info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
IS CYCLING SAFE? by Andre Jute
182 views
Skip to first unread message
Andre Jute
May 5, 2013, 11:49:45 AM5/5/13
to
For information, to be read beside the thread "Canada's most dangerous city for cyclists" https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/rec.bicycles.tech/plwvunz_wqY in which certain assumptions about cycling safety are made, I republish an article from three years ago:
***
IS CYCLING SAFE?
by Andre Jute
Cycling statistics are thrown about by passionate advocates for this
or against the other with gay abandon for meaning and sense, so I
decided to conduct my own investigation and get at the facts.
Statistics is the art of spiraling in on enough sets of numbers in
broad agreement to make an informed decision. Decimals are a luxury
for ivory tower lurkers who wouldn't survive a day in the real world;
all that is required is a set of mutually reinforcing numbers tending
the same way.
Safety numbers do not stand in isolation. They are always in relation
to something else, which sets a baseline. In bicycle safety, the
comparison is with fatalities in automobile travel. It is not
necessarily the best comparison. For instance, if I were killed on the
road, my family would find it inconvenient but I would no longer care;
I would find being maimed or hurt on the road much more inconvenient,
but I have no good numbers for serious injury short of fatality. We
have to compare cycling to what we have, which is automobile
fatalities.
So one's entire attitude to bicycle safety depends on whether one
considers automobile travel safe enough. Most of us do. The unspoken
qualification is "in the light of its benefits." Bicycling must be
given the same benefit of weighing not just danger but net gain.
***
A cyclist is 2.9 times more likely to be killed on any journey than
someone riding in a car.
( http://www.ta.org.br/site/Banco/7manuais/VTPIpuchertq.pdf )
A cyclist is 11 times more likely to be killed per mile of travel than
someone riding in a car.
(ibid)
We know that cars travel faster than cyclists, and that people who
ride in cars travel further (14,400 miles for Americans according to
the DoT 2000/2001 transport census) than almost all bicyclists. So a
comparison per mile is not as indicative as first seems; in practice
it will be swamped by other factors. A more meaningfully direct
comparison is the risk per hour on the bicycle. We know from
experience that cars, depending on circumstances, travel 3 or 4 or 5
times as fast as bicycles. So we can calculate that:
A cyclist is roughly 2 or 3 or 4 times (11 divided by 3, 4, and 5,
and remember what I said about decimals) as likely to be killed per
hour on his bike as someone riding in an automobile. That accords well
with a number we already have, that a cyclist is 2.9 times as likely
to be killed per journey as a motorist.
All these numbers, including the outlyer of 11 times more cycling
fatalities per journey for cyclists than motorists, accord well with
the knowledge that most travel fatalities happen within three miles of
home, and the additional fact that most bicycles journeys are of less
than two miles.
We've now arrived at where cycling carries somewhere around three
times the risk of dying compared to motoring, with a fifty per cent
margin each way. It's extremely encouraging for a first approximation
to be so close, because not all cyclists ride under the same
circumstances or in the same way.
***
Let's check the numbers we have against known statistics. In the US,
about 700 cyclists and around 40,000 motorised travellers will become
traffic fatalities this year.
Nobody knows precisely how many cyclists there are but BRAIN reported
for the National Sporting Goods Association in 2008 that 44.7m rode
six or more times a year, of which 25m rode more than 24 times a year.
It is this 25m more or less regular cyclists we want to work with;
they very likely largely overlap the 24m who reported to the BTS in
2000-2001 that they cycled at least once a week. (
http://www.bts.gov/publications/highlights_of_the_2001_national_household_travel_survey/html/table_a01.html
)
That works out to about 1 chance in 36,000 that a cyclist will be
killed on the road this year.
Nobody knows precisely how many people travel in internal combustion
vehicles either. But about 200m Americans have driving licenses, and
only 8 per cent of households don't have a car available; most of
those presumably travel by bus. We can probably safely say that around
390m Americans account for the 40,000 passenger casualties every year.
(That probably overstates the numbers who don't travel at all and take
trains, but it makes minuscule differences.)
That works out to about 1 chance in 9750 that an automobile traveller
will be killed on the road this year.
Eh? One chance in 36,000 that a cyclist will be killed v. one chance
in 9750 that a motorist will be killed this year. Can cycling really
be near enough four times safer than motoring? Even when we have
already decided that per trip and per hour cycling is about three
times more likely to get you killed than motoring?
Absolutely. Cyclists don't ride the enormous mileages motorists cover,
nor do they take as many trips. The per trip and per mile and per hour
disadvantage soon disappears over the longer term. I suspect that the
half-million or so habitual commuters in the States are pushing their
luck but recreational cyclists are exposed too little to worry (as
long as they don't do anything stupid, of course).
***
These numbers all refer to the States, where the average household has
1.8 cars for 1.7 licensed drivers, with consequences that are obvious.
I should however be surprised to discover that the numbers for any
anglophone country is drastically lower; they all aspire to emulate
the American lifestyle.
In my own country, Ireland, 9 cyclists were killed on the roads in
2006, the last year for which I have statistics, but that merely
reflects the drastic fall in cycling (never very popular) because most
people consider the roads far too dangerous; almost no children cycle
now. 29 pedestrians and 226 motorists also died on the roads, out of a
population of less than 4.5m; a motorist has about a 1 in 20,000
chance of dying in his or her car in any year, which sounds better
than in the States but the roads are much narrower and more crowded, a
nightmare for cyclists; I mention this to stress that gross numbers,
especially from foreign parts, should be adopted only with some
sensitivity to local conditions.
The bicycling cultures of Germany and The Netherlands have much lower
cycling fatalities on any sensible measure than anyone else but these
arise not so much from superior facilities as from a bicycle-directed
culture rather than a automobile-centred culture.
***
We're back where we started. A cyclist is more like to die on the road
than a motorist by a factor of 2.9 per trip, 11 per kilometre
(probably a not overly relevant statistic, as explained above), and
about 3 per hour on the bike.
I conclude that, roughly speaking, cycling carries in microcosm, ride
by ride, three times more risk of dying on the road than motoring.
However, in total, because cycling trips are shorter than motoring
trips, and there are fewer of them, the total macrorisk of death while
cycling is between three and four times *less*, on average over the
full year, than while motoring.
***
Commuters or other cyclists who ride big mileages are of course at
bigger risk and should consider the risk per hour on the bike, which
ranges from about 2-4 times that of driving (for traffic travelling no
faster than four times the cyclist's speed).
***
I cycle for my health. It works.
There are general health benefits to individuals, the environment and
society from cycling.
Everyone must make up his own mind. But I decided long ago that the
health benefits of cycling outweigh the per hour/per trip risks. I've
given up the car.
Andre Jute
10 April 2010.
***
Not copyright. May be freely reproduced. It would be a courtesy to use
the article in full including this note.
***
IS CYCLING SAFE?
by Andre Jute
Cycling statistics are thrown about by passionate advocates for this
or against the other with gay abandon for meaning and sense, so I
decided to conduct my own investigation and get at the facts.
Statistics is the art of spiraling in on enough sets of numbers in
broad agreement to make an informed decision. Decimals are a luxury
for ivory tower lurkers who wouldn't survive a day in the real world;
all that is required is a set of mutually reinforcing numbers tending
the same way.
Safety numbers do not stand in isolation. They are always in relation
to something else, which sets a baseline. In bicycle safety, the
comparison is with fatalities in automobile travel. It is not
necessarily the best comparison. For instance, if I were killed on the
road, my family would find it inconvenient but I would no longer care;
I would find being maimed or hurt on the road much more inconvenient,
but I have no good numbers for serious injury short of fatality. We
have to compare cycling to what we have, which is automobile
fatalities.
So one's entire attitude to bicycle safety depends on whether one
considers automobile travel safe enough. Most of us do. The unspoken
qualification is "in the light of its benefits." Bicycling must be
given the same benefit of weighing not just danger but net gain.
***
A cyclist is 2.9 times more likely to be killed on any journey than
someone riding in a car.
( http://www.ta.org.br/site/Banco/7manuais/VTPIpuchertq.pdf )
A cyclist is 11 times more likely to be killed per mile of travel than
someone riding in a car.
(ibid)
We know that cars travel faster than cyclists, and that people who
ride in cars travel further (14,400 miles for Americans according to
the DoT 2000/2001 transport census) than almost all bicyclists. So a
comparison per mile is not as indicative as first seems; in practice
it will be swamped by other factors. A more meaningfully direct
comparison is the risk per hour on the bicycle. We know from
experience that cars, depending on circumstances, travel 3 or 4 or 5
times as fast as bicycles. So we can calculate that:
A cyclist is roughly 2 or 3 or 4 times (11 divided by 3, 4, and 5,
and remember what I said about decimals) as likely to be killed per
hour on his bike as someone riding in an automobile. That accords well
with a number we already have, that a cyclist is 2.9 times as likely
to be killed per journey as a motorist.
All these numbers, including the outlyer of 11 times more cycling
fatalities per journey for cyclists than motorists, accord well with
the knowledge that most travel fatalities happen within three miles of
home, and the additional fact that most bicycles journeys are of less
than two miles.
We've now arrived at where cycling carries somewhere around three
times the risk of dying compared to motoring, with a fifty per cent
margin each way. It's extremely encouraging for a first approximation
to be so close, because not all cyclists ride under the same
circumstances or in the same way.
***
Let's check the numbers we have against known statistics. In the US,
about 700 cyclists and around 40,000 motorised travellers will become
traffic fatalities this year.
Nobody knows precisely how many cyclists there are but BRAIN reported
for the National Sporting Goods Association in 2008 that 44.7m rode
six or more times a year, of which 25m rode more than 24 times a year.
It is this 25m more or less regular cyclists we want to work with;
they very likely largely overlap the 24m who reported to the BTS in
2000-2001 that they cycled at least once a week. (
http://www.bts.gov/publications/highlights_of_the_2001_national_household_travel_survey/html/table_a01.html
)
That works out to about 1 chance in 36,000 that a cyclist will be
killed on the road this year.
Nobody knows precisely how many people travel in internal combustion
vehicles either. But about 200m Americans have driving licenses, and
only 8 per cent of households don't have a car available; most of
those presumably travel by bus. We can probably safely say that around
390m Americans account for the 40,000 passenger casualties every year.
(That probably overstates the numbers who don't travel at all and take
trains, but it makes minuscule differences.)
That works out to about 1 chance in 9750 that an automobile traveller
will be killed on the road this year.
Eh? One chance in 36,000 that a cyclist will be killed v. one chance
in 9750 that a motorist will be killed this year. Can cycling really
be near enough four times safer than motoring? Even when we have
already decided that per trip and per hour cycling is about three
times more likely to get you killed than motoring?
Absolutely. Cyclists don't ride the enormous mileages motorists cover,
nor do they take as many trips. The per trip and per mile and per hour
disadvantage soon disappears over the longer term. I suspect that the
half-million or so habitual commuters in the States are pushing their
luck but recreational cyclists are exposed too little to worry (as
long as they don't do anything stupid, of course).
***
These numbers all refer to the States, where the average household has
1.8 cars for 1.7 licensed drivers, with consequences that are obvious.
I should however be surprised to discover that the numbers for any
anglophone country is drastically lower; they all aspire to emulate
the American lifestyle.
In my own country, Ireland, 9 cyclists were killed on the roads in
2006, the last year for which I have statistics, but that merely
reflects the drastic fall in cycling (never very popular) because most
people consider the roads far too dangerous; almost no children cycle
now. 29 pedestrians and 226 motorists also died on the roads, out of a
population of less than 4.5m; a motorist has about a 1 in 20,000
chance of dying in his or her car in any year, which sounds better
than in the States but the roads are much narrower and more crowded, a
nightmare for cyclists; I mention this to stress that gross numbers,
especially from foreign parts, should be adopted only with some
sensitivity to local conditions.
The bicycling cultures of Germany and The Netherlands have much lower
cycling fatalities on any sensible measure than anyone else but these
arise not so much from superior facilities as from a bicycle-directed
culture rather than a automobile-centred culture.
***
We're back where we started. A cyclist is more like to die on the road
than a motorist by a factor of 2.9 per trip, 11 per kilometre
(probably a not overly relevant statistic, as explained above), and
about 3 per hour on the bike.
I conclude that, roughly speaking, cycling carries in microcosm, ride
by ride, three times more risk of dying on the road than motoring.
However, in total, because cycling trips are shorter than motoring
trips, and there are fewer of them, the total macrorisk of death while
cycling is between three and four times *less*, on average over the
full year, than while motoring.
***
Commuters or other cyclists who ride big mileages are of course at
bigger risk and should consider the risk per hour on the bike, which
ranges from about 2-4 times that of driving (for traffic travelling no
faster than four times the cyclist's speed).
***
I cycle for my health. It works.
There are general health benefits to individuals, the environment and
society from cycling.
Everyone must make up his own mind. But I decided long ago that the
health benefits of cycling outweigh the per hour/per trip risks. I've
given up the car.
Andre Jute
10 April 2010.
***
Not copyright. May be freely reproduced. It would be a courtesy to use
the article in full including this note.
raamman
May 5, 2013, 3:27:08 PM5/5/13
to
life itself is not safe, make the most out of it while you can
Andre Jute
May 5, 2013, 5:30:20 PM5/5/13
to
On Sunday, May 5, 2013 8:27:08 PM UTC+1, raamman wrote:
> life itself is not safe, make the most out of it while you can
You, sir, are a man of infinite wisdom.
> life itself is not safe, make the most out of it while you can
Andre Jute
(PeteCresswell)
May 5, 2013, 6:53:50 PM5/5/13
to
Per raamman:
and the home of the brave."
Philip Mudd (former Big Fish in FBI and CIA counter-terrorism branches),
commenting on whether the USA should implement more stringent security
measures in the wake of the Boston Marathon incident.
Sounds jingoistic, but I liked the sound of it.
