <dr2ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2011-10-26, at 10:37 PM, heinrich schulz wrote:
> > Now if
> > we could calculate only how many more days one lives by biking as
> > opposed to motoring or other sedentary activites. That might quiet the
> > fear mongers.
I think also those who are more active tend to have better quality years. So those 2-5 years are likely to not be spent in a bed watching Jerry Springer and being fed with a tube.
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 10:48 PM, David Chase <dr2ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2011-10-26, at 10:37 PM, heinrich schulz wrote: >> Now if >> we could calculate only how many more days one lives by biking as >> opposed to motoring or other sedentary activites. That might quiet the >> fear mongers.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bicycle Lifestyle" group. > To post to this group, send email to bicyclelifestyle@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bicyclelifestyle+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bicyclelifestyle?hl=en.
You just listed my worst fear ever. That idea is way scarier than getting killed.
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 9:12 AM, Jonathan Murray <murray.jonat...@gmail.com>wrote:
> I think also those who are more active tend to have better quality > years. So those 2-5 years are likely to not be spent in a bed watching > Jerry Springer and being fed with a tube.
> In Toronto, often when a cyclist is killed by a car or truck, there is a > big kerfuffle. Cyclists gather enmasse, make a lot of noise, go for a ride > with banners flying, provoke impatient car drivers & so forth.
> I understand the sentiment being expressed perfectly well but I think it > (wrongly, I feel), puts off bicycle commuter wannabes. I don't know if there > is any solution to this.
Sounds great in theory, has thus far not worked as well in practice as other things that have been tried in other places (e.g., Netherlands, Denmark, parts of Germany).
Mighk is also somewhat inconsistent in his invocation of European practices; very few people in Europe (especially the countries mentioned above) wear helmets, their cyclists are much safer, and they have much different infrastructure, including lanes, segregated paths, special treatment at intersections, traffic calming, and lower speed limits in residential areas.
Debable on all that, but good points to be sure...
I commute in San Francisco. We have a very low fatlity rate here, and a LOT of regular cyclists.
We also have a LOT who disobey traffic rules. I sometimes feel like a bit of a dork actually stopping for traffic lights when three out of four cyclists just blow through them. Frankly, I think they are rolling the dice and have to take the consequences if they get hit. I also see far too many people withought lights at night as well.
That being said, my thought is safety is the responsibility of the rider. I also rode a motorcycle, rain or shine, for quite a few years back in the 80's. I also thought that if I got hit by a car, it was my fault... period. Meaning since I had no protection, it was on me to anticipate problems and look to see what drivers were likely to do.
I feel the same thing on the bike. I used to wear bright obnoxious yellow jackets because that made me "more saferer," but gradually realized I was being ridiculus. Riding a bike is not any more dangerous than walking down the street. You just need to use your brain, be aware of where you are, and what is around you, and what cars are likely/can do.
As some of the other posters said, I do reccommend a bike safety class. The local San Francisco Bike Coalition teaches one, and I was so glad I took it. I had been riding for years, and realized I knew nothing about riding in the city. Learning about "taking the lane," keeping space for doors, etc., knowing all that made me feel confident when I rode down the streets of San Francisco during a commute.
So now I wear regular clothers, a helmet, and lights, front and back for dark/twightlight time. I also have a MIRROR on my bike. Yeah, there's a concept that seems to elude way too many cyclists. I mean, you wouldn't drive down the street in a car without a mirror, but take a look at how many cyclists do exactly that? Strange...
> Sounds great in theory, has thus far not worked as well in practice as > other things that have been tried in other places (e.g., Netherlands, > Denmark, parts of Germany).
> Mighk is also somewhat inconsistent in his invocation of European > practices; very few people in Europe (especially the countries mentioned > above) wear helmets, their cyclists are much safer, and they have much > different infrastructure, including lanes, segregated paths, special > treatment at intersections, traffic calming, and lower speed limits in > residential areas.
> David
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Bicycle Lifestyle" group. > To post to this group, send email to bicyclelifestyle@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > bicyclelifestyle+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/bicyclelifestyle?hl=en.
I think a little bit of reflective gear even in the daytime goes a
long way toward helping drivers see you from a distance, identify that
you are a bicycle and therefore they will need to pass you, and then
safely pass you. I can't believe how many cyclists wear dark clothes
and are nearly invisible from a quarter mile away. It only takes a
few seconds for a car to drive that quarter mile, and if it's the few
seconds that they are looking down at the radio (or worse, text
messaging) then they don't see you until the last second. Better to
be visible from as long a distance as possible so that they know you
are there and will hopefully behave accordingly and not look down at
their cell phone until they've passed you.
The evidence I've seen is that the motion of reflective wear is what
catches drivers eyes, so I wear the Rivendell-style ankle bands that
stick out two inches on each side. I wear these any time I'm on the
bike, they are highly effective at catching driver's eyes even in the
daytime (based on comments I've received from drivers). Many ankle
bands are too narrow to be very visible, the Rivendell's are nice and
wide. And they are made of material that glows well whether dry or
wet. I often wear a sash or vest during the day, but I think those
are not as important as the ankle bands. And you can wear ankle bands
at 105F just as comfortably as not wearing them, so there's never any
condition in which I feel a need to take them off.
Nick
On Oct 27, 11:26 am, Ty Smith <tyj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Debable on all that, but good points to be sure...
> I commute in San Francisco. We have a very low fatlity rate here, and a LOT
> of regular cyclists.
> We also have a LOT who disobey traffic rules. I sometimes feel like a bit of
> a dork actually stopping for traffic lights when three out of four cyclists
> just blow through them. Frankly, I think they are rolling the dice and have
> to take the consequences if they get hit. I also see far too many people
> withought lights at night as well.
> That being said, my thought is safety is the responsibility of the rider. I
> also rode a motorcycle, rain or shine, for quite a few years back in the
> 80's. I also thought that if I got hit by a car, it was my fault... period.
> Meaning since I had no protection, it was on me to anticipate problems and
> look to see what drivers were likely to do.
> I feel the same thing on the bike. I used to wear bright obnoxious yellow
> jackets because that made me "more saferer," but gradually realized I was
> being ridiculus. Riding a bike is not any more dangerous than walking down
> the street. You just need to use your brain, be aware of where you are, and
> what is around you, and what cars are likely/can do.
> As some of the other posters said, I do reccommend a bike safety class. The
> local San Francisco Bike Coalition teaches one, and I was so glad I took it.
> I had been riding for years, and realized I knew nothing about riding in the
> city. Learning about "taking the lane," keeping space for doors, etc.,
> knowing all that made me feel confident when I rode down the streets of San
> Francisco during a commute.
> So now I wear regular clothers, a helmet, and lights, front and back for
> dark/twightlight time. I also have a MIRROR on my bike. Yeah, there's a
> concept that seems to elude way too many cyclists. I mean, you wouldn't
> drive down the street in a car without a mirror, but take a look at how many
> cyclists do exactly that? Strange...
> Anyway, just my two cents.
> Safe Riding,
> Ty Smith
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 7:58 AM, David Chase <dr2ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2011-10-27, at 9:58 AM, Bob Sutterfield wrote:
> > > Yes, cycling has a self-inflicted image problem. Consider the
> > alternatives:
> > Sounds great in theory, has thus far not worked as well in practice as
> > other things that have been tried in other places (e.g., Netherlands,
> > Denmark, parts of Germany).
> > Mighk is also somewhat inconsistent in his invocation of European
> > practices; very few people in Europe (especially the countries mentioned
> > above) wear helmets, their cyclists are much safer, and they have much
> > different infrastructure, including lanes, segregated paths, special
> > treatment at intersections, traffic calming, and lower speed limits in
> > residential areas.
> > David
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Bicycle Lifestyle" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to bicyclelifestyle@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > bicyclelifestyle+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/bicyclelifestyle?hl=en.
I wear regular street clothes to work with a yellow helmet and reflective ankle straps. I wear a reflective vest a night and generally follow the rules of the road. I seem to get more respect from drivers than when I am in spandex. I think because they assume I have to ride a bike to work like many others in our area.
> Debable on all that, but good points to be sure...
> I commute in San Francisco. We have a very low fatlity rate here, > and a LOT of regular cyclists. > We also have a LOT who disobey traffic rules. I sometimes feel like a > bit of a dork actually stopping for traffic lights when three out of > four cyclists just blow through them. Frankly, I think they are > rolling the dice and have to take the consequences if they get hit. I > also see far too many people withought lights at night as well.
> That being said, my thought is safety is the responsibility of the > rider. I also rode a motorcycle, rain or shine, for quite a few years > back in the 80's. I also thought that if I got hit by a car, it was my > fault... period. Meaning since I had no protection, it was on me to > anticipate problems and look to see what drivers were likely to do. > I feel the same thing on the bike. I used to wear bright obnoxious > yellow jackets because that made me "more saferer," but gradually > realized I was being ridiculus. Riding a bike is not any more > dangerous than walking down the street. You just need to use your > brain, be aware of where you are, and what is around you, and what > cars are likely/can do. > As some of the other posters said, I do reccommend a bike safety > class. The local San Francisco Bike Coalition teaches one, and I was > so glad I took it. I had been riding for years, and realized I knew > nothing about riding in the city. Learning about "taking the lane," > keeping space for doors, etc., knowing all that made me feel confident > when I rode down the streets of San Francisco during a commute.
> So now I wear regular clothers, a helmet, and lights, front and back > for dark/twightlight time. I also have a MIRROR on my bike. Yeah, > there's a concept that seems to elude way too many cyclists. I mean, > you wouldn't drive down the street in a car without a mirror, but take > a look at how many cyclists do exactly that? Strange... > Anyway, just my two cents. > Safe Riding, > Ty Smith > On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 7:58 AM, David Chase <dr2ch...@gmail.com > <mailto:dr2ch...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> On 2011-10-27, at 9:58 AM, Bob Sutterfield wrote:
> > Yes, cycling has a self-inflicted image problem. Consider the > alternatives:
> Sounds great in theory, has thus far not worked as well in > practice as other things that have been tried in other places > (e.g., Netherlands, Denmark, parts of Germany).
> Mighk is also somewhat inconsistent in his invocation of European > practices; very few people in Europe (especially the countries > mentioned above) wear helmets, their cyclists are much safer, and > they have much different infrastructure, including lanes, > segregated paths, special treatment at intersections, traffic > calming, and lower speed limits in residential areas.
> David
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Bicycle Lifestyle" group. > To post to this group, send email to > bicyclelifestyle@googlegroups.com > <mailto:bicyclelifestyle@googlegroups.com>. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > bicyclelifestyle+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com > <mailto:bicyclelifestyle%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/bicyclelifestyle?hl=en.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Bicycle Lifestyle" group. > To post to this group, send email to bicyclelifestyle@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > bicyclelifestyle+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/bicyclelifestyle?hl=en.
> I think a little bit of reflective gear even in the daytime goes a > long way toward helping drivers see you from a distance, identify that > you are a bicycle and therefore they will need to pass you, and then > safely pass you.
Hub dynamo plus homemade lights, always on, does it for me. Modern LEDs are absurdly bright. Makes me feel much better about my know-it-all teenage son cycling off at all hours; no need for the "don't forget your lights" argument, they're just on.
That said, the Rivendell cuffs are pretty amazing:
> I can't believe how many cyclists wear dark clothes > and are nearly invisible from a quarter mile away.
Among the many rights that we have, is the right to dress like a ninja, just as we have the right to use bicycles on the roads, and the right to take the lane when necessary for safety. There's no ninja exemption in the don't-hit-people rules for drivers.
On Oct 27, 11:55 am, David Chase <dr2ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Among the many rights that we have, is the right to dress like a ninja, just as we have the right to use bicycles on the roads, and the right to take the lane when necessary for safety.
> There's no ninja exemption in the don't-hit-people rules for drivers.
Don't be too sure of that, a jury might decide in favor of the driver
citing criminal stupidity on the part of the ninja cyclist.
All users of the public roads are required to use them in a
responsible manner, intentionally dressing as to be hard to see
(ninja) comes under the heading of "irresponsible", sorta like a
pedestrian deciding to lay down and take a nap in the crosswalk.
I'm well aware of the low standards we set for driver responsibility in this country, but nonetheless, there is no ninja exemption. And cyclists using unlit MUPs at night manage to spot joggers and dogwalkers (and cycle ninjas) without running into them. A blind woman who lives around regularly walks on the MUP, sometimes at night (I've seen her at least twice), sometimes talking on her cell phone. Clearly, cyclists manage to get this pretty near right, else she would not do this.
Why should we expect less from drivers? (Well, other than statistical evidence that they are 10-30x more dangerous to pedestrians, based on pedestrian mortality numbers. That's why *I* expect less.)
> On Oct 27, 11:55 am, David Chase <dr2ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Among the many rights that we have, is the right to dress like a ninja, just as we have the right to use bicycles on the roads, and the right to take the lane when necessary for safety. >> There's no ninja exemption in the don't-hit-people rules for drivers.
> Don't be too sure of that, a jury might decide in favor of the driver > citing criminal stupidity on the part of the ninja cyclist.
> All users of the public roads are required to use them in a > responsible manner, intentionally dressing as to be hard to see > (ninja) comes under the heading of "irresponsible", sorta like a > pedestrian deciding to lay down and take a nap in the crosswalk.
On Oct 27, 6:39 pm, David Chase <dr2ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why should we expect less from drivers? (Well, other than statistical evidence that they
> are 10-30x more dangerous to pedestrians, based on pedestrian mortality numbers.
> That's why *I* expect less.)
I think you should expect 99% of the drivers to see you and expect the
remaining 1% to not see you and run you over. The battle between a
cyclist and a motor vehicle usually ends poorly for the cyclist. So it
behooves the cyclist to avoid being struck either by intent or by
accident by taken reasonable precautions. Giving the motorist the
death penalty will not undue the damage caused to a injured cyclist.
So riding in a irresponsible manner and depending on the law to make
amends is a fool's position.
As far as there being a ninja exemption, there are laws on the books
that provide penalties for inattentive/reckless driving etc. I'm sure
the court could find something to charge you with and make it stick if
they could prove you were dressing intentionally to hide (ninja)
yourself from traffic. Reckless operation of a vehicle.
> Giving the motorist the > death penalty will not undue the damage caused to a injured cyclist.
Oddly enough, we impose some pretty draconian penalties that do little or nothing to reverse the wrongs for which they were imposed. It's a matter of both (dis)incentives and signalling what society considers unacceptable.
As long as this is the case, and as long as cars continue to be so much more deadly than necessary, and as long as their drivers continue to be stricken by random but unfortunate episodes of blindness, I have no problem with ever-more-draconian penalties, black boxes, surveillance cameras, what have you. There's plenty of precedent for tossing away civil liberties for fewer lives lost in a single episode, never mind year after year after year.
> So riding in a irresponsible manner and depending on the law to make > amends is a fool's position.
You misunderstand me. We have rights that are being denied us by careless drivers. I know full well that the law does not protect me. That pisses me off.
