Bicycle statistics

[AK]

I found some interesting info here. They do not list the percentage of those wearing helmets who died.

Looks like those bike lanes are fairly safe.

Andy


https://helmets.org/stats.htm

Highlights of US statistics available from the US Department of Transportation Based on 2015 data. (released in June, 2017 and still the most recent).


818 bicyclists died on US roads in 2015, an increase of 12.2 per cent and the highest number since 1995. (It was 1,003 back in 1975)

45,000 bicyclists were injured in traffic 1n 2015, down 10 per cent from 50,000 in 2014 (52,000 in 2010)



37 Bicyclists 14 and under (7% of total) were killed in 2015. 5,000 were injured.

Average age of a bicyclist killed on US roads: 45 (36 in 2002)

Males killed 87%. Males injured 83%.

70% of fatal crashes were urban. 61% were not at intersections.
3% were in bike lanes.

Fatalities were about half during daylight hours.

Bicyclist deaths represented 2.3% of all 2015 traffic fatalities.

27% of the cyclists killed had been drinking. (Blood alcohol over .01 g/dl) 37% of the crashes involved either driver or cyclist drinking.

[Tom Kunich]

Frank or someone said that the largest loss of life is at T-intersections. So I've been observing cars there. If I stop at a stop light at a T-intersection cars turning onto the top of the T might take up two lanes and the bike lane. If I proceed as if I had right-of-way they would turn much slower and turn into the inside lane as is proper.

Now, I can imagine that you might cross and be just clearing the other side and some horse's ass tries to beat the yellow at high speed and you become a statistic.

[russell...@yahoo.com]

On Friday, May 31, 2019 at 2:48:36 PM UTC-5, AK wrote:
>
> Average age of a bicyclist killed on US roads: 45 (36 in 2002)

Disregarding the "killed" part, this brings up a question about the demographics of bicycling today. Are all bicyclists getting older? Is bicycling becoming an older person activity? Are youngsters not taking up cycling? I have friends with children in the late teens and 20s age groups. Some of the kids do ride bikes. But others, their kids do not ride. Yet they ride lots and lots. I know on this forum some people say their children or one child does ride. But how many on this forum have children who do not ride ever? Yet they do.

[lou.h...@gmail.com]

All kids in the Netherlands ride a bicycle at least up to 18 years when they allowed to drive a car. Most of the times they can't affort a car at that age so the ride until they earn some money. After that they only ride recreational or when it is more practical/faster.

Lou

[sms]

"Back in my day" we didn't get driven around everywhere, it was just
unthinkable that we would even ask to be driven somewhere fairly close
to our homes. We rode our bikes. Maybe if it was pouring rain our
parents would drive us. The times I was driven to elementary school,
about four blocks away were rare.

In the city I'm in now, it's extremely rare for an elementary school
student to ride a bike to school. It's still fairly common in middle
school and high school, but not at the level it should be. Traffic
around schools is insane─even though most students could walk or ride a
bike, they are driven, and sometimes it's only one block.

[russell...@yahoo.com]

I'm not really talking about "kids" riding bikes during elementary, middle, or high school. I mean young adults. Or "kids" as I think of them, unfortunately. Younger people. Is bicycling, recreational, fun bicycling, becoming an older and older person activity? Are fewer and fewer young people doing the activity? Thus making the average age of the cyclist older and older.

[Frank Krygowski]

I think that's the case, sadly. I think a huge chunk of American's
dedicated cyclists are still the ones that took it up during the early
1970s "bike boom" when it was trendy. (Fashion is powerful.) Those
people are now in their 60s, perhaps 70s.

It's not 100%, of course. We have a new young couple living next door
and they've got some very nice road bikes. OTOH, they have a new little
kid, so they won't be doing a lot of riding for a while.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Sir Ridesalot]

I've heard it said that perception equals reality. Many people where I live think that bicycling is far too dangerous for them to try. Why that is is beyond me since those people don't read magazines or newsgroups. They perceive that bicycling is dangerous and thus do not engage in it nor do they let their children engage in it. Also, I've read that many schools do NOT allow children to bicycle to school. That further discourages parents to allow their child to bicycle. Then there is the phenomena of parents feeling that children can't go anywhere unsupervised ie "Helicopter Parenting".

With all the Danger! Danger! thinking about bicycling it's a wonder that anyone takes it up these days.

Btw, I find it far safer to ride my bicycle on a plowed road in winter than I do walking on the snow and ice on the sidewalks.

Cheers

[Andy]

I see young kids riding. Teens too. Plenty of bikes at schools as well.The percentage is lower than when I was growing up.

[Duane]

Andy <andrewke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I see young kids riding. Teens too. Plenty of bikes at schools as
> well.The percentage is lower than when I was growing up.
>

Same here. But when I was growing up there were not so many soccer moms.
The typical scenario was a 1 car family with the husband taking the car to
work and the wife taking care of the house and kids. It was certainly
like that for my family and most of our friends. So you had the choice to
walk or ride a bike.

I’m not saying the old days were better. They were not. Just different.
Now it takes more incentive to get kids on bikes. Once they put in some
bike paths from our neighbourhood to the elementary school the kids stated
riding to school. They still do. I past some of the path on my ride to
work. I don’t take it, partially because it’s crowded with kids.
“Advocates” can complain that it instills a sense of danger around cycling
but the fact is that most parents aren’t sending their 8 year olds into
traffic.

--
duane

[Sir Ridesalot]

Especially into traffic with distracted or texting drivers. Traffic is much heavier now than when we were kids.

When we were kids how did we learn to ride in traffic?

I'm not totally against bicycle paths but I am against ones that are poorly designed, ie door zone lanes, or ones that suddenly dump bicyclists into traffic.

I remember one bike lane they installed on Bay Street in Toronto Canada. You could stand on the corner of Bay and Queen Streets and look south towards Front Street and see nary a bicyclist in the bike lane. IIRC, they eventually moved that lane to Jarvis Street another north-south main street and in turn moved it to Sherbourne Street yet another north-south street because there was so little bicycle use on it. From Bay Street to Sherbourne Street is a fair distance.

Cheers

[AK]

You are right. And we did not have video games and cell phones.

We made our own fun.

Andy

[AMuzi]

>>> around schools is insane─even though most students

>>> could walk or ride a
>>> bike, they are driven, and sometimes it's only one block.
>>
>>
>> I'm not really talking about "kids" riding bikes during
>> elementary, middle, or high school. I mean young adults.
>> Or "kids" as I think of them, unfortunately. Younger
>> people. Is bicycling, recreational, fun bicycling,
>> becoming an older and older person activity? Are fewer
>> and fewer young people doing the activity? Thus making
>> the average age of the cyclist older and older.
>
> I think that's the case, sadly. I think a huge chunk of
> American's dedicated cyclists are still the ones that took
> it up during the early 1970s "bike boom" when it was trendy.
> (Fashion is powerful.) Those people are now in their 60s,
> perhaps 70s.
>
> It's not 100%, of course. We have a new young couple living
> next door and they've got some very nice road bikes. OTOH,
> they have a new little kid, so they won't be doing a lot of
> riding for a while.
>
>

So bicycles are basically skateboards for old people?

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[Duane]

Sir Ridesalot <i_am_cyc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On Sunday, June 2, 2019 at 8:45:31 AM UTC-4, Duane wrote:
>> Andy <andrewke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I see young kids riding. Teens too. Plenty of bikes at schools as
>>> well.The percentage is lower than when I was growing up.
>>>
>>
>> Same here. But when I was growing up there were not so many soccer moms.
>> The typical scenario was a 1 car family with the husband taking the car to
>> work and the wife taking care of the house and kids. It was certainly
>> like that for my family and most of our friends. So you had the choice to
>> walk or ride a bike.
>>
>> I’m not saying the old days were better. They were not. Just different.
>> Now it takes more incentive to get kids on bikes. Once they put in some
>> bike paths from our neighbourhood to the elementary school the kids stated
>> riding to school. They still do. I past some of the path on my ride to
>> work. I don’t take it, partially because it’s crowded with kids.
>> “Advocates” can complain that it instills a sense of danger around cycling
>> but the fact is that most parents aren’t sending their 8 year olds into
>> traffic.
>>
>> --
>> duane
>
> Especially into traffic with distracted or texting drivers. Traffic is
> much heavier now than when we were kids.
>
> When we were kids how did we learn to ride in traffic?
>

Trial and error. But there was less traffic and no texting drivers then.

> I'm not totally against bicycle paths but I am against ones that are
> poorly designed, ie door zone lanes, or ones that suddenly dump bicyclists into traffic.
>

I’m not really for or against bike paths. I was just commenting on the
post.

> I remember one bike lane they installed on Bay Street in Toronto Canada.
> You could stand on the corner of Bay and Queen Streets and look south
> towards Front Street and see nary a bicyclist in the bike lane. IIRC,
> they eventually moved that lane to Jarvis Street another north-south main
> street and in turn moved it to Sherbourne Street yet another north-south
> street because there was so little bicycle use on it. From Bay Street to
> Sherbourne Street is a fair distance.
>
> Cheers
>

I use bike lanes a lot. Passing the stopped traffic is nice and I have to
be on the right anyway. There is not a 20k/h speed limit as there is on
paths. The idea that the white paint makes me feel overly safe is
ridiculous. You have to be alert around traffic with or without the paint.


But some lanes are better than others. The ones in door zones are dumb so
I don’t use them. There’s a section on my commute that was low traffic
with wide lanes. Not much parking. They put in a bike lane next to the
parking slots. I don’t use them but now I get grief from drivers telling
me to get out of their way. Then there are the ones that dump you into
oncoming traffic.


--
duane

[Sir Ridesalot]

In Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, there are traffic lanes that are right hand turns only. It looks like the lane continues across the intersection but that's actually a left hand turning lane for oncoming traffic. It's fantastic when there's a fresh snowfall, the road is covered in snow, the markings aren't visible. HEAVY sarcasm. I really do wonder where some traffic planners get their education or their degrees. The bottom of Cracker Jacks or Elephant Popcorn perhaps?

Hopefully this link takes you to an intersection that demonstrates this. It's King Street East and Dixon Street.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.4368729,-80.4587029,43m/data=!3m1!1e3

Note that the top left hand east bound lane becomes a WEST bound left turning lane on the other side of the intersection. In winter when the snow is on the road that's very confusing to drivers.

Cheers

[Frank Krygowski]

Maybe.

What do you see in your shop? Is business up or down, long term? What
are the customer demographics?

As I recall, when I was in my 20s and 30s and hanging around bike shops,
there were no 60+ customers buying nice bikes. In fact, when one good
friend about 40 years old (a marathoner) bought a really nice bike, we
thought he was really something.

I don't hang around the shops as much now, but it seems the customer age
has drifted much older.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

As I recall, there was very, very little fear mongering about bicycling
until about 1975. Our parents told us "Watch out for cars" and "Be
careful," but that was about it. Bike magazines praised fine bikes,
country rides, sport riding, long tours and even utility riding. There
was not talk of injuries that I recall.

I still remember reading _Bicycling_ magazine's first article about
helmets. It started with an anecdote (of course!) about a guy riding
with friends falling off his bike - he may have hit a squirrel - and
described how he asked the same question repeatedly. Yes, he must have
had a concussion; but until that point, the magazine never mentioned
traumatic brain injuries as part of bicycling. Of course, at that point,
Bell Sports had just begun buying advertising for its styrofoam caps.
Pricey double page ads!

I think that was the beginning of serious fear mongering. Through many
ads, articles, and sketchy research papers, people were convinced that
this everyday activity was so dangerous that a helmet was necessary.
Then, because it was so dangerous, there began calls for bike lane
stripes for "safety." And now we're deep into "safety inflation," where
giving the advocates what they asked for last year is in no way sufficient.

And people like Scharf are happy to contribute, adding to the
implication that riding a bike is very, very dangerous! Unless, that is,
it's done in a barrier "protected" or parking "protected" lane. Oh, and
don't forget, with every intersection re-built (at maybe half a million
dollars per intersection) into a "protected" intersection.

But that's not all. The funny headgear is still absolutely necessary.
And now, a super-bright daytime headlight and taillight. And you can't
be safe if you're not wearing garish clothing.

It's easy to see why people think riding is super-risky.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Andy]

Just go on the sidewalk for a while.

[AMuzi]

On 6/2/2019 12:54 PM, Andy wrote:
> Just go on the sidewalk for a while.
>

Depending on zoning and local ordinances, illegal.
And, more often than not, reasonably so.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 6/2/2019 1:54 PM, Andy wrote:
> Just go on the sidewalk for a while.

Riding on sidewalks can be OK occasionally. Unless there are
pedestrians, of course. Then you should not.

And unless there are signs, telephone poles or other close obstructions.
Don't let your handlebar clip those.

And don't let your tires come close to the side edge of the sidewalk.
Many of them feature sharp dropoffs. If you slip off, you're likely to
crash because the edge prevents you from maintaining balance.

Also watch for bumps caused by tree roots, cracks or heaves in the
pavement. It's common for concrete sidewalks to have sections that lift
up exposing sharp edges that can cause pinch flats or worse.

And watch for bumps or curbs at intersections. These days, many
sidewalks have ADA approved ramps, but many don't. Even if the ramps are
present, there can be edges from things like gutter pans.

Above all, be _extremely_ careful entering an intersection. Motorists
are not looking for someone entering the street from a sidewalk,
especially at any speed above 3 mph. Look _all_ directions for cars.
Stop and wait, or at least yield, if they're approaching.

And the same goes for driveways. You even need to watch over your
shoulder for turning motorists. They will cut across the sidewalk to
enter the driveway without noticing you. Also, motorists exiting will
probably not stop before crossing the sidewalk as they hurry to reach
the edge of the street.

Those latter two problems are much worse if you're traveling "wrong way"
on the sidewalk. Motorists expect all traffic to flow in the same
direction. If you're headed the opposite direction, they won't look and
won't notice you.

Other than that, sure, sidewalks are fine. Assuming you're not going
much faster than a pedestrian.

I'm not saying never use a sidewalk. There are about 100 feet of
sidewalk near me I ride pretty frequently because they eliminate lots of
delay and complication with a five lane highway.

But you'd better be knowledgeable and careful. Really careful.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Sir Ridesalot]

A friend of mine was riding on the sidewalk in the dark early in the morning because someone stole his light. A cop gave him a ticket for riding on the sidewalk on a quiet main street/regional road in town even though there were no pedestrians around at all. Unlucky? Perhaps. What gets me is that I had another cop tell me that they preferred people to ride on the sidewalks. I guess when it comes to enforcing the law it depends on whether the cop is a hawk or a dove.

Cheers

[jbeattie]

Folks born around the turn of the century didn't view bicycling as an adult activity. In the 60s, you were more likely to see the 60+ crowd at a Moose Lodge. Success was a Coupe Deville and not a Colnago.

-- Jay Beattie.

[John B. Slocomb]

On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 10:54:41 -0700 (PDT), Andy
<andrewke...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Just go on the sidewalk for a while.

But, during traffic rush hours, the periods when the autos are taking
people to work or returning home, the sidewalks are crowded with
pedestrians doing the same thing :-(.
--

Cheers,

John B.

[John B. Slocomb]

On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 13:32:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 6/1/2019 10:16 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
>> On Saturday, June 1, 2019 at 8:01:10 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 6/1/2019 4:46 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, June 1, 2019 at 9:42:59 AM UTC-5, sms wrote:
>>>>> On 6/1/2019 3:02 AM, lou.h...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Saturday, June 1, 2019 at 2:22:45 AM UTC+2, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Friday, May 31, 2019 at 2:48:36 PM UTC-5, AK wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Average age of a bicyclist killed on US roads: 45 (36 in 2002)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Disregarding the "killed" part, this brings up a question about the demographics of bicycling today. Are all bicyclists getting older? Is bicycling becoming an older person activity? Are youngsters not taking up cycling? I have friends with children in the late teens and 20s age groups. Some of the kids do ride bikes. But others, their kids do not ride. Yet they ride lots and lots. I know on this forum some people say their children or one child does ride. But how many on this forum have children who do not ride ever? Yet they do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All kids in the Netherlands ride a bicycle at least up to 18 years when they allowed to drive a car. Most of the times they can't affort a car at that age so the ride until they earn some money. After that they only ride recreational or when it is more practical/faster.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Back in my day" we didn't get driven around everywhere, it was just
>>>>> unthinkable that we would even ask to be driven somewhere fairly close
>>>>> to our homes. We rode our bikes. Maybe if it was pouring rain our
>>>>> parents would drive us. The times I was driven to elementary school,
>>>>> about four blocks away were rare.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the city I'm in now, it's extremely rare for an elementary school
>>>>> student to ride a bike to school. It's still fairly common in middle
>>>>> school and high school, but not at the level it should be. Traffic

>>>>> around schools is insane?even though most students could walk or ride a

Another point is that the number of deaths on bicycles has been,
generally, in the same range from 1980 until 2018. There have been
years where the numbers were lower than the average and equally years
when the numbers were higher but generally there have been *about*800
deaths annually. The highest seems to be 965 in 1980 and the lowest
was 623 in 2010.,

Given that the number of registered motor vehicles was increased by an
estimated 3.69 million each year since 1960 with the largest annual
growth between 1998 and 1999 as well as between 2000 and 2001 when the
number of motor vehicles in the United States increased by eight
million, there are obviously many more motor vehicles in the highway
in 2018 than there were in 1980.

If traffic density is a determining factor in bicycle deaths than why
didn't bicycle deaths match, even roughly, the increase in motor
vehicles?

Or, if wearing a helmet or special bicycle paths reduce bicycle deaths
then why haven't current annual deaths been reduced by the numbers
that now ride with helmets and the (limited to date) building of bike
paths?

One might even think that since traffic density has increased rather
dramatically since 1980 and the wearing of helmets have also
increased, and at least some bicycle lanes have been added, that it
might even be safer to ride a bicycle today than it was nearly 40
years ago.
--

Cheers,

John B.

[AMuzi]

It is, for all but about 800 of us.

Sadly, in our networked world, gruesome tragedies about
which we would once have never known are in our faces every
morning.
https://ktla.com/2019/06/01/big-rig-driver-sought-after-running-over-killing-bicyclist-in-boyle-heights/

Despite actual facts (which you review above) the impression
is calamitous.

[John B. Slocomb]

Since the police have the license plate one would assume that an
arrest is eminent :-)

As an aside, the mention of "nearby surveillance camera" brings to
mind that in Bangkok, and increasingly in the provinces, "surveillance
cameras" are everywhere. All of the more recent arrests for theft at
the airport were due to the cameras as well as the bulk of violent
crime arrests in the city.

Perhaps the solution to bike collisions is more surveillance cameras.
Far cheaper and quicker to install than segregated bicycle lanes they
might prove to be even more effective in protecting the endangered
cyclist.
--

Cheers,

John B.

[Ralph Barone]

The impression is always calamitous. “Man goes for bike ride - nothing bad
happens. Film at 11.” makes for a horrible headline.

[Frank Krygowski]

True. But I think now, success is a really great phone and lots of skin ink.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

Exactly. The book _Risk_ by Dan Gardner goes into great detail about the
psychology of hearing bad news, and how the media play that psychology
to drive up ratings.

As he and other authors have said: For almost all of human history, if
you heard about a tragedy (Leopard kills baby) it had to mean it
happened near you, because you could hear it only by word of mouth.

Now it's "Leopard kills baby, details at 11!" and when you tune in, you
learned it happened thousands of miles away. But you're still hard wired
to tune in.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

As I've said before, I think it's often forgotten that medical
treatments have gotten much more effective. I suspect the drop in bike
fatalities - and the _greater_ drop in pedestrian fatalities - is due
in large part to better medical care.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[John B. Slocomb]

On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 23:02:28 -0400, Frank Krygowski

You might well be correct. I now have a pacemaker implant, which, if
not for the device, I would likely be dead, or at least severely
incapacitated. With the device I can do about anything that a man of
my age could normally do. In fact my cardiologist encourages me to
walk and bicycle.

--

Cheers,

John B.

[sms]

On 6/2/2019 8:56 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

<snip>

>> As I've said before, I think it's often forgotten that medical
>> treatments have gotten much more effective. I suspect the drop in bike
>> fatalities - and the _greater_ drop in pedestrian fatalities - is due
>> in large part to better medical care.
>
> You might well be correct.

Except of course that pedestrian and bicycle fatalities haven't dropped,
at least not in the U.S.. So it's a bit difficult to attribute better
medical care to something that didn't actually happen though I guess
it's possible to claim that without better medical care the numbers
would be even worse.

"Pedestrian Deaths Reach Highest Level In Decades, Report Says"

<https://www.npr.org/2019/02/28/699195211/pedestrian-deaths-reach-highest-level-in-decades-report-says>

"Increased use of smartphones and the popularity of SUVs are among the
likely factors to have caused pedestrian fatalities to jump 35 percent,
the Governors Highway Safety Association says."

Better medical treatment doesn't trump distracted driving or texting
while walking.

It's the same issue with bicycling. "According to the League of American
Bicyclists, more cyclists died on U.S. roads in 2016 than at any other
time in the past quarter-century. But that doesn't show the whole picture."

<https://www.outsideonline.com/2390525/bike-commuter-deaths>

> I now have a pacemaker implant, which, if
> not for the device, I would likely be dead, or at least severely
> incapacitated. With the device I can do about anything that a man of
> my age could normally do. In fact my cardiologist encourages me to
> walk and bicycle.

Doctors like their patients to exercise.

[AK]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncbEucjsNFU

Andy

[AK]

Frank,

You are singing to the choir.

Fortunately, Texas does not have laws prohibiting riding on the sidewalk that I am aware of.

There are situations where you have to use the sidewalk to access a home or business.

Having to dodge broken glass, uplifted sidewalks, etc. sharpens your riding skills. :-)

Andy

[John B. Slocomb]

On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 00:25:36 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

>On 6/2/2019 8:56 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
>
><snip>
>>> As I've said before, I think it's often forgotten that medical
>>> treatments have gotten much more effective. I suspect the drop in bike
>>> fatalities - and the _greater_ drop in pedestrian fatalities - is due
>>> in large part to better medical care.
>>
>> You might well be correct.
>
>Except of course that pedestrian and bicycle fatalities haven't dropped,
>at least not in the U.S.. So it's a bit difficult to attribute better
>medical care to something that didn't actually happen though I guess
>it's possible to claim that without better medical care the numbers
>would be even worse.
>
>"Pedestrian Deaths Reach Highest Level In Decades, Report Says"
>

><https://www.npr.org/2019/02/28/699195211/pedestrian-deaths-reach-hignearby surveillance camerahest-level-in-decades-report-says>

>


>"Increased use of smartphones and the popularity of SUVs are among the
>likely factors to have caused pedestrian fatalities to jump 35 percent,
>the Governors Highway Safety Association says."
>
>Better medical treatment doesn't trump distracted driving or texting
>while walking.
>
>It's the same issue with bicycling. "According to the League of American
>Bicyclists, more cyclists died on U.S. roads in 2016 than at any other
>time in the past quarter-century. But that doesn't show the whole picture."
>
><https://www.outsideonline.com/2390525/bike-commuter-deaths>

Yes, that seems correct in that in 2016 some 840 cyclists died and in
1991 some 842 died, but what they don't say is that during that period
from 1991 until 2016, the previous quarter century, in 24 of those
years the death rate was lower than in 2016 and in 2017 the death rate
was lower than in 2016. It is called "Cherry Picking" and the Wiki
describes it as "the act of pointing to individual cases or data that
seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant
portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position."

The information regarding bicycle deaths is freely available on the
Internet so I find it surprising that you didn't .research the facts,
even a little bit, before trumpeting your cries of doom.
--

Cheers,

John B.

[Sir Ridesalot]

On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 7:05:50 AM UTC-4, John B. Slocomb wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 00:25:36 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>

Snipped

> The information regarding bicycle deaths is freely available on the
> Internet so I find it surprising that you didn't .research the facts,
> even a little bit, before trumpeting your cries of doom.
> --
>
> Cheers,
>
> John B.

WHAT! SMS, do diligent research and present the truth? DOn't you realize that "SMS" and "truth" are oxymorons?

Cheers

[Duane]

Sure. But the more you look at "facts" the more you realize (or should
realize) that cycling deaths are likely random. Given that when dealing
with statistical analysis of cycling accidents, deaths appear to be
outliers, this is not surprising.

Unfortunately, the data recording when the result isn't a trip to the
morgue is less than adequate so people tend to use fatalities. But this
is at best statistically misleading. You end up with nonsense like
cycling is more dangerous than sky diving. Or less dangerous than
gardening.

[AMuzi]

On 6/2/2019 9:48 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 6/2/2019 5:18 PM, jbeattie wrote:
>> On Sunday, June 2, 2019 at 9:59:43 AM UTC-7, Frank
>> Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 6/2/2019 10:30 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 6/1/2019 7:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>> On 6/1/2019 4:46 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Saturday, June 1, 2019 at 9:42:59 AM UTC-5, sms wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/1/2019 3:02 AM, lou.h...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Saturday, June 1, 2019 at 2:22:45 AM UTC+2,
>>>>>>>> russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Friday, May 31, 2019 at 2:48:36 PM UTC-5, AK wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Â Â Â Â Â Average age of a bicyclist killed on

>>>>>>>>>> US roads:
>>>>>>>>>> 45 (36 in 2002)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Disregarding the "killed" part, this brings up a
>>>>>>>>> question about the demographics of bicycling today.

>>>>>>>>> Are all bicyclists getting older? Is bicycling
>>>>>>>>> becoming an older person activity? Are youngsters
>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>> taking up cycling? I have friends with children
>>>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>>>> late teens and 20s age groups. Some of the kids do
>>>>>>>>> ride bikes. But others, their kids do not ride.Â
>>>>>>>>> Yet
>>>>>>>>> they ride lots and lots. I know on this forum some
>>>>>>>>> people say their children or one child does ride.Â

>>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>>> how many on this forum have children who do not ride

>>>>>>>>> ever? Yet they do.

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All kids in the Netherlands ride a bicycle at least up
>>>>>>>> to 18 years when they allowed to drive a car. Most of
>>>>>>>> the times they can't affort a car at that age so the
>>>>>>>> ride until they earn some money. After that they only
>>>>>>>> ride recreational or when it is more practical/faster.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Back in my day" we didn't get driven around everywhere,
>>>>>>> it was just
>>>>>>> unthinkable that we would even ask to be driven
>>>>>>> somewhere
>>>>>>> fairly close
>>>>>>> to our homes. We rode our bikes. Maybe if it was pouring
>>>>>>> rain our
>>>>>>> parents would drive us. The times I was driven to
>>>>>>> elementary school,
>>>>>>> about four blocks away were rare.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the city I'm in now, it's extremely rare for an
>>>>>>> elementary school
>>>>>>> student to ride a bike to school. It's still fairly
>>>>>>> common in middle
>>>>>>> school and high school, but not at the level it should
>>>>>>> be. Traffic

>>>>>>> around schools is insaneↀeven though most

>>>>>>> students
>>>>>>> could walk or ride a
>>>>>>> bike, they are driven, and sometimes it's only one
>>>>>>> block.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not really talking about "kids" riding bikes during

>>>>>> elementary, middle, or high school. I mean young
>>>>>> adults.
>>>>>> Or "kids" as I think of them, unfortunately. Younger
>>>>>> people. Is bicycling, recreational, fun bicycling,
>>>>>> becoming an older and older person activity? Are fewer
>>>>>> and fewer young people doing the activity? Thus making

Unlike a telephone, irezumi last a lifetime.

[Radey Shouman]

And sometimes beyond:

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mvxgpx/the-art-of-preserving-tattooed-skin-after-death-629

[Frank Krygowski]

We were talking specifically about fatalities, Duane. So what do you
mean by "cycling deaths are likely random" or "deaths appear to be
outliers"? Are you saying they're impervious to analysis, that we can't
discuss them at all?

It's true that biking deaths are rare. That does mean there's going to
be very visible variation in the annual count. But there's clearly a
long term downward trend over decades. It doesn't take advanced
mathematics to spot it. See http://www.vehicularcyclist.com/fatals.html
for example.

> Unfortunately, the data recording when the result isn't a trip to the
> morgue is less than adequate so people tend to use fatalities.  But this
> is at best statistically misleading.  You end up with nonsense like
> cycling is more dangerous than sky diving.  Or less dangerous than
> gardening.

Damn, you really hate data, don't you?

FWIW, the only comparative data I've seen shows that bicycling is
hundreds of times safer than skydiving, as measured in fatalities per
hour exposure.

And like it or not, the available comparative data shows that gardeners
report more monthly injuries than bicyclists.

Sources are in this article:
http://www.ohiobike.org/images/pdfs/CyclingIsSafeTLK.pdf


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

Well, sorta...

https://www.boredpanda.com/tattoo-aging-before-after/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=organic

And those are just a few years old.

One friend of mine got a tattoo on his forearm when he was in the navy
during the 1970s. At this point, I can't even tell what the picture is
supposed to be. I looks like an elongated bluish-black blob.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[jbeattie]

I think his complaint is the lack of data in non-fatality cases. I fractured my hand in a bicycle accident and went to an urgent care clinic operated by the same clinic that provides my primary medical care. I whacked my head, too, but I wasn't complaining of a scalp wound prevented by my helmet. And my treatment would not be part of the Oregon injury data set in any event since I was not hospitalized. https://www.oregon.gov/oha/PH/DISEASESCONDITIONS/INJURYFATALITYDATA/Documents/Injury_in_Oregon_v2.3.pdf. I would also not be in any of the ER data sets.

Actually, all my bicycle-related injuries, including one that got me a CT scan and plastic surgery on my face probably would not be in any Oregon data set, but then again, I haven't done a comprehensive check of the reporting regulations.

Without getting into the question of whether bicycle is safe or safer than gardening, one can argue about the completeness of the data -- at least in non-fatalities. And then one can argue about what the data means.

-- Jay Beattie.

[sms]

On 6/3/2019 10:16 AM, jbeattie wrote:

<snip>

> Without getting into the question of whether bicycle is safe or safer than gardening, one can argue about the completeness of the data -- at least in non-fatalities. And then one can argue about what the data means.

What?! You want to base decisions on actual data. That's so lawyer-like!
Don't you know that using actual data is not acceptable when it
conflicts with an agenda?

It's so interesting when someone proclaims something that isn't true,
without any supporting data, then gets upset when others provide the
actual data. No one would think any worse of Frank if he simply admitted
his mistake.

"As cars have become safer for occupants (due to airbags, structural
crashworthiness and other improvements) the percent of pedestrian
fatalities as a percent of total motor vehicle fatalities steadily
increased from 11% in 2004 to 15% in 2014 according to NHTSA data."

"Inside Versus Outside the Vehicle
The proportion of people killed “inside the vehicle” (passenger car,
light truck, large truck, bus, and other vehicle occupants) declined
from a high of 80 percent in 1996 to 67 percent
in 2017, as seen in Figure 4. Conversely, the proportion of people
killed “outside the vehicle” (motorcyclists, pedestrians,
pedalcyclists, and other nonoccupants) increased from a low
of 20 percent in 1996 to a high of 33 percent in 2017."

The other issue is that whether you're a driver, cyclist, or pedestrian,
the data doesn't tell the whole story because you can take steps to
change your own personal odds, and governments can take steps to change
the odds as well.

A cyclist can take steps like increasing their conspicuousness, using
protective equipment, learning how to ride in traffic, and by choosing
routes that are less risky.

Government can take steps by designing transportation networks that
increase safety for all road users.

[Duane]

My complaint is using incomplete data incorrectly and then justifying
that by saying it's the only data we have so we have to make do. But
yes, it's the lack of data in non fatal cases that make up the vast
majority of samples.

These are concepts taught in STATS 101.

[Sir Ridesalot]

On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 2:15:09 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:
> On 6/3/2019 10:16 AM, jbeattie wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Without getting into the question of whether bicycle is safe or safer than gardening, one can argue about the completeness of the data -- at least in non-fatalities. And then one can argue about what the data means.
>
> What?! You want to base decisions on actual data. That's so lawyer-like!
> Don't you know that using actual data is not acceptable when it
> conflicts with an agenda?
>
> It's so interesting when someone proclaims something that isn't true,
> without any supporting data, then gets upset when others provide the
> actual data. No one would think any worse of Frank if he simply admitted
> his mistake.

Snipped

Talk about the kettle calling the pot black. You consistently ignore data whenever it does not support your stance or agenda.

Cheers

[sms]

On 6/3/2019 11:18 AM, Duane wrote:

<snip>

> My complaint is using incomplete data incorrectly and then justifying
> that by saying it's the only data we have so we have to make do.  But
> yes, it's the lack of data in non fatal cases that make up the vast
> majority of samples.
>
> These are concepts taught in STATS 101.

It's not just using incomplete data incorrectly it's also using complete
data incorrectly. For example, carefully choosing the time-span of data
to mislead people about trends is something we've seen occur in r.b.t.
on many occasions. Selectively choose your dates and you can "prove"
that cycling rates per-capita went down, when they really have trended
up. We just saw this sort of thing happen here--you get three guesses as
who did this, and the first two don't count!

You can also design charts and graphs in a way that is highly misleading.

Also look at the source of the data. Is it from an organization or
company with a specific agenda, or is the data reliable? An anti-helmet
organization is going to carefully pick and choose their data to try to
advance their position, we've seen this happening in r.b.t. for many
years by "he who must not be named."

And of course anyone is free to make statements not supported by any
data at all. We just saw this: "I suspect the drop in bike fatalities -

and the _greater_ drop in pedestrian fatalities - is due in large part

to better medical care." Of course the reality is that neither bike nor
pedestrian fatalities actually fell. So someone postulates a reason for
something that didn't actually happen, but phrases it in a way that is
intended to mislead the reader into accepting that the premise is
actually true.

[Duane]

On 03/06/2019 3:03 p.m., sms wrote:
> On 6/3/2019 11:18 AM, Duane wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> My complaint is using incomplete data incorrectly and then justifying
>> that by saying it's the only data we have so we have to make do.  But
>> yes, it's the lack of data in non fatal cases that make up the vast
>> majority of samples.
>>
>> These are concepts taught in STATS 101.
>
> It's not just using incomplete data incorrectly it's also using complete
> data incorrectly. For example, carefully choosing the time-span of data
> to mislead people about trends is something we've seen occur in r.b.t.
> on many occasions. Selectively choose your dates and you can "prove"

Most people would refer to that as incomplete data.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 6/3/2019 2:15 PM, sms wrote:
> On 6/3/2019 10:16 AM, jbeattie wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Without getting into the question of whether bicycle is safe or safer
>> than gardening, one can argue about the completeness of the data -- at
>> least in non-fatalities. And then one can argue about what the data
>> means.
>
> What?! You want to base decisions on actual data. That's so lawyer-like!
> Don't you know that using actual data is not acceptable when it
> conflicts with an agenda?

Such bullshit. I'm the one who repeatedly posts data, links, etc.

As I did just a few hours ago. Here it is again:

[sms]

On 6/3/2019 12:07 PM, Duane wrote:

<snip>

> Most people would refer to that as incomplete data.

Perhaps, but I would distinguish between making conclusions based on
data that is presented as incomplete, or is obviously incomplete when
published, and making conclusions based on data that is complete when
published but where false conclusions are drawn based on using that data
in a misleading way.

Of course in r.b.t. we see both of these happening. I also see this on
an almost daily basis as an elected official, but fortunately I live in
a city with a highly educated citizenry who are unlikely to be taken in
by this sort of misuse of data.

In some cases perfect data isn't available and never will be. There is
simply not going to be a double blind study on every possible subject in
the world--in some cases it's not possible and in some cases when it is
possible there will be no one interested enough to fund such a study. If
a thousand ER doctors tell you that helmeted cyclists fare better in
head-impact crashes than unhelmeted cyclists then you're probably going
to believe them over someone who insists that helmets are worthless. In
both cases there is incomplete data, but in one case there is
credibility of those making the statements. If a police captain explains
to you that you're better off making yourself more conspicuous while
bicycling then you're probably going to believe him or her versus
someone that insists that being more conspicuous is of no value, even
though the data to prove this is incomplete.

[Radey Shouman]

sms <scharf...@geemail.com> writes:

> On 6/3/2019 10:16 AM, jbeattie wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Without getting into the question of whether bicycle is safe or
>> safer than gardening, one can argue about the completeness of the
>> data -- at least in non-fatalities. And then one can argue about
>> what the data means.
>
> What?! You want to base decisions on actual data. That's so
> lawyer-like! Don't you know that using actual data is not acceptable
> when it conflicts with an agenda?
>
> It's so interesting when someone proclaims something that isn't true,
> without any supporting data, then gets upset when others provide the
> actual data. No one would think any worse of Frank if he simply
> admitted his mistake.
>
> "As cars have become safer for occupants (due to airbags, structural
> crashworthiness and other improvements) the percent of pedestrian
> fatalities as a percent of total motor vehicle fatalities steadily
> increased from 11% in 2004 to 15% in 2014 according to NHTSA data."

It seems that from 2004 to 2014 total motor vehicle fatalities declined
from 14.59 per 100K population to 10.28 per 100K population, or almost
30%. So I don't see the evidence that Frank is wrong. It's entirely
possible for total pedestrian fatalities to decrease at the same time as
their proportion of total motor vehicle fatalities increases.

The trend in all motor vehicle fatalities over the past 20 years or so
is down, perhaps largely due to better emergency treatment. In the past
4-5 years there has been an uptick, which many attribute to cell phone
use. Standards for motor vehicle occupant protection have improved over
the same period, at some expense in outward visibility; one might
expect this to increase the proportion of "outside the vehicle"
fatalities.

Wikipedia has a nice collection of data:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year

> "Inside Versus Outside the Vehicle
> The proportion of people killed “inside the vehicle” (passenger car,
> light truck, large truck, bus, and other vehicle occupants) declined
> from a high of 80 percent in 1996 to 67 percent
> in 2017, as seen in Figure 4. Conversely, the proportion of people
> killed “outside the vehicle” (motorcyclists, pedestrians,
> pedalcyclists, and other nonoccupants) increased from a low
> of 20 percent in 1996 to a high of 33 percent in 2017."
>
> The other issue is that whether you're a driver, cyclist, or
> pedestrian, the data doesn't tell the whole story because you can take
> steps to change your own personal odds, and governments can take steps
> to change the odds as well.
>
> A cyclist can take steps like increasing their conspicuousness, using
> protective equipment, learning how to ride in traffic, and by choosing
> routes that are less risky.
>
> Government can take steps by designing transportation networks that
> increase safety for all road users.
>

--

[Frank Krygowski]

:-) Mayor Scharf gets the gold cup for lack of self awareness, plus the
blue ribbon for hypocrisy!

Regarding Scharf's complaint about "carefully choosing the time-span of
data to mislead people about trends..." he did exactly that when he
linked to an Outside magazine article about one year of high bike
fatalities (840 in 2016) yet did not mention the easily available fact
that the fatality count dropped the very next year. (There were 783 in
2017, the last year available.)

The long term trend for both bike and pedestrian fatalities has been
downward. As shown by graphs at
http://www.vehicularcyclist.com/kunich.html
in 1986 there were nearly 7000 pedestrian deaths and over 900 bike
deaths, with a downward trend since then.

In the last few years, both bike and pedestrian fatalities have risen,
but are still far fewer than the 1980s; so for them the question of
whether they've risen or fallen depends on "Since when?"

Bike fatalities in particular are rare, and as with any rare phenomenon
(hurricanes, earthquakes, honest politicians) scatter and random
variations in the data are to be expected.

But if Scharf wants to use just the last few years to claim that
bicycling is getting much more dangerous, what will he suppose has
caused the danger?

Could it be the use of so called "protected" bike lanes? Or perhaps it's
due to daytime running lights? After all, both of those were almost
completely absent during the "local minimum" for bike deaths, around 2010.

Are Scharf's favorite measures making things worse?

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Radey Shouman]

Pedestrian fatalities (total) in the US fell for a very long time,
although they have increased markedly since 2010. Wikipedia says 6,482
total in 1990, 4,109 in 2009, >6000 in 2018. Cyclist fatalities seem to
track pedestrian fatalities pretty well, although the numbers are quite
a bit smaller.

[Andre Jute]

On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 1:38:08 PM UTC+1, duane wrote:

> You end up with nonsense like
> cycling is more dangerous than sky diving.

I didn't look up the stats on skydiving, but common sense tells us that most incidents are likely to be fatal. All the same, a guy at college with me broke his ankle skydiving and survived, only later to commit suicide. I made a few jumps during my military service (we had conscription), low level stuff, supposedly more dangerous, but I was never hurt, nor was anybody from my training group. On the other hand, just to rub Franki-boy, I knew at least one fellow who was killed on his bike. From that, not having looked up the skydiving stats, it would be easy to conclude that skydiving, at least for the properly trained, is safer than bicycling on the public roads. Skydivers, in my experience without exception, wear helmets. Just saying...

Andre Jute
It's a human right not have one's prejudices undermined by the facts

[Radey Shouman]

But he wasn't yakuza, was he? Otherwise that tatooist might be now be
sporting less than 10 fingers.

[Frank Krygowski]

But here we have, yet again, avid bicyclists arguing that bicycling is
really more dangerous than we think, because not every bike injury is
reported.

Why do people act as if this applies only to bicycling? I have two close
friends who had significant head injuries plus a broken rib (for one of
them) while walking. One was walking on a gravel path in a forest. The
other tripped on a sidewalk during her lunchtime power walk. The latter
went to the ER (where they implied her husband might have beaten her!)
but the other just visited her own doctor. Neither would be in any
"walking injury" database.

Injuries below a certain level are not recorded for dozens, perhaps
hundreds of activities. It took a special interest research paper to
evaluate injuries from gardening, weight lifting, aerobic dance and
bicycling (which showed that bicycling had the lowest injury rate).

Is anyone recording contusions from slips and falls at swimming pools?
How dangerous _is_ it for kids to play tag? Dare we play ping-pong?

More seriously, why don't those activities have avid participants
whining about their hidden dangers? Why is that whining such a feature
of bicycling?

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Andre Jute]

On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 6:17:01 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:

> I think his complaint is the lack of data in non-fatality cases. I fractured my hand in a bicycle accident and went to an urgent care clinic operated by the same clinic that provides my primary medical care. I whacked my head, too, but I wasn't complaining of a scalp wound prevented by my helmet. And my treatment would not be part of the Oregon injury data set in any event since I was not hospitalized.

Uh-huh.

Data-point 1: I got blown off my bike by a freak wind (Flatside truck drivers who know the crossroads where it happened say it wasn't a freak, it happens all the time, but it happened to me only once in the 20 years till then that I rode there). I had blood blisters from my knee to my armpit. I staggered into the surgery (I then lived above it) and told the receptionist to shoot me straight in to my personal doctor, expecting him to call an ambulance and commit me to hospital. Instead he said, "Nothing much wrong with you." I asked politely, "HTF would you know?" He said, "You walked in here, didn't you?" He told me, "Go upstairs, take some paracetamol, rest." NO RECORD, not even a prescription because I have paracetamol, what Americans call acetaminophen, at home; it's a non prescription drug. I say again, NO RECORD.

Datapoint 2: Avoiding a drunk driver at a difficult H intersection after midnight on a Saturday night, I took a header in the only safe space in preference to being hit by his car travelling erratically at a rate of knots. The helmet saved my face from gravel rash, but both my little fingers were broken. We have 24/365 physician service at a location just up the road from my house, so I walked in to get someone to sign a prescription for more serious painkillers. The doctor on duty gave me some from the samples in his bag, told me to keep my fingers off my keyboard for a week or so, didn't bother to either bandage or splint the broken little fingers, and told me that broken little fingers are a typical cycling injury. (He also said that if I was giving up cycling, he'd buy my all-electronic bike.) Ever since I've been looking at the first knuckle on the little finger of cyclists, and he turns out to be right, it's common to see a bump that one isn't born with. Again, even with two broken bones, NO RECORD, not even a prescription for painkillers.

Contrast a fatality, which by the very nature of it has official paperwork that is routinely compiled and collated by law.

Those bicycle stats for injuries less than fatalities are clearly unreliable.

Andre Jute
Focus group of one

[sms]

On 6/3/2019 1:23 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:

> The trend in all motor vehicle fatalities over the past 20 years or so
> is down, perhaps largely due to better emergency treatment.

More likely due to the presences of a large number of airbags in new
vehicles. Prior to that there were seat belts, shoulder belts,
collapsible steering columns, safety glass, padded dashboards, and
safety cages.

Now many new cars come standard with a variety of collision avoidance
sensors, even on lower priced models. My daughter bought a new Toyota
Corolla LE in 2017. The street price was under US$14,000, but it came
with Toyota "Safety Sense." All sorts of sensors and servos. If you're
drifting out of your lane, without activating your turn signal, it
gently tries to correct you (not like a 737 where it fights you). Some
sort of pre-collision warning if you're following too close, and
automatic emergency braking with pedestrian detection.

[Frank Krygowski]

OK, this site is fun: Why do people visit emergency rooms? Turns out
(not surprisingly) it varies by month. This shows _product related_
reasons for ER trips:

https://flowingdata.com/2016/02/09/why-people-visit-the-emergency-room/

Bicycles is up near the top. Why, there are four months during which
bike injuries outnumber even bed injuries! But if you're getting ready
to use either a floor or some stairs, please watch it. Those are really
dangerous, year round. Wear your helmet!

Again, that's injuries related to products. ER visits are still
dominated by health issues. For summer weekends, here's a list:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/injuries-doctors-see-most_n_591c6f31e4b041db89661c7e

As to more general lists? A hospital system in Texas claims these are
the top ten: https://beaumontemergencycenter.com/ten-common-er-visits/

So headaches are #1. Who'd have guessed? But I don't know if that's
national, or if it's specifically living in Texas that causes so many
headaches.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[John B. Slocomb]

Well, it is logical, isn't it? After all;, he is a politician and a
politician's primary interest, just like the rest of us, is to "keep
his job" and since keeping his job involves convincing the proletariat
that he is a really good guy who has their interest at heart that is
just what he does. If this involves massaging the truth just a bit,
well that's God's will, so to speak and thus not a sin at all.
--

Cheers,

John B.

[John B. Slocomb]

On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 08:38:04 -0400, Duane <duane...@videotron.ca>
wrote:

Actually, I suspect that the dangers of cycling is very largely an
individual factor rather than an over all or all inclusive danger.
Just reading here we find that Jay has had innumerable crashes, broken
bikes, and he even ran over his own child. Frank, on the other hand
hasn't had a crash since he rode down the gangplank from the arc.

How else to quantify this unless we make the assumption that some
people act in a dangerous" manner while others do not?
--

Cheers,

John B.

[jbeattie]

I don't know about others, but I'm not arguing that bicycling is really more dangerous than "we think because not every bike injury is reported." I'm arguing that your statistics are subject to error, including under-reporting.

> Why do people act as if this applies only to bicycling? I have two close
> friends who had significant head injuries plus a broken rib (for one of
> them) while walking. One was walking on a gravel path in a forest. The
> other tripped on a sidewalk during her lunchtime power walk. The latter
> went to the ER (where they implied her husband might have beaten her!)
> but the other just visited her own doctor. Neither would be in any
> "walking injury" database.

What people? Because of the way data is collected, injuries are under-reported -- all injuries that do not result in treatment by a mandatory reporter.

>
> Injuries below a certain level are not recorded for dozens, perhaps
> hundreds of activities. It took a special interest research paper to
> evaluate injuries from gardening, weight lifting, aerobic dance and
> bicycling (which showed that bicycling had the lowest injury rate).

Aerobic dancing has the lowest injury rate for me. Bicycling not so much. Gardening is moving up the list because I got stung on Saturday and have this big lump near my elbow. It's gross.

> Is anyone recording contusions from slips and falls at swimming pools?
> How dangerous _is_ it for kids to play tag? Dare we play ping-pong?
>
> More seriously, why don't those activities have avid participants
> whining about their hidden dangers? Why is that whining such a feature
> of bicycling?

Two reasons: (1) bicycling can feel very dangerous unless you do it a lot. My commute: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foB4ROcPhCg Those guys should be more out in the lane, but even lane center, its unpleasant, and close, fast passes are SOP. Cyclists have died on that road and been seriously injured. For most people, it's cold comfort to say "it doesn't happen much." And try that at night in the pouring rain. It is scary even to old-timers like me. On those no-visibility nights, I understand the guys with twenty retina-blasting flashers. (2) Bicyclists qua motorists look at cyclists in close quarters and say "that guy is going to get killed!" I can't remember the last time anyone said that of someone aerobic dancing. Really, watching the cyclists in London, I wondered why the mortality rate was not 50%.

Also, whether people actually do get killed is almost irrelevant. It's like getting shot at by someone who usually misses. Being shot at is no fun regardless of whether you get hit. I'm accustomed to heavy traffic and herding cars, but most people aren't and would prefer to be out of the line of fire. I am now dealing with high mileage friends who are just refusing to ride in certain places, which I find odd. They just don't like it anymore.


-- Jay Beattie.

[John B. Slocomb]

When reviewing pedestrian deaths one can only marvel. After all
pedestrians have had segregated pathways, practically for ever and yet
we are informed that pedestrian deaths are increasing. And nearly in
the same breath we are told that segregated bicycle paths will make
cycling safer?

How can this be? Segregated foot paths and pedestrian deaths are
increasing while segregated bicycle paths will make us safer?

--

Cheers,

John B.

[John B. Slocomb]

On Mon, 03 Jun 2019 08:10:58 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:


>>
>> True. But I think now, success is a really great phone and
>> lots of skin ink.
>>
>>
>
>Unlike a telephone, irezumi last a lifetime.

One of the reasons that I never got a tattoo was that when I was just
a little fellow my great uncle stayed with us for a while. He had been
a sailor all his life and his arms were covered with tattoos, the bulk
of which, perhaps, dated back 30 - 50 years and were just blue blobs
of color on his skin.

Even at 12 years of age I could figure out that this was not
beautiful.
--

Cheers,

John B.

[Tom Kunich]

On Friday, May 31, 2019 at 5:22:45 PM UTC-7, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Friday, May 31, 2019 at 2:48:36 PM UTC-5, AK wrote:
> >
> > Average age of a bicyclist killed on US roads: 45 (36 in 2002)
>
>

> Disregarding the "killed" part, this brings up a question about the demographics of bicycling today. Are all bicyclists getting older? Is bicycling becoming an older person activity? Are youngsters not taking up cycling? I have friends with children in the late teens and 20s age groups. Some of the kids do ride bikes. But others, their kids do not ride. Yet they ride lots and lots. I know on this forum some people say their children or one child does ride. But how many on this forum have children who do not ride ever? Yet they do.

Whenever there are large races around I see very large groups of college cyclists. Three years ago a small group of us was returning from a ride down a road that leads to Stanford University. The Amgen Tour of California was in the bay area for two stages and going up this hill faster than I could go on the flats was about 100 cyclists in a group. For the rest of the year there were young cyclists everywhere in the Bay Area. The Amgen has only had one stage in the Bay Area I think for two years and the numbers of young cyclists is noticeably missing. If the manufacturers mean to stay in business they had damn well better start paying attention to this younger age group and how they grow far more interested in things when they can RACE. I don't even know if they have any Crits in the area at the moment. On the centuries the youngest people now seem to be in their early 30's.

This is a thing that the bicycle groups have been ignoring and it is showing up with a violent decline in bicycle sales in the USA.

[Tom Kunich]

On Saturday, June 1, 2019 at 7:42:59 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
> On 6/1/2019 3:02 AM, lou.h...@gmail.com wrote:

> > On Saturday, June 1, 2019 at 2:22:45 AM UTC+2, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> On Friday, May 31, 2019 at 2:48:36 PM UTC-5, AK wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Average age of a bicyclist killed on US roads: 45 (36 in 2002)
> >>
> >>
> >> Disregarding the "killed" part, this brings up a question about the demographics of bicycling today. Are all bicyclists getting older? Is bicycling becoming an older person activity? Are youngsters not taking up cycling? I have friends with children in the late teens and 20s age groups. Some of the kids do ride bikes. But others, their kids do not ride. Yet they ride lots and lots. I know on this forum some people say their children or one child does ride. But how many on this forum have children who do not ride ever? Yet they do.
> >

> > All kids in the Netherlands ride a bicycle at least up to 18 years when they allowed to drive a car. Most of the times they can't affort a car at that age so the ride until they earn some money. After that they only ride recreational or when it is more practical/faster.
>
> "Back in my day" we didn't get driven around everywhere, it was just
> unthinkable that we would even ask to be driven somewhere fairly close
> to our homes. We rode our bikes. Maybe if it was pouring rain our
> parents would drive us. The times I was driven to elementary school,
> about four blocks away were rare.
>
> In the city I'm in now, it's extremely rare for an elementary school
> student to ride a bike to school. It's still fairly common in middle
> school and high school, but not at the level it should be. Traffic

> around schools is insane─even though most students could walk or ride a

> bike, they are driven, and sometimes it's only one block.

Here you'd have to have bicycles checked in and released with a ticket and guarded by an armed guard. Yesterday returning from a climbing ride I was pretty tired and a couple of young kids on funny bikes dropped me. One was sort of an oversized BMX and the other was a semi-fat tired bike with a million spoke wheels and he was lifting the bike up onto the rear wheel even going down hills. I was going to give them a rather stern talking to since this was heavy traffic but they disappeared down the flats.

[Tom Kunich]

On Sunday, June 2, 2019 at 6:24:39 AM UTC-7, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
> On Sunday, June 2, 2019 at 8:45:31 AM UTC-4, Duane wrote:
> > Andy <andrewke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I see young kids riding. Teens too. Plenty of bikes at schools as
> > > well.The percentage is lower than when I was growing up.
> > >
> >
> > Same here. But when I was growing up there were not so many soccer moms.
> > The typical scenario was a 1 car family with the husband taking the car to
> > work and the wife taking care of the house and kids. It was certainly
> > like that for my family and most of our friends. So you had the choice to
> > walk or ride a bike.
> >
> > I’m not saying the old days were better. They were not. Just different.
> > Now it takes more incentive to get kids on bikes. Once they put in some
> > bike paths from our neighbourhood to the elementary school the kids stated
> > riding to school. They still do. I past some of the path on my ride to
> > work. I don’t take it, partially because it’s crowded with kids.
> > “Advocates” can complain that it instills a sense of danger around cycling
> > but the fact is that most parents aren’t sending their 8 year olds into
> > traffic.
> >
> > --
> > duane
>
> Especially into traffic with distracted or texting drivers. Traffic is much heavier now than when we were kids.
>
> When we were kids how did we learn to ride in traffic?
>
> I'm not totally against bicycle paths but I am against ones that are poorly designed, ie door zone lanes, or ones that suddenly dump bicyclists into traffic.
>
> I remember one bike lane they installed on Bay Street in Toronto Canada. You could stand on the corner of Bay and Queen Streets and look south towards Front Street and see nary a bicyclist in the bike lane. IIRC, they eventually moved that lane to Jarvis Street another north-south main street and in turn moved it to Sherbourne Street yet another north-south street because there was so little bicycle use on it. From Bay Street to Sherbourne Street is a fair distance.
>
> Cheers

With my screwed up memory I can't remember why I returned to bicycling other than it was after I stopped riding motorcycles. We had this older rider in the local Club - the Cherry City Cyclists - John Carroll and he spent a very great deal of time teaching all of the new comers the lay of the land. I remember him leading us up a 1,000 foot climb - Palomares Rd. and I knew every rest spot along that 4 mile route since that was the days of a 49/20 low gear and there is about a mile total of 12%. When I came out of my concussion I went to visit him and he had just died. My very good friend and owner of Witt's Bicycle Shop had also just died and another steel bike shop owner was there in his shop with no customers and three weeks later he had died.

I went down to the Pearl Izumi outlet today because they were closing and everything was half price. Of course all of my sizes were gone. He said that on memorial day is was a mess with people running around and grabbing handfuls of Size Large clothing. There was only one size 11.5 shoe in stock and the toe box wasn't wide enough for me. But my wife managed to salvage $350 worth of new stuff. I can only hope it brings her back to riding. She used to be able to drop a good pack.

[Tom Kunich]

I drove 60 miles down and another back today and there were totally open roads within sight of the freeways which were packed.

[Tom Kunich]

On Sunday, June 2, 2019 at 7:30:36 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 6/1/2019 7:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > On 6/1/2019 4:46 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:

> >>> around schools is insane─even though most students

> >>> could walk or ride a
> >>> bike, they are driven, and sometimes it's only one block.
> >>
> >>

> >> I'm not really talking about "kids" riding bikes during

> >> elementary, middle, or high school. I mean young adults.
> >> Or "kids" as I think of them, unfortunately. Younger
> >> people. Is bicycling, recreational, fun bicycling,
> >> becoming an older and older person activity? Are fewer
> >> and fewer young people doing the activity? Thus making

> >> the average age of the cyclist older and older.
> >
> > I think that's the case, sadly. I think a huge chunk of
> > American's dedicated cyclists are still the ones that took
> > it up during the early 1970s "bike boom" when it was trendy.
> > (Fashion is powerful.) Those people are now in their 60s,
> > perhaps 70s.
> >
> > It's not 100%, of course. We have a new young couple living
> > next door and they've got some very nice road bikes. OTOH,
> > they have a new little kid, so they won't be doing a lot of
> > riding for a while.
> >
> >
>
> So bicycles are basically skateboards for old people?
>

> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Skateboards here are all electrified and these guys can ride a skateboard faster than you can pedal and they pay not the slightest attention to traffic laws weaving in and around traffic.

[russell...@yahoo.com]

On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 2:25:43 AM UTC-5, sms wrote:
>
> "Increased use of smartphones and the popularity of SUVs are among the
> likely factors to have caused pedestrian fatalities to jump 35 percent,
> the Governors Highway Safety Association says."
>

Not sure how the type of car/truck a person drives affects pedestrian deaths. Using a smartphone or being distracted in any manner can and will increase running over pedestrians and killing them. But driving an SUV? How does what you are driving affect whether you run someone over? I'm fairly certain a pedestrian will dies no matter which vehicle runs them over. Tercel car, Miata car, Pickup, SUV, Camry sedan. Doesn't matter. One of the engineers on this forum can figure up the amount of force/destruction generated by a 1 ton, 1.5 ton, 2 ton, 2.5 ton vehicle traveling at 30 mph, or 40 mph, or 50 mph, or 60 mph. I'm sure in all cases it is more than enough to kill a pedestrian.

[AMuzi]

Oh, yes.

https://ktla.com/2019/05/31/pedestrian-killed-by-motorcycle-during-pursuit-in-downtown-l-a/

Motorcyclist wearing helmet lived, bareheaded pedestrian
died. That's all we need to know!

[russell...@yahoo.com]

On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 3:41:24 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> I have two close
> friends who had significant head injuries plus a broken rib (for one of

> them) while walking. The

> other tripped on a sidewalk during her lunchtime power walk. The latter
> went to the ER

> but the other just visited her own doctor. Neither would be in any
> "walking injury" database.
>

> --
> - Frank Krygowski

Are you sure about that? I am not in the medical industry and have no connection with doctor offices or emergency rooms. But I suspect both fill out forms for every single person they treat. And put check marks on various boxes to classify every treatment some how. Head injuries, scalp abrasions, cuts, concussions would all have checkmarks. And broken ribs too. These injuries would end up in some total somewhere.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 6/3/2019 6:43 PM, jbeattie wrote:
> On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 1:41:24 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 6/3/2019 1:16 PM, jbeattie wrote:
>>>
>>> Without getting into the question of whether bicycle is safe or safer than gardening, one can argue about the completeness of the data -- at least in non-fatalities. And then one can argue about what the data means.
>>
>> But here we have, yet again, avid bicyclists arguing that bicycling is
>> really more dangerous than we think, because not every bike injury is
>> reported.
>
> I don't know about others, but I'm not arguing that bicycling is really more dangerous than "we think because not every bike injury is reported." I'm arguing that your statistics are subject to error, including under-reporting.

Yes. And that's true of _all_ similar statistics for _all_ activities.

>> Why do people act as if this applies only to bicycling? I have two close
>> friends who had significant head injuries plus a broken rib (for one of
>> them) while walking. One was walking on a gravel path in a forest. The
>> other tripped on a sidewalk during her lunchtime power walk. The latter
>> went to the ER (where they implied her husband might have beaten her!)
>> but the other just visited her own doctor. Neither would be in any
>> "walking injury" database.
>
> What people? Because of the way data is collected, injuries are under-reported -- all injuries that do not result in treatment by a mandatory reporter.

Yes, ALL injuries that do not result in treatment by a mandatory
reporter, for ALL activities.

And isn't it clear that "safe" vs. "dangerous" can be judged only by
comparison? If a certain proportion of biking injuries are unreported,
it's unlikely to change bicycling's rank compared to (say) basketball;
because at least a certain portion of basketball injuries are unreported.

In fact, there's evidence that biking injuries may be relatively OVER
reported. Specifically, in the infamous Thompson & Rivara 1989 paper
that claimed (falsely) that bike helmets prevented 85% of head injuries,
others pointed out that the kids brought to ER had helmet wearing rates
seven times that of the area's population as a whole. (Both rates were
measured by the same team, T&R.) Effectively, the parents that bought
helmets were probably so scared of TBI that they brought their little
darlings in "just in case." The result would have been _over_ reporting.
The general climate of fear around bicycling may still have the same
effect.

>> Injuries below a certain level are not recorded for dozens, perhaps
>> hundreds of activities. It took a special interest research paper to
>> evaluate injuries from gardening, weight lifting, aerobic dance and
>> bicycling (which showed that bicycling had the lowest injury rate).
>

>> Is anyone recording contusions from slips and falls at swimming pools?
>> How dangerous _is_ it for kids to play tag? Dare we play ping-pong?
>>
>> More seriously, why don't those activities have avid participants
>> whining about their hidden dangers? Why is that whining such a feature
>> of bicycling?
>
> Two reasons: (1) bicycling can feel very dangerous unless you do it a lot. My commute: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foB4ROcPhCg Those guys should be more out in the lane, but even lane center, its unpleasant, and close, fast passes are SOP.

I do agree those guys should be out in the lane. My wife and I did a
utility ride today on the tandem, stopping at three shops, and riding
two roads that were pretty much like that, except with many more
intersections. Lane center all the way. She could tell you how nicely
traffic flowed into the next lane to get around us.

Still, I could agree with some properly designed bike infrastructure
there on Barbur. The lack of intersections would mean fewer
opportunities for the typical conflicts, and PDX probably does a better
job of sweeping than most areas.

However, it's a bit disingenuous to put up such a video and say "See?
It's dangerous - or it feels dangerous." Because I'm pretty sure almost
all cyclists generally ride roads that are at their comfort level. Most
never experience a road like that. With education, they could - but
cycling education is not even considered, except by a few.
https://cyclingsavvy.org/

Story: I used to lead a series of "Ethnic Restaurant Rides" for our
club. The deal was, you showed up at the start and I led you to an
unusual restaurant - Jewish deli, Hungarian, Middle Eastern, Irish pub,
Puerto Rican, etc., but always a secret until we arrived. They were
pretty popular rides.

Anyway, one Friday I was doing a last minute route check and found the
restaurant I'd chosen was closed because of a gas leak! I had to find a
replacement very quickly, within range of the same starting point! I
could come up with only one possibility, rather near the starting point.
So I worked out a route into the countryside then back... but we had to
do a couple miles on a wide four lane with center turn lanes to reach
the restaurant.

It was absolutely no problem. By luck, traffic was extremely light.
Besides, we were headed downhill, doing at least 20 mph with no effort.
The pavement was brand new. Of course, I and most others rode lane
center, and the few motorists were perfectly kind.

But one woman was terrified. She'd been on only a few club rides,
although her husband had done many more. She was just convinced that
riding on a four lane was by definition life threatening. AFAIK that was
her last club ride.

I'd call that paranoia. But I think it's triggered in part by the
constant "Danger! Danger!" drumming that is attached to bicycling.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

Hey, I had an excuse. That gangplank was slick! I had to descend just
behind the elephants!


--
- Frank Krygowski

[AMuzi]

I have no experience with new cars but my daughter, in her
role as chauffeur to teenagers, found some models unwieldy
in city traffic. Sight lines, overhangs, blind spots vary a
lot from sedans to SUV to mini vans and greatly among the
various brands/models. After a series of unfortunate events,
she sold the last one and went car-free (now that grandsons
are 15 and 17 they can get around the city as needed).

[Frank Krygowski]

On 6/3/2019 7:43 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Sunday, June 2, 2019 at 7:30:36 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>
>>
>> So bicycles are basically skateboards for old people?
>>
>

> Skateboards here are all electrified and these guys can ride a skateboard faster than you can pedal and they pay not the slightest attention to traffic laws weaving in and around traffic.

In another forum, one well-known cyclist was talking about design
criteria for a vehicle that would cause lots of crashes.

He said he'd make it with no seat, with tiny wheels, with lousy brakes,
with self-stability low enough that you couldn't ride it with one hand,
and make it go fast.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

As Andrew said, things like visibility can vary quite a bit, meaning
it's easier to miss noticing some pedestrians from the seat of some
vehicles.

But supposedly, another factor is the profile of the front of the
vehicle. When a Mazda Miata hits a pedestrian, the impact is somewhere
near the lower leg. For a Toyota Camry it may be the thigh. In both
cases, the ped's lower body is swept forward and the body as a whole
rotates. The head and upper body hit the near-horizontal hood of the
car, which is relatively flat and soft.

With a taller SUV or pickup, the impact is more whole body, all at once.
The torso and head are much more likely to take a really hard hit. Those
vehicles really are more deadly.

For bonus points, some pickup trucks feature metal guards and bars to
protect the truck from impacts with brush, animals or I suppose
pedestrians. Those guards have near zero flexibility. Some have
described them acting on pedestrians like french fry cutters.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Duane]

Last time I looked it was 17 deaths per year. I didn’t check the miles
traveled though.

--
duane

[Duane]

Who is arguing that cycling is more dangerous than anything? I just don’t
like junk science.

A lot of my cycling friends don’t commute anymore because they are either
retired or got fed up dealing with traffic when they can put more mileage
in riding in the country breathing fresh air rather than exhaust fumes.
I commute because I can’t afford to retire yet and prefer being on a bike
rather than stuck in bumper to bumper traffic. I can herd cars, as you say
if I have to, but if I can take an alternate route to avoid that I do. I
think anyone who wouldn’t must be a nutcase.


> -- Jay Beattie.
>
>
>
>



--
duane

[Sir Ridesalot]

On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 9:09:24 PM UTC-4, Duane wrote:
Snipped

> A lot of my cycling friends don’t commute anymore because they are either
> retired or got fed up dealing with traffic when they can put more mileage
> in riding in the country breathing fresh air rather than exhaust fumes.
> I commute because I can’t afford to retire yet and prefer being on a bike
> rather than stuck in bumper to bumper traffic. I can herd cars, as you say
> if I have to, but if I can take an alternate route to avoid that I do. I
> think anyone who wouldn’t must be a nutcase.

Snipped
> --
> duane

I agree about quieter alternate routes. One job I had in Toronto Canada was near the intersection of Yonge Street and Davenport Road. This was before bike lanes were installed on Bloor Street. My route to that job could up along Broadview Avenue to Danforth Avenue turn left onto Danforth and then continue when Danforth became Bloor Street and ride to Yonge Street and turn left on Yonge. Or... I could ride to River Street, turn left and go onto Bayview Avenue and ride to Rosedale Valley road and then ride along Rosedale Valley Road to Yonge Street.

Here's Bloor Street now.

https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Bloor+St+E,+Toronto,+ON/@43.670985,-79.3840194,90m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m8!1m2!2m1!1sBloor+Street+East,+Toronto,+ON!3m4!1s0x89d4cb56a6089451:0xc6143688fa04b7b1!8m2!3d43.6722213!4d-79.3740356

Here's the alternative Rosedale Valley Road route.

https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Rosedale+Valley+Rd,+Toronto,+ON/@43.6729491,-79.3734315,3a,90y,104.37h,89.73t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sXKHv1Fe0EoIBZB_q1BShKA!2e0!3e11!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fmaps%2Fphotothumb%2Ffd%2Fv1%3Fbpb%3DChAKDnNlYXJjaC5UQUNUSUxFEiAKEgnRuT64VsvUiREahAyvntIQ-yoKDQAAAAAVAAAAABoFCHgQ6AI%26gl%3DCA!7i16384!8i8192!4m5!3m4!1s0x89d4cb56b83eb9d1:0xfb10d29eaf0c841a!8m2!3d43.6721174!4d-79.3733053

Btw, there's only ONE stop on Rosedale Valley Road between Bayview Avenue and Yonge Street. The traffic on Rosedale Valley Road even in rush hour wasn't too bad. If one didn't like dealing with cars there is/was a pave separate lane/sidewalk most of the way.

Which route would the denizens of RBT prefer? The one along Bloor Street with its motor traffic congestion AND many squirrley bicylcists or the nice quiet valley road ride?

Cheers

[jbeattie]

Yes, the information would end up in a patient chart but not necessarily get reported to any public agency for inclusion in an injury data base. A lot of collected data involves ICD (International Classification of Disease) codes, which are billing codes and pretty blunt. They ICDs are culled from reports that are required to be filed with the government, and that's how we get a lot of the stats. Death stats are easy to get because all deaths get reported.

Hey, who knew! There is an ICD code(s) for bicycle accidents! https://www.icd10data.com/ICD10CM/Codes/V00-Y99/V10-V19 I almost had a V11 today with some dope riding the wrong way in a bike lane. SFB. You really, really want to avoid a V15.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Sir Ridesalot]

Added. I just saw that they've added a guardrail between the road traffic and the paved path/sidewalk. That guardrail was NOT there when I used that road.

Cheers

[Sir Ridesalot]

I see it says PEDAL CYCLE, does that include E-bikes and/or mopeds I wonder?

Cheers

[Sir Ridesalot]

Added. Ah, looking further I see that the guardrail is only in short areas NOT the entire road.

Cheers

[sms]

On 6/3/2019 3:54 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

<snip>

> When reviewing pedestrian deaths one can only marvel. After all
> pedestrians have had segregated pathways, practically for ever and yet
> we are informed that pedestrian deaths are increasing. And nearly in
> the same breath we are told that segregated bicycle paths will make
> cycling safer?
>
> How can this be? Segregated foot paths and pedestrian deaths are
> increasing while segregated bicycle paths will make us safer?

Because the two things are not the same.

Pedestrian injuries and deaths only occasionally happen on the sidewalk.
The problem is at intersections, of which they cross a great many.
Jaywalking and vehicle traffic violations play the biggest part.

A properly designed protected bicycle lane will have

[sms]

Oops, hit send to soon....

On 6/3/2019 3:54 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

<snip>

> How can this be? Segregated foot paths and pedestrian deaths are
> increasing while segregated bicycle paths will make us safer?

Because the two things are not the same. As I am sure that you understand.

Pedestrian injuries and deaths only occasionally happen on the sidewalk.
The problem is at intersections, of which they cross a great many.
Jaywalking and vehicle traffic violations play the biggest part.

A properly designed protected bicycle lane will, by design, have proper
controls at intersections. No right-on-red (or no right turn at all).
Traffic lights with a phase for cyclists. Bollards and other devices
that discourage vehicle intrusion into the protected bicycle lane even
at intersections.

[sms]

On 6/3/2019 6:55 PM, jbeattie wrote:

<snip>

> Yes, the information would end up in a patient chart but not necessarily get reported to any public agency for inclusion in an injury data base. A lot of collected data involves ICD (International Classification of Disease) codes, which are billing codes and pretty blunt. They ICDs are culled from reports that are required to be filed with the government, and that's how we get a lot of the stats. Death stats are easy to get because all deaths get reported.
>
> Hey, who knew! There is an ICD code(s) for bicycle accidents! https://www.icd10data.com/ICD10CM/Codes/V00-Y99/V10-V19 I almost had a V11 today with some dope riding the wrong way in a bike lane. SFB. You really, really want to avoid a V15.

There are surveys like the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care
Survey but it just looks at what type of treatment was provided, not the
underlying cause.

[Sir Ridesalot]

Does that include all the intersections at driveways and entrances and exits to parking lots?

I really think you're dreaming and that large scale intensive segregated bike lanes are a pipe-dream for most of North America.

Cheers

[James]

On 4/6/19 6:32 am, Andre Jute wrote:
> On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 1:38:08 PM UTC+1, duane wrote:
>

>> You end up with nonsense like cycling is more dangerous than sky
>> diving.
>

> I didn't look up the stats on skydiving, but common sense tells us
> that most incidents are likely to be fatal. All the same, a guy at
> college with me broke his ankle skydiving and survived, only later to
> commit suicide. I made a few jumps during my military service (we had
> conscription), low level stuff, supposedly more dangerous, but I was
> never hurt, nor was anybody from my training group. On the other
> hand, just to rub Franki-boy, I knew at least one fellow who was
> killed on his bike. From that, not having looked up the skydiving
> stats, it would be easy to conclude that skydiving, at least for the
> properly trained, is safer than bicycling on the public roads.
> Skydivers, in my experience without exception, wear helmets. Just
> saying...
>

I wonder how many have been saved by their helmet? Just asking...

--
JS

[Frank Krygowski]

OK, I just spent some time on the phone chatting with my lifelong friend
who recently retired as an ER doctor. Here's what he said:

In his state, he would record things via computer. They had a system of
check boxes and some drop-down menus, plus places to type details.

Since he knew one of the women I mentioned above, I asked about her
specific case. He said she might be recorded as a head injury from a
fall, but there would likely be no more details. He said he tended to
type more in the text boxes in case he was later deposed for lawsuits,
so he might have typed "while walking on sidewalk." But he said most
physicians would give no more than one word, probably "fall." He said he
was often frustrated when having to follow up on a patient originally
seen by another doctor, since "fall" in the chart didn't specify while
walking? Or off a step stool? Down the stairs? Off a roof? Off a cliff?

And it's anybody's guess what any physician in private practice, as
opposed to at an ER, would write on a patient's chart. But it wouldn't
matter, because any such notes would never be harvested.

But probably most important, the inconsistent ER descriptions would make
it impractical or impossible to gather the data for any large scale
analysis. For that to happen, you typically need coding so consistent
that it can be understood by fairly simple software. I'm told that just
doesn't happen for those types of injuries.

Perhaps in some special interest cases, graduate students or other
slaves could be forced to manually go through records for one hospital.
But on a national level, it's not going to happen.

This guy may be wrong. We could try to see if there's good national data
on the number of injuries from tripping while walking. But I haven't
found any.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

Oh, right!

And what percentage of "protected" bicycle lanes have those at all
intersections?

Before you answer, remember that every driveway is in effect an
intersection.

So, is that going to be the plan in Cupertino? Really?

--
- Frank Krygowski

[John B.]

On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 19:01:39 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

Ah, I see. Bicycle paths have no intersections. Yup, gottcha.
--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 19:05:23 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

Ah, again you enlighten us. Pedestrians get killed at intersections
where they do not obey even rudimentary traffic laws because,
apparently, there aren't any proper controls but bicycles will be safe
because they do have proper controls.

Tell me, what sort of primitive area do you reside in that doesn't
have pedestrian controls at intersections? I ask as even in this
benighted little country we have them and I find it amazing that they
don't (apparently) exist in the U.S.
--
cheers,

John B.

[Andre Jute]

Just turning serious for a moment, from a skydiving height, a helmet would really have to encase the parachutist's head in enough balloonery or styrofoam or whatever to build a life-size model of the Taj Mahal. There'd so much material it would be hard to avoid encasing him entirely. Look Ma, not even a pinky broken...

Andre Jute
The biggest danger in skydiving is being beaten up by a farmer whose crop you damaged

[sms]

On 6/3/2019 9:13 PM, John B. wrote:

<snip>

> Tell me, what sort of primitive area do you reside in that doesn't
> have pedestrian controls at intersections? I ask as even in this
> benighted little country we have them and I find it amazing that they
> don't (apparently) exist in the U.S.

The difference is that pedestrians routinely ignore the pedestrian
controls and motorists routinely speed through crosswalks where they are
required to yield but don't.

Cyclists are riding with traffic (unless they are turning themselves
into a pedestrian to use a crosswalk). Some cyclists run red lights but
generally only under certain circumstances like when they don't trigger
a sensor in the road, or when they are going through the top of a tee
intersection in a bike lane or on the shoulder. Cyclists are much less
likely to suddenly leave the sidewalk and dart across the road unexpectedly.

"In a recent study of 7,000 pedestrian-vehicle crashes in Florida,
researchers discovered that pedestrians were at fault in 80 percent of
these incidents. Similarly, in a U.K. study, pedestrian behavior
accounted for 90 percent of crashes where a vehicle struck a pedestrian."

Studies of bicycle crashes, in the U.S., vary, but the percentage of
at-fault cyclists is much lower than at-fauld pedestrians
<https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2011/05/20/136462246/when-bikes-and-cars-collide-whos-more-likely-to-be-at-fault>

But I'm sure that you already knew all this without it having to be
explained to you.

[Duane]

I assumed Andre was being sarcastic which is why I replied with the
distance traveled comment...

[Radey Shouman]

sms <scharf...@geemail.com> writes:

> On 6/3/2019 1:23 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
>
>> The trend in all motor vehicle fatalities over the past 20 years or so
>> is down, perhaps largely due to better emergency treatment.
>
> More likely due to the presences of a large number of airbags in new
> vehicles. Prior to that there were seat belts, shoulder belts,
> collapsible steering columns, safety glass, padded dashboards, and
> safety cages.

Maybe, although it would be good to have *some* evidence that this is
so. The original rationale of the airbag was that some restraining
device was required that worked without any action by the driver or
passenger. With recent cars, unless one is profoundly deaf it is
difficult to drive around without the belt fastened (it is possible to
fasten it behind ones self).

> Now many new cars come standard with a variety of collision avoidance
> sensors, even on lower priced models. My daughter bought a new Toyota
> Corolla LE in 2017. The street price was under US$14,000, but it came
> with Toyota "Safety Sense." All sorts of sensors and servos. If you're
> drifting out of your lane, without activating your turn signal, it
> gently tries to correct you (not like a 737 where it fights you). Some
> sort of pre-collision warning if you're following too close, and
> automatic emergency braking with pedestrian detection.

These features may help, but I think it's still too soon to tell. The
downside is the growth of entertainment screens in motor vehicles, all
operated by touch screen so that visual attention is required, and IMHO
way too complicated to operate safely while driving.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 6/4/2019 9:11 AM, sms wrote:
> On 6/3/2019 9:13 PM, John B. wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Tell me, what sort of primitive area do you reside in that doesn't
>> have pedestrian controls at intersections? I ask as even in this
>> benighted little country we have them and I find it amazing that they
>> don't (apparently) exist in the U.S.
>
> The difference is that pedestrians routinely ignore the pedestrian
> controls and motorists routinely speed through crosswalks where they are
> required to yield but don't.
>
> Cyclists are riding with traffic (unless they are turning themselves
> into a pedestrian to use a crosswalk). Some cyclists run red lights but
> generally only under certain circumstances like when they don't trigger
> a sensor in the road, or when they are going through the top of a tee
> intersection in a bike lane or on the shoulder. Cyclists are much less
> likely to suddenly leave the sidewalk and dart across the road
> unexpectedly.

So your solution to the (mostly imaginary) bike safety problem is to
have cyclists no longer ride "with traffic." Instead, you'll have them
ride in barrier separated bike lanes where motorists are much less
likely to notice them, and in fact may not be able to see them.

Then the cyclists are going to suddenly leave the "protection" at every
intersection, because the "protection" won't exist where there's an
intersection. The cyclists will "dart across" the intersection
unexpectedly - at least, according to the motorists driving across the
path of the now "unprotected" cyclists.

What could possibly go wrong?

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 6/4/2019 10:32 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
> sms <scharf...@geemail.com> writes:
>
>> On 6/3/2019 1:23 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
>>
>>> The trend in all motor vehicle fatalities over the past 20 years or so
>>> is down, perhaps largely due to better emergency treatment.
>>
>> More likely due to the presences of a large number of airbags in new
>> vehicles. Prior to that there were seat belts, shoulder belts,
>> collapsible steering columns, safety glass, padded dashboards, and
>> safety cages.
>
> Maybe, although it would be good to have *some* evidence that this is
> so. The original rationale of the airbag was that some restraining
> device was required that worked without any action by the driver or
> passenger. With recent cars, unless one is profoundly deaf it is
> difficult to drive around without the belt fastened (it is possible to
> fasten it behind ones self).

I've come across a few sources that say airbags are highly overrated.
This article
https://www.automobilemag.com/news/do-airbags-save-more-lives-than-seatbelts/
says seatbelts are about 48% effective at preventing fatalities, but
airbags are only about 15% effective.

Here's another source with higher estimate of seatbelt effectiveness,
but the same low estimate for airbags:
http://freakonomics.com/2005/07/18/which-would-you-rather-have-a-seat-belt-or-an-air-bag/

Granted, those are casual articles. But I've wondered if the main
benefit to airbags has been to get people to buckle seatbelts, ever
since some people who wore no seatbelts were killed by airbags. (The
warnings printed on our car's sun visors are pretty scary.)

>> Now many new cars come standard with a variety of collision avoidance
>> sensors, even on lower priced models. My daughter bought a new Toyota
>> Corolla LE in 2017. The street price was under US$14,000, but it came
>> with Toyota "Safety Sense." All sorts of sensors and servos. If you're
>> drifting out of your lane, without activating your turn signal, it
>> gently tries to correct you (not like a 737 where it fights you). Some
>> sort of pre-collision warning if you're following too close, and
>> automatic emergency braking with pedestrian detection.
>
> These features may help, but I think it's still too soon to tell. The
> downside is the growth of entertainment screens in motor vehicles, all
> operated by touch screen so that visual attention is required, and IMHO
> way too complicated to operate safely while driving.

"Too soon to tell" is right. Scharf has long been easily seduced by any
new "safety!" claims.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Radey Shouman]

My recollection is that it really was a regulatory issue. Back in the
80s there were a number of attempts at no-user-volition safety devices,
such as shoulder belts that closed with the door. These were literally
worse than useless, because they did not secure the lap belt. Airbags
won because they do at least sometimes work, and they're money makers
for dealer maintenance shops. Also, who doesn't love explosive devices?

[russell...@yahoo.com]

In my city, counties, we have two types of bike lanes/paths/trails. Separate paved paths/sidewalks/trails that usually follow alongside the river/creek or where the railroad used to be. These have very few intersections. The ones out in the countryside do cross a lot of gravel roads. Trails in town don't cross much.

And then downtown we have bike lanes alongside a couple of the main downtown streets. Painted lines on the road on the side. Bike lanes. These of course cross every street and store entrance just like the road does.