--
Pete Cresswell
>life itself is not safe, make the most out of it while you can
"America is not the land of the safe. America is the land of the free
and the home of the brave."
Philip Mudd (former Big Fish in FBI and CIA counter-terrorism branches),
commenting on whether the USA should implement more stringent security
measures in the wake of the Boston Marathon incident.
Sounds jingoistic, but I liked the sound of it.
--
Pete Cresswell
Dan O
May 5, 2013, 11:11:24 PM5/5/13
to
exhibit a refreshing sensibility:
http://www.schneier.com/
http://www.ranum.com/
Before I ever read any of that, though, I had thought (in a little
depth ;-) about safety. There is no such thing as absolute safety.
Safety is nothing more than a relative concept, and - to put it in a
nutshell - is a simple matter of acceptable risk and due care.
datakoll
May 6, 2013, 8:44:15 AM5/6/13
to
these speculations form a continuous streaming of reeking BS thru statistical anal analysis.
the results are useful identifying Kamloops more dangerous than Abbotsford. Usually the ID is obvious but there are surprises down the road.
The entire ongoing verbiage vaults over POTENTIAL MORTAL DANGER as a given condition needing no 'anal analysis' a province of people who are actually paid and have a vested interest in anal analysis.
A function of the statement on killing gnats with a field gun. Whatever that skewers.
barfvomit
the results are useful identifying Kamloops more dangerous than Abbotsford. Usually the ID is obvious but there are surprises down the road.
The entire ongoing verbiage vaults over POTENTIAL MORTAL DANGER as a given condition needing no 'anal analysis' a province of people who are actually paid and have a vested interest in anal analysis.
A function of the statement on killing gnats with a field gun. Whatever that skewers.
barfvomit
Dan O
May 6, 2013, 10:29:19 AM5/6/13
to
On May 6, 5:44 am, datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> these speculations form a continuous streaming of reeking BS thru statistical anal analysis.
>
> the results are useful identifying Kamloops more dangerous than Abbotsford. Usually the ID is obvious but there are surprises down the road.
>
> The entire ongoing verbiage vaults over POTENTIAL MORTAL DANGER as a given condition needing no 'anal analysis' a province of people who are actually paid and have a vested interest in anal analysis.
>
Actuaries. Fine for the moneychangers; irrelevant to the bicyclist.
> these speculations form a continuous streaming of reeking BS thru statistical anal analysis.
>
> the results are useful identifying Kamloops more dangerous than Abbotsford. Usually the ID is obvious but there are surprises down the road.
>
> The entire ongoing verbiage vaults over POTENTIAL MORTAL DANGER as a given condition needing no 'anal analysis' a province of people who are actually paid and have a vested interest in anal analysis.
>
> A function of the statement on killing gnats with a field gun. Whatever that skewers.
>
> barfvomit
someone starts impugning my character and intelligence about it. If
they want to form their view of reality from statistical reports, fine
- but judgmental is as judgmental does.
Andre Jute
May 6, 2013, 1:19:19 PM5/6/13
to
Andre Jute
Judgement is as judgement applies
Dan O
May 6, 2013, 1:45:38 PM5/6/13
to
datakoll
May 6, 2013, 7:08:32 PM5/6/13
to
last call posted the fall from Rock Bridge. Climbers swinging from rock arches 100" above....rock have an excellent safety record defining swonging from rock arches as a safe pastime.
In the same vein, holding a 240V line while dancing on a mostly non conductive surface is als a safe pastime as who has notice of it not ?
potential. start there.
sea kayaking is produced as dangerous. Sez so right inside muh Solstice on a big rectangular sticker permanently surfaced above the kevlar. DANGEROUS. BEWARE. GET YOUR NSHIT TOGETHER DUDE.
whereas in cycling......
say why not stick with your friends in the old country who will bash you a good one for snotting about.
In the same vein, holding a 240V line while dancing on a mostly non conductive surface is als a safe pastime as who has notice of it not ?
potential. start there.
sea kayaking is produced as dangerous. Sez so right inside muh Solstice on a big rectangular sticker permanently surfaced above the kevlar. DANGEROUS. BEWARE. GET YOUR NSHIT TOGETHER DUDE.
whereas in cycling......
say why not stick with your friends in the old country who will bash you a good one for snotting about.
Andre Jute
May 6, 2013, 7:51:42 PM5/6/13
to
On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 12:08:32 AM UTC+1, datakoll wrote:
> say why not stick with your friends in the old country who will bash you a good one for snotting about.
Do you have something to contribute Daniels, except to whine in my threads that you want me to go away so that you can swagger around the newsgroup? If you can't keep up with my subjects, start your own dumbed-down threads, sonny. We already know no one will come.
> say why not stick with your friends in the old country who will bash you a good one for snotting about.
Andre Jute
datakoll
May 6, 2013, 10:46:45 PM5/6/13
to
derogation is not intelligence.
there's no DIY here beyond the EEE group
surly not from you.
statistics bear little meaning here
all areas are dangerous
this fact is so immediately important the reality renders evaluations of more dangerous areas to lesser importance.
here we have bike lanes for casual riding snwobirds
there is peace
and there are motobike rentals
there, there is no peace.
I'm not critical of Jute/McCoy but discussing a subject he wrote on.
you should stay home
there's no DIY here beyond the EEE group
surly not from you.
statistics bear little meaning here
all areas are dangerous
this fact is so immediately important the reality renders evaluations of more dangerous areas to lesser importance.
here we have bike lanes for casual riding snwobirds
there is peace
and there are motobike rentals
there, there is no peace.
I'm not critical of Jute/McCoy but discussing a subject he wrote on.
you should stay home
gpsman
May 7, 2013, 9:01:24 AM5/7/13
to
On May 5, 11:49 am, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Everyone must make up his own mind. But I decided long ago that the
> health benefits of cycling outweigh the per hour/per trip risks.
"Safety" statistics are irrelevant to individual risk.
>
> Everyone must make up his own mind. But I decided long ago that the
> health benefits of cycling outweigh the per hour/per trip risks.
Every "serious" cyclist executes emergency maneuvers to avoid being
crashed into by cagers, and expects to. Continued success is only a
matter of dumb luck.
-----
- gpsman
Duane
May 7, 2013, 9:48:39 AM5/7/13
to
cycling after he hit a fallen tree on a descent. Have another friend
who is now off her bike after ripping her ACL during a fall caused by
crap roads. Both are generally fairly careful riders. The guy is 71
and this was his first accident of any consequence.
frkr...@gmail.com
May 7, 2013, 11:03:38 AM5/7/13
to
On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 9:01:24 AM UTC-4, gpsman wrote:
> On May 5, 11:49 am, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Everyone must make up his own mind. But I decided long ago that the
>
> > health benefits of cycling outweigh the per hour/per trip risks.
>
>
>
> "Safety" statistics are irrelevant to individual risk.
Not true.
> On May 5, 11:49 am, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Everyone must make up his own mind. But I decided long ago that the
>
> > health benefits of cycling outweigh the per hour/per trip risks.
>
>
>
> "Safety" statistics are irrelevant to individual risk.
> Every "serious" cyclist executes emergency maneuvers to avoid being
>
> crashed into by cagers, and expects to. Continued success is only a
>
> matter of dumb luck.
- Frank Krygowski
Andre Jute
May 7, 2013, 11:18:52 AM5/7/13
to
When you become a statistic, I'll count you too.
Andre Jute
gpsman
May 7, 2013, 12:43:08 PM5/7/13
to
On May 7, 11:18 am, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 2:01:24 PM UTC+1, gpsman wrote:
> > On May 5, 11:49 am, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Everyone must make up his own mind. But I decided long ago that the
>
> > > health benefits of cycling outweigh the per hour/per trip risks.
>
> > "Safety" statistics are irrelevant to individual risk.
>
> > Every "serious" cyclist executes emergency maneuvers to avoid being
>
> > crashed into by cagers, and expects to. Continued success is only a
>
> > matter of dumb luck.
>
> On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 2:01:24 PM UTC+1, gpsman wrote:
> > On May 5, 11:49 am, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Everyone must make up his own mind. But I decided long ago that the
>
> > > health benefits of cycling outweigh the per hour/per trip risks.
>
> > "Safety" statistics are irrelevant to individual risk.
>
> > Every "serious" cyclist executes emergency maneuvers to avoid being
>
> > crashed into by cagers, and expects to. Continued success is only a
>
> > matter of dumb luck.
>
> If you say so, feller. I'm not running a statistics tutorial here, just providing a statistically sound analysis of the most reliable data as a base for discussion to those qualified and willing, and desirous of honest numbers rather than the politicized crap Krygowski and the rest throw about.
What's to discuss...? Riding naked among oblivious motorists
obviously ain't smart.
> When you become a statistic, I'll count you too.
crosswalks (as the motorists were focused on not stopping for a R
turn), the other when a L-signaling vehicle turned R into me (as I
passed on the R).
-----
- gpsman
gpsman
May 7, 2013, 12:46:16 PM5/7/13
to
On May 7, 11:03 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 9:01:24 AM UTC-4, gpsman wrote:
> > On May 5, 11:49 am, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Everyone must make up his own mind. But I decided long ago that the
>
> > > health benefits of cycling outweigh the per hour/per trip risks.
>
> > "Safety" statistics are irrelevant to individual risk.
>
> Not true.
"Nyuh uh" always makes a fascinating analysis.
> On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 9:01:24 AM UTC-4, gpsman wrote:
> > On May 5, 11:49 am, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Everyone must make up his own mind. But I decided long ago that the
>
> > > health benefits of cycling outweigh the per hour/per trip risks.
>
> > "Safety" statistics are irrelevant to individual risk.
>
> Not true.
> > Every "serious" cyclist executes emergency maneuvers to avoid being
>
> > crashed into by cagers, and expects to. Continued success is only a
>
> > matter of dumb luck.
>
> I almost never need any "maneuver" to avoid car-bike crashes.
experience.
-----
- gpsman
Andre Jute
May 7, 2013, 1:20:20 PM5/7/13
to
On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 5:43:08 PM UTC+1, gpsman wrote:
> On May 7, 11:18 am, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > If you say so, feller. I'm not running a statistics tutorial here, just providing a statistically sound analysis of the most reliable data as a base for discussion to those qualified and willing, and desirous of honest numbers rather than the politicized crap Krygowski and the rest throw about.
>
> What's to discuss...? Riding naked among oblivious motorists
> obviously ain't smart.
The second sentence in your paragraph is true, for naked people. I don't know any naked cyclists though, more's the pity. Scharfie used to have some on his site, but he grew out of it.
> On May 7, 11:18 am, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > If you say so, feller. I'm not running a statistics tutorial here, just providing a statistically sound analysis of the most reliable data as a base for discussion to those qualified and willing, and desirous of honest numbers rather than the politicized crap Krygowski and the rest throw about.
>
> What's to discuss...? Riding naked among oblivious motorists
> obviously ain't smart.
But it doesn't necessarily follow that your first sentence is true as well. For instance, there is your epitaph to discuss as you then proceed to do:
> > When you become a statistic, I'll count you too.
>
> Put me down for a 3 (after 100K+ crash-free road miles);
Andre Jute
Bloody morbid conversation, this
datakoll
May 7, 2013, 2:12:49 PM5/7/13
to
THE STATISTIC IS IF Jute/McCoy pissed on his naybors like with Frank, they'd be over bashing him a good one or crush the Crumich down at the superduper.
Impossible ugly nuerotic whiner. Why yawl waste your time with him ?
Impossible ugly nuerotic whiner. Why yawl waste your time with him ?
frkr...@gmail.com
May 7, 2013, 2:56:15 PM5/7/13
to
On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 12:46:16 PM UTC-4, gpsman wrote:
> On May 7, 11:03 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 9:01:24 AM UTC-4, gpsman wrote:
>
> > > On May 5, 11:49 am, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > Everyone must make up his own mind. But I decided long ago that the
>
> >
>
> > > > health benefits of cycling outweigh the per hour/per trip risks.
>
> >
>
> > > "Safety" statistics are irrelevant to individual risk.
>
> >
>
> > Not true.
>
>
>
> "Nyuh uh" always makes a fascinating analysis.
OK, let's discuss. You said "safety statistics are irrelevant to individual risk." Does that mean that it's OK to ride facing traffic, even though there's plenty of data showing that the practice more than triples your risk of a serious crash?
> On May 7, 11:03 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 9:01:24 AM UTC-4, gpsman wrote:
>
> > > On May 5, 11:49 am, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > Everyone must make up his own mind. But I decided long ago that the
>
> >
>
> > > > health benefits of cycling outweigh the per hour/per trip risks.
>
> >
>
> > > "Safety" statistics are irrelevant to individual risk.
>
> >
>
> > Not true.
>
>
>
> "Nyuh uh" always makes a fascinating analysis.
If not, just what does that "irrelevant" statement mean?
Before you answer, recall that prescription medicines are tested by statistics, and the results are applied to individuals when doctors prescribe medications. Actuarial tables are generated by statistics, and insurance companies make big money selling policies to individuals. Professional gamblers are very aware of statistics (i.e. odds of certain occurrences) and beat individual hackers by using their knowledge.
Or to look at it from the other direction, state lotteries and all of Las Vegas make the fortunes they do because of people who think statistics are irrelevant to individuals.
Of course there are exceptions - people allergic to a medication, people who live longer than the insurance companies thought, pro gamblers who lose a big hand, and the rare grandma that wins a lottery. But it's not smart to bet your money or your life that you're unique.
It's smarter to learn from data.
- Frank Krygowski
gpsman
May 7, 2013, 4:00:24 PM5/7/13
to
On May 7, 2:56 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 12:46:16 PM UTC-4, gpsman wrote:
> > On May 7, 11:03 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 9:01:24 AM UTC-4, gpsman wrote:
>
> > > > "Safety" statistics are irrelevant to individual risk.
>
> > > Not true.
>
> > "Nyuh uh" always makes a fascinating analysis.
>
> On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 12:46:16 PM UTC-4, gpsman wrote:
> > On May 7, 11:03 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 9:01:24 AM UTC-4, gpsman wrote:
>
> > > > "Safety" statistics are irrelevant to individual risk.
>
> > > Not true.
>
> > "Nyuh uh" always makes a fascinating analysis.
>
> just what does that "irrelevant" statement mean?
It means statistics cannot tell the individual whether any day is
their day.
-----
- gpsman
Dan O
May 7, 2013, 4:44:15 PM5/7/13
to
On May 7, 11:56 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 12:46:16 PM UTC-4, gpsman wrote:
> > On May 7, 11:03 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 9:01:24 AM UTC-4, gpsman wrote:
>
> > > > On May 5, 11:49 am, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Everyone must make up his own mind. But I decided long ago that the
>
> > > > > health benefits of cycling outweigh the per hour/per trip risks.
>
> > > > "Safety" statistics are irrelevant to individual risk.
>
> > > Not true.
>
> > "Nyuh uh" always makes a fascinating analysis.
>
> OK, let's discuss. You said "safety statistics are irrelevant to individual risk." Does that mean that it's OK to ride facing traffic, even though there's plenty of data showing that the practice more than triples your risk of a serious crash?
>
It depends.
> On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 12:46:16 PM UTC-4, gpsman wrote:
> > On May 7, 11:03 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 9:01:24 AM UTC-4, gpsman wrote:
>
> > > > On May 5, 11:49 am, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Everyone must make up his own mind. But I decided long ago that the
>
> > > > > health benefits of cycling outweigh the per hour/per trip risks.
>
> > > > "Safety" statistics are irrelevant to individual risk.
>
> > > Not true.
>
> > "Nyuh uh" always makes a fascinating analysis.
>
> OK, let's discuss. You said "safety statistics are irrelevant to individual risk." Does that mean that it's OK to ride facing traffic, even though there's plenty of data showing that the practice more than triples your risk of a serious crash?
>
> If not, just what does that "irrelevant" statement mean?
>
that, while the individual man is an insoluble puzzle, in the
aggregate he becomes a mathematical certainty. You can, for example,
never foretell what any one man will do, but you can say with
precision what an average number will be up to. Individuals vary, but
percentages remain constant. So says the statistician."
<snip>
Andre Jute
May 7, 2013, 4:46:48 PM5/7/13
to
On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 7:12:49 PM UTC+1, datakoll wrote:
> THE STATISTIC IS IF Jute/McCoy pissed on his naybors like with Frank, they'd be over bashing him a good one or crush the Crumich down at the superduper.
What's a "naybor"? A horse who keeps repeating himself ad nauseam?
> THE STATISTIC IS IF Jute/McCoy pissed on his naybors like with Frank, they'd be over bashing him a good one or crush the Crumich down at the superduper.
> Impossible ugly nuerotic whiner. Why yawl waste your time with him ?
He's not even embarrassed at trying to run me out so that people can pay more attention his inane, illiterate witterings.
Unsigned out of contempt
(PeteCresswell)
May 7, 2013, 4:58:57 PM5/7/13
to
Per Andre Jute:
on the right date....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Naked_Bike_Ride_Seattle
--
Pete Cresswell
>I don't know any naked cyclists though, more's the pity.
If you time your next visit to the USA right and touch base in Seattle
on the right date....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Naked_Bike_Ride_Seattle
--
Pete Cresswell
datakoll
May 7, 2013, 6:15:07 PM5/7/13
to
the odds are better than one of six
datakoll
May 7, 2013, 6:18:36 PM5/7/13
to
On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 4:46:48 PM UTC-4, Andre Jute wrote:
this is our group not yours and we ask for civility at least a tempering of what you consider 'humor'
your intent isnot discussion, it is rule. You work on
exercizing power not discussion.
where's ypur latest bicycle innovation ?
the bar scoop ?
this is our group not yours and we ask for civility at least a tempering of what you consider 'humor'
your intent isnot discussion, it is rule. You work on
exercizing power not discussion.
where's ypur latest bicycle innovation ?
the bar scoop ?
Andre Jute
May 7, 2013, 6:57:37 PM5/7/13
to
John B.
May 7, 2013, 8:01:33 PM5/7/13
to
likely that anyone of even modicum intelligence would not ride a
bicycle.
--
Cheers,
John B.
James
May 7, 2013, 8:21:29 PM5/7/13
to
On 08/05/13 08:18, datakoll wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 4:46:48 PM UTC-4, Andre Jute wrote:
>
> this is our group not yours and we ask for civility at least a
> tempering of what you consider 'humor'
You include yourself in the group "our" and "we"? I don't.
> On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 4:46:48 PM UTC-4, Andre Jute wrote:
>
> this is our group not yours and we ask for civility at least a
> tempering of what you consider 'humor'
--
JS
(PeteCresswell)
May 7, 2013, 8:21:58 PM5/7/13
to
Per Andre Jute:
of Commerce's chagrin...
--
Pete Cresswell
> I notice Wikipedia wimped out on photographs.
There's no shortage of photos/videos... probably to the Seattle Chamber
of Commerce's chagrin...
--
Pete Cresswell
James
May 7, 2013, 8:22:39 PM5/7/13
to
On 08/05/13 10:01, John B. wrote:
> On Tue, 7 May 2013 06:01:24 -0700 (PDT), gpsman
> <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On May 5, 11:49 am, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Everyone must make up his own mind. But I decided long ago that the
>>> health benefits of cycling outweigh the per hour/per trip risks.
>>
>> "Safety" statistics are irrelevant to individual risk.
>>
>> Every "serious" cyclist executes emergency maneuvers to avoid being
>> crashed into by cagers, and expects to. Continued success is only a
>> matter of dumb luck.
>> -----
>
> On Tue, 7 May 2013 06:01:24 -0700 (PDT), gpsman
> <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On May 5, 11:49 am, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Everyone must make up his own mind. But I decided long ago that the
>>> health benefits of cycling outweigh the per hour/per trip risks.
>>
>> "Safety" statistics are irrelevant to individual risk.
>>
>> Every "serious" cyclist executes emergency maneuvers to avoid being
>> crashed into by cagers, and expects to. Continued success is only a
>> matter of dumb luck.
>> -----
>
> If "continued success is only a matter of dumb luck" then it seems
> likely that anyone of even modicum intelligence would not ride a
> bicycle.
>
That would depend on the odds, wouldn't it?
> likely that anyone of even modicum intelligence would not ride a
> bicycle.
>
--
JS
datakoll
May 7, 2013, 8:37:59 PM5/7/13
to
I'm the main provider. Check that.
Your standards are more than acceptable in North America.
I'm not moderating, I object to Jute's setups.
I understand your place is in Australia ?
You are in our group not your group as a matter of language and style.
Your standards are more than acceptable in North America.
I'm not moderating, I object to Jute's setups.
I understand your place is in Australia ?
You are in our group not your group as a matter of language and style.
Dan O
May 7, 2013, 8:56:35 PM5/7/13
to
On May 7, 3:57 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 9:58:57 PM UTC+1, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
> > Per Andre Jute:
>
> > >I don't know any naked cyclists though, more's the pity.
>
> > If you time your next visit to the USA right and touch base in Seattle
>
> > on the right date....
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Naked_Bike_Ride_Seattle
>
>
> On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 9:58:57 PM UTC+1, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
> > Per Andre Jute:
>
> > >I don't know any naked cyclists though, more's the pity.
>
> > If you time your next visit to the USA right and touch base in Seattle
>
> > on the right date....
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Naked_Bike_Ride_Seattle
>
>
> Thanks, Pete. I think I'll give it a miss though: I might be tempted to flex my abs in public... I notice Wikipedia wimped out on photographs.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=bikeportland+naked
Dan O
May 7, 2013, 9:03:14 PM5/7/13
to
On May 7, 5:01 pm, John B. <johnbsloc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 7 May 2013 06:01:24 -0700 (PDT), gpsman
>
> <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> >On May 5, 11:49 am, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> Everyone must make up his own mind. But I decided long ago that the
> >> health benefits of cycling outweigh the per hour/per trip risks.
>
> >"Safety" statistics are irrelevant to individual risk.
>
> >Every "serious" cyclist executes emergency maneuvers to avoid being
> >crashed into by cagers, and expects to. Continued success is only a
> >matter of dumb luck.
>
> On Tue, 7 May 2013 06:01:24 -0700 (PDT), gpsman
>
> <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> >On May 5, 11:49 am, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> Everyone must make up his own mind. But I decided long ago that the
> >> health benefits of cycling outweigh the per hour/per trip risks.
>
> >"Safety" statistics are irrelevant to individual risk.
>
> >Every "serious" cyclist executes emergency maneuvers to avoid being
> >crashed into by cagers, and expects to. Continued success is only a
> >matter of dumb luck.
>
> If "continued success is only a matter of dumb luck" then it seems
> likely that anyone of even modicum intelligence would not ride a
> bicycle.
I think maybe the post (not to say the poster) was a casual troll. I
> likely that anyone of even modicum intelligence would not ride a
> bicycle.
mean, "every", "emergency", "serious", "dumb", etc. - seems like
calculated hyperbole to rile a gullible fish into biting.
AMuzi
May 7, 2013, 9:13:39 PM5/7/13
to
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
John B.
May 7, 2013, 9:28:57 PM5/7/13
to
On Wed, 08 May 2013 10:22:39 +1000, James <james.e...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Depends on how dumb your luck is :-)
--
Cheers,
John B.
wrote:
--
Cheers,
John B.
John B.
May 7, 2013, 9:31:14 PM5/7/13
to
On Tue, 7 May 2013 18:03:14 -0700 (PDT), Dan O <danov...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Thus my reply, wherein I was trying to make the point that the
original post was an indication of a rather stupid individual.
--
Cheers,
John B.
wrote:
original post was an indication of a rather stupid individual.
--
Cheers,
John B.
Andre Jute
May 7, 2013, 9:32:18 PM5/7/13
to
Andre jute
frkr...@gmail.com
May 7, 2013, 9:40:26 PM5/7/13
to
- Frank Krygowski
Andre Jute
May 7, 2013, 9:45:20 PM5/7/13
to
Andre Jute
May 7, 2013, 9:46:22 PM5/7/13
to
Andre Jute
Andre Jute
May 7, 2013, 9:54:10 PM5/7/13
to
On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 11:18:36 PM UTC+1, datakoll wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 4:46:48 PM UTC-4, Andre Jute wrote:
>
>
>
> this is our group not yours and we ask for civility at least a tempering of what you consider 'humor'
What the hell is this? I didn't write that. I don't go around claiming exclusive ownership of a public forum -- indeed, I have a track record of kicking the Magnequest Scum almost to death for such a crime against free speech. And I certainly never tell anyone what they can or cannot say -- quite the contrary, I've repeatedly risked my life for the freedom of speech of others, and I'm well known to be a libertarian.
> On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 4:46:48 PM UTC-4, Andre Jute wrote:
>
>
>
> this is our group not yours and we ask for civility at least a tempering of what you consider 'humor'
You're a liar, Gene Daniels. I didn't say any part of that. I never would. The sentiments are despicable, whoever spoke them. To put them in my mouth is a despicable lie.
Andre Jute
James
May 7, 2013, 9:59:09 PM5/7/13
to
--
JS
Dan O
May 7, 2013, 10:03:33 PM5/7/13
to
On May 7, 8:03 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
Really? Never any maneuver to avoid car-bike crashes? Aren't all of
your preventive approaches basically a series of maneuvers.
But you meant "emergency" maneuvers (and acknowledge at least one in
spite of being a paragon of knowledge and competency).
I would not have said "every", I would not have said "serious", and I
would not have said "emergency". (I think maybe you were being baited
with those terms.) I would have said, "Any bicyclist who rides very
much in ordinary traffic is bound to execute maneuvers immediately and
specifically in response to emergent hazards."
Account for reasonably different approaches based on objectives like
turtle spotting, snake handling, and greeting Boy Scouts vs. elapsed
transit time optimization, bike handling skill development, and thrill
seeking, and the incidence and immediacy of emergent (and emergency)
situations necessitating responsive manuevers can be expected to vary
~accordingly.
> On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 9:01:24 AM UTC-4, gpsman wrote:
> > On May 5, 11:49 am, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Everyone must make up his own mind. But I decided long ago that the
>
> > > health benefits of cycling outweigh the per hour/per trip risks.
>
> > "Safety" statistics are irrelevant to individual risk.
>
> Not true.
> > On May 5, 11:49 am, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Everyone must make up his own mind. But I decided long ago that the
>
> > > health benefits of cycling outweigh the per hour/per trip risks.
>
> > "Safety" statistics are irrelevant to individual risk.
>
>
> > Every "serious" cyclist executes emergency maneuvers to avoid being
>
> > crashed into by cagers, and expects to. Continued success is only a
>
> > matter of dumb luck.
>
> I almost never need any "maneuver" to avoid car-bike crashes. In 40 years of riding, I recall only one true emergency maneuver, a sudden right turn into an intersecting street to avoid an oncoming left-turning (U.S.) motorist. Riding more visibly (more into the lane) and more predictably seems to prevent almost all cager confusion and inattention.
> > Every "serious" cyclist executes emergency maneuvers to avoid being
>
> > crashed into by cagers, and expects to. Continued success is only a
>
> > matter of dumb luck.
>
>
Really? Never any maneuver to avoid car-bike crashes? Aren't all of
your preventive approaches basically a series of maneuvers.
But you meant "emergency" maneuvers (and acknowledge at least one in
spite of being a paragon of knowledge and competency).
I would not have said "every", I would not have said "serious", and I
would not have said "emergency". (I think maybe you were being baited
with those terms.) I would have said, "Any bicyclist who rides very
much in ordinary traffic is bound to execute maneuvers immediately and
specifically in response to emergent hazards."
Account for reasonably different approaches based on objectives like
turtle spotting, snake handling, and greeting Boy Scouts vs. elapsed
transit time optimization, bike handling skill development, and thrill
seeking, and the incidence and immediacy of emergent (and emergency)
situations necessitating responsive manuevers can be expected to vary
~accordingly.
Frank Krygowski
May 7, 2013, 11:08:11 PM5/7/13
to
On May 7, 10:03 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 7, 8:03 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 9:01:24 AM UTC-4, gpsman wrote:
> > > On May 5, 11:49 am, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Everyone must make up his own mind. But I decided long ago that the
>
> > > > health benefits of cycling outweigh the per hour/per trip risks.
>
> > > "Safety" statistics are irrelevant to individual risk.
>
> > Not true.
>
> > > Every "serious" cyclist executes emergency maneuvers to avoid being
>
> > > crashed into by cagers, and expects to. Continued success is only a
>
> > > matter of dumb luck.
>
> > I almost never need any "maneuver" to avoid car-bike crashes. In 40 years of riding, I recall only one true emergency maneuver, a sudden right turn into an intersecting street to avoid an oncoming left-turning (U.S.) motorist. Riding more visibly (more into the lane) and more predictably seems to prevent almost all cager confusion and inattention.
>
> Really? Never any maneuver to avoid car-bike crashes? Aren't all of
> your preventive approaches basically a series of maneuvers.
>
> But you meant "emergency" maneuvers (and acknowledge at least one in
> spite of being a paragon of knowledge and competency).
Yes, I meant "emergency maneuvers," which is what gpsman was talking
> On May 7, 8:03 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 9:01:24 AM UTC-4, gpsman wrote:
> > > On May 5, 11:49 am, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Everyone must make up his own mind. But I decided long ago that the
>
> > > > health benefits of cycling outweigh the per hour/per trip risks.
>
> > > "Safety" statistics are irrelevant to individual risk.
>
> > Not true.
>
> > > Every "serious" cyclist executes emergency maneuvers to avoid being
>
> > > crashed into by cagers, and expects to. Continued success is only a
>
> > > matter of dumb luck.
>
> > I almost never need any "maneuver" to avoid car-bike crashes. In 40 years of riding, I recall only one true emergency maneuver, a sudden right turn into an intersecting street to avoid an oncoming left-turning (U.S.) motorist. Riding more visibly (more into the lane) and more predictably seems to prevent almost all cager confusion and inattention.
>
> Really? Never any maneuver to avoid car-bike crashes? Aren't all of
> your preventive approaches basically a series of maneuvers.
>
> But you meant "emergency" maneuvers (and acknowledge at least one in
> spite of being a paragon of knowledge and competency).
about.
I'll remind you: The one emergency maneuver I acknowledged (a quick
right turn to avoid a left cross) happened in about 1977 or 1978,
before I learned to ride more toward lane center. It's one of the
things that taught me to stay away from the road's edge.
> I would not have said "every", I would not have said "serious", and I
> would not have said "emergency".
> (I think maybe you were being baited
> with those terms.) I would have said, "Any bicyclist who rides very
> much in ordinary traffic is bound to execute maneuvers immediately and
> specifically in response to emergent hazards."
tests his reflexes, in order to quickly avoid a crash, he's either not
paying attention to conditions, or he's riding far beyond his skill
level.
Riding a bike, even in traffic, does not need to be an extreme sport.
I've seen plenty of non-athletic, non-risk-taking men and women ride
with perfect safety and success. It's easy, once a few simple
principles are learned and internalized.
- Frank Krygowski
gpsman
May 7, 2013, 11:26:00 PM5/7/13
to
On May 7, 8:01 pm, John B. <johnbsloc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 7 May 2013 06:01:24 -0700 (PDT), gpsman
>
> <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Every "serious" cyclist executes emergency maneuvers to avoid being
> >crashed into by cagers, and expects to. Continued success is only a
> >matter of dumb luck.
>
> On Tue, 7 May 2013 06:01:24 -0700 (PDT), gpsman
>
> <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Every "serious" cyclist executes emergency maneuvers to avoid being
> >crashed into by cagers, and expects to. Continued success is only a
> >matter of dumb luck.
>
> If "continued success is only a matter of dumb luck" then it seems
> likely that anyone of even modicum intelligence would not ride a
> bicycle.
The road is where smart people go to exhibit their stupidity, when
> likely that anyone of even modicum intelligence would not ride a
> bicycle.
they aren't posting to Usenet.
-----
- gpsman
T0m $herman
May 7, 2013, 11:52:19 PM5/7/13
to
On 5/5/2013 10:11 PM, Dan O wrote:
> Safety is nothing more than a relative concept, and - to put it in a
> nutshell - is a simple matter of acceptable risk and due care.
^^^^^^^^
Why are you making this into a h*lm*t thread? ;)
--
T0m $herm@n
> Safety is nothing more than a relative concept, and - to put it in a
> nutshell - is a simple matter of acceptable risk and due care.
^^^^^^^^
Why are you making this into a h*lm*t thread? ;)
--
T0m $herm@n
T0m $herman
May 7, 2013, 11:55:32 PM5/7/13
to
On 5/5/2013 2:27 PM, raamman wrote:
> life itself is not safe, make the most out of it while you can
>
D A N G E R ! D A N G E R !
WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE !!!
--
T0m $herm@n
> life itself is not safe, make the most out of it while you can
>
D A N G E R ! D A N G E R !
WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE !!!
--
T0m $herm@n
T0m $herman
May 8, 2013, 12:01:30 AM5/8/13
to
On 5/7/2013 10:03 AM, frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 9:01:24 AM UTC-4, gpsman wrote:
>> On May 5, 11:49 am, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Everyone must make up his own mind. But I decided long ago that the
>>
>>> health benefits of cycling outweigh the per hour/per trip risks.
>>
>>
>>
>> "Safety" statistics are irrelevant to individual risk.
>
> Not true.
>
> On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 9:01:24 AM UTC-4, gpsman wrote:
>> On May 5, 11:49 am, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Everyone must make up his own mind. But I decided long ago that the
>>
>>> health benefits of cycling outweigh the per hour/per trip risks.
>>
>>
>>
>> "Safety" statistics are irrelevant to individual risk.
>
> Not true.
>
>> Every "serious" cyclist executes emergency maneuvers to avoid being
>>
>> crashed into by cagers, and expects to. Continued success is only a
>>
>> matter of dumb luck.
>
>>
>> crashed into by cagers, and expects to. Continued success is only a
>>
>> matter of dumb luck.
>
> I almost never need any "maneuver" to avoid car-bike crashes. In 40 years of riding, I recall only one true emergency maneuver, a sudden right turn into an intersecting street to avoid an oncoming left-turning (U.S.) motorist. Riding more visibly (more into the lane) and more predictably seems to prevent almost all cager confusion and inattention.
>
> - Frank Krygowski
>
>
Except for the cagers who see you and still pull out, since they do not
care that they are violating your right-of-way.
--
T0m $herm@n
Dan O
May 8, 2013, 12:02:15 AM5/8/13
to
On May 7, 8:08 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 7, 10:03 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 7, 8:03 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 9:01:24 AM UTC-4, gpsman wrote:
> > > > On May 5, 11:49 am, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Everyone must make up his own mind. But I decided long ago that the
>
> > > > > health benefits of cycling outweigh the per hour/per trip risks.
>
> > > > "Safety" statistics are irrelevant to individual risk.
>
> > > Not true.
>
> > > > Every "serious" cyclist executes emergency maneuvers to avoid being
>
> > > > crashed into by cagers, and expects to. Continued success is only a
>
> > > > matter of dumb luck.
>
> > > I almost never need any "maneuver" to avoid car-bike crashes. In 40 years of riding, I recall only one true emergency maneuver, a sudden right turn into an intersecting street to avoid an oncoming left-turning (U.S.) motorist. Riding more visibly (more into the lane) and more predictably seems to prevent almost all cager confusion and inattention.
>
> > Really? Never any maneuver to avoid car-bike crashes? Aren't all of
> > your preventive approaches basically a series of maneuvers.
>
> > But you meant "emergency" maneuvers (and acknowledge at least one in
> > spite of being a paragon of knowledge and competency).
>
> Yes, I meant "emergency maneuvers," which is what gpsman was talking
> about.
>
> I'll remind you: The one emergency maneuver I acknowledged (a quick
> right turn to avoid a left cross) happened in about 1977 or 1978,
> before I learned to ride more toward lane center. It's one of the
> things that taught me to stay away from the road's edge.
>
"Before"? Wow! (Something's not adding up for me geometrically,
> On May 7, 10:03 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 7, 8:03 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 9:01:24 AM UTC-4, gpsman wrote:
> > > > On May 5, 11:49 am, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Everyone must make up his own mind. But I decided long ago that the
>
> > > > > health benefits of cycling outweigh the per hour/per trip risks.
>
> > > > "Safety" statistics are irrelevant to individual risk.
>
> > > Not true.
>
> > > > Every "serious" cyclist executes emergency maneuvers to avoid being
>
> > > > crashed into by cagers, and expects to. Continued success is only a
>
> > > > matter of dumb luck.
>
> > > I almost never need any "maneuver" to avoid car-bike crashes. In 40 years of riding, I recall only one true emergency maneuver, a sudden right turn into an intersecting street to avoid an oncoming left-turning (U.S.) motorist. Riding more visibly (more into the lane) and more predictably seems to prevent almost all cager confusion and inattention.
>
> > Really? Never any maneuver to avoid car-bike crashes? Aren't all of
> > your preventive approaches basically a series of maneuvers.
>
> > But you meant "emergency" maneuvers (and acknowledge at least one in
> > spite of being a paragon of knowledge and competency).
>
> Yes, I meant "emergency maneuvers," which is what gpsman was talking
> about.
>
> I'll remind you: The one emergency maneuver I acknowledged (a quick
> right turn to avoid a left cross) happened in about 1977 or 1978,
> before I learned to ride more toward lane center. It's one of the
> things that taught me to stay away from the road's edge.
>
man.)
> > I would not have said "every", I would not have said "serious", and I
> > would not have said "emergency".
>
> On that we agree.
>
> > (I think maybe you were being baited
> > with those terms.) I would have said, "Any bicyclist who rides very
> > much in ordinary traffic is bound to execute maneuvers immediately and
> > specifically in response to emergent hazards."
>
> I think that if a person has to make a move suddenly enough that it
> tests his reflexes, in order to quickly avoid a crash, he's either not
> paying attention to conditions, or he's riding far beyond his skill
> level.
>
his *objectives* include living on the edge... :-)
> Riding a bike, even in traffic, does not need to be an extreme sport.
> I've seen plenty of non-athletic, non-risk-taking men and women ride
> with perfect safety and success. It's easy, once a few simple
> principles are learned and internalized.
fact is, I *do* do it a lot - I just *don't* do it a lot, too.)
BTW, I love the critters and kids and what not as much as anyone.
Brothers (like it or not ;-)
Dan O
May 8, 2013, 12:05:51 AM5/8/13
to
On May 7, 5:01 pm, John B. <johnbsloc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 7 May 2013 06:01:24 -0700 (PDT), gpsman
>
> <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> >On May 5, 11:49 am, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> Everyone must make up his own mind. But I decided long ago that the
> >> health benefits of cycling outweigh the per hour/per trip risks.
>
> >"Safety" statistics are irrelevant to individual risk.
>
> >Every "serious" cyclist executes emergency maneuvers to avoid being
> >crashed into by cagers, and expects to. Continued success is only a
> >matter of dumb luck.
>
> On Tue, 7 May 2013 06:01:24 -0700 (PDT), gpsman
>
> <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> >On May 5, 11:49 am, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> Everyone must make up his own mind. But I decided long ago that the
> >> health benefits of cycling outweigh the per hour/per trip risks.
>
> >"Safety" statistics are irrelevant to individual risk.
>
> >Every "serious" cyclist executes emergency maneuvers to avoid being
> >crashed into by cagers, and expects to. Continued success is only a
> >matter of dumb luck.
>
> If "continued success is only a matter of dumb luck" then it seems
> likely that anyone of even modicum intelligence would not ride a
> bicycle.
The numbers don't matter one whit. What matters are the conditions
> likely that anyone of even modicum intelligence would not ride a
> bicycle.
that result in those numbers. If some people need someone else to
count up and tabulate events to reveal the existence of those
conditions... well, maybe it's relevant to them.
T0m $herman
May 8, 2013, 12:41:37 AM5/8/13
to
On 5/7/2013 3:58 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
> Per Andre Jute:
>> I don't know any naked cyclists though, more's the pity.
>
> If you time your next visit to the USA right and touch base in Seattle
> on the right date....
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Naked_Bike_Ride_Seattle
>
I would only consider doing a nude [1] ride in a velomobile. ;)
> Per Andre Jute:
>> I don't know any naked cyclists though, more's the pity.
>
> If you time your next visit to the USA right and touch base in Seattle
> on the right date....
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Naked_Bike_Ride_Seattle
>
Riding an upright naked seems to be asking for blisters in uncomfortable
places. I have noted that all the nude rides I have seen mention of
tend to be rather short, i.e. 5 miles or less.
[1] I would still want cycling shoes or SPD sandals [2] - Dan O can keep
the barefoot riding to himself.
[2] Although with a trike or velomobile, putting a foot down at a stop
is of course not needed.
--
T0m $herm@n
T0m $herman
May 8, 2013, 12:46:09 AM5/8/13
to
while boating on the Wisconsin River.
[1] About a half-day round trip by bicycle northwest of A. Muzi's shop.
--
T0m $herm@n
James
May 8, 2013, 1:12:29 AM5/8/13
to
On 08/05/13 14:01, T0m $herman wrote:
> On 5/7/2013 10:03 AM, frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 9:01:24 AM UTC-4, gpsman wrote:
>>> On May 5, 11:49 am, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> Everyone must make up his own mind. But I decided long ago that the
>>>
>>>> health benefits of cycling outweigh the per hour/per trip risks.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Safety" statistics are irrelevant to individual risk.
>>
>> Not true.
>>
>>> Every "serious" cyclist executes emergency maneuvers to avoid being
>>>
>>> crashed into by cagers, and expects to. Continued success is only a
>>>
>>> matter of dumb luck.
>>
>> I almost never need any "maneuver" to avoid car-bike crashes. In 40
>> years of riding, I recall only one true emergency maneuver, a sudden
>> right turn into an intersecting street to avoid an oncoming
>> left-turning (U.S.) motorist. Riding more visibly (more into the lane)
>> and more predictably seems to prevent almost all cager confusion and
>> inattention.
>>
>>
> On 5/7/2013 10:03 AM, frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 9:01:24 AM UTC-4, gpsman wrote:
>>> On May 5, 11:49 am, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> Everyone must make up his own mind. But I decided long ago that the
>>>
>>>> health benefits of cycling outweigh the per hour/per trip risks.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Safety" statistics are irrelevant to individual risk.
>>
>> Not true.
>>
>>> Every "serious" cyclist executes emergency maneuvers to avoid being
>>>
>>> crashed into by cagers, and expects to. Continued success is only a
>>>
>>> matter of dumb luck.
>>
>> I almost never need any "maneuver" to avoid car-bike crashes. In 40
>> years of riding, I recall only one true emergency maneuver, a sudden
>> right turn into an intersecting street to avoid an oncoming
>> left-turning (U.S.) motorist. Riding more visibly (more into the lane)
>> and more predictably seems to prevent almost all cager confusion and
>> inattention.
>>
>>
> Except for the cagers who see you and still pull out, since they do not
> care that they are violating your right-of-way.
>
That doesn't happen to Frank. You need to be more competent.
> care that they are violating your right-of-way.
>
--
JS
John B.
May 8, 2013, 7:31:11 AM5/8/13
to
On Wed, 08 May 2013 11:59:09 +1000, James <james.e...@gmail.com>
Then you must have it,,,, Dumb Luck, that is :-)
--
Cheers,
John B.
--
Cheers,
John B.
John B.
May 8, 2013, 7:33:37 AM5/8/13
to
On Tue, 7 May 2013 20:26:00 -0700 (PDT), gpsman
--
Cheers,
John B.
<gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>On May 7, 8:01 pm, John B. <johnbsloc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 7 May 2013 06:01:24 -0700 (PDT), gpsman
>>
>> <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Every "serious" cyclist executes emergency maneuvers to avoid being
>> >crashed into by cagers, and expects to. Continued success is only a
>> >matter of dumb luck.
>>
>> If "continued success is only a matter of dumb luck" then it seems
>> likely that anyone of even modicum intelligence would not ride a
>> bicycle.
>
>The road is where smart people go to exhibit their stupidity, when
>they aren't posting to Usenet.
> -----
>
>- gpsman
You are not the Spastic Monkey in disguise, are you?
>On May 7, 8:01 pm, John B. <johnbsloc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 7 May 2013 06:01:24 -0700 (PDT), gpsman
>>
>> <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Every "serious" cyclist executes emergency maneuvers to avoid being
>> >crashed into by cagers, and expects to. Continued success is only a
>> >matter of dumb luck.
>>
>> If "continued success is only a matter of dumb luck" then it seems
>> likely that anyone of even modicum intelligence would not ride a
>> bicycle.
>
>The road is where smart people go to exhibit their stupidity, when
>they aren't posting to Usenet.
> -----
>
>- gpsman
--
Cheers,
John B.
gpsman
May 8, 2013, 8:17:15 AM5/8/13
to
On May 8, 7:33 am, John B. <johnbsloc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 7 May 2013 20:26:00 -0700 (PDT), gpsman
> <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> >On May 7, 8:01 pm, John B. <johnbsloc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 7 May 2013 06:01:24 -0700 (PDT), gpsman
>
> >> <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >Every "serious" cyclist executes emergency maneuvers to avoid being
> >> >crashed into by cagers, and expects to. Continued success is only a
> >> >matter of dumb luck.
>
> >> If "continued success is only a matter of dumb luck" then it seems
> >> likely that anyone of even modicum intelligence would not ride a
> >> bicycle.
>
> >The road is where smart people go to exhibit their stupidity, when
> >they aren't posting to Usenet.
>
> On Tue, 7 May 2013 20:26:00 -0700 (PDT), gpsman
> <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> >On May 7, 8:01 pm, John B. <johnbsloc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 7 May 2013 06:01:24 -0700 (PDT), gpsman
>
> >> <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >Every "serious" cyclist executes emergency maneuvers to avoid being
> >> >crashed into by cagers, and expects to. Continued success is only a
> >> >matter of dumb luck.
>
> >> If "continued success is only a matter of dumb luck" then it seems
> >> likely that anyone of even modicum intelligence would not ride a
> >> bicycle.
>
> >The road is where smart people go to exhibit their stupidity, when
> >they aren't posting to Usenet.
>
> You are not the Spastic Monkey in disguise, are you?
If you have nothing to offer in rebuttal, why not let your keyboard
rest?
-----
- gpsman
Duane
May 8, 2013, 8:25:21 AM5/8/13
to
On 5/7/2013 4:44 PM, Dan O wrote:
> On May 7, 11:56 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 12:46:16 PM UTC-4, gpsman wrote:
>>> On May 7, 11:03 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> "Nyuh uh" always makes a fascinating analysis.
>>
>> OK, let's discuss. You said "safety statistics are irrelevant to individual risk." Does that mean that it's OK to ride facing traffic, even though there's plenty of data showing that the practice more than triples your risk of a serious crash?
>>
>
> It depends.
>
>> If not, just what does that "irrelevant" statement mean?
>>
>
> "Winwood Reade is good upon the subject," said Holmes. "He remarks
> that, while the individual man is an insoluble puzzle, in the
> aggregate he becomes a mathematical certainty. You can, for example,
> never foretell what any one man will do, but you can say with
> precision what an average number will be up to. Individuals vary, but
> percentages remain constant. So says the statistician."
>
> <snip>
>
Similarly:
“The Three Theorems of Psychohistorical Quantitivity:
The population under scrutiny is oblivious to the existence of the
science of Psychohistory.
The time periods dealt with are in the region of 3 generations.
The population must be in the billions (±75 billions) for a statistical
probability to have a psychohistorical validity.”
― Isaac Asimov, Foundation
> On May 7, 11:56 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 12:46:16 PM UTC-4, gpsman wrote:
>>> On May 7, 11:03 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>> On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 9:01:24 AM UTC-4, gpsman wrote:
>>
>>>>> On May 5, 11:49 am, Andre Jute<fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Everyone must make up his own mind. But I decided long ago that the
>>
>>>>>> health benefits of cycling outweigh the per hour/per trip risks.
>>
>>>>> "Safety" statistics are irrelevant to individual risk.
>>
>>>> Not true.
>>>> On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 9:01:24 AM UTC-4, gpsman wrote:
>>
>>>>> On May 5, 11:49 am, Andre Jute<fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Everyone must make up his own mind. But I decided long ago that the
>>
>>>>>> health benefits of cycling outweigh the per hour/per trip risks.
>>
>>>>> "Safety" statistics are irrelevant to individual risk.
>>
>>
>>> "Nyuh uh" always makes a fascinating analysis.
>>
>> OK, let's discuss. You said "safety statistics are irrelevant to individual risk." Does that mean that it's OK to ride facing traffic, even though there's plenty of data showing that the practice more than triples your risk of a serious crash?
>>
>
> It depends.
>
>> If not, just what does that "irrelevant" statement mean?
>>
>
> "Winwood Reade is good upon the subject," said Holmes. "He remarks
> that, while the individual man is an insoluble puzzle, in the
> aggregate he becomes a mathematical certainty. You can, for example,
> never foretell what any one man will do, but you can say with
> precision what an average number will be up to. Individuals vary, but
> percentages remain constant. So says the statistician."
>
> <snip>
>
Similarly:
“The Three Theorems of Psychohistorical Quantitivity:
The population under scrutiny is oblivious to the existence of the
science of Psychohistory.
The time periods dealt with are in the region of 3 generations.
The population must be in the billions (±75 billions) for a statistical
probability to have a psychohistorical validity.”
― Isaac Asimov, Foundation
Duane
May 8, 2013, 8:25:49 AM5/8/13
to
On 5/7/2013 8:21 PM, James wrote:
>
Nor I.
> On 08/05/13 08:18, datakoll wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 4:46:48 PM UTC-4, Andre Jute wrote:
>>
>> this is our group not yours and we ask for civility at least a
>> tempering of what you consider 'humor'
>
> You include yourself in the group "our" and "we"? I don't.
>> On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 4:46:48 PM UTC-4, Andre Jute wrote:
>>
>> this is our group not yours and we ask for civility at least a
>> tempering of what you consider 'humor'
>
>
Nor I.
Duane
May 8, 2013, 8:28:17 AM5/8/13
to
Duane
May 8, 2013, 8:34:18 AM5/8/13
to
datakoll
May 8, 2013, 8:55:25 AM5/8/13
to
rain drives California hill billies crazy
(PeteCresswell)
May 8, 2013, 9:11:48 AM5/8/13
to
Per frkr...@gmail.com:
than anything real.
Somehow a little skin is a big deal on TV, but I look at pix like that
and realize exactly what you said... most people look more attractive
with clothes on.
--
Pete Cresswell
>From what I can tell, those events prove that most people look far better with their clothes on.
Makes me think that the sexualization of nudity is a fabrication rather
than anything real.
Somehow a little skin is a big deal on TV, but I look at pix like that
and realize exactly what you said... most people look more attractive
with clothes on.
--
Pete Cresswell
Jay Beattie
May 8, 2013, 10:05:26 AM5/8/13
to
On May 7, 8:08 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
considered traffic. I had to make "emergency" maneuvers probably two
or three times coming home from work last night to avoid pedestrians
-- who are about as predictable as squirrels and step off curbs
against lights while looking at their iPhones. This particular route
is a mixed bus, train, car and bicycle "mall" near Portland State,
where college students, the hope of tomorrow, demonstrates to me daily
that there is not much hope for tomorrow.
-- Jay Beattie.
Sir Ridesalot
May 8, 2013, 10:32:55 AM5/8/13
to
On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 10:05:26 AM UTC-4, Jay Beattie wrote:
> On May 7, 8:08 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 7, 10:03 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > On May 7, 8:03 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
Snipped
> On May 7, 8:08 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 7, 10:03 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > On May 7, 8:03 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Riding a bike, even in traffic, does not need to be an extreme sport.
>
> > I've seen plenty of non-athletic, non-risk-taking men and women ride
>
> > with perfect safety and success. It's easy, once a few simple
>
> > principles are learned and internalized.
>
>
>
> The answer is somewhat different if pedestrians and dogs are
>
> considered traffic. I had to make "emergency" maneuvers probably two
>
> or three times coming home from work last night to avoid pedestrians
>
> -- who are about as predictable as squirrels and step off curbs
>
> against lights while looking at their iPhones. This particular route
>
> is a mixed bus, train, car and bicycle "mall" near Portland State,
>
> where college students, the hope of tomorrow, demonstrates to me daily
>
> that there is not much hope for tomorrow.
>
>
>
> -- Jay Beattie.
I hear you Jay.
>
> > I've seen plenty of non-athletic, non-risk-taking men and women ride
>
> > with perfect safety and success. It's easy, once a few simple
>
> > principles are learned and internalized.
>
>
>
> The answer is somewhat different if pedestrians and dogs are
>
> considered traffic. I had to make "emergency" maneuvers probably two
>
> or three times coming home from work last night to avoid pedestrians
>
> -- who are about as predictable as squirrels and step off curbs
>
> against lights while looking at their iPhones. This particular route
>
> is a mixed bus, train, car and bicycle "mall" near Portland State,
>
> where college students, the hope of tomorrow, demonstrates to me daily
>
> that there is not much hope for tomorrow.
>
>
>
> -- Jay Beattie.
What's really hazardous to bicyclists is a pedestrian wearing ear buds with whatever cranked up loud, plus having a dog on a long leash or retractable leash and said dog is darting everywhere. The bicyclist can't tell where the dog is going to move to any instant and the pedestrian can't hear the bicyclist asking for the dog o be reeled in so that the bicyclist can pass in safety. Theres a 78 kilometres rail-trail that starts here in town and i avoid it like the plague on warm days and all summer due to these dog walkers obliviousness to any other users of the trail.
I tried using a whistle but if it does penetrate past thteir ear buds they usually look up instead of arounf them. Never could figure out why they look up.
Cheers
Andre Jute
May 8, 2013, 10:33:05 AM5/8/13
to
On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 3:05:26 PM UTC+1, Jay Beattie wrote:
> -... step off curbs
> -... step off curbs
>
> against lights while looking at their iPhones. This particular route
>
> is a mixed bus, train, car and bicycle "mall" near Portland State,
>
> where college students, the hope of tomorrow, demonstrates to me daily
>
> that there is not much hope for tomorrow.
>
> -- Jay Beattie.
!
> against lights while looking at their iPhones. This particular route
>
> is a mixed bus, train, car and bicycle "mall" near Portland State,
>
> where college students, the hope of tomorrow, demonstrates to me daily
>
> that there is not much hope for tomorrow.
>
> -- Jay Beattie.
Duane
May 8, 2013, 10:36:13 AM5/8/13
to
frkr...@gmail.com
May 8, 2013, 10:47:39 AM5/8/13
to
On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 12:01:30 AM UTC-4, T0m $herman wrote:
I did have two incidents when I was on my motorcycle. One was the very first day I had gotten the bike restored (or at least running) and on the road. A woman at a quiet intersection of side streets somehow didn't notice me.
The second was much worse. I was riding on a busy road. A car on my right filled with yahoo males stopped for a red light. The driver looked directly at me as I approached on my BMW, then purposely gunned it to violate his red light and make his left turn. That took some real emergency braking.
The motorcycle is scarier than a bicycle, by far.
- Frank Krygowski
> On 5/7/2013 10:03 AM, fk wrote:
>
> > I almost never need any "maneuver" to avoid car-bike crashes. In 40 years of riding, I recall only one true emergency maneuver, a sudden right turn into an intersecting street to avoid an oncoming left-turning (U.S.) motorist. Riding more visibly (more into the lane) and more predictably seems to prevent almost all cager confusion and inattention.
>
> >
>
>
> > I almost never need any "maneuver" to avoid car-bike crashes. In 40 years of riding, I recall only one true emergency maneuver, a sudden right turn into an intersecting street to avoid an oncoming left-turning (U.S.) motorist. Riding more visibly (more into the lane) and more predictably seems to prevent almost all cager confusion and inattention.
>
> >
>
> Except for the cagers who see you and still pull out, since they do not
>
> care that they are violating your right-of-way.
I've had that happen only a few times while riding bicycles, but never near enough that I had to do anything to avoid them, other than perhaps stop pedaling and lightly apply the brakes.
>
> care that they are violating your right-of-way.
I did have two incidents when I was on my motorcycle. One was the very first day I had gotten the bike restored (or at least running) and on the road. A woman at a quiet intersection of side streets somehow didn't notice me.
The second was much worse. I was riding on a busy road. A car on my right filled with yahoo males stopped for a red light. The driver looked directly at me as I approached on my BMW, then purposely gunned it to violate his red light and make his left turn. That took some real emergency braking.
The motorcycle is scarier than a bicycle, by far.
- Frank Krygowski
Andre Jute
May 8, 2013, 11:00:25 AM5/8/13
to
Andre Jute
Andre Jute
May 8, 2013, 11:09:32 AM5/8/13
to
Having the numbers in accessible form, and a reliable analysis, serves other purposes too, but stopping the politicized wing of the cyclists lying to us is more than enough gain to justify the work.
I fail to see that the study of the life and death of cyclists needs any justification.
Andre Jute
frkr...@gmail.com
May 8, 2013, 11:14:35 AM5/8/13
to
On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 10:05:26 AM UTC-4, Jay Beattie wrote:
One of our club's regular evening rides cuts through a couple miles of multi-use trail. This is a former roadway, probably 16 feet wide, very smooth and striped down the middle. Lots of room for everybody, you'd think. But it (and one other bike lane on the route) is always the trickiest section of the ride. The walkers, joggers, skaters, dogs, kids on scooters, etc. may do absolutely anything at any moment. Yet there are people who will ride their bike nowhere else.
By contrast, I've got photos (mostly from Europe) showing things like a middle-aged man in a business suit with umbrella hoisted, middle-aged housewives with groceries in baskets, teenaged kids, retired guys, pretty ladies in flowery dresses, and at least one grandmother taking flowers to a cemetery, all riding "in traffic" with no fear and no apparent problems. It's not an extreme sport.
- Frank Krygowski
> On May 7, 8:08 pm, fk wrote:
>
>
>
> > Riding a bike, even in traffic, does not need to be an extreme sport.
>
> > I've seen plenty of non-athletic, non-risk-taking men and women ride
>
> > with perfect safety and success. It's easy, once a few simple
>
> > principles are learned and internalized.
>
>
>
> The answer is somewhat different if pedestrians and dogs are
>
> considered traffic. I had to make "emergency" maneuvers probably two
>
> or three times coming home from work last night to avoid pedestrians
>
> -- who are about as predictable as squirrels and step off curbs
>
> against lights while looking at their iPhones. This particular route
>
> is a mixed bus, train, car and bicycle "mall" near Portland State,
>
> where college students, the hope of tomorrow, demonstrates to me daily
>
> that there is not much hope for tomorrow.
I agree that such chaos makes it much harder to avoid crashes. Yet I think almost all Americans wouldn't think of such conditions as "traffic." They'd define "riding in traffic" as riding where there are (only) motor vehicles. And despite the much more predictable and manageable situations that exist among motor vehicles - and despite the data that shows the relative safety of the road - most Americans think their safer riding among chaotic pedestrians.
>
>
>
> > Riding a bike, even in traffic, does not need to be an extreme sport.
>
> > I've seen plenty of non-athletic, non-risk-taking men and women ride
>
> > with perfect safety and success. It's easy, once a few simple
>
> > principles are learned and internalized.
>
>
>
> The answer is somewhat different if pedestrians and dogs are
>
> considered traffic. I had to make "emergency" maneuvers probably two
>
> or three times coming home from work last night to avoid pedestrians
>
> -- who are about as predictable as squirrels and step off curbs
>
> against lights while looking at their iPhones. This particular route
>
> is a mixed bus, train, car and bicycle "mall" near Portland State,
>
> where college students, the hope of tomorrow, demonstrates to me daily
>
> that there is not much hope for tomorrow.
One of our club's regular evening rides cuts through a couple miles of multi-use trail. This is a former roadway, probably 16 feet wide, very smooth and striped down the middle. Lots of room for everybody, you'd think. But it (and one other bike lane on the route) is always the trickiest section of the ride. The walkers, joggers, skaters, dogs, kids on scooters, etc. may do absolutely anything at any moment. Yet there are people who will ride their bike nowhere else.
By contrast, I've got photos (mostly from Europe) showing things like a middle-aged man in a business suit with umbrella hoisted, middle-aged housewives with groceries in baskets, teenaged kids, retired guys, pretty ladies in flowery dresses, and at least one grandmother taking flowers to a cemetery, all riding "in traffic" with no fear and no apparent problems. It's not an extreme sport.
- Frank Krygowski
Andre Jute
May 8, 2013, 11:18:44 AM5/8/13
to
>
> JS
Thank you, James.
-- Andre Jute
Andre Jute
May 8, 2013, 11:20:27 AM5/8/13
to
-- Andre Jute
frkr...@gmail.com
May 8, 2013, 11:49:17 AM5/8/13
to
On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 11:09:32 AM UTC-4, Andre Jute wrote:
>
> At the very least having my incontestable analysis to hand stops Frank Krygowski lying to you about the numbers and what they mean.
>
> Having the numbers in accessible form, and a reliable analysis, serves other purposes too, but stopping the politicized wing of the cyclists lying to us is more than enough gain to justify the work.
>
For more numbers in an accessible form, see
>
> At the very least having my incontestable analysis to hand stops Frank Krygowski lying to you about the numbers and what they mean.
>
> Having the numbers in accessible form, and a reliable analysis, serves other purposes too, but stopping the politicized wing of the cyclists lying to us is more than enough gain to justify the work.
>
www.ohiobike.org/misc/CyclingIsSafeTLK.pdf
- Frank Krygowski
Andre Jute
May 8, 2013, 12:51:08 PM5/8/13
to
On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 4:49:17 PM UTC+1, frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 11:09:32 AM UTC-4, Andre Jute wrote:
>
> > At the very least having my incontestable analysis to hand stops Frank Krygowski lying to you about the numbers and what they mean.
>
> > Having the numbers in accessible form, and a reliable analysis, serves other purposes too, but stopping the politicized wing of the cyclists lying to us is more than enough gain to justify the work.
Thus far the post by Andre Jute. Now Frank Krygowski tries to cast the trustful glow of an incontestable paper by me over a meretricious one by -- no, let me not spoil the surprise...
> On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 11:09:32 AM UTC-4, Andre Jute wrote:
>
> > At the very least having my incontestable analysis to hand stops Frank Krygowski lying to you about the numbers and what they mean.
>
> > Having the numbers in accessible form, and a reliable analysis, serves other purposes too, but stopping the politicized wing of the cyclists lying to us is more than enough gain to justify the work.
> For more numbers in an accessible form, see
>
> www.ohiobike.org/misc/CyclingIsSafeTLK.pdf
>
> - Frank Krygowski
Q: What sort of a document, ostensibly intended to inform the public, cannot be copied and commented on?
A: One whose creator knows it contains lies, who intends to lie and misinform, who is utterly, permanently unreliable, in fact the typical, characteristic document from Frank Krygowski.
Andre Jute
Statistics are, unfortunately, neutral between Good and Evil. -- Andre Jute, speech, Helsinki, 1978
gpsman
May 8, 2013, 1:02:29 PM5/8/13
to
On May 8, 12:51 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I'd demonstrate one of Krygowski's lies, say the one at the top of page 3, to make the point, but Krygowski, knowing he would be called on the lies, has protected the document so that the only way to copy it is tediously to retype a bunch of lying numbers.
Wrong.
>
> I'd demonstrate one of Krygowski's lies, say the one at the top of page 3, to make the point, but Krygowski, knowing he would be called on the lies, has protected the document so that the only way to copy it is tediously to retype a bunch of lying numbers.
Page 1
Bicycling is safe!
Laws, policies, roadway designs and facility designs should be
informed by this important principle:
Despite claims to the contrary, ordinary bicycling is already a safe
and beneficial activity. Unusual
measures are not required to make cycling safe. Therefore, bicycling
for transportation and
recreation should be promoted, not discouraged or restricted.
Research studies and data clearly show that, in the current
environment, bicycling’s benefits greatly
outweigh its tiny risks. We know of no studies that contradict this
fact. To cite a selection of such data:
20:1 benefit: Mayer Hillman, “Cycling and the Promotion of Health,”
Policy Studies, Summer 1993, Vol.
14 (2) states that the years of life gained through cycling exceeds
the years of life lost through cycling by
“around 20 to one.” This includes benefits to non-cyclists from
reduced road and pollution hazards.
7:1 benefit: Jeroen J. de Hartog, “Do the Health Benefits of Cycling
Outweigh the Risks?”,
Environmental Health Perspectives, 118(8), Aug. 2010 found a benefit
to risk ratio of seven to one for just
the cyclists themselves in Britain, and nine to one for cyclists in
Holland.
77:1 benefit: David Rojas-Rueda, “The health risks and benefits of
cycling in urban environments
compared with car use”, British Medical Journal 2011: 343: d4512 found
77 years of life gained to each
one lost, for those who used Barcelona’s bike share system instead of
a car.
18:1 benefit: Ari Rabl, “Benefits of shift from car to active
transport”, Transport Policy 19 (2012)
121-131. Cycling was found to confer an average of 1310 Euros per year
due to health gains, versus only
72 Euros detriments due to pollution exposure and crash risk. Benefits
exceeded risks by 18 to one.
Note that those studies evaluated bicycling in ordinary urban
environments. Only the Holland figure
involved an unusual number of special bike facilities.
Contrary to common belief, cycling is safer than many other
activities.
Relative safety or danger can be computed in various ways. Tables
below compare bicycling with
common hazards or other common activities, and demonstrate that
cycling is quite safe.
Estimated U.S. fatalities per year: [Numbers are approximate;
bicyclist data from NHTSA]
Heart disease 700,000 deaths per year
Cancer 550,000
Stroke 160,000
Chronic respiratory diseases 123,000
Accidents 100,000
Diabetes 70,000
Page 2
Influenza & pneumonia 60,000
Riding in motor vehicles 40,000
Alzheimer’s 40,000
Falls 16,000
Poisoning 14,000
Suffocation 5,500
Pedestrians 4,800
Motorcycling 3,500
Drowning 3,000
Fires 2,600
Bicycling only 730! (the average from 1997 to 2007)
Falling out of bed 600
In other words, there are roughly 1000 heart disease deaths for every
bicycling death. Sedentary
lifestyles and increasing obesity are poised to put more pressure on
the American health care
system, through the top four causes of death. But bicycling can be
promoted as a very effective
method of reducing heart disease and other major ills.
Risk of fatality per hour participation: Failure Analysis Associates
(now Exponent Corp.)
evaluated fatalities per million hours exposure for a wide variety of
activities and situations.
(Exponent is the U.S.’s largest risk consultation firm, serving the
insurance industry.) In Design
News magazine, October 4, 1993, their proprietary analysis procedures
gave the following results:
Activity Fatalities per million hrs participation
Skydiving 128.71
General Aviation 15.58
On-road Motorcycling 8.80
Scuba Diving 1.98
Living (all causes of death) 1.53
Swimming 1.07
Snowmobiling 0.88
Passenger cars 0.47
Water skiing 0.28
Bicycling 0.26
Flying (domestic airlines) 0.15
Hunting 0.08
According to this data, bicycling is roughly four times as safe as
swimming, per hour exposure.
Yet bicycling is frequently saddled with warnings of danger, while
swimming enjoys an image of
safe family fun!
Page 3
Injuries per year:
In most cases, “injuries” quoted in statistics refer to presentations
to hospital emergency rooms.
Some selected sources of ER visits, and typical counts [source:
Statistical Abstract of the U.S.,
2003 and National Safety Council Accident Facts, 1997]
Stairs or steps 1,050,000
Floors 1,030,000
Basketball 690,000
Bicycles 590,000
Beds 466,000
Doors 350,000
Often, the number of injuries due to bicycling is presented as being
very large, and evidence of
great danger. But in a country the size of the U.S., all numbers are
large. If bicycling causes fewer
injuries than beds plus doors, should it be treated as excessively
dangerous? Furthermore, data
show that the great majority of bicyclist injuries receiving ER
treatment are minor, with the most
common injury being abrasions or “road rash.”
Injuries per month:
Powell et. al., “Injury Rates from Walking, Gardening, Weightlifting,
Outdoor Bicycling and
Aerobics”, Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 1998, Vol. 30 pp.
1246-9 polled over 5000
people who had chosen at least one of those activities for exercise.
One question was whether the
participant had incurred an injury during the previous month. The
results:
Weightlifting: 2.4% of participants injured
Gardening or yard work: 1.6%
Aerobic Dance: 1.4%
Walking for exercise: 1.4%
Outdoor bicycling: 0.9%
Yes, bicycling caused fewer injuries per participant than walking or
gardening!
Page 4
Sports Injuries per Participant:
By their nature, sports involve strenuous use of the body, pushing
oneself to excel. But bicycling
is much more than a sport; it is useful for gentle recreation plus
transportation, and only a tiny
percentage of bicyclists ever compete in races; yet bicycling
sometimes appears in tables of sports
causing injuries. Due to bicycling’s huge recreation popularity, its
injury numbers appear large.
But comparison on a per-participant basis tells another tale.
The 1997 edition of National Safety Council’s Accident Facts counts
sports injuries, plus number
of participants for 1995. From that, we can compute the injuries per
million participants:
Sport Participants Injuries Injuries per million participants
Basketball 30,100,000 692,396 23,000
Football 20,400,000 389,463 19,091
Soccer 12,000,000 156,960 13,080
Bicycling 72,500,000* 586,808 8,094*
Ice skating 7,100,000 37,532 5,786
Roller skating 37,500,000 175,295 4,674
Volleyball 18,000,000 86,551 4,808
*In assembling the above data, “participants” were defined as those
who had engaged in the
activity more than once per year, except for bicycling, which for
unspecified reasons required
participating at least six times per year! Clearly, if counted
equally, bicycling’s participant count
would be much higher and injuries per participant correspondingly
lower.
Lifetime odds of death:
How likely is it that an American will die while riding a bicycle?
Extremely unlikely! The
National Safety Council (http://nsc.org) has tabulated lifetime odds
of death from over 125 specific
activities or causes of death. Odds are expressed as “one chance out
of xxx” with higher numbers
representing greater safety. Here are some selected results:
Poisoning 139
Falls 184
Car occupant 272
Pedestrian 623
Motorcyclist 802
Drowning 1073
Fires in buildings 1529
Pedalcyclist 4147
Note that bicycling, with only 1 in 4147 chance of causing death, has
the best odds listed. And the
National Safety Council also shows that an American has a 1 in 7
chance of dying from heart
disease, which regular bicycling can help prevent!
Page 5
Brain injuries:
Since the marketing of bike helmets began in the 1970s, bicycling has
been portrayed as a great risk
for serious brain injury. However, dispassionate examination of data
shows this portrayal is false.
For example, as shown below, bicycling causes fewer than 1% of U.S.
brain injury fatalities.
The Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, in Victor G. Coronado
et. al., “Surveillance for
Traumatic Brain Injury Related Deaths, United States, 1997-2007”
Surveillance Summaries May
6, 2011 / 60(SS05); 1-32
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6005a1.htm?s_cid=ss6005a1_w
shows, in table 10, that for 1997-2007 there were an average of just
325 bicyclist traumatic brain
injury (TBI) fatalities per year. The total annual TBI fatalities from
all causes averaged 53014.
Activity Avg. TBI Fatalities/yr Percent of total
Motorists 7955 15%
Pedestrians 1825 3.4%
Motorcyclists 1361 2.6%
Bicyclists 325 only 0.6%
Also note from the above data that only 44.5% of cyclist fatalities
(325/730) were due to head
injuries. The occasional claim that 75% of fatally injured cyclists
die of head injuries is false.
Riding in traffic:
Is riding in traffic, as opposed to bike trails, dangerous? Moritz,
“Adult Bicyclists in the United
States... 1996”, Transportation Research Record 1636, found 15,150
miles ridden between
crashes on major roads without bike facilities.
Hoffman, “Bicycle Commuter Injury Prevention”, Journal of Trauma, Vol.
69, no.5, Nov. 2010
studied commuters in Portland, OR and found 6667 miles ridden between
even the smallest
injuries, and 25,600 miles ridden between any injury receiving any
medical attention at all,
even the briefest examination.
Aultman-Hall, “Toronto bicycle commuter safety rates”, Accident
Analysis & Prevention, 1999
Nov;31(6):675-86, found 77,600 miles ridden between injuries requiring
any medical
attention.
Kaplan, Jerrold, “Characteristics of the Regular Adult Bicycle User,”
1973, surveyed over 4000
adult members of a national cycling organization, the largest study of
its type. These cyclists
averaged 2,400 miles of riding per year; yet injuries of any kind were
rare, and serious injuries
much more rare. Riders sought medical treatment for injury only once
in 13,800 miles, or
approximately once in 14 years of riding. Very serious injuries (those
requiring extended
medical treatment) averaged once every 132,000 miles, or once in 57
years.
Page 6
Pedestrians vs. Bicyclists:
Data from several sources has shown that on average, bicycling is at
least as safe as walking! For
example, John Pucher of Rutgers University has shown that American
cyclists suffer only 109
fatalities per billion kilometers of riding, compared to 362
fatalities per billion kilometers for
pedestrian travel. Thus, cycling is over three times safer, per mile,
than walking. A later paper
by Pucher puts cycling’s estimate even better, at just 58 fatalities
per billion kilometers. That
means 10.7 million miles are ridden for each bike fatality. See
Pucher, J. “Making Walking&
Cycling Safer: Lessons from Europe” Transportation Quarterly, Vol. 54,
No. 3, summer 2000, and
Pucher, J. “Making Cycling Irresistible” Transport Reviews, Vol. 28,
2008
As shown above, there is copious data showing that Bicycling Is Safe.
There is no need for
extreme measures, segregated facilities, garish protective equipment
or super-human riding skills
to make it sufficiently safe. It is already safe when compared with
other common activities, even
as it is done today.
Could bicycling be made even safer? Yes - but again, the path to
increased safety is not
“innovative” facilities that violate logical traffic patterns. Studies
of bike crashes have shown that
approximately 50% are simple falls, almost all of which are minor.
Only 17% of crashes (or 26%
of serious crashes) involve automobiles, but approximately 90% of
cycling fatalities involve
crashes with cars.
But in roughly half of car-bike crashes, it is the bicyclist who is at
fault, often grossly at fault.
Riding under the influence of alcohol, riding facing traffic, riding
on sidewalks (a dangerous
practice), riding in the dark without lights, riding out from
driveways or stop signs in front of cars,
are all significant contributions to serious bike crashes. Bicyclists
who obey fundamental traffic
laws are roughly twice as safe as “average” cyclists.
Finally, there is more to be learned. Once a cyclist attains the
knowledge to obey the laws,
techniques known as Vehicular Cycling add even more safety. These
include the knowledge and
skill to avoid inviting close passes, by riding centered in narrow
lanes; to properly merge into
appropriate lanes at intersections; to avoid doors of parked cars that
could potentially open; and in
general, to ride in confidence, using a cyclist’s legal right to the
road.
In summary, bicycling should not be portrayed as dangerous. Under
current policies and laws,
ordinary bicycling on ordinary roads in America is not only safe, but
clearly beneficial. Bicycling’s
benefits greatly exceed its risks. Future policies and laws regarding
bicycling should be
informed by that fact, and by the realization that society is thus
unlikely to benefit from restrictions
placed on cycling.
- Frank Krygowski April 3, 2012
> That by itself proves that the document not only contains lies, but that Krygowski knows they are lies, and is trying to avoid discussion of his lies.
-----
- gpsman
Joe Riel
May 8, 2013, 2:04:30 PM5/8/13
to
Here's the top of p. 3:
Injuries per year:
In most cases, "injuries" quoted in statistics refer to presentations to hospital emergency rooms.
Some selected sources of ER visits, and typical counts [source: Statistical Abstract of the U.S.,
2003 and National Safety Council Accident Facts, 1997]
Stairs or steps 1,050,000
Floors 1,030,000
Basketball 690,000
Bicycles 590,000
Beds 466,000
Doors 350,000
Joe Riel
Andre Jute
May 8, 2013, 2:18:04 PM5/8/13
to
datakoll
May 8, 2013, 2:33:21 PM5/8/13
to
sure we can do that, the porno is endless
and have a stats readout by 8PM
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1152&bih=635&q=MODEL+IN+TURTLE+NECK+SWEATER&oq=MODEL+IN+TURTLE+NECK+SWEATER&gs_l=img.3...1212.11273.0.12409.44.22.0.16.16.3.544.2936.8j10j1j5-1.20.0...0.0...1ac.1.12.img.6dbgLurV6bs#hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=NUDE+MODEL++IN+SWEATER&oq=NUDE+MODEL++IN+SWEATER&gs_l=img.12...6853.13673.0.17758.9.9.0.0.0.0.244.1475.1j5j3.9.0...0.0...1c.1.12.img.10uCbM5xpmo&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.46226182,d.eWU&fp=bdfb50b01ad88694&biw=1152&bih=635
and have a stats readout by 8PM
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1152&bih=635&q=MODEL+IN+TURTLE+NECK+SWEATER&oq=MODEL+IN+TURTLE+NECK+SWEATER&gs_l=img.3...1212.11273.0.12409.44.22.0.16.16.3.544.2936.8j10j1j5-1.20.0...0.0...1ac.1.12.img.6dbgLurV6bs#hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=NUDE+MODEL++IN+SWEATER&oq=NUDE+MODEL++IN+SWEATER&gs_l=img.12...6853.13673.0.17758.9.9.0.0.0.0.244.1475.1j5j3.9.0...0.0...1c.1.12.img.10uCbM5xpmo&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.46226182,d.eWU&fp=bdfb50b01ad88694&biw=1152&bih=635
Andre Jute
May 8, 2013, 2:34:21 PM5/8/13
to
> For more numbers in an accessible form, see
>
> www.ohiobike.org/misc/CyclingIsSafeTLK.pdf
>
>
>
> - Frank Krygowski
Courtesy of JoeRiel and gpsman, I can now expose a sample of the lies Krygoswksi tells in this document he refers us to, which most of us wouldn't have read if we knew it was by Krygowski, whose reputation for veracity is pisspoor.
>
> www.ohiobike.org/misc/CyclingIsSafeTLK.pdf
>
>
>
> - Frank Krygowski
Text from Krygowski:
*****
Page 3
Injuries per year:
In most cases, “injuries” quoted in statistics refer to presentations
to hospital emergency rooms.
Some selected sources of ER visits, and typical counts [source:
Statistical Abstract of the U.S.,
2003 and National Safety Council Accident Facts, 1997]
Stairs or steps 1,050,000
Floors 1,030,000
Basketball 690,000
Bicycles 590,000
Beds 466,000
Doors 350,000
In most cases, “injuries” quoted in statistics refer to presentations
to hospital emergency rooms.
Some selected sources of ER visits, and typical counts [source:
Statistical Abstract of the U.S.,
2003 and National Safety Council Accident Facts, 1997]
Stairs or steps 1,050,000
Floors 1,030,000
Basketball 690,000
Bicycles 590,000
Beds 466,000
Doors 350,000
Often, the number of injuries due to bicycling is presented as being
very large, and evidence of
great danger. But in a country the size of the U.S., all numbers are
large. If bicycling causes fewer
injuries than beds plus doors, should it be treated as excessively
dangerous? Furthermore, data
show that the great majority of bicyclist injuries receiving ER
treatment are minor, with the most
common injury being abrasions or “road rash.”
*****
very large, and evidence of
great danger. But in a country the size of the U.S., all numbers are
large. If bicycling causes fewer
injuries than beds plus doors, should it be treated as excessively
dangerous? Furthermore, data
show that the great majority of bicyclist injuries receiving ER
treatment are minor, with the most
common injury being abrasions or “road rash.”
Really? This analysis is so stupid, it defies common sense. In the United States there were at the time of this count of ER visits over 300m people. All of them needed beds to sleep on and walked daily through doors. Very few of them are cyclists, even fewer are daily cyclists. But Krygowski compares accidents by beds and doors to ALL of 300m to accidents to the FEW cyclists. This is a grotesque example of apples and oranges forced into the same basket in order to mislead. Statistically, this is a gross lie: "If bicycling causes fewer injuries than beds plus doors, should it be treated as excessively dangerous?" The actual answer is, "We don't know, because the data has been so grotesquely mishandled, it is meaningless."
Krygowski's article is riddled with the same sort of spurious unproven allegations masquerading as statistics. To a cycling statistician, Krygowski and all his type of polticized cyclist are an embarrassment.
Andre Jute
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
gpsman
May 8, 2013, 4:26:08 PM5/8/13
to
On May 8, 2:34 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> If bicycling causes fewer
> injuries than beds plus doors, should it be treated as excessively
> dangerous? Furthermore, data
> show that the great majority of bicyclist injuries receiving ER
> treatment are minor, with the most
> common injury being abrasions or “road rash.”
> *****
>
> Really? This analysis is so stupid, it defies common sense.
It's idiotic. I think we can safely assume those injured hurt
> If bicycling causes fewer
> injuries than beds plus doors, should it be treated as excessively
> dangerous? Furthermore, data
> show that the great majority of bicyclist injuries receiving ER
> treatment are minor, with the most
> common injury being abrasions or “road rash.”
> *****
>
> Really? This analysis is so stupid, it defies common sense.
themselves, by tripping and/or walking into doors (or so reporting
domestic abuse). If anything those statistics suggest cycling is
dangerous because people are so grossly fallible.
You don't need any statistics to know cycling in traffic is dangerous,
operating a 4-wheeler in traffic is dangerous.
Motorists regularly run straight into the back of school buses with
their lights going, and cop cars with their lights going, and turn L
right in front of oncoming traffic, and manage to get hit by trains.
Visual perception is unreliable. Central and peripheral vision narrow
and blur as velocity increases. People have no fucking idea what-all
they miss on the road, because they missed it.
-----
- gpsman
roberth...@yahoo.com
May 8, 2013, 7:54:20 PM5/8/13
to
On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 8:47:39 AM UTC-6, frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
> I did have two incidents when I was on my motorcycle. One was the very first day I had gotten the bike restored (or at least running) and on the road. A woman at a quiet intersection of side streets somehow didn't notice me.
...
> I did have two incidents when I was on my motorcycle. One was the very first day I had gotten the bike restored (or at least running) and on the road. A woman at a quiet intersection of side streets somehow didn't notice me.
> The motorcycle is scarier than a bicycle, by far.
And also much larger, noisier, and easier to notice than a bicycle, presumably.
Do you chalk up her failure to notice you and your motorcycle on your lane position as you did with your bicycling incidents?
AMuzi
May 8, 2013, 8:24:45 PM5/8/13
to
On 5/8/2013 2:31 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
> "T0m $herman" <twsherman@REMOVE_THISsouthslope.net> considered Tue, 07
> May 2013 22:55:32 -0500 the perfect time to write:
>
>> On 5/5/2013 2:27 PM, raamman wrote:
>>> life itself is not safe, make the most out of it while you can
>>>
>> D A N G E R ! D A N G E R !
>>
>> WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE !!!
>
> Not as long as they can get taxes out of us :)
>
Perhaps the State will find a way:
http://www.parisguardian.com/index.php/sid/214371542/scat/fab36d240e1883d4
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
> "T0m $herman" <twsherman@REMOVE_THISsouthslope.net> considered Tue, 07
> May 2013 22:55:32 -0500 the perfect time to write:
>
>> On 5/5/2013 2:27 PM, raamman wrote:
>>> life itself is not safe, make the most out of it while you can
>>>
>> D A N G E R ! D A N G E R !
>>
>> WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE !!!
>
> Not as long as they can get taxes out of us :)
>
Perhaps the State will find a way:
http://www.parisguardian.com/index.php/sid/214371542/scat/fab36d240e1883d4
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Dan O
May 8, 2013, 8:48:03 PM5/8/13
to
On May 8, 11:04 am, Joe Riel <j...@san.rr.com> wrote:
I could ride more like Frank - maybe *just* like Frank. Maybe he
doesn't believe it, but I *think* ~like him - understanding how
traffic is supposed ot work, understanding how people "adapt* that to
their particular circumstances, making all kinds of predictions based
on observation and time of day and local knowledge and... on and on
and on.
But getting back to *riding* like Frank, *that's* where our intents
and purposes diverge. Sure, being "safe" is prominent in my
objectives (primary, even), but "safe" is a relative concept based on
_acceptable risk_; and what is acceptable is entirely up to the
individual. That's where we differ.
*Something* is going to get you - old age, cancer, any number of other
things. So what the hell. Especially knowign that bicycling really
is very safe, why not juice it up.
So now an example. This example covers the scofflaw and the daredevil
issues in one:
Just before I get home, instead of sticking to the road I veer off
into the high school back parking lot. Through the parking lot and
turn left onto the (dead) end of main street, which crosses the road I
was on before. Here I approach the middle stop sign of a three-way
stop at the four-way intersection. Oncoming traffic is not required
to stop, and (except for school in and out times) nearly all of it is
expected to either turn left or right (about ~equally distributed).
Both sides of the cross road (main arteries into town) also have stop
signs.
I generally blow the hell out of this stop, but if any cars are
present, I may instead turn hard right just *before* the stop sign and
take the wide gravel shoulder of the side road. I can get away with
this no matter what anybody else is doing (unless they're driving off
the road onto the gravel shoulder, which just doesn't make any sense
at all... but is still a ~considered, though remote, possibility).
It's especially cool if I get a little squirrely when I hit the
gravel. Man, if I did this in the city, where people aren't so
melllow, they'd flip their lids. You just know almost every one
thinks a little bouncy sliding in the gravel means I damn near
crashed, when in fact it's ~totally under control. Yee-fucking-
haw! :-)
There, I got bike handling skills - developed and practiced only by
*doing* this kind of stuff - in there, too.
You know, I'm not even sure it's illegal. Probably freaks the hell
out of people (sorry, can't be helped), though, who just *assume* I
must be breaking every law in the book.
doesn't believe it, but I *think* ~like him - understanding how
traffic is supposed ot work, understanding how people "adapt* that to
their particular circumstances, making all kinds of predictions based
on observation and time of day and local knowledge and... on and on
and on.
But getting back to *riding* like Frank, *that's* where our intents
and purposes diverge. Sure, being "safe" is prominent in my
objectives (primary, even), but "safe" is a relative concept based on
_acceptable risk_; and what is acceptable is entirely up to the
individual. That's where we differ.
*Something* is going to get you - old age, cancer, any number of other
things. So what the hell. Especially knowign that bicycling really
is very safe, why not juice it up.
So now an example. This example covers the scofflaw and the daredevil
issues in one:
Just before I get home, instead of sticking to the road I veer off
into the high school back parking lot. Through the parking lot and
turn left onto the (dead) end of main street, which crosses the road I
was on before. Here I approach the middle stop sign of a three-way
stop at the four-way intersection. Oncoming traffic is not required
to stop, and (except for school in and out times) nearly all of it is
expected to either turn left or right (about ~equally distributed).
Both sides of the cross road (main arteries into town) also have stop
signs.
I generally blow the hell out of this stop, but if any cars are
present, I may instead turn hard right just *before* the stop sign and
take the wide gravel shoulder of the side road. I can get away with
this no matter what anybody else is doing (unless they're driving off
the road onto the gravel shoulder, which just doesn't make any sense
at all... but is still a ~considered, though remote, possibility).
It's especially cool if I get a little squirrely when I hit the
gravel. Man, if I did this in the city, where people aren't so
melllow, they'd flip their lids. You just know almost every one
thinks a little bouncy sliding in the gravel means I damn near
crashed, when in fact it's ~totally under control. Yee-fucking-
haw! :-)
There, I got bike handling skills - developed and practiced only by
*doing* this kind of stuff - in there, too.
You know, I'm not even sure it's illegal. Probably freaks the hell
out of people (sorry, can't be helped), though, who just *assume* I
must be breaking every law in the book.
Dan O
May 8, 2013, 8:49:40 PM5/8/13
to
On May 8, 11:18 am, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 7:04:30 PM UTC+1, JoeRiel wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 7:04:30 PM UTC+1, JoeRiel wrote:
Ralph Barone
May 8, 2013, 8:58:00 PM5/8/13
to
<frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 4:58:57 PM UTC-4, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
>> Per Andre Jute:
>>
>>> I don't know any naked cyclists though, more's the pity.
>>
>>
>>
>> If you time your next visit to the USA right and touch base in Seattle
>>
>> on the right date....
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Naked_Bike_Ride_Seattle
Imagine how much worse it would be if it had been "World Naked Shop At
WalMart" day.
> On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 4:58:57 PM UTC-4, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
>> Per Andre Jute:
>>
>>> I don't know any naked cyclists though, more's the pity.
>>
>>
>>
>> If you time your next visit to the USA right and touch base in Seattle
>>
>> on the right date....
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Naked_Bike_Ride_Seattle
>
> From what I can tell, those events prove that most people look far better
> with their clothes on.
>
> - Frank Krygowski
> From what I can tell, those events prove that most people look far better
> with their clothes on.
>
Imagine how much worse it would be if it had been "World Naked Shop At
WalMart" day.
Dan O
May 8, 2013, 9:46:17 PM5/8/13
to
On May 8, 5:58 pm, Ralph Barone <address...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> Imagine how much worse it would be if it had been "World Naked Shop At
> WalMart" day.
Riding naked is about being uninhibited - not some lurid peep show
production for titillation of the default repressed mode.
> <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 4:58:57 PM UTC-4, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
> >> Per Andre Jute:
>
> >>> I don't know any naked cyclists though, more's the pity.
>
> >> If you time your next visit to the USA right and touch base in Seattle
>
> >> on the right date....
>
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Naked_Bike_Ride_Seattle
>
> > From what I can tell, those events prove that most people look far better
> > with their clothes on.
>
Hollywood ideals, Frank?
> > On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 4:58:57 PM UTC-4, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
> >> Per Andre Jute:
>
> >>> I don't know any naked cyclists though, more's the pity.
>
> >> If you time your next visit to the USA right and touch base in Seattle
>
> >> on the right date....
>
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Naked_Bike_Ride_Seattle
>
> > From what I can tell, those events prove that most people look far better
> > with their clothes on.
>
>
> Imagine how much worse it would be if it had been "World Naked Shop At
> WalMart" day.
production for titillation of the default repressed mode.
Frank Krygowski
May 8, 2013, 9:59:14 PM5/8/13
to
pulled out. As it was, I hit my horn and stopped quickly. She
stopped too. (Admittedly that particular intersection probably sees
less than 30 cars per day. But that doesn't excuse her mistake.)
However, if I'd been riding my motorcycle at the extreme right of the
road, I don't think it would have made things better.
- Frank Krygowski
Dan O
May 8, 2013, 11:10:55 PM5/8/13
to
for any other reason than it sets me up at the "head" of the 3-way
stop, where visibility approaching is much better for sizing up to
blow the stop. Well, that and I just have tendency to mix things up
and choose the "other" way - transitions and mixed environment and non-
standard and all that (see the options, try the options, experience
the options, know the options, and above all keep them open). If the
prevailing winds is strong and I'm especially tired I may stick to the
road for the substantial windbreak.
T0m $herman
May 9, 2013, 12:17:52 AM5/9/13
to
On 5/8/2013 7:24 PM, A. Muzi wrote:
> On 5/8/2013 2:31 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
>> "T0m $herman" <twsherman@REMOVE_THISsouthslope.net> considered Tue, 07
>> May 2013 22:55:32 -0500 the perfect time to write:
>>
>>> On 5/5/2013 2:27 PM, raamman wrote:
>>>> life itself is not safe, make the most out of it while you can
>>>>
>>> D A N G E R ! D A N G E R !
>>>
>>> WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE !!!
>>
>> Not as long as they can get taxes out of us :)
>>
>
> Perhaps the State will find a way:
>
> http://www.parisguardian.com/index.php/sid/214371542/scat/fab36d240e1883d4
>
In the US the government can no longer raise taxes to bail out "too
> On 5/8/2013 2:31 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
>> "T0m $herman" <twsherman@REMOVE_THISsouthslope.net> considered Tue, 07
>> May 2013 22:55:32 -0500 the perfect time to write:
>>
>>> On 5/5/2013 2:27 PM, raamman wrote:
>>>> life itself is not safe, make the most out of it while you can
>>>>
>>> D A N G E R ! D A N G E R !
>>>
>>> WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE !!!
>>
>> Not as long as they can get taxes out of us :)
>>
>
> Perhaps the State will find a way:
>
> http://www.parisguardian.com/index.php/sid/214371542/scat/fab36d240e1883d4
>
large to fail" banks, so they will likely be taking depositors funds
instead, as is happening in Cyprus and other countries.
--
T0m $herm@n
John B.
May 9, 2013, 6:46:40 AM5/9/13
to
On Wed, 8 May 2013 18:46:17 -0700 (PDT), Dan O <danov...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Or perhaps, "How to get your picture in the paper" :-)
--
Cheers,
John B.
wrote:
--
Cheers,
John B.
T0m $herman
May 9, 2013, 7:20:43 AM5/9/13
to
any traffic speed.
[1] The soon to be phased out oil-head is rated at 110 HP, and its
water-head replacement is rated at 125 HP. Reduce by about 15% to get
power at the rear wheel.
--
T0m $herm@n
datakoll
May 9, 2013, 7:45:13 AM5/9/13
to
I don't know any naked cyclists though, more's the pity.
>
>
> Imagine how much worse it would be if it had been "World Naked Shop At
>
> WalMart" day.
I hear thru unsubstantiated sources, riders you see in these photos are mainly prostitutes.
>
> WalMart" day.
that from WA people
Duane
May 9, 2013, 9:15:12 AM5/9/13
to
On 5/8/2013 4:26 PM, gpsman wrote:
> On May 8, 2:34 pm, Andre Jute<fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> If bicycling causes fewer
>> injuries than beds plus doors, should it be treated as excessively
>> dangerous? Furthermore, data
>> show that the great majority of bicyclist injuries receiving ER
>> treatment are minor, with the most
>> common injury being abrasions or �road rash.�
> On May 8, 2:34 pm, Andre Jute<fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> If bicycling causes fewer
>> injuries than beds plus doors, should it be treated as excessively
>> dangerous? Furthermore, data
>> show that the great majority of bicyclist injuries receiving ER
>> treatment are minor, with the most
>> *****
>>
>> Really? This analysis is so stupid, it defies common sense.
>
> It's idiotic. I think we can safely assume those injured hurt
> themselves, by tripping and/or walking into doors (or so reporting
> domestic abuse). If anything those statistics suggest cycling is
> dangerous because people are so grossly fallible.
>
> You don't need any statistics to know cycling in traffic is dangerous,
> operating a 4-wheeler in traffic is dangerous.
>
> Motorists regularly run straight into the back of school buses with
> their lights going, and cop cars with their lights going, and turn L
> right in front of oncoming traffic, and manage to get hit by trains.
+1
>>
>> Really? This analysis is so stupid, it defies common sense.
>
> It's idiotic. I think we can safely assume those injured hurt
> themselves, by tripping and/or walking into doors (or so reporting
> domestic abuse). If anything those statistics suggest cycling is
> dangerous because people are so grossly fallible.
>
> You don't need any statistics to know cycling in traffic is dangerous,
> operating a 4-wheeler in traffic is dangerous.
>
> Motorists regularly run straight into the back of school buses with
> their lights going, and cop cars with their lights going, and turn L
> right in front of oncoming traffic, and manage to get hit by trains.
> Visual perception is unreliable. Central and peripheral vision narrow
> and blur as velocity increases. People have no fucking idea what-all
> they miss on the road, because they missed it.
> -----
AMuzi
May 9, 2013, 12:10:32 PM5/9/13
to
Frank Krygowski
May 9, 2013, 2:51:08 PM5/9/13
to
On May 9, 7:20 am, "T0m $herman" <twsherman@REMOVE_THISsouthslope.net>
wrote:
Ah, well. I've never, ever needed more power than my ancient BMW
provides, even when riding two-up.
- Frank Krygowski
wrote:
provides, even when riding two-up.
- Frank Krygowski
datakoll
May 9, 2013, 8:58:02 PM5/9/13
to
bitter bitter bitter
ask your clientele for a handfull of uppers
ask your clientele for a handfull of uppers
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages