Boston bike crash article
Peter Cole
This story ran in the main paper's (Globe) Sunday magazine. A well known
Globe journalist crashed her bike in September and has struggled with
serious medical problems since.
I have mixed feelings about this article. I am a long-time subscriber to
the paper and have read the journalist's occasional articles about
cycling. My overall (perhaps inaccurate) impression was that she was not
a particularly expert rider, although perhaps typical of the average
club rider around here.
I've seen many crashes among club riders, usually less serious, limited
to broken bones and road rash. My club has a "broken clavicle"
sub-group, with many members. There have been no fatalities that I'm
aware of, but there was one neck-down paralysis a few years back.
I've seen many instances of dangerous riding habits, including but not
limited to riding over debris and into potholes and cracks, loss of
control during braking/turning, and collisions between riders. Habits
don't seem to improve at all, even among those who experience such
events. Accident prone riders still seem to prefer flat-out racing
machines with skinny tires and delicate wheels, even in all-season
riding on poorly maintained roads.
I'm sure this article will discourage many would-be cyclists. Perhaps it
should.
Jay Beattie
> http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/articles/2011/01/23/crossroads_a_bike...
I dread it when writers get injured. -- Jay Beattie.
UglyEcho
Yes. That leaves precious little to add, their experiences all the more
momentous for having compellingly written words give vent to new obsessions,
compulsions, and pastimes. She does, however, manage to summarize that very
well: "I'm not invested in this family."
Duane Hebert
This seems more like someone going too fast on a road with pot holes
than it does about the thickness of the tires. But she doesn't really
remember what caused the crash.
After my last crash, people were telling me about the dangers of thin
tires on wet asphalt also but the crash was caused because I sided into
a curb that I didn't see. The tires were fine with the conditions both
before and after the crash. It was completely my fault for not paying
better attention.
> I'm sure this article will discourage many would-be cyclists. Perhaps it
> should.
I don't know. People who are in a rush and drive cars tend to have
similar problems.
Sometime we forget what can happen to a body at > 20 mph when it hits
the pavement. Maybe this article will help people keep that in mind.
Frank Krygowski
> http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/articles/2011/01/23/crossroads_a_bike...
>
I think it's a real shame she has resisted trying to find out what did
cause the crash! Especially since she apparently has written many
articles on bike safety.
Most bike crashes are caused by problems with the road surface. If
she did hit a pothole, it would be an example of that, and it would be
useful to tell her readers "Always pay attention to the road surface."
I also think it's a shame that we get yet another article that people
will interpret as "Bicycling is dangerous." As usual, the recent
"vulnerable road users" injured around here have been pedestrians, not
cyclists. And of course, the injured motorists outnumber both the
cyclists and the peds. We need more horror stories to scare people
out of their cars.
And it wouldn't hurt to have bike advocates calling for better
maintenance of road surfaces.
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
>
> After my last crash, people were telling me about the dangers of thin
> tires on wet asphalt also but the crash was caused because I sided into
> a curb that I didn't see.
Hmm. Did anyone tell you about the danger of riding too close to the
curb?
- Frank Krygowski
Jay Beattie
> On Jan 24, 9:59 am, Peter Cole <peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
<snip>
> And it wouldn't hurt to have bike advocates calling for better
> maintenance of road surfaces.
No shi**. For me, cars pose only a mild threat compared to bad road
surface, particularly during the winter. Heavy rain and pounding from
tires dislodges last last-year's patches, and all the sudden it's
pothole hell, and many potholes are invisible at night or lurking
under standing water. I would much rather see spending on pot hole
repair than new bicycle facilities. -- Jay Beattie.
Peter Cole
> On 1/24/2011 9:59 AM, Peter Cole wrote:
>> I've seen many instances of dangerous riding habits, including but not
>> limited to riding over debris and into potholes and cracks, loss of
>> control during braking/turning, and collisions between riders. Habits
>> don't seem to improve at all, even among those who experience such
>> events. Accident prone riders still seem to prefer flat-out racing
>> machines with skinny tires and delicate wheels, even in all-season
>> riding on poorly maintained roads.
>
> This seems more like someone going too fast on a road with pot holes
> than it does about the thickness of the tires. But she doesn't really
> remember what caused the crash.
She did seem to be more positive about the cause in the video. I assume
there was a pothole in the immediate vicinity. I'd hazard a guess to say
that she probably would have stood a much better chance of surviving the
pothole encounter intact if she was riding 2" tires rather than 23mm ones.
> After my last crash, people were telling me about the dangers of thin
> tires on wet asphalt also but the crash was caused because I sided into
> a curb that I didn't see. The tires were fine with the conditions both
> before and after the crash. It was completely my fault for not paying
> better attention.
If you're prone to not paying attention then you're likely accident
prone as well. Riders like that are more likely to hit things, and I
think their equipment choices (and riding style) should reflect that.
There are lots of people zooming around with full racer kit who should
really be riding balloon tired Schwinns.
>> I'm sure this article will discourage many would-be cyclists. Perhaps it
>> should.
>
> I don't know. People who are in a rush and drive cars tend to have
> similar problems.
Yes, and putting aside the obvious difference of being dangerous to
other innocent parties as well, I'd say such people should pay special
attention to crash safety information when car shopping.
> Sometime we forget what can happen to a body at > 20 mph when it hits
> the pavement. Maybe this article will help people keep that in mind.
Yes. As I said, I have mixed feelings about the article. I think that
it's obvious that cycling crashes are far from rare -- I've seen too
many. Most involve minor to moderate injury, but that's pretty much luck
of the draw, taking a bad bounce can change your life permanently.
AMuzi
> <snip>
> Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> And it wouldn't hurt to have bike advocates calling for better
>> maintenance of road surfaces.
Jay Beattie wrote:
> No shi**. For me, cars pose only a mild threat compared to bad road
> surface, particularly during the winter. Heavy rain and pounding from
> tires dislodges last last-year's patches, and all the sudden it's
> pothole hell, and many potholes are invisible at night or lurking
> under standing water. I would much rather see spending on pot hole
> repair than new bicycle facilities. -- Jay Beattie.
Well said. If Beirut streets had snow, that would describe
my route in winter.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Peter Cole
I won't ride through standing water at night, you simply can't see
what's underneath. When I'm forced to deal with it, I'll ride right
along the fog line or even median. If the line disappears I figure the
pavement has, too. I suppose if I had no choice in route and lots of
standing water without lines, I'd just use balloon tires, slow down and
hope for the best. Most garden variety hazards: storm drains, manhole
covers, repair plates, bridge decking, sand/gravel deposits,
train/trolley tracks, etc. are easily negotiable once you spot them, but
submerged potholes are often impossible to see, especially at night.
I've learned to assume the worst.
Duane Hebert
No Frank, that must have been it. Damn. Thanks for your valuable input
as usual.
For anyone else I will explain:
I've described this before but... It was during the Tour de L'Ile where
the ride is through the streets and there was a divider about 2 inches
high in the center of the road. The road was closed to traffic so there
were bikes on both sides going the same direction and I was going to the
left side from the right. I thought that it was a rounded bump but it
wasn't.
Tºm Shermªn™ °_°
Pothole repair is a futile exercise. The problem starts with unsuitable
subgrade materials and inadequate subsurface drainage, and any "fix"
that does not address those is only temporary. The solution requires
the political will to choose the lowest life-cycle cost alternative,
instead of the lowest cost this fiscal year alternative.
--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.
Tºm Shermªn™ °_°
> [...
> If you're prone to not paying attention then you're likely accident
> prone as well. Riders like that are more likely to hit things, and I
> think their equipment choices (and riding style) should reflect that.
> There are lots of people zooming around with full racer kit who should
Or anything with Schwalbe Big Apple tires.
--
T�m Sherm�n - 42.435731,-83.985007
Peter Cole
> On Jan 24, 9:59 am, Peter Cole<peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/articles/2011/01/23/crossroads_a_bike...
> I think it's a real shame she has resisted trying to find out what did
> cause the crash! Especially since she apparently has written many
> articles on bike safety.
I'm not sure that she has resisted finding the cause or has written any
articles on bike safety.
> Most bike crashes are caused by problems with the road surface. If
> she did hit a pothole, it would be an example of that, and it would be
> useful to tell her readers "Always pay attention to the road surface."
Sure, but without telling them what to pay attention to, that warning
might not be so effective. I'm sure even rank novices understand that
riding into a large pothole may have unpleasant consequences.
> I also think it's a shame that we get yet another article that people
> will interpret as "Bicycling is dangerous."
It is dangerous if you don't pay attention and have a good understanding
of the hazards. I'm sure the author had an appreciation of avoiding
potholes (if that indeed was the specific causal agent in this case),
but either there was some specific environmental variable that caused
her to not see it (lighting, etc.) or she allowed herself to be
distracted or lapse into inattention. Cycling requires attention to
specific details, such as surface features, and the knowledge to
interpret what you see and an appreciation of the possible unseen.
> And it wouldn't hurt to have bike advocates calling for better
> maintenance of road surfaces.
It wouldn't hurt, but realistically, given the status of city and state
budgets, I wouldn't expect a 1% constituency to carry enough clout.
Peter Cole
I think that qualifies as a genuine fluke. It's a matter of odds, if we
eliminate those things we can, then we only have to survive the
unforeseeable -- and don't have to spread our luck so thin.
Frank Krygowski
> On 1/24/2011 12:38 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> > On Jan 24, 9:59 am, Peter Cole<peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/articles/2011/01/23/crossroads_a_bike...
> > I think it's a real shame she has resisted trying to find out what did
> > cause the crash! Especially since she apparently has written many
> > articles on bike safety.
>
> I'm not sure that she has resisted finding the cause or has written any
> articles on bike safety.
Well, IIRC she claimed both in the article. The site is now wanting
me to register, so I can't give quotes.
> > Most bike crashes are caused by problems with the road surface. If
> > she did hit a pothole, it would be an example of that, and it would be
> > useful to tell her readers "Always pay attention to the road surface."
>
> Sure, but without telling them what to pay attention to, that warning
> might not be so effective. I'm sure even rank novices understand that
> riding into a large pothole may have unpleasant consequences.
When I said to tell her readers to watch the road surface, I didn't
intend for it to be just a seven word article. Sure, get specific, at
least with several examples.
http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/FrankNFred006.htm
> > I also think it's a shame that we get yet another article that people
> > will interpret as "Bicycling is dangerous."
>
> It is dangerous if you don't pay attention and have a good understanding
> of the hazards.
... like so many other things in life!
Has anyone seen an article on "How I fell down the stairs and ended up
in rehab"? Those cases _tremendously_ outnumber the bicycling cases.
Ditto for fatalities.
> Cycling requires attention to
> specific details, such as surface features, and the knowledge to
> interpret what you see and an appreciation of the possible unseen.
Right. It would be good to get people thinking about those things.
Again, simple road surface hazards are the number one cause of bike
crashes, IIRC. Obviously, people could use more appreciation for
those hazards.
- Frank Krygowski
Duane Hebert
Oh yeah, it was a genuine fluke. You don't normally worry about hitting
the curb on the left. (Maybe I should have been skulking in the gutter <g>)
My point (before Frank had to pipe in with his crap about taking the
lane - for whatever reason) was that a lot of people blame racing bikes
for problems but it's often not the bike that's at fault. In my case,
it was only superficially the fault of the bike - I was having to much
fun to pay attention like I should have been.
I'm not sure how much big fat tires would help when you hit a hole at
speed. A friend here rides a bike with pretty wide tires for his
commuting bike and he caught a pothole last year. He still fit the
wheel in the hole, the bike still stopped short and he went over the
bars. This was the same week as my crash so we were exchanging war
stories. He's not from Montreal so he wasn't expecting a pot hole on a
well maintained road. In both cases, we decided it was operator error.
AMuzi
Wait! Are you saying that, if a limited group of
contractors are the only ones licensed to do street work, no
matter how badly they skimp and botch it, one among them
will be paid to do it over? And over. And over.
We knew that. It shows.
landotter
> On Jan 24, 6:59 am, Peter Cole <peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/articles/2011/01/23/crossroads_a_bike...
> > I'm sure this article will discourage many would-be cyclists. Perhaps it
> > should.
>
> I dread it when writers get injured. -- Jay Beattie.
Yup. But she was a safety instructor--so likely was good at repeating
memey cliches about safety! Didn't do her much good.
I'd rather read an article in broken English by a day laborer who
loves his Mr. Fury and the freedom it offers him on a limited
income...
landotter
AMuzi
http://www.allmenus.com/wi/madison/27822-mediterranean-cafe/menu/
Plus the girls selling dope in the alley.
We're multicultural.
landotter
(PeteCresswell)
>Pothole repair is a futile exercise. The problem starts with unsuitable
>subgrade materials and inadequate subsurface drainage, and any "fix"
>that does not address those is only temporary.
I've got in-laws in Germany - near Limburg.
In all my years of visiting Germany (and cycling/walking the
area) I've never, ever seen a pothole - not one.
I've seen places where potholes were apparently repaired: you can
see the discoloration in the road surface.... but there's no
discontinuity at all - i.e. you can't feel anything when you
ride/drive over them.
My relatives tell me that repairing a pothole is a multi-day
process over there. They cordon off the area, clean out the
hole, coat it with some sort of goop, fill it, level it, and the
top it off.
Around here (Southeastern Penna) pothole repair often just
reverses the direction of the bump. I guess it's better than
letting the hole fester over time, but it's *really* crude.
--
PeteCresswell
James
> On Jan 24, 1:46 pm, Peter Cole <peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On 1/24/2011 12:38 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> I also think it's a shame that we get yet another article that people
>>> will interpret as "Bicycling is dangerous."
>> It is dangerous if you don't pay attention and have a good understanding
>> of the hazards.
>
> ... like so many other things in life!
>
> Has anyone seen an article on "How I fell down the stairs and ended up
> in rehab"? Those cases _tremendously_ outnumber the bicycling cases.
> Ditto for fatalities.
How many of those people also ride bike?
JS.
Jay Beattie
If I didn't ride home through standing water, I wouldn't get home.
The trifecta is rain with streetcar tracks and death bricks (either
the slick new ones or the old pave in some parts of PDX). -- Jay
Beattie.
dusto...@mac.com
Tom, I'll take "temporary". We don't have much snow and ice in Austin,
but we have potholes. I suspect underground water and I'll agree the
substrate was, obviously, not prepared sufficiently.
One of my worst crashes ever was riding over standing water with a
brand-new pothole under it, on a much-used route. That hole comes back
regularly, too, after it gets filled. We have a responsive maintenance
crew here in Austin due to an active and successful Bike Coordinator.
It's a good deal when you call the city number, get to talk to a real
live person (my "complaint" or concern was weed infestation along a
bike lane which crowded users into the MV lanes), and get a call-back
with case number. IOW, your concern is taken quite seriously and acted
upon.
Better to have no potholes but good to work through "the process"
incl. City Hall.
--D-y
Peter Cole
> On Jan 24, 9:18 am, Jay Beattie<jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 24, 6:59 am, Peter Cole<peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/articles/2011/01/23/crossroads_a_bike...
> [snip]
>>> I'm sure this article will discourage many would-be cyclists. Perhaps it
>>> should.
>>
>> I dread it when writers get injured. -- Jay Beattie.
>
> Yup. But she was a safety instructor--so likely was good at repeating
> memey cliches about safety! Didn't do her much good.
She's just a journalist.
Frank Krygowski
> On 1/24/2011 1:51 PM, Peter Cole wrote:
>
> > I think that qualifies as a genuine fluke.
>
> the curb on the left. (Maybe I should have been skulking in the gutter <g>)
>
> My point (before Frank had to pipe in with his crap about taking the
Seems to me that I said nothing at all about taking the lane. I did
say "Did anyone tell you about the danger of riding too close to the
curb?"
And did you ride too close to that curb?
> ... I was having to much
> fun to pay attention like I should have been.
>
> I'm not sure how much big fat tires would help when you hit a hole at
> speed. A friend here rides a bike with pretty wide tires for his
> commuting bike and he caught a pothole last year. He still fit the
> wheel in the hole, the bike still stopped short and he went over the
> bars. This was the same week as my crash so we were exchanging war
> stories. He's not from Montreal so he wasn't expecting a pot hole on a
> well maintained road. In both cases, we decided it was operator error.
Agreed.
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
> On Jan 24, 12:37 pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
>
> > Pothole repair is a futile exercise. The problem starts with unsuitable
> > subgrade materials and inadequate subsurface drainage, and any "fix"
> > that does not address those is only temporary. The solution requires
> > the political will to choose the lowest life-cycle cost alternative,
> > instead of the lowest cost this fiscal year alternative.
>
> Tom, I'll take "temporary". We don't have much snow and ice in Austin,
> but we have potholes. I suspect underground water and I'll agree the
> substrate was, obviously, not prepared sufficiently.
> One of my worst crashes ever was riding over standing water with a
> brand-new pothole under it, on a much-used route. That hole comes back
> regularly, too, after it gets filled.
I do wonder about the proper way of doing it. But where I live, an
area subject to lots of freeze-thaw cycles, it seems difficult to get
even the most temporary cold patch material into the holes in a timely
manner. And they certainly never worry about actually making it
smooth!
I also wonder about this: It seems to me that roads evolve as
population grows, with dirt roads becoming gravel, gravel roads
becoming (perhaps) chip and seal, chip & seal becoming proper
asphalt. Certainly on the country roads I ride, I don't recall ever
seeing anyone excavate the chip & seal or gravel, compact the subsoil,
and do whatever the proper layers are supposed to be.
Even on newish four lanes that have been transformed from previous two
lanes, there often seems to be a line of terrible potholes at what
used to be the two-lane's berm.
Admittedly, I don't know a lot about road paving. But do road crews
(or contractors) in other places actually dig down to do road paving
properly? Or is it usually just a "stick it on top" exercise?
- Frank Krygowski
AMuzi
The concepts are not new:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/505109/roads-and-highways
the cost shaving proceeds however:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2005-06-29/news/0506290233_1_asphalt-hired-truck-program-scheme
(first link which popped up- there are many)
Frank Krygowski
>
>
> the cost shaving proceeds however:http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2005-06-29/news/0506290233_1_aspha...
>
Heck, if he didn't bribe both a county engineer and a congressman, he
wouldn't even be considered a player around here.
- Frank Krygowski
David Scheidt
Depends entirely on what they're paid to do. The road I live on is a
smallish county road (Twenty feet wide). It was gravel until sometime
in the 60s, at which point the county started its program to pave
everything. It was paved by putting a fairly thin layer of hot
asphaltic concrete over the existing gravel (typically they graded and
repaired that first.) Maintance for the next twenty or thirty years
was 'chip and seal', putting a layer of hot asphalt down, dumping
small stones in the asphalt, and running a roller over them. There
are still lots of roads like that around here, but mine got properly
paved in the mid or late 80s. Removed the existing surface,
subsurface, did lots of things to emend the sub-sub-surface, hauled in
fill from somewhere, and put down 8 inches of asphaltic concrete.
That's been resurfaced once, by grinding off an inch or three and
replacing it, and a couple sections of edge have been rebuilt, and a
bridge over a drainage creek replaced.
It costs an awful lot of money to rebuild a road (as much or more as
building from scratch, and it causes traffic problems.), so it's usual
to design them in a way that they can be resurfaced, either just by
putting a new coat of paving on, or by removing a scrificial wear
layer and replacing it. (have to worry about existing grade and
drainage in many places.)
There are bunches of causes of potholes, but most of them involve
water beins somewhere it's not supposed to be. That can be below the
surface, casuing voids, or it can be in the pavement, which breaks it.
Excessive vehicle weight can do it, too.
--
There's a rather large difference between pissing on a 600V third rail
and a 33 kV power line.
John B.
Filling pot holes is not considered, by any competent civil-engineer
or contractor as anything but a temporary, short term fix, and it
seems to me to be correct. As mentioned above road problems are
usually basically a failure in constructing the underlying grade, but
digging up and correcting the underlying grade and drainage of several
kilometers of roadway to repair a single pot hole seems somewhat of an
over-kill, also.
Cheers,
John B.
Duane Hebert
> On Jan 24, 2:09 pm, Duane Hebert<nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On 1/24/2011 1:51 PM, Peter Cole wrote:
>>
>>> I think that qualifies as a genuine fluke.
>> Oh yeah, it was a genuine fluke. You don't normally worry about hitting
>> the curb on the left. (Maybe I should have been skulking in the gutter<g>)
>>
>> My point (before Frank had to pipe in with his crap about taking the
>> lane - for whatever reason)....
> Seems to me that I said nothing at all about taking the lane. I did
> say "Did anyone tell you about the danger of riding too close to the
> curb?"
>
of taking the lane like I should do.
> And did you ride too close to that curb?
Not until I ran into the damn thing sideways.
DirtRoadie
> On Jan 24, 11:57 am, Duane Hebert <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > After my last crash, people were telling me about the dangers of thin
> > tires on wet asphalt also but the crash was caused because I sided into
> > a curb that I didn't see.
>
> curb?
>
> - Frank Krygowski
DirtRoadie
No! Say it ain't so! There are dangers in cycling?
Please, Frank, tell us about those dangers.
DR
Tºm Shermªn™ °_°
The decision to perform what are essentially temporary repairs labeled
as "rehabilitation" is made at the city/county government level, as a
"penny wise, pound foolish" decision. How much of this is due to
corruption I will leave to the reader.
Tºm Shermªn™ °_°
> Per Tºm Shermªn™ °_°<""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI$southslope.net">:
>> Pothole repair is a futile exercise. The problem starts with unsuitable
>> subgrade materials and inadequate subsurface drainage, and any "fix"
>> that does not address those is only temporary.
>
> I've got in-laws in Germany - near Limburg.
>
> In all my years of visiting Germany (and cycling/walking the
> area) I've never, ever seen a pothole - not one.
>
> I've seen places where potholes were apparently repaired: you can
> see the discoloration in the road surface.... but there's no
> discontinuity at all - i.e. you can't feel anything when you
> ride/drive over them.
>
> My relatives tell me that repairing a pothole is a multi-day
> process over there. They cordon off the area, clean out the
> hole, coat it with some sort of goop, fill it, level it, and the
> top it off.
>
> Around here (Southeastern Penna) pothole repair often just
> reverses the direction of the bump. I guess it's better than
> letting the hole fester over time, but it's *really* crude.
In the US, pothole "repair" typically involves over-filling the pothole
with an aggregate-asphalt emulsion mix, and hoping that traffic will
compact the material (which is why you see loose mounds of materials
right behind the road crew).
Needless to say, the mounds of un-compacted mix are a hazard to riders
of single-track vehicles.
Tºm Shermªn™ °_°
> substrate was, obviously, not prepared sufficiently.[...]
The only benefit of pothole "patching" as commonly done, is to
temporarily fill the pothole, which does provide some safety benefit to
single-track vehicles, and reduces the potential for
tire/wheel/suspension damage to multi-track vehicles while increasing
ride comfort. It should not be considered any type of permanent fix.
Tºm Shermªn™ °_°
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 12:37:14 -0600, Tºm Shermªn™ °_°
Milling and overlaying a distressed pavement without correcting the
subgrade problems is usually a waste of money.
Single potholes may be dealt with by locally removing the pavement full
depth, and placing a proper patch. Merely filling the pothole with an
emulsion mix is no more that a band-aid, that may not last longer than
the next freeze-thaw cycle.
Tºm Shermªn™ °_°
> On Jan 24, 5:10 pm, "dustoyev...@mac.com"<dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 24, 12:37 pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
>>
>>> Pothole repair is a futile exercise. The problem starts with unsuitable
>>> subgrade materials and inadequate subsurface drainage, and any "fix"
>>> that does not address those is only temporary. The solution requires
>>> the political will to choose the lowest life-cycle cost alternative,
>>> instead of the lowest cost this fiscal year alternative.
>>
>> Tom, I'll take "temporary". We don't have much snow and ice in Austin,
>> but we have potholes. I suspect underground water and I'll agree the
>> substrate was, obviously, not prepared sufficiently.
>> One of my worst crashes ever was riding over standing water with a
>> brand-new pothole under it, on a much-used route. That hole comes back
>> regularly, too, after it gets filled.
>
> I do wonder about the proper way of doing it. But where I live, an
> area subject to lots of freeze-thaw cycles, it seems difficult to get
> even the most temporary cold patch material into the holes in a timely
> manner. And they certainly never worry about actually making it
> smooth!
The idea is for the patch to be higher than the surrounding pavement, so
motor vehicle traffic will compact the emulsion mix.
> I also wonder about this: It seems to me that roads evolve as
> population grows, with dirt roads becoming gravel, gravel roads
> becoming (perhaps) chip and seal, chip& seal becoming proper
> asphalt. Certainly on the country roads I ride, I don't recall ever
> seeing anyone excavate the chip& seal or gravel, compact the subsoil,
> and do whatever the proper layers are supposed to be.
>
> Even on newish four lanes that have been transformed from previous two
> lanes, there often seems to be a line of terrible potholes at what
> used to be the two-lane's berm.
>
Imagine a Ken Blackwell type in charge, and you will be on the right track.
> Admittedly, I don't know a lot about road paving. But do road crews
> (or contractors) in other places actually dig down to do road paving
> properly? Or is it usually just a "stick it on top" exercise?
My experience is that if inspection of the pavement distresses indicates
a subgrade problem, subgrade and subsurface drainage improvements along
with full reconstruction of the pavement are recommended by the
engineers. When the budget estimates come back, this is deemed "too
expensive" (despite having a lower life-cycle cost), so a cheaper
alternative of milling and overlaying is performed. The "rehabilitated"
pavement has a short life span, before additional milling and overlaying
is required.
Duane Hebert
Clearly I was too far from the gutter.
dusto...@mac.com
> Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > On Jan 24, 5:10 pm, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> (first link which popped up- there are many)
I know of one instance where a busy cement "depot" had to increase
security after discovering it was common practice for other companies'
drivers to queue up and get a free load.
--D-y
Frank Krygowski
That makes sense, especially when the County Engineer position is
elected. Part of their campaign can be pointing to a long list of
roads that got new pavement. The pavement won't fall apart until
they're solidly back in office.
But I wonder about the "subgrade and subsurface drainage" thing.
How's that properly done on new construction? How's it properly done
on repairs?
A related point may be: Why is it usually the couple of feet from the
road edge that deteriorates first? This seems to be true whether it's
a rural road edged with a gravel shoulder, or whether it's a city
collector street with concrete curb and gutter pans, even though the
latter is (I thought) supposed to better support the edge.
BTW, those right-side potholes are another reason I tend to ride
further out than a lot of cyclists.
- Frank Krygowski
dusto...@mac.com
I can see where the money outlay plus inconvenience to MV traffic (and
they will complain, "three guys leaning on shovels while one is
working" if nothing else) would sometimes, at least, make it difficult
to justify deep digging and ongoing repair, even for short distances
over potholes or short patches of "bad pavement". If the cause of the
pothole or "bad patch" is a spring or other water flow, the cost could
get ridiculous by the time the water is controlled. Potholes are kind
of a "thankless task" when it comes to fixing them in the first place.
We had a sinkhole recently, a car-swallower, in Austin. Jeeze, spawn
of The Devil!. Well, sometimes that's just the way it goes-- the water
carves away at the substrate until it can't hold a load any longer,
and then you find the hole <g>.
I'm still waiting for those smart people out there to figure out a way
to get after the crumbling infrastructure for fun & profit. There
seems to be some sort of ideological roadblock, so to speak.
--D-y
Duane Hebert
> On Jan 25, 12:23 am, T�m Sherm�n� �_�<""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI>>> On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 12:37:14 -0600, T�m Sherm�n� �_�
> seems to be some sort of ideological roadblock, so to speak.
> --D-y
Here in Montreal the freeze/thaw cycle causes most of the potholes along
with the heavy truck traffic. The current investigations into
corruption of the construction industry here notwithstanding...
It's now an indication that spring has arrived to see the workers
digging up the streets.
It's been sort of a joke around here:
http://montreal.about.com/od/montrealpotholes/Montreal_Potholes_FAQ.htm
From the city: http://tinyurl.com/4jaln7s
From CAA: http://tinyurl.com/4tvkk9v
James
> BTW, those right-side potholes are another reason I tend to ride
> further out than a lot of cyclists.
It makes sense to ride to avoid potholes. What do other riders do?
Dodge the holes?
JS.
Frank Krygowski
Especially in traffic, I've seen people slow their bikes way down to
ride through fields of potholes or patches that I'd ride around.
Apparently, they don't want to get too far from the road edge.
- Frank Krygowski
Chalo
>
> Especially in traffic, I've seen people slow their bikes way down to
> ride through fields of potholes or patches that I'd ride around.
> Apparently, they don't want to get too far from the road edge.
The gutter is the "bike lane". You know, as long as car drivers don't
want to park in it. Haven't you heard?
Chalo
Jay Beattie
Interestingly, some of my most dangerous potholes (yes Frank, I have
started taking the road in one place) are on a viaduct with no soil
below -- just endless layers of old asphalt laid over bridgework. The
patch depth is probably 2-3" -- but when large areas are missing, it
really gets sketchy. They re-patch every year, but must be using
crappy material. -- Jay Beattie.
kolldata
tailings....out in the country, asphalt splits run perpendicular but
In LA the road tears are parallel. Haven't ridden it but looks real
mean. Fat tire country fersure.
I donl;t see why you would expect cyclists tube mor eintelligent than
other sports oriented groups. Remeber my friend the lNBS mechanic
flatly stating most new and expensive bikes are trashed over a year
from lack of lube and cleaning maintanence.
For a lotta people, who would otherwise stay home, cycling is true
adventure, which it is but many cyclists Mitty forth. Lookit the color
awareness seen among touring groups.
kolldata
http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-hawthrone-hit-run-beating,0,3081823.story
when your hot your hot and...
in the east figure maybe 1 in 100 is kinda running amcuk 90% of his
time but in Cal gotta figure 50/50:
transcendent narcissism.
Frank Krygowski
>
> (yes Frank, I have
> started taking the road in one place)
Is it working for you?
- Frank Krygowski
Dan O
> On Jan 24, 10:39 am, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 24, 11:57 am, Duane Hebert <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> > > After my last crash, people were telling me about the dangers of thin
> > > tires on wet asphalt also but the crash was caused because I sided into
> > > a curb that I didn't see.
>
> > Hmm. Did anyone tell you about the danger of riding too close to the
> > curb?
This is the problem with so much "proper cycling" advice; it's utterly
inane and condescending.
>
> No! Say it ain't so! There are dangers in cycling?
> Please, Frank, tell us about those dangers.
I believe his point is that there's little to no danger if done
"properly".
My counterpoint is what's life with all the zest throttled and wrung
out of it? Doesn't at all mean living recklessly or carelessly, just
calls for a heightened degree of awareness and responsiveness on the
edge, and sometimes takes you over the line.
Frank Krygowski
>
> ... what's life with all the zest throttled and wrung
> out of it?
I don't recall anyone advocating that.
Some people choose to get "zest" by foolhardiness and incompetence. A
few even get sort of famous for it, on this website:
http://www.darwinawards.com/
I think there are smarter ways to get "zest." But you do what you
want.
- Frank Krygowski
Tºm Shermªn™ °_°
Usually only a problem when there is a leaking force main, which should
be fixed for other reasons also.
> Potholes are kind
> of a "thankless task" when it comes to fixing them in the first place.
Certainly, if they are not fixed properly - dumping cold-mix in is *not*
a proper fix.
> We had a sinkhole recently, a car-swallower, in Austin. Jeeze, spawn
> of The Devil!. Well, sometimes that's just the way it goes-- the water
> carves away at the substrate until it can't hold a load any longer,
> and then you find the hole<g>.
Leaking force main?
> I'm still waiting for those smart people out there to figure out a way
> to get after the crumbling infrastructure for fun& profit. There
> seems to be some sort of ideological roadblock, so to speak.
It is called getting elected by promising lower taxes (without of
course, an honest discussion of what lower taxes really means). Until
people stop being greedy and short-sighted, the problem will not be fixed.
Tºm Shermªn™ °_°
> On Jan 25, 1:36 am, T�m Sherm�n� �_�<""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
> $southslope.net"> wrote:
>> On 1/24/2011 5:30 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>>> Admittedly, I don't know a lot about road paving. But do road crews
>>> (or contractors) in other places actually dig down to do road paving
>>> properly? Or is it usually just a "stick it on top" exercise?
>>
>> My experience is that if inspection of the pavement distresses indicates
>> a subgrade problem, subgrade and subsurface drainage improvements along
>> with full reconstruction of the pavement are recommended by the
>> engineers. When the budget estimates come back, this is deemed "too
>> expensive" (despite having a lower life-cycle cost), so a cheaper
>> alternative of milling and overlaying is performed. The "rehabilitated"
>> pavement has a short life span, before additional milling and overlaying
>> is required.
>
> That makes sense, especially when the County Engineer position is
> elected. Part of their campaign can be pointing to a long list of
> roads that got new pavement. The pavement won't fall apart until
> they're solidly back in office.
>
> But I wonder about the "subgrade and subsurface drainage" thing.
> How's that properly done on new construction? How's it properly done
> on repairs?
>
Subdrains can be trenched in, often with a machine like this:
<http://www.rentalworld.com/images/Equipment/Trenchers_and_Boring_Equipment/Ride-on_Trenchers/Case/Case_TF300_Offset_Trencher_-_360x261.jpg>.
Subgrades can be addressed in many ways depending on soil conditions and
local prices of materials: subbase of properly compacted "select" fill,
geotextile reinforcement, chemical modification, etc, as determined by
your hard working and under-appreciated engineer.
> A related point may be: Why is it usually the couple of feet from the
> road edge that deteriorates first? This seems to be true whether it's
> a rural road edged with a gravel shoulder, or whether it's a city
> collector street with concrete curb and gutter pans, even though the
> latter is (I thought) supposed to better support the edge.
>
The concrete curb and gutter helps to provide lateral restraint of a
flexible pavement, but does not provide load transfer (unless tied into
a rigid pavement).
> BTW, those right-side potholes are another reason I tend to ride
> further out than a lot of cyclists.
D A N G E R !
D A N G E R !
;)
--
T�m Sherm�n - 42.435731,-83.985007
Tºm Shermªn™ °_°
>
> Interestingly, some of my most dangerous potholes (yes Frank, I have
> started taking the road in one place) are on a viaduct with no soil
> below -- just endless layers of old asphalt laid over bridgework. The
> patch depth is probably 2-3" -- but when large areas are missing, it
> really gets sketchy. They re-patch every year, but must be using
> crappy material. -- Jay Beattie.
Bridge decks freeze first and thaw first. If water can penetrate around
and below the patch, the expansion as it freezes will pop the patches
out, where they are broken up by traffic.
Duane Hebert
> On Jan 24, 8:38 pm, DirtRoadie<DirtRoa...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 24, 10:39 am, Frank Krygowski<frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 24, 11:57 am, Duane Hebert<nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> After my last crash, people were telling me about the dangers of thin
>>>> tires on wet asphalt also but the crash was caused because I sided into
>>>> a curb that I didn't see.
>>
>>> Hmm. Did anyone tell you about the danger of riding too close to the
>>> curb?
>
> This is the problem with so much "proper cycling" advice; it's utterly
> inane and condescending.
Well I wouldn't generalize like that. I can think of only one source
that meets those specs around here.
Frank Krygowski
$southslope.net"> wrote:
> On 1/25/2011 9:56 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> > But I wonder about the "subgrade and subsurface drainage" thing.
> > How's that properly done on new construction? How's it properly done
> > on repairs?
>
> Subdrains can be trenched in, often with a machine like this:
>
> Subgrades can be addressed in many ways depending on soil conditions and
> local prices of materials: subbase of properly compacted "select" fill,
> geotextile reinforcement, chemical modification, etc, as determined by
> your hard working and under-appreciated engineer.
I found some interesting browsing via Google > Images > "road cross
section"
but I didn't immediately notice many cross sections that feature
subdrains. I'm guessing that isn't usually done, right?
The little street I live on has a very gentle downhill to the south.
I understand it was gravel until the 1970s. Anyway, at certain times
(e.g. during thaws), toward the bottom of the hill, I've seen water
flowing up through pavement cracks. It shows what we're up against
with the freeze-thaw business.
- Frank Krygowski
Jay Beattie
> On Jan 25, 9:13 pm, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > (yes Frank, I have
> > started taking the road in one place)
>
> Is it working for you?
Yes, I am avoiding pot holes, although at a somewhat higher risk of
getting hit. This is a fast traffic section and not a country road.
Honestly, though, the dangerous part is taking the re-routed bike lane
at high speed at the end of the viaduct. You have to make a hard
right in to a chute with curb on one side -- so it is a true chute.
It is also wet and muddy. I usually skip it and go straight and cope
with traffic merging from the right, but this morning it was pea soup
fog, so I took the bike lane. Hey, here is someone's video of the
area (it looks so ugly in winter). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnZxHmE3FM4
Skip the beginning and fast forward to 4:31 for the first bridge and
5:31 for the second and 5:45 for the bike chute. All of this is in
the midst of construction on the highway below (HWY 5), so that's why
there are all the trucks. They mowed down most of the trees to get to
the slope below to cut a bypass lane for when they re-do the viaduct
that the highway is running over. -- Jay Beattie.
David Scheidt
:On Jan 26, 1:54 am, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° <""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
:$southslope.net"> wrote:
:> On 1/25/2011 9:56 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
:>
:> > But I wonder about the "subgrade and subsurface drainage" thing.
:> > How's that properly done on new construction? How's it properly done
:> > on repairs?
:>
:> Subdrains can be trenched in, often with a machine like this:
:> <http://www.rentalworld.com/images/Equipment/Trenchers_and_Boring_Equi...>.
:>
:> Subgrades can be addressed in many ways depending on soil conditions and
:> local prices of materials: subbase of properly compacted "select" fill,
:> geotextile reinforcement, chemical modification, etc, as determined by
:> your hard working and under-appreciated engineer.
:I found some interesting browsing via Google > Images > "road cross
:section"
:but I didn't immediately notice many cross sections that feature
:subdrains. I'm guessing that isn't usually done, right?
Depends on local conditions. (And who built the road. A road build
for a subdivision may not have them, even where they're needed,
because that costs money, and developers don't want to spend money.
They don't have to pay to rebuild them...) Around here, in the great
Kankakee Marsh (a former wetland as big than the everglades, that no
one has heard of) and related former swamps, drainage is absolutely
essential, and big roads have 50 or 100 feet deep drainage systems.
Without them, the roads disappear remarkably quickly.
--
sig 37
Dan O
> On Jan 26, 12:45 am, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > ... what's life with all the zest throttled and wrung
> > out of it?
>
> I don't recall anyone advocating that.
>
> Some people choose to get "zest" by foolhardiness and incompetence.
I repeat: Doesn't at all mean living recklessly or carelessly, just
calls for a heightened degree of awareness and responsiveness on the
edge, and sometimes takes you over the line.
> A
> few even get sort of famous for it, on this website:http://www.darwinawards.com/
>
Any implication intended there?
> I think there are smarter ways...
Of course you do :-)
The thing is, Frank, I am not ignorant of those ways - and more. I
could do them. It's just that I would find it so intolerably mundane
that I'd probably quit riding.
> ... to get "zest." But you do what you
> want.
>
Even I know "You can't always get what you want" ;-)
Frank Krygowski
> On Jan 25, 10:05 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 26, 12:45 am, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > ... what's life with all the zest throttled and wrung
> > > out of it?
>
> > I don't recall anyone advocating that.
>
> > Some people choose to get "zest" by foolhardiness and incompetence.
>
> I repeat: Doesn't at all mean living recklessly or carelessly, just
> calls for a heightened degree of awareness and responsiveness on the
> edge, and sometimes takes you over the line.
And by the same token, riding without law-violating craziness doesn't
at all mean living without "zest."
- Frank Krygowski
Dan O
To each his own. Knock yourself out. Lay off the rest of us, eh?
(Please indicate your edits.)
James
I often enjoy a little non law-violating "zest" riding down Mt
Dandenong. Caught up with a friend the other day who'd come unstuck a
couple of weeks before Christmas, when a 4x4 entered the road in front
of him while he was descending, as I normally do, around 60km/h. Well
within the legal limit of 70 for that stretch of road. What did the
driver say? "Sorry mate, didn't see you!". What a shit excuse.
My friend had a large flap of skin loose on his lower leg, and someone
fished his bicycle out of a tree from the other side of the road. His
injuries while messy and bloody, weren't life threatening, but his
bike was wrecked.
The 4x4 driver had mirrors on the road that he could use to see in
each direction, but obviously didn't look hard enough. The story is
like something from a broken record! You can see the mirror on google
maps. http://tinyurl.com/4klygjv
"Danger! Danger!", you might say.
I keep closer to the centre of the road - not the lane - near these
entrances. These incidents don't stop the enjoyment or zest, but make
you ride different from carefree in the areas where these dangers
lurk.
JS.
Frank Krygowski
This is a discussion group. Here, we discuss things.
Someday, Dan, you may stop discussing the joys of things like
"wheeljies" through intersections, zooming without warning onto and
off of sidewalks, violating multiple traffic laws to avoid stopping at
intersections, etc.
When that happens, perhaps I'll stop discussing how well it works to
ride legally as a vehicle operator.
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
>
> I often enjoy a little non law-violating "zest" riding down Mt
> Dandenong. Caught up with a friend the other day who'd come unstuck a
> couple of weeks before Christmas, when a 4x4 entered the road in front
> of him while he was descending, as I normally do, around 60km/h. Well
> within the legal limit of 70 for that stretch of road. What did the
> driver say? "Sorry mate, didn't see you!". What a shit excuse.
>
> My friend had a large flap of skin loose on his lower leg, and someone
> fished his bicycle out of a tree from the other side of the road. His
> injuries while messy and bloody, weren't life threatening, but his
> bike was wrecked.
>
> The 4x4 driver had mirrors on the road that he could use to see in
> each direction, but obviously didn't look hard enough. The story is
> like something from a broken record! You can see the mirror on google
> maps. http://tinyurl.com/4klygjv
>
> "Danger! Danger!", you might say.
>
> I keep closer to the centre of the road - not the lane - near these
> entrances. These incidents don't stop the enjoyment or zest, but make
> you ride different from carefree in the areas where these dangers
> lurk.
James, as I've said, I ride a motorcycle as well as a bicycle. I do
more annual bicycle miles, but still; Any sensible motorcycle rider
understands there is significant SMIDSY danger at speed. In fact,
back in 1986, after restoring my current BMW and riding it to work for
the very first time, I had a woman pull out in front of me, forcing me
to panic stop. Obviously, the same can happen with a bicycle,
especially at speeds uncharacteristic of bicycles.
So no, I have never said bicycling is totally without risk. High
speed descents carry risks. So does riding in door zones. So do road
surface hazards. So does gutter hugging when the road is too narrow
for safe lane sharing. So does riding "wheeljies" through
intersections.
But I contend it is possible to become competent at judging those
risks, and taking measures to reduce or eliminate them. That, I
think, is one main point you and I disagree on. For you, it's just
"Danger! Danger!" and gritting one's teeth.
The other main point of disagreement is that I believe the data I've
found and provided - the piles of data showing that typical cycling is
extremely safe. That's for cycling at just average levels of
competence, of course.
And I believe _competent_ cycling is even safer.
(What state has society gotten to, when one has to actually _argue_ in
favor of gaining competence??)
- Frank Krygowski
James
Why should he? He's not complaining, simply stating how he rides and
what he enjoys.
> When that happens, perhaps I'll stop discussing how well it works to
> ride legally as a vehicle operator.
Why do you need to discuss it at all with Dan? He's not asking for
help, guidance or complaining that his enjoyment doesn't work.
There's nothing for you to discuss!
JS.
James
I guess you mean speeds above 20mph as uncharacteristic of bicycles?
See, that's a problem. Motorists don't "Look Bike!", whether that be
bicycle of motorbike. They need education.
> So no, I have never said bicycling is totally without risk. High
> speed descents carry risks. So does riding in door zones. So do road
> surface hazards. So does gutter hugging when the road is too narrow
> for safe lane sharing. So does riding "wheeljies" through
> intersections.
Obviously.
> But I contend it is possible to become competent at judging those
> risks, and taking measures to reduce or eliminate them.
Like riding slower.
> That, I
> think, is one main point you and I disagree on. For you, it's just
> "Danger! Danger!" and gritting one's teeth.
Well, I enjoy riding fast. Can't deny that. What I complain about is
motorists that fail to give way, or fail to pass at a safe distance.
That is what we disagree on.
You get around the failures to give way by riding slower. Your
drivers also appear to afford cyclists more clearance when overtaking
than I experience here.
> The other main point of disagreement is that I believe the data I've
> found and provided - the piles of data showing that typical cycling is
> extremely safe. That's for cycling at just average levels of
> competence, of course.
Those piles of data are not worth a cracker, as I've repeatedly
discussed.
> And I believe _competent_ cycling is even safer.
>
> (What state has society gotten to, when one has to actually _argue_ in
> favor of gaining competence??)
Yes, I wish motorists were more competent! We argue for the same
thing from opposing ends.
JS.
Frank Krygowski
> On Jan 28, 3:37 am, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > James, as I've said, I ride a motorcycle as well as a bicycle. I do
> > more annual bicycle miles, but still; Any sensible motorcycle rider
> > understands there is significant SMIDSY danger at speed. In fact,
> > back in 1986, after restoring my current BMW and riding it to work for
> > the very first time, I had a woman pull out in front of me, forcing me
> > to panic stop. Obviously, the same can happen with a bicycle,
> > especially at speeds uncharacteristic of bicycles.
>
> I guess you mean speeds above 20mph as uncharacteristic of bicycles?
Well, much above 20 mph is a bit uncharacteristic of bicycles, not
that it's normally a problem. But yes, obviously, if you're going
faster, you're at more risk of a SMIDSY from the front.
> See, that's a problem. Motorists don't "Look Bike!", whether that be
> bicycle of motorbike. They need education.
I agree. Are you working on something to make that happen? Or have
you done that in the past?
> > But I contend it is possible to become competent at judging those
> > risks, and taking measures to reduce or eliminate them. That, I
> > think, is one main point you and I disagree on. For you, it's just
> > "Danger! Danger!" and gritting one's teeth.
>
> Well, I enjoy riding fast. Can't deny that. What I complain about is
> motorists that fail to give way, or fail to pass at a safe distance.
> That is what we disagree on.
One thing we have _definitely_ disagreed on is whether a cyclist can
learn to make things better for himself. Remember? I'm the guy who
has read books on cycling more competently, gone through training to
become certified to teach that, written many articles on the same, etc
etc. And I'm the guy with the excellent safety record and no great
fear. You're the guy who refused to read even one book, but
repeatedly complains about the dangers of riding.
> You get around the failures to give way by riding slower.
Seriously now - where in hell did you get that idea?
I'm well over 60 years old. I certainly ride a bit slower than I used
to. But my safety record was no worse when I was considered one of
the strongest riders in our large club. And recall, it turns out I
still ride about as fast as Duane, even at my age.
There are circumstances when riding fast would be blatantly stupid;
and I don't believe in riding stupid. But for decades, I treated most
rides home from work as time trials. I would relax only if I caught
too many red lights for a good elapsed time. Total crashes during
those runs? Zero.
> > The other main point of disagreement is that I believe the data I've
> > found and provided - the piles of data showing that typical cycling is
> > extremely safe. That's for cycling at just average levels of
> > competence, of course.
>
> Those piles of data are not worth a cracker, as I've repeatedly
> discussed.
Sure, James. You think my data's bad. Yet your countering data is
nonexistent.
- Frank Krygowski
James
> On Jan 27, 4:22 pm, James <james.e.stew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 28, 3:37 am, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> James, as I've said, I ride a motorcycle as well as a bicycle. I do
>>> more annual bicycle miles, but still; Any sensible motorcycle rider
>>> understands there is significant SMIDSY danger at speed. In fact,
>>> back in 1986, after restoring my current BMW and riding it to work for
>>> the very first time, I had a woman pull out in front of me, forcing me
>>> to panic stop. Obviously, the same can happen with a bicycle,
>>> especially at speeds uncharacteristic of bicycles.
>> I guess you mean speeds above 20mph as uncharacteristic of bicycles?
>
> Well, much above 20 mph is a bit uncharacteristic of bicycles, not
> that it's normally a problem. But yes, obviously, if you're going
> faster, you're at more risk of a SMIDSY from the front.
>
>> See, that's a problem. Motorists don't "Look Bike!", whether that be
>> bicycle of motorbike. They need education.
>
> I agree. Are you working on something to make that happen? Or have
> you done that in the past?
"Look Bike!" was an advertising campaign here years ago. There are
remnants. http://www.mravic.org.au/shop/index.php?act=viewProd&productId=15
I've written several letters of complaint to the state minister of
transport, and to the roads authority, Vicroads. I had a long phone
conversation with a Vicroads representative just last week. He called
me in response to an email I'd sent, and was very interested in my
thoughts and suggestions, and said he'd pass my ideas along to some
committee. Most likely that means the circular file. He also said I
should continue to send emails with problems and solutions, as the more
information they get, they have more to go on when making decisions.
>>> But I contend it is possible to become competent at judging those
>>> risks, and taking measures to reduce or eliminate them. That, I
>>> think, is one main point you and I disagree on. For you, it's just
>>> "Danger! Danger!" and gritting one's teeth.
>> Well, I enjoy riding fast. Can't deny that. What I complain about is
>> motorists that fail to give way, or fail to pass at a safe distance.
>> That is what we disagree on.
>
> One thing we have _definitely_ disagreed on is whether a cyclist can
> learn to make things better for himself. Remember? I'm the guy who
> has read books on cycling more competently, gone through training to
> become certified to teach that, written many articles on the same, etc
> etc. And I'm the guy with the excellent safety record and no great
> fear. You're the guy who refused to read even one book, but
> repeatedly complains about the dangers of riding.
Yet you, with all your bucket loads of experience and reading, can't
offer a single useful piece of information to help.
I've learned from experience, other more experienced riders and
discussion with peers, including one who like you, is an accredited
cycling teacher and coach.
One thing I learned from 5 years of engineering study was that no amount
of text book reading can prepare you for the real world.
>> You get around the failures to give way by riding slower.
>
> Seriously now - where in hell did you get that idea?
If you have time to stop when someone pulls out in front of you, you
must be riding slower, or just been lucky I guess not to have it happen
very often.
Twice I've not been able to stop or swerve hard enough in over 20 years
of riding. Once on a wet slippery road, and the other while descending.
Plenty of times I've managed to avoid a collision by braking and/or
swerving because to try to stop would have been futile.
>>> The other main point of disagreement is that I believe the data I've
>>> found and provided - the piles of data showing that typical cycling is
>>> extremely safe. That's for cycling at just average levels of
>>> competence, of course.
>> Those piles of data are not worth a cracker, as I've repeatedly
>> discussed.
>
> Sure, James. You think my data's bad. Yet your countering data is
> nonexistent.
So what's worse, analysing useless data or observing what goes on around
you?
I don't need data to know that cycling is dangerous. I accept that it
is, and am prepared to try to make it safer for others, hence my
correspondence with the powers that be.
JS.
Dan O
He seems utterly compelled to smear copious shit with a liberal dose
of smarm on any suggestion that the truth and relevance of his spiel
may be anything less than universal and absolute gospel.
(He's silently removed my remarks from their original context, but I
do believe this time he means to paint me immoral, crazy, and
incompetent :-)
Tºm Shermªn™ °_°
> He seems utterly compelled to smear copious shit with a liberal dose
> of smarm on any suggestion that the truth and relevance of his spiel
> may be anything less than universal and absolute gospel.
>
> (He's silently removed my remarks from their original context, but I
> do believe this time he means to paint me immoral, crazy, and
> incompetent:-)
Who is "He of the Indefinite Pronouns"?
--
T�m Sherm�n - 42.435731,-83.985007
Tºm Shermªn™ °_°
> On Jan 26, 1:54 am, Tºm Shermªn™ °_°<""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
> $southslope.net"> wrote:
>> On 1/25/2011 9:56 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>>> But I wonder about the "subgrade and subsurface drainage" thing.
>>> How's that properly done on new construction? How's it properly done
>>> on repairs?
>>
>> Subdrains can be trenched in, often with a machine like this:
>> <http://www.rentalworld.com/images/Equipment/Trenchers_and_Boring_Equi...>.
>>
>> Subgrades can be addressed in many ways depending on soil conditions and
>> local prices of materials: subbase of properly compacted "select" fill,
>> geotextile reinforcement, chemical modification, etc, as determined by
>> your hard working and under-appreciated engineer.
>
> I found some interesting browsing via Google> Images> "road cross
> section"
> but I didn't immediately notice many cross sections that feature
> subdrains. I'm guessing that isn't usually done, right?
>
> The little street I live on has a very gentle downhill to the south.
> I understand it was gravel until the 1970s. Anyway, at certain times
> (e.g. during thaws), toward the bottom of the hill, I've seen water
> flowing up through pavement cracks. It shows what we're up against
> with the freeze-thaw business.
Except for Portland cement concrete during the cement hydration phase,
water does nothing good for pavements.
--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
Tºm Shermªn™ °_°
Why would the water need to be lowered to that extend?
> Without them, the roads disappear remarkably quickly.
In what manner?
--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
Dan O
$southslope.net"> wrote:
> On 1/27/2011 11:23 PM, Dan 0verm n wrote:
>
> > He seems utterly compelled to smear copious shit with a liberal dose
> > of smarm on any suggestion that the truth and relevance of his spiel
> > may be anything less than universal and absolute gospel.
>
> > (He's silently removed my remarks from their original context, but I
> > do believe this time he means to paint me immoral, crazy, and
> > incompetent:-)
>
> Who is "He of the Indefinite Pronouns"?
>
Um... it was discernable from the context of my remarks.
Duane Hebert
> On Jan 27, 4:22 pm, James<james.e.stew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 28, 3:37 am, Frank Krygowski<frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> James, as I've said, I ride a motorcycle as well as a bicycle. I do
>>> more annual bicycle miles, but still; Any sensible motorcycle rider
>>> understands there is significant SMIDSY danger at speed. In fact,
>>> back in 1986, after restoring my current BMW and riding it to work for
>>> the very first time, I had a woman pull out in front of me, forcing me
>>> to panic stop. Obviously, the same can happen with a bicycle,
>>> especially at speeds uncharacteristic of bicycles.
>>
>> I guess you mean speeds above 20mph as uncharacteristic of bicycles?
>
> Well, much above 20 mph is a bit uncharacteristic of bicycles, not
> that it's normally a problem. But yes, obviously, if you're going
> faster, you're at more risk of a SMIDSY from the front.
So it's flat in Ohio?
<snip>
> One thing we have _definitely_ disagreed on is whether a cyclist can
> learn to make things better for himself. Remember? I'm the guy who
> has read books on cycling more competently, gone through training to
> become certified to teach that, written many articles on the same, etc
> etc. And I'm the guy with the excellent safety record and no great
> fear. You're the guy who refused to read even one book, but
> repeatedly complains about the dangers of riding.
So you do have certification? I thought that you said that you didn't.
Which one(s)?
>> You get around the failures to give way by riding slower.
>
> Seriously now - where in hell did you get that idea?
>
> I'm well over 60 years old. I certainly ride a bit slower than I used
> to. But my safety record was no worse when I was considered one of
> the strongest riders in our large club. And recall, it turns out I
> still ride about as fast as Duane, even at my age.
You're basing that on the fact that I said that my average speed is
around 30k/h on the flats. You must realize that it's not flat
everywhere in Quebec. And besides, how young do you think that I am to
begin with? I would guess that I'm closer to your age than to James
though that would be a guess.
Anyway, what difference does it make how fast you ride relative to me
when you're talking to someone else? You seem to be happy to compare
your cycling ability to mine for some reason. Why is that of any note
at all? You don't know me. You have no idea how I ride a bike. You've
never been to where I ride a bike. The only things about me that you do
know is that I don't accept your ideology as fact and don't find your
cited data as convincing.
> There are circumstances when riding fast would be blatantly stupid;
> and I don't believe in riding stupid. But for decades, I treated most
> rides home from work as time trials. I would relax only if I caught
> too many red lights for a good elapsed time. Total crashes during
> those runs? Zero.
I've commuted for decades as well and had no crashes. Lot's of close
calls but that's to be expected when you're around traffic and in a
hurry. What's your point?
My cycling time is mostly not commuting. I ride to have fun, not for
transportation. My total weekend and evening rides are usually longer
than my total weekly commute. Commuting by bike is just an added bonus.
>
>>> The other main point of disagreement is that I believe the data I've
>>> found and provided - the piles of data showing that typical cycling is
>>> extremely safe. That's for cycling at just average levels of
>>> competence, of course.
>>
>> Those piles of data are not worth a cracker, as I've repeatedly
>> discussed.
>
> Sure, James. You think my data's bad. Yet your countering data is
> nonexistent.
James is describing his personal experience. Why does he need to cite
data? You seem apt to describe your personal experience as well. Why
not just do that? That way you guys can have a discussion. You know,
"this is a discussion group. We discuss things here." Just leave me
out of your "discussions" with others.
Duane Hebert
> On 1/27/2011 11:23 PM, Dan 0vermªn wrote:
>> He seems utterly compelled to smear copious shit with a liberal dose
>> of smarm on any suggestion that the truth and relevance of his spiel
>> may be anything less than universal and absolute gospel.
>>
>> (He's silently removed my remarks from their original context, but I
>> do believe this time he means to paint me immoral, crazy, and
>> incompetent:-)
>
> Who is "He of the Indefinite Pronouns"?
>
There is only one "He" around here. He who must be ignored.
Duane Hebert
<snip>
> So what's worse, analysing useless data or observing what goes on around
> you?
Pretty much the whole point. When you see data that seems to disagree
with what you observe it seems odd to accept that the data is correct
out of hand. Even Frank seems to admit that there is no good data wrt
cycling injuries. That's why he is constantly citing data regarding
cycling fatalities. The idea that the fatality data can somehow be used
to interpolate the level of general safety is an opinion. And one that
I disagree with. From personal experience, I know many people that have
been injured to different degrees cycling. Myself included.
Fortunately, I know of only a few that have been killed.
> I don't need data to know that cycling is dangerous. I accept that it
> is, and am prepared to try to make it safer for others, hence my
> correspondence with the powers that be.
Yeah. The thing that can make cycling more dangerous than it needs to
be IMO is thinking that cycling is not dangerous and subsequently not
taking the risk seriously.
Frank Krygowski
Second hand anecdote warning:
Back in the 1970s I had a colleague who came to America from Britain.
We were discussing roads and their longevity. He claimed that during
World War II, Britain had quickly built many miles of roads along the
coast for defense purposes. He said that by the 1960s, those roads
had nearly vanished.
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
> Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > On Jan 27, 4:22 pm, James <james.e.stew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> See, that's a problem. Motorists don't "Look Bike!", whether that be
> >> bicycle of motorbike. They need education.
>
> > I agree. Are you working on something to make that happen? Or have
> > you done that in the past?
> >
> transport, and to the roads authority, Vicroads. I had a long phone
> conversation with a Vicroads representative just last week. He called
> me in response to an email I'd sent, and was very interested in my
> thoughts and suggestions, and said he'd pass my ideas along to some
> committee. Most likely that means the circular file. He also said I
> should continue to send emails with problems and solutions, as the more
> information they get, they have more to go on when making decisions.
Well, that's good. You haven't done as much as I have to influence
officials, but at least you've done something.
> > One thing we have _definitely_ disagreed on is whether a cyclist can
> > learn to make things better for himself. Remember? I'm the guy who
> > has read books on cycling more competently, gone through training to
> > become certified to teach that, written many articles on the same, etc
> > etc. And I'm the guy with the excellent safety record and no great
> > fear. You're the guy who refused to read even one book, but
> > repeatedly complains about the dangers of riding.
>
> Yet you, with all your bucket loads of experience and reading, can't
> offer a single useful piece of information to help.
That's not the case, James. I have offered useful information. You
have chosen to reject it.
> One thing I learned from 5 years of engineering study was that no amount
> of text book reading can prepare you for the real world.
The only way you could know that would be to first try to do
engineering in the real world _without_ five years of engineering
study and text book reading. Some of the results can be seen here:
http://thereifixedit.failblog.org/
Most recent engineering grads are not ready for big independent
projects. Engineering remains somewhat apprenticeship based, where a
newbie learns from engineers with more experience. But most people
without the background study would be forever incompetent, even if
they could get some engineer to act as a mentor.
I think the same applies to competent road riding. Most people who
avoid learning remain incompetent, without even realizing it.
> >> You get around the failures to give way by riding slower.
>
> > Seriously now - where in hell did you get that idea?
>
> If you have time to stop when someone pulls out in front of you, you
> must be riding slower, or just been lucky I guess not to have it happen
> very often.
James, that's an excellent example of your total dismissal of good
advice.
Approaching my home from the south, I ride a downhill in the village
center on which I _always_ exceed the 25 mph speed limit. (It's a
sort of joke, because the village has a reputation as a speed trap.)
My record on that downhill is 43 mph. Approaching from the north, I
often take a road on which I can coast at 20 mph. Yet I've never had
a car pull out in front and require hard braking. I've lived here
over 30 years.
The latter road has lanes plenty wide enough to safely share; yet I
noticed long ago that I have a reflex that causes me to move to lane
center whenever a car pulls up to a stop sign ahead. In other words,
1) I pay attention to what's up ahead, and 2) I make myself visible.
Should it ever become necessary, that second tactic also (3) would
give me more room to maneuver.
Your thinking that "slow" is the only defense indicates you have a lot
to learn.
> Twice I've not been able to stop or swerve hard enough in over 20 years
> of riding. Once on a wet slippery road, and the other while descending.
> Plenty of times I've managed to avoid a collision by braking and/or
> swerving because to try to stop would have been futile.
Will you never ask yourself why you have so much trouble on the road?
You're like a young kid with dents all around his car, who says "None
of them were my fault!"
> > Sure, James. You think my data's bad. Yet your countering data is
> > nonexistent.
>
> So what's worse, analysing useless data or observing what goes on around
> you?
First, why do you assume officially harvested national or regional
data is useless? Second, if your observations conflict with it, how
can you be sure your observations are competent? Third, how can you
be sure your bad experiences aren't a result of your own behavior?
> I don't need data to know that cycling is dangerous. I accept that it
> is...
DANGER! DANGER!
- Frank Krygowski
David Scheidt
It's a swamp. It's water all the way down. It doesn't *look* like a
swamp this century, becuase there's an incredibly extensive network of
drainage ditches, tile drains, the rivers have been channeled. And
it's flat, so you need to go deep so you can get enough slope in your
pipes. (Average slope of the Kankakee is less than six inches a
mile.) And that's below the pavement's grade, which is often
substantially higher than the existing ground's grade.
:> Without them, the roads disappear remarkably quickly.
:In what manner?
Depends on the road. Gravel just disappears into the muck. flexible
pavements fall apart, becomes gravel, and disappears into the muck.
Or it sinks. raised beds wash out. Road departments spend money on
maintance, so this doesn't happen too much, but where someone abandons
a road, it's gone in a few years, and all trace of it in a couple
decades. (Compare that to places in California, where individual
wagon paths can be seen 150 years later.)
--
sig 97
Frank Krygowski
> On 1/27/2011 11:33 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> > One thing we have _definitely_ disagreed on is whether a cyclist can
> > learn to make things better for himself. Remember? I'm the guy who
> > has read books on cycling more competently, gone through training to
> > become certified to teach that, written many articles on the same, etc
> > etc. And I'm the guy with the excellent safety record and no great
> > fear. You're the guy who refused to read even one book, but
> > repeatedly complains about the dangers of riding.
>
> So you do have certification? I thought that you said that you didn't.
Wrong.
> Which one(s)?
I've been a League Certified Instructor for decades. In fact, my
original certification was as an Effective Cycling Instructor, when
the requirements for certification were a good deal more stringent
than the current ones. I have other qualifications and experience as
well.
> You're basing that on the fact that I said that my average speed is
> around 30k/h on the flats. You must realize that it's not flat
> everywhere in Quebec.
Nor in Ohio, nor (AFAIK) anywhere.
> Anyway, what difference does it make how fast you ride relative to me
> when you're talking to someone else?
James is assuming the only reason I don't have his crashes, close
calls and general "Danger! Danger!" terror is because he thinks I
dodder along slowly. I'm just pointing out that if he accuses me of
riding slowly, he should do the same for you.
> > There are circumstances when riding fast would be blatantly stupid;
> > and I don't believe in riding stupid. But for decades, I treated most
> > rides home from work as time trials. I would relax only if I caught
> > too many red lights for a good elapsed time. Total crashes during
> > those runs? Zero.
>
> I've commuted for decades as well and had no crashes. Lot's of close
> calls but that's to be expected when you're around traffic and in a
> hurry. What's your point?
Again, James assumes that its only by riding slowly that one can avoid
crashes and close calls. My years of riding hard, home from the city
center, disprove that. (And BTW, I have _not_ had "lots of close
calls" either.)
> My cycling time is mostly not commuting. I ride to have fun, not for
> transportation. My total weekend and evening rides are usually longer
> than my total weekly commute. Commuting by bike is just an added bonus.
Well, I may do more of my mileage in traffic than you do, then.
Certainly the majority of my trips over the years have been utility
riding.
> > Sure, James. You think my data's bad. Yet your countering data is
> > nonexistent.
>
> James is describing his personal experience. Why does he need to cite
> data?
Let me try an analogy, Duane. You're a computer professional, IIRC.
If you worked for a company whose software had thousands of satisfied
users who claimed never to have a problem with the software, plus one
customer who said "Your junk software is confusing, it doesn't work
right a lot of the time, and I can never make it do what I want it to
do," what would you say? That the thousands of competent, satisfied
users were wrong? Or that the complainer needs to learn more?
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
> Even Frank seems to admit that there is no good data wrt
> cycling injuries. That's why he is constantly citing data regarding
> cycling fatalities.
Let's give a little more detail, OK? There is no reason to assume the
data on cycling injuries is any worse than for (say) weightlifting
injuries, aerobics injuries, gardening injuries or those of any other
activity. Nobody reports every injury they get. Should I have filled
in some form about the skinned knuckle I got working on my daughter's
snowblower?
The point is, society should be worried only about injuries above a
certain level of seriousness. Yet the crew devoted to crying "Danger!
Danger!" about bicycling is intent on never missing _any_ injury, so
as to make cycling sound as terrible as possible.
Example: The latest "Danger! Danger!" effort out of Portland is this
paper: Hoffman, et. al., "Bicycle Commuter Injury Prevention...",
Jrnl of Trauma, Vol 69, no 5, Nov 2010. Their study was
_specifically_ designed to record _all_ injuries, even minor ones.
And if any tiny injury was shown to any medical professional, it was
deemed "serious." Quoting one of the researchers, "You had to
actually be injured. It could just be skinning your knee..." - Dr.
John Mayberry
Yet they found 25,600 miles of commuting between "serious" injuries -
like asking for a bandaid from the company nurse.
There is no consistent data on _any_ activity I know of that
adequately tracks injuries by recognized level of seriousness. This
could be done by the Abbreviated Injury Score (AIS), but it just isn't
done. One member of our family is an emergency room physician, and
I've discussed this point with him. Given this situation, the best
estimate of truly serious injuries comes by extrapolating from
fatalities. Those are well recorded, even though detailed causes are
sometimes poorly analyzed.
And getting back to injuries in other activities - I've previously
cited a paper reporting on a survey of people who got their exercise
by gardening, walking, aerobics, weightlifting, and cycling. Do you
remember which of those activities caused the FEWEST injuries? Hint:
it wasn't gardening!
Powell et. al., "Injury Rates from Walking, Gardening, Weightlifting,
Outdoor Bicycling, and Aerobics", Medicine & Science in Sports &
Exercise, Vol. 30 pp 1246-9, 1998.
Bicycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is.
- Frank Krygowski
Duane Hebert
<snip>
>> Anyway, what difference does it make how fast you ride relative to me
>> when you're talking to someone else?
>
> James is assuming the only reason I don't have his crashes, close
> calls and general "Danger! Danger!" terror is because he thinks I
> dodder along slowly. I'm just pointing out that if he accuses me of
> riding slowly, he should do the same for you.
I'm not sure what James is assuming. I think that you should ask him.
I'm also not sure why James should accuse me of anything based on some
argument that you're having with him. Seems sort of childish to me that
you would say so.
>>> There are circumstances when riding fast would be blatantly stupid;
>>> and I don't believe in riding stupid. But for decades, I treated most
>>> rides home from work as time trials. I would relax only if I caught
>>> too many red lights for a good elapsed time. Total crashes during
>>> those runs? Zero.
>>
>> I've commuted for decades as well and had no crashes. Lot's of close
>> calls but that's to be expected when you're around traffic and in a
>> hurry. What's your point?
>
> Again, James assumes that its only by riding slowly that one can avoid
> crashes and close calls. My years of riding hard, home from the city
> center, disprove that. (And BTW, I have _not_ had "lots of close
> calls" either.)
Maybe he assumes that life is slower in Ohio. I imagine that may have
something to do with your lack of close calls. Not that I don't think
that you're lucky if that's the case. I would prefer to not have them.
At any rate, if you have a problem with what you think that he assumes,
why not ask him and have a discussion about it? Why involve me at all?
>> My cycling time is mostly not commuting. I ride to have fun, not for
>> transportation. My total weekend and evening rides are usually longer
>> than my total weekly commute. Commuting by bike is just an added bonus.
>
> Well, I may do more of my mileage in traffic than you do, then.
> Certainly the majority of my trips over the years have been utility
> riding.
I prefer to ride for fun than utility. I prefer to ride for utility
rather than drive though so commuting by bike lets me enjoy my commute.
It's definitely not the same type of riding though.
>>> Sure, James. You think my data's bad. Yet your countering data is
>>> nonexistent.
>>
>> James is describing his personal experience. Why does he need to cite
>> data?
>
> Let me try an analogy, Duane. You're a computer professional, IIRC.
>
> If you worked for a company whose software had thousands of satisfied
> users who claimed never to have a problem with the software, plus one
> customer who said "Your junk software is confusing, it doesn't work
> right a lot of the time, and I can never make it do what I want it to
> do," what would you say? That the thousands of competent, satisfied
> users were wrong? Or that the complainer needs to learn more?
This is an interesting analogy. I think that it is pretty close to
what's actually happening here so let me answer you.
If a user calls me and complains about something, I will NEVER tell him
that he must be wrong because all of the other customers don't have this
problem. I would never even tell him that there ARE other customers. I
would also never TELL a customer that they need to learn anything.
I would attempt to help them solve their problem and in the process,
teach them what they need to know. This allows you to take an unhappy
customer and make them not only happy but a supporter of your product.
This has happened more than a few times.
Maybe you don't see the distinction but creating a confrontational
situation is rarely a good first step to educating. I'm sure that you
know this, given your background, so I must assume that your intent here
is something other than educating.
Secondly, it doesn't matter to me if most users don't have a problem.
Why? Well unless I talk to all of them and survey their experience, I
don't know. Assuming that they are happy because they don't complain,
would be incorrect. Perhaps they've stopped using the software. Perhaps
they work through the problems. It would be like assuming that cycling
injuries are near non-existent because cycling fatalities are low.
Duane Hebert
> On Jan 28, 9:01 am, Duane Hebert<nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> Even Frank seems to admit that there is no good data wrt
>> cycling injuries. That's why he is constantly citing data regarding
>> cycling fatalities.
>
> Let's give a little more detail, OK? There is no reason to assume the
> data on cycling injuries is any worse than for (say) weightlifting
> injuries, aerobics injuries, gardening injuries or those of any other
> activity. Nobody reports every injury they get. Should I have filled
> in some form about the skinned knuckle I got working on my daughter's
> snowblower?
You can make your point without trivializing some pretended injury and
then using it as a basis for your argument. My separated shoulder never
got reported as I never went to any place other than my physician and a
physiotherapist, neither of which are part of any survey. I would say
that my 6 weeks of physio was a bit more than a skinned knuckle.
> The point is, society should be worried only about injuries above a
> certain level of seriousness. Yet the crew devoted to crying "Danger!
> Danger!" about bicycling is intent on never missing _any_ injury, so
> as to make cycling sound as terrible as possible.
This is an opinion. I'm not sure what "crew" you're afraid of. I've
never encountered them.
> Example: The latest "Danger! Danger!" effort out of Portland is this
> paper: Hoffman, et. al., "Bicycle Commuter Injury Prevention...",
> Jrnl of Trauma, Vol 69, no 5, Nov 2010. Their study was
> _specifically_ designed to record _all_ injuries, even minor ones.
> And if any tiny injury was shown to any medical professional, it was
> deemed "serious." Quoting one of the researchers, "You had to
> actually be injured. It could just be skinning your knee..." - Dr.
> John Mayberry
One might argue that only by recording all injuries, can we know the
extent of serious ones.
> Yet they found 25,600 miles of commuting between "serious" injuries -
> like asking for a bandaid from the company nurse.
More opinion.
> There is no consistent data on _any_ activity I know of that
> adequately tracks injuries by recognized level of seriousness. This
> could be done by the Abbreviated Injury Score (AIS), but it just isn't
> done. One member of our family is an emergency room physician, and
> I've discussed this point with him. Given this situation, the best
> estimate of truly serious injuries comes by extrapolating from
> fatalities. Those are well recorded, even though detailed causes are
> sometimes poorly analyzed.
And this is the part that I disagree with the most. There is no proof
that extrapolating injuries from fatalities is valid WRT cycling. You
seem to think that hockey is more dangerous than cycling and most would
agree with you, myself included. But deaths playing hockey are more
rare than deaths cycling.
Cycling deaths usually involve cars but as you've stated before, the
majority of cycling accidents don't involve cars. They involve things
like faulty infrastructure. So where is the correlation between deaths
and injuries?
> And getting back to injuries in other activities - I've previously
> cited a paper reporting on a survey of people who got their exercise
> by gardening, walking, aerobics, weightlifting, and cycling. Do you
> remember which of those activities caused the FEWEST injuries? Hint:
> it wasn't gardening!
Comparing these activities is just as useless as comparing cycling and
hockey.
> Powell et. al., "Injury Rates from Walking, Gardening, Weightlifting,
> Outdoor Bicycling, and Aerobics", Medicine& Science in Sports&
> Exercise, Vol. 30 pp 1246-9, 1998.
>
> Bicycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is.
Agreed. Bicycling is not VERY dangerous. Unless we pretend that it's
not dangerous at all and don't exercise due vigilance.
I don't expect that you'll agree with any of this and I don't mind
either way. Just try to leave me out of your arguments with others. It
serves no purpose other than to make you seem childish anyway.
Duane Hebert
> Duane Hebert<nob...@nowhere.com> considered Fri, 28 Jan 2011 09:01:07
> -0500 the perfect time to write:
>
>> Yeah. The thing that can make cycling more dangerous than it needs to
>> be IMO is thinking that cycling is not dangerous and subsequently not
>> taking the risk seriously.
>
> exactly backwards.
Inverting the phrase isn't the same as inverting the meaning. I think
both are correct.
>
> By pretending cycling is dangerous, you restrict it to risk tolerant
> people, who will have more accidents.
You can't seriously argue that we should ignore all risk in order to not
limit it to risk tolerant people can you? Sounds like someone is
screaming "Danger! Danger!" here.
> See
> http://www.healthandtransportgroup.co.uk/research/Ch_2_Active_transport_Cycling.pdf
> Which concludes that cycling is at the same general level of safety as
> driving - probably an inconvenient truth for those who like people to
> admire their bravery in cycling on the road, or want to stick beer
> coolers on all cyclists.
I don't find driving particularly without risks either. That's why we
have defensive driving courses. But it seems that anyone here promoting
defensive cycling is getting accused of crying wolf.
Frank Krygowski
> On 1/28/2011 12:14 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> >>> Sure, James. You think my data's bad. Yet your countering data is
> >>> nonexistent.
>
> >> James is describing his personal experience. Why does he need to cite
> >> data?
>
> > Let me try an analogy, Duane. You're a computer professional, IIRC.
>
> > If you worked for a company whose software had thousands of satisfied
> > users who claimed never to have a problem with the software, plus one
> > customer who said "Your junk software is confusing, it doesn't work
> > right a lot of the time, and I can never make it do what I want it to
> > do," what would you say? That the thousands of competent, satisfied
> > users were wrong? Or that the complainer needs to learn more?
>
> This is an interesting analogy. I think that it is pretty close to
> what's actually happening here so let me answer you.
>
> If a user calls me and complains about something, I will NEVER tell him
> that he must be wrong because all of the other customers don't have this
> problem. I would never even tell him that there ARE other customers. I
> would also never TELL a customer that they need to learn anything.
>
> I would attempt to help them solve their problem and in the process,
> teach them what they need to know.
Re-read what you just wrote, Duane. You would not re-write the
software. Why? Because the software works. Instead, you're saying
you would _teach_ that user, because he doesn't know what he needs to
know.
That sort of education is precisely what I believe James needs.
> Maybe you don't see the distinction but creating a confrontational
> situation is rarely a good first step to educating. I'm sure that you
> know this, given your background, so I must assume that your intent here
> is something other than educating.
There are great differences between Usenet discussions and all of the
following: Teaching at a university, acting as an invited speaker
before government committees or community groups, writing articles for
various publications, teaching certified cycling classes, serving as
safety chairman of a cycling club, scripting public service
announcements on cycling, etc. I've done all those and more.
It's only in Usenet that I've had many people absolutely unwilling to
consider the validity of the information I present, or of the data and
logic I use to justify it. It's only on Usenet that people lead off
by telling me I don't know what I'm talking about, then continue to
make that claim despite my copious use of data and references.
> Secondly, it doesn't matter to me if most users don't have a problem.
> Why? Well unless I talk to all of them and survey their experience, I
> don't know. Assuming that they are happy because they don't complain,
> would be incorrect.
You're over-stretching the analogy. In the case of cycling, we do
know about the (safety) experiences of most users, because we do get
data on significant injuries and fatalities, both from surveys and
from hospital records. If you want to improve the analogy, assume
your software has been highly rated by many reviewers and routinely
gets at least 4.5 stars out of five in user polls.
> It would be like assuming that cycling
> injuries are near non-existent because cycling fatalities are low.
Would it be like assuming that commuting injuries while cycling are
low, because a large survey specifically designed to find each and
every injury found 25,600 miles between injuries (no matter how minor)
that were shown to any medical professional?
Have you read the Hoffman paper I cited, that found (but did not
state) that reassuring result? Or (say) the Moritz papers that
Hoffman inadvertently corroborated?
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
> On 1/28/2011 12:32 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
>
>
> > By pretending cycling is dangerous, you restrict it to risk tolerant
> > people, who will have more accidents.
>
> You can't seriously argue that we should ignore all risk in order to not
> limit it to risk tolerant people can you?
Has anyone claimed we should "ignore all risk"? Certainly, I haven't.
What I'm saying (with corroboration) is that cycling's risks are
commonly overstated, and that by learning certain simple techniques,
the risks can be lowered even further.
> I don't find driving particularly without risks either. That's why we
> have defensive driving courses. But it seems that anyone here promoting
> defensive cycling is getting accused of crying wolf.
Sounds like you haven't been reading the discussion! I'm the one
who's been telling James that he needs to learn more about how to ride
to keep safe on the road. He's the one who's been claiming that the
only reason I don't have lots of near misses or crashes is because I
ride too slowly.
- Frank Krygowski
Duane Hebert
>> I would attempt to help them solve their problem and in the process,
>> teach them what they need to know.
>
> Re-read what you just wrote, Duane. You would not re-write the
> software. Why? Because the software works. Instead, you're saying
> you would _teach_ that user, because he doesn't know what he needs to
> know.
Why do I need to re-read it. I thought that I was pretty clear. I
wouldn't belittle them, insult them or tell them that they didn't know
what they were doing. I would try to show them what they needed to know.
> That sort of education is precisely what I believe James needs.
The thing is this is what you believe. In the case of my software, I
can feel fairly certain that I do know. Though even then, I can be
proven wrong. In this case, you presume to know what James needs or in
fact that he needs anything.
>> Maybe you don't see the distinction but creating a confrontational
>> situation is rarely a good first step to educating. I'm sure that you
>> know this, given your background, so I must assume that your intent here
>> is something other than educating.
>
> There are great differences between Usenet discussions and all of the
> following: Teaching at a university, acting as an invited speaker
> before government committees or community groups, writing articles for
> various publications, teaching certified cycling classes, serving as
> safety chairman of a cycling club, scripting public service
> announcements on cycling, etc. I've done all those and more.
So why would you think that the normal methodology can be ignored?
> It's only in Usenet that I've had many people absolutely unwilling to
> consider the validity of the information I present, or of the data and
> logic I use to justify it. It's only on Usenet that people lead off
> by telling me I don't know what I'm talking about, then continue to
> make that claim despite my copious use of data and references.
Some don't agree with you or with your interpretation of the data that
you refer to.
>> Secondly, it doesn't matter to me if most users don't have a problem.
>> Why? Well unless I talk to all of them and survey their experience, I
>> don't know. Assuming that they are happy because they don't complain,
>> would be incorrect.
>
> You're over-stretching the analogy. In the case of cycling, we do
> know about the (safety) experiences of most users, because we do get
> data on significant injuries and fatalities, both from surveys and
> from hospital records. If you want to improve the analogy, assume
> your software has been highly rated by many reviewers and routinely
> gets at least 4.5 stars out of five in user polls.
This is where we don't agree. I don't think that we know about the
safety experience of most cyclists. I disagree that we get data on
significant injuries and we've gone over why. If we had significant
data referring to injuries you wouldn't have to try to interpolate from
fatalities.
>> It would be like assuming that cycling
>> injuries are near non-existent because cycling fatalities are low.
>
> Would it be like assuming that commuting injuries while cycling are
> low, because a large survey specifically designed to find each and
> every injury found 25,600 miles between injuries (no matter how minor)
> that were shown to any medical professional?
No, it would be like assuming that cycling injuries are near
non-existent because cycling fatalities are low.
I won't continue to rehash this. I don't agree with you but you already
know that. I will say again, please leave me out of your arguments with
other people. You don't need to prove to anyone whether you ride faster
than I do or not. Who could possibly care?
Duane Hebert
I must not be following this conversation because I get the impression
that you have some problem with James stating that there are dangers
while cycling that need to be avoided. I've not seen him say anything
further than that.
And if you're going to clip integral parts of the post before replying,
you should note that you did so. I was talking to Phil about something
and you cut all but the last part. For example, the part where I said
both arguments are correct is no longer here.
Jay Beattie
> On Jan 28, 1:11 pm, Duane Hebert <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> > On 1/28/2011 12:32 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
>
> > > By pretending cycling is dangerous, you restrict it to risk tolerant
> > > people, who will have more accidents.
>
> > You can't seriously argue that we should ignore all risk in order to not
> > limit it to risk tolerant people can you?
>
> Has anyone claimed we should "ignore all risk"? Certainly, I haven't.
> What I'm saying (with corroboration) is that cycling's risks are
> commonly overstated, and that by learning certain simple techniques,
> the risks can be lowered even further.
Cycling where? What time of year? Day or night? What kind of road?
I mean really, some cycling is really dangerous -- and some is not.
My trip to work this morning included this hill (I was bored and took
the Hobbit trails). http://www.flickr.com/photos/24853469@N06/4621973830/
It's even steeper than it looks (and thus the steps). I crashed
getting back on my bike at the bottom and almost got mud on my rain
coat. I then proceeded down this hill
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nobleviola/2717997421/in/photostream/ It
is about 20% of broken pavement. I could barely keep my hands from
rattling off the levers. The car behind me kept scraping its
undercarriage on the transitions. Then I encountered runners on this
trail: http://www.flickr.com/photos/atul666/2242729098/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/vj_pdx/28098647/ And then avoided
disaster here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/thehappyzombie/3963018025/
Frankly, Frank, I'm lucky to be alive. -- Jay Beattie.
PS -- Ride Bike.
Tºm Shermªn™ °_°
>
> I don't find driving particularly without risks either. That's why we
> have defensive driving courses. But it seems that anyone here promoting
> defensive cycling is getting accused of crying wolf.
Defensive driving is faulty, in that it lets those with the worst
behavior win.
Frank Krygowski
> On 1/28/2011 1:39 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > That sort of education is precisely what I believe James needs.
>
> The thing is this is what you believe. In the case of my software, I
> can feel fairly certain that I do know. Though even then, I can be
> proven wrong. In this case, you presume to know what James needs or in
> fact that he needs anything.
Admittedly, I'm making a judgment call. I haven't seen James ride.
But if a motorist or walker talked about his crashes and his very
frequent near misses, and about how really dangerous driving or
walking was, would you not think he needed _something_? And if that
person absolutely refused to read about how to do better, would you
not think that it might be he needs education?
> > There are great differences between Usenet discussions and all of the
> > following: Teaching at a university, acting as an invited speaker
> > before government committees or community groups, writing articles for
> > various publications, teaching certified cycling classes, serving as
> > safety chairman of a cycling club, scripting public service
> > announcements on cycling, etc. I've done all those and more.
>
> So why would you think that the normal methodology can be ignored?
Sorry, Duane, I didn't say it should be ignored. In fact, what I do
in those situations is largely what I do here. The difference is, in
those situations I haven't had people saying things like "Oh, the data
from those four studies can't be correct, because ... because I just
_know_ they're wrong." But on Usenet, that sort of "logic" is not
uncommon. As I said:
> > It's only in Usenet that I've had many people absolutely unwilling to
> > consider the validity of the information I present, or of the data and
> > logic I use to justify it. It's only on Usenet that people lead off
> > by telling me I don't know what I'm talking about, then continue to
> > make that claim despite my copious use of data and references.
>
> Some don't agree with you or with your interpretation of the data that
> you refer to.
And if so, they are free to discuss the data in detail, or produce
other contradicting data. Give logical, provable reasons you think my
interpretation is wrong. But I see very little of that. From you, I
got "Well, riding in the US may be safe, but Quebec is _really_
dangerous." Until I produced data showing that no, if anything, it
may be safer than the U.S. as a whole.
James' position now is that my riding is safer than his because I ride
very slowly. But I don't. He assumes knowledge and skill make no
difference - a sort of predestination theory of cycling, I guess. Is
there any other endeavor where such a thing is true?
> >... If you want to improve the analogy, assume
> > your software has been highly rated by many reviewers and routinely
> > gets at least 4.5 stars out of five in user polls.
>
> This is where we don't agree. I don't think that we know about the
> safety experience of most cyclists. I disagree that we get data on
> significant injuries and we've gone over why. If we had significant
> data referring to injuries you wouldn't have to try to interpolate from
> fatalities.
Strictly speaking, what we know about the experiences of "most"
motorists, pedestrians or cyclists comes from national or regional
government data, or in some cases from surveys. I've given plenty of
citations of national or regional (e.g. Quebec) government data.
You've just chosen to disbelieve it, while producing no contrary
evidence.
We also know about cyclist experiences by the results of surveys, like
the two by Moritz and the recent one by Hoffman. I've cited those and
stated the results. Again, you've just chosen to disbelieve those,
while producing no contrary evidence.
You (and James) seem to take as dogma the idea that bicycling is
really, really dangerous. And you heap scorn on those who reject your
dogma. You heap scorn, but you certainly don't heap data!
> > Would it be like assuming that commuting injuries while cycling are
> > low, because a large survey specifically designed to find each and
> > every injury found 25,600 miles between injuries (no matter how minor)
> > that were shown to any medical professional?
>
> No, it would be like assuming that cycling injuries are near
> non-existent because cycling fatalities are low.
Do you realize that 22,600 mile figure is from the Hoffman study - a
study designed to maximize the apparent danger of cycling?
>
> I won't continue to rehash this. I don't agree with you but you already
> know that. I will say again, please leave me out of your arguments with
> other people.
Duane, you posted your typical riding speed here. If you hadn't done
that, I wouldn't have mentioned it again. if you don't want something
mentioned in a discussion, you should not mention it in that
discussion.
- Frank Krygowski
Tºm Shermªn™ °_°
Coastal erosion, or just vegetation growing up through the pavement?
John Doe
> Duane Hebert wrote:
>> I don't find driving particularly without risks either. That's
>> why we have defensive driving courses. But it seems that
>> anyone here promoting defensive cycling is getting accused of
>> crying wolf.
>
> Defensive driving is faulty, in that it lets those with the
> worst behavior win.
Those with the biggest vehicle win. Not sure if you would call it
defensive driving, but to a street cyclist/skater, awareness of
what is going on around him (or her) is everything. Protective
gear works not just to prevent injury, but to enhance your
awareness by knowing that if you do crash, you are less likely to
be injured. That allows you to concentrate on the really important
things, like cars. That might be less true for cycling, but it is
the law when street skating (if you want to do so perennially).
There are lots of things I was taught as a kid that do not apply
to my skating survival these days, mostly pleasantries. I never
skate in front of a car at an exit. The most frequent cause of
accidents is when a car is turning right and looking left, either
at an intersection or at an entrance ramp (like onto a highway).
Courtesy is just a fantasy. I take into account the position and
speed of vehicles, and what they are capable of doing, and I skate
accordingly. Too many drivers would treat me as a pylon, if some
sort of interaction had anything to do with it.
Good luck and have fun.
--
>
> --
> T§m Sherm¦n - 42.435731,-83.985007
Tºm Shermªn™ °_°
> T�m Sherm�n� �_�<""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI$southslope.net"> wrote:
>
>> Duane Hebert wrote:
>
>>> I don't find driving particularly without risks either. That's
>>> why we have defensive driving courses. But it seems that
>>> anyone here promoting defensive cycling is getting accused of
>>> crying wolf.
>>
>> Defensive driving is faulty, in that it lets those with the
>> worst behavior win.
>
If they are not chicken salad, they do not.
--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
Nate Nagel
> On 1/28/2011 12:11 PM, Duane Hebert wrote:
>>
>> I don't find driving particularly without risks either. That's why we
>> have defensive driving courses. But it seems that anyone here promoting
>> defensive cycling is getting accused of crying wolf.
>
> Defensive driving is faulty, in that it lets those with the worst
> behavior win.
>
There's a big difference between not knowing what's going on around you,
and knowing that someone is about to do something stupid but pretending
not to see him (or her) so that he reconsiders and backs off.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel