Dangerous? Study: 77 to 1 benefit to risk
Frank Krygowski
benefit-to-risk ratio for cycling at 20:1 in favor of cycling. His
estimate was based on calculations of years of life gained vs. years of
life lost for society as a whole. That included, for example,
pedestrians not killed by a car because the driver chose to cycle
instead of drive.
Last year de Hartog et.al. pegged the ratio at 9:1 in favor of cycling
in the Netherlands, and 7:1 in Britain, this time for just the cyclists
themselves. This did not account for things like fewer bystander deaths
due to air pollution, for example.
The latest paper gives even more optimistic estimates. A study of the
urban cyclist use of Barcelona's bike sharing system pegged that ratio
at 77 to 1 in favor of bicycling, for those replacing car trips with
bike trips.
A brief radio interview discussing this is at
http://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/audio/today-programme-cycling-work-too-dangerous
Warning: There is some slight mention of helmets - specifically, the
statement that none of the people in the study wore them; and that they
discourage riding.
This is consistent with data from London's and Dublin's and Paris's bike
share plans, with millions of users but no (or almost no) serious
injuries. (And OTOH there's Melbourne's, which requires helmets and
thus gets almost no use.)
The paper's free to download at
http://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c5293.full.pdf
Really, how safe does cycling have to be, and by how much do its
benefits have to exceed the tiny risk, before we say "Stop worrying.
It's safe enough"?
--
- Frank Krygowski
"\"T°m Sherm@n >
Frank makes the mistake of thinking people value facts and proper
statistical analyses over gut feelings and conventional "wisdom".
--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
I am a vehicular cyclist.
Dan
> Many years ago, the eminent British researcher...
>
<snip>
>
> Really, how safe does cycling have to be, and by how much do its
> benefits have to exceed the tiny risk, before we say "Stop
> worrying. It's safe enough"?
>
Safe enough for what? Safe enough to do? Don't we all do it?
Or, by "stop worrying", do you mean safe enough to not bother
trying to make it safer.
Lou Holtman
What does 7:1 etc mean? What is benefit to risk ratio?
Lou
Frank Krygowski
> Frank Krygowski<frkrygo...@gEEmail.com> writes:
>
>> Many years ago, the eminent British researcher...
>>
>
> <snip>
>
>>
>> Really, how safe does cycling have to be, and by how much do its
>> benefits have to exceed the tiny risk, before we say "Stop
>> worrying. It's safe enough"?
>>
>
> Safe enough for what? Safe enough to do? Don't we all do it?
No, not for some definitions of "we."
> Or, by "stop worrying", do you mean safe enough to not bother
> trying to make it safer.
Safe enough to dispense with the cries that "We need bike tracks and
bike boxes and bike lanes and bike paths because ordinary roads are so
dangerous."
Safe enough to dispense with campaigns saying "Riding a bike without a
helmet can kill you."
Cyclists seem astonishingly willing to accept anti-bike propaganda, and
to claim they would have died if not for their special hat, or special
paint on the road.
--
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
> What does 7:1 etc mean? What is benefit to risk ratio?
The ratio is an estimate of the number of years of life gained for every
year of life lost due to cycling. Obviously, it's an estimate, and one
that's complicated to construct.
But researchers have previously estimated the effects on longevity of
various behaviors and environmental factors. This cycling research
attempts to aggregate those effects as they relate to cycling, vs. not
cycling (which typically means motoring).
For example, one factor is breathing various concentrations of polluted
air. (That applies to cyclists, motorists and bystanders - but "Danger!
Danger!" people like Duane make noise about only the effect on
cyclists.) Anyway, researchers can use measured data to estimate the
amount of air pollution inhaled by cyclists and by motorists, and
compute how many years of life are expected to be lost for each group.
(That one's small, and worse for motorists, BTW.)
They can also examine data on the health benefits of moderate exercise,
and use that to estimate the number of years of life gained by regular
cycling. That factor is quite large in favor of the cyclists.
Finally, the big one in most people's minds: They can look at data on
frequency of traffic crashes and see how likely a cyclist is to get
killed or seriously injured while riding. They can work that into the
computation as well. However, it turns out it's relatively tiny.
Despite the fear mongering, loss of life while cycling is a very, very
tiny risk.
Again, Mayer Hillman's computations many years ago (around 1990, IIRC)
put cycling's benefit:risk at 20:1. De Hartog's came out at 7:1 or 9:1
for different groups of cyclists. This latest comes out 77:1 - i.e. for
each population year of life lost due to cycling-related factors, there
are 77 years of life gained. Cycling is tremendously beneficial.
The differences in these estimates are large, of course. But no matter
which a person chooses, it shows that fears of cycling are unjustified,
and that we don't need weird measures to reduce the mythical danger levels.
--
- Frank Krygowski
AMuzi
It's a Bhutan thing.
I'm 7x more satisfied than the texting putz trying to run
over me.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Lou Holtman
Hmm, not very usefull those figures. I had a day off yesterday and did a
ride during a weekday in working hours. It was a nice day and there were
hordes of retired people on the road on their bikes. I didn't count them
exactly but hell more than 50% were on E bikes. It's become a 'plague'
here in the Neteherlands and boy they do dumb things on their bikes.
They still think traffic is in the sixties. It was reported that
accidents with older people are rapidly increasing the last 2 years. Go
figure what only E bikes can do... Andre are you paying attention?
Lou, has to watch cars and bloody E bikes these days.
Peter Cole
I think any bike share program would be fatally handicapped with a
mandatory helmet requirement. Boston just launched ours -- sans helmets,
and it's off to a strong start. Hopefully these programs will reverse
some of the helmet hysteria (as a side benefit). On the other hand, one
serious accident could wreck things.
>> The paper's free to download at
>> http://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c5293.full.pdf
>>
>> Really, how safe does cycling have to be, and by how much do its
>> benefits have to exceed the tiny risk, before we say "Stop worrying.
>> It's safe enough"?
>>
>
> Frank makes the mistake of thinking people value facts and proper
> statistical analyses over gut feelings and conventional "wisdom".
The problem is thinking in shades of gray -- something Frank has
difficulty with, too.
People do misjudge perception of safety with actual safety. Very few
people are so rational to put complete faith in statistics, and only a
few are aware of them. Still, some of our perceptions, while
non-rational, are compelling. Some things, like auto traffic in close
proximity, are not as dangerous as they seem, but that doesn't make them
pleasant.
I am only mildly interested in the prospect of an increase in cycling
popularity. I think that an exchange of cars for bikes in dense urban
areas would improve the quality of most cities, health-wise and
aesthetically. I'm much more moved by aesthetics than health -- public
or personal. Like it or not, the perception of safety plays a bigger
role than actual statistical safety in most people's decision to bike,
while convenience, comfort and social acceptability dwarf both concerns.
Boston already leads the nation in walking. We've spent billions
reversing some of the terrible urban planning decisions made in the 50's
and 60's, which literally tore the city apart accommodating vehicular
traffic. We have a reasonably good (by dismal US standards) public
transportation infrastructure. Cycling is good on its own merits --
healthful (on balance), green, and all that, but I appreciate it most
for it's aesthetics -- not just the wind in your hair freedom, but the
freedom of mobility that comes from not being accompanied by a few cubic
yards of steel, glass and plastic wherever you go. They may be necessary
for suburban life, but ton and a half exoskeletons really detract from
the urban experience.
Hopefully, providing community bicycles will kick-start the cycling
scene in Boston for the masses. Hopefully the nannies won't clutter
things up with helmet requirements.
Dan
> Dan wrote:
>> Frank Krygowski<frkrygo...@gEEmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Many years ago, the eminent British researcher...
>>>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>
>>> Really, how safe does cycling have to be, and by how much do its
>>> benefits have to exceed the tiny risk, before we say "Stop
>>> worrying. It's safe enough"?
>>>
>>
>> Safe enough for what? Safe enough to do? Don't we all do it?
>
> No, not for some definitions of "we."
>
Who is your audience for this post?
>> Or, by "stop worrying", do you mean safe enough to not bother
>> trying to make it safer.
>
> Safe enough to dispense with the cries that "We need bike tracks and
> bike boxes and bike lanes and bike paths because ordinary roads are so
> dangerous."
>
Do I need to list links to this week's stories of bicyclists mown down
like so much roadkill.
> Safe enough to dispense with campaigns saying "Riding a bike without a
> helmet can kill you."
>
Who said that? To whom are you addressing this post?
> Cyclists seem astonishingly willing to accept anti-bike propaganda,
> and to claim they would have died if not for their special hat, or
> special paint on the road.
>
Most of us are just in it to Ride Bike. I offer the benefit of my
knowledge, opinions (such as they are ;-), perception and experience
to those that seem to have an unrealistic perception, but I'm mostly
just in it to Ride Bike. You go ahead on and make the world a better
place - and go ahead and share information with us FWIW (and thanks
for both); but give *us* some credit and spare us the lectures.
Jay Beattie
"AMuzi" <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote in message
news:j1jnpv$642$1...@dont-email.me...
The laws appear to be totally meaningless -- I see as many or more people on
phones these days than I did before the law. What amazes me is the number
of people walking and talking, texting, apping, etc., etc. It seems like
everyone on the sidewalks downtown is on the phone. Who are they
talking/texting to? What is so important? I see asswipes on bikes talking
on the phone. I read some guy the riot act the other day who was riding
like a fool while talking on a cellphone. Incessant yakking has become the
new opiate of the masses. People are utterly afraid to shut up and listen
to themselves think these days.
-- Jay Beattie.
--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ne...@netfront.net ---
Peter Cole
That's really the issue. It's not whether, as you say, cycling is safe
enough to do -- we apparently all agree that it is -- but could it
(easily) be made safer -- and I'd add -- more convenient and more
pleasant. On our local expressways we have "HOV" (high occupancy
vehicle) dedicated lanes. I'd like the same in the city. I hate queuing
up behind long lines of hot, exhaust spewing vehicles jammed curb to
curb. I'd like to take a little space from the road hogs. Ideally, I'd
like my own signals, or even signal timings, and I'd like exemptions
from traffic controls along the lines of "Idaho stops". I'd like to see
a reduction in urban areas from the default thickly settled speed limit
of 30 mph to a more reasonable 20. Simple stuff that would make cycling
safer, more pleasant and more convenient.
Peter Cole
> Dan wrote:
>> Frank Krygowski<frkrygo...@gEEmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Many years ago, the eminent British researcher...
>>>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>
>>> Really, how safe does cycling have to be, and by how much do its
>>> benefits have to exceed the tiny risk, before we say "Stop
>>> worrying. It's safe enough"?
>>>
>>
>> Safe enough for what? Safe enough to do? Don't we all do it?
>
> No, not for some definitions of "we."
>
>> Or, by "stop worrying", do you mean safe enough to not bother
>> trying to make it safer.
>
> Safe enough to dispense with the cries that "We need bike tracks and
> bike boxes and bike lanes and bike paths because ordinary roads are so
> dangerous."
If people, currently cycling or not, want to ride with some separation
from vehicular traffic, why stand in their way? To each their own. You
can't control the world, you should stop trying.
>
> Safe enough to dispense with campaigns saying "Riding a bike without a
> helmet can kill you."
>
> Cyclists seem astonishingly willing to accept anti-bike propaganda, and
> to claim they would have died if not for their special hat, or special
> paint on the road.
Why do you care what some people think? I don't. I'm ambivalent about
helmets but utterly opposed to MHL's. What's so hard? Live and let live.
Peter Cole
But it's like an inverse lottery. Every one is likely to get a small
benefit, but a few are destined for a big loss. Ken K. and J. Brandt
being two examples. I'd say, given (apparent) human nature, that
lotteries are an attractive form of gambling, while cycling is an
unattractive one.
Peter Cole
My father is 92. I wish to hell he was only driving an E-bike.
Peter Cole
How is riding a bike while talking on a phone worse than driving while
doing the same? I don't get that.
AMuzi
One can only imagine what they find so addictively
compelling. When I thump on the door panel, they startle
like deer in headlights, as if I woke them from a dream.
Dream in your own damned lane, pal.
Lou Holtman
It isn't. Every other cyclist here younger than 20 is fucking with their
smartphone. I could hardly pass a cyclist this afternoon who was doing
whatever on his phone. He took another route and I had to pass him again
a couple of km further. He was still 'playing' with is Iphone not paying
attention. Bloody idiot. There comes a day that I stop and take his/her
phone away and throw it in a cornfield.....
Lou, not really..
SMS
> It seems like
> everyone on the sidewalks downtown is on the phone. Who are they
> talking/texting to?
It's just too hard to talk on the phone while bicycling because you have
no hand left to steer with when one hand is holding your coffee.
SMS
> I'd like the same in the city. I hate queuing
> up behind long lines of hot, exhaust spewing vehicles jammed curb to
> curb.
That's a big advantage of a bike lane, you go to the front rather than
sit stuck behind a line of cars.
> I'd like to take a little space from the road hogs. Ideally, I'd
> like my own signals, or even signal timings, and I'd like exemptions
> from traffic controls along the lines of "Idaho stops". I'd like to see
> a reduction in urban areas from the default thickly settled speed limit
> of 30 mph to a more reasonable 20. Simple stuff that would make cycling
> safer, more pleasant and more convenient.
All good ideas. Turning stop signs into yield signs for bicyclists on
low speed roads would be a big help.
AMuzi
Sure, that would remove some of the extraneous pedestrians,
but it might cost something to clear the bodies from the street.
"\"T°m Sherm@n >
> [...]
> I hate queuing up behind long lines of hot, exhaust spewing vehicles
That only happens a few times a year (at special events) where I live in
Iowa. :)
Dan
> Peter Cole <peter...@verizon.net> considered Sat, 06 Aug 2011
> But every car off the road is one less spin of the wheel, roll of the
> dice, or turn of the card.
> So increasing cycling at the expense of motoring reduces the number
> destined for a big loss, at the same time as increasing the number of
> small benefits.
And the surest way to get people out of their cars and using bikes
instead is to create dedicated space and bike facilites from what is
now essentially space dedicated to cars - space that bicyclists may
have a *right* to use, but that die-hard cagers think is too dangerous
to ride in, and that cagers think belongs exclusively to them.
(Also, don't berate them as irrational cowards for their choice to
wear a helmet. It takes experience to develop a realistic concept
of the risk.)
"\"T°m Sherm@n >
> SMS wrote:
>> [...]
>> All good ideas. Turning stop signs into yield signs for bicyclists on
>> low speed roads would be a big help.
>
>
> Sure, that would remove some of the extraneous pedestrians, but it might
> cost something to clear the bodies from the street.
>
<http://www.fcps.edu/islandcreekes/ecology/Birds/Common%20Crow/amcrow2.jpg>
<http://www.fcps.edu/islandcreekes/ecology/Birds/Turkey%20Vulture/turkey-vulture-scS.jpg>
<http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/97/Maggots.jpg/220px-Maggots.jpg>
Dan
> On 8/6/2011 12:50 PM, Peter Cole wrote:
>> [...]
>> I hate queuing up behind long lines of hot, exhaust spewing vehicles
>> jammed curb to curb.[...]
>
> That only happens a few times a year (at special events) where I live
> in Iowa. :)
>
Happens every day on my commute home from work... the long lines, that
is - not the queuing up behind, because - not being some kind of kook
playing their sorry traffic game - I can *always* bypass them one way
or another (really pisses them off sometimes, too).
"\"T°m Sherm@n >
> [...]
> And the surest way to get people out of their cars and using bikes
> instead is to create dedicated space and bike facilites from what is
> now essentially space dedicated to cars - space that bicyclists may
> have a *right* to use, but that die-hard cagers think is too dangerous
> to ride in, and that cagers think belongs exclusively to them.
>
$8/gallon tax would be a start.
> (Also, don't berate them as irrational cowards for their choice to
> wear a helmet. It takes experience to develop a realistic concept
> of the risk.)
And the uselessness of bicycle helmets.
I feel no significant additional danger when I ride a
bike/trike/velomobile without a foam hat, but always wear a Snell 2010M
certified full-face helmet on a scooter (powered, not push) [1] or
motorcycle.
E.g.
<http://www.flickr.com/photos/19704682@N08/6003841817/in/set-72157627344771070/>.
Simon Lewis
> On 8/6/2011 3:37 PM, Dan wrote:
>> [...]
>> And the surest way to get people out of their cars and using bikes
>> instead is to create dedicated space and bike facilites from what is
>> now essentially space dedicated to cars - space that bicyclists may
>> have a *right* to use, but that die-hard cagers think is too dangerous
>> to ride in, and that cagers think belongs exclusively to them.
>>
> I prefer economic incentives to get people of of their giant cages - an
> $8/gallon tax would be a start.
>
>> (Also, don't berate them as irrational cowards for their choice to
>> wear a helmet. It takes experience to develop a realistic concept
>> of the risk.)
>
> And the uselessness of bicycle helmets.
Bicycle helmets protect the skull if it comes into contact with the
road. How is that useless?
Dan
> On 8/6/2011 3:37 PM, Dan wrote:
>> [...]
>> And the surest way to get people out of their cars and using bikes
>> instead is to create dedicated space and bike facilites from what is
>> now essentially space dedicated to cars - space that bicyclists may
>> have a *right* to use, but that die-hard cagers think is too dangerous
>> to ride in, and that cagers think belongs exclusively to them.
>>
> I prefer economic incentives to get people of of their giant cages -
> an $8/gallon tax would be a start.
>
I'm all about that, too.
>> (Also, don't berate them as irrational cowards for their choice to
>> wear a helmet. It takes experience to develop a realistic concept
>> of the risk.)
>
> And the uselessness of bicycle helmets.
>
My relevant experience is significant and leads me to a different
conclusion, even though I have a pretty good idea of the low risk
of head injuries, and of the limitations of a helmet to prevent them.
In any case, I was talking above about humoring the peace of mind that
fledgling bicyclists need to get on the road and eventually gain the
experience that will offer them a more realistic concept of the risk.
It's fine to offer them imformation that puts the risks and benefits
in context, but there is no subsititute for experience, and branding
them unduly fearful suckers won't encourage them to take the plunge.
If wearing a helmet is the placebo they need to get out there and to
stick with it, they'll find out that it's not so scary after all.
> I feel no significant additional danger when I ride a
> bike/trike/velomobile without a foam hat, but always wear a Snell
> 2010M certified full-face helmet on a scooter (powered, not push) [1]
> or motorcycle.
>
Most of my bicycle rides are bareheaded, and when I rode motorcycles,
even that was sometimes sans helmet.
> E.g. <http://www.flickr.com/photos/19704682@N08/6003841817/in/set-72157627344771070/>.
>
Neat bike. I would probably ride that bareheaded *and* barefooted.
"\"T°m Sherm@n >
> "T°m Sherm@n"<""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI$southslope.net"> writes:
>
>> On 8/6/2011 3:37 PM, Dan wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> And the surest way to get people out of their cars and using bikes
>>> instead is to create dedicated space and bike facilites from what is
>>> now essentially space dedicated to cars - space that bicyclists may
>>> have a *right* to use, but that die-hard cagers think is too dangerous
>>> to ride in, and that cagers think belongs exclusively to them.
>>>
>> I prefer economic incentives to get people of of their giant cages -
>> an $8/gallon tax would be a start.
>>
>
> I'm all about that, too.
>
users) people. How about taking driving seriously, so you do not get
into accidents in the first place?
>>> (Also, don't berate them as irrational cowards for their choice to
>>> wear a helmet. It takes experience to develop a realistic concept
>>> of the risk.)
>>
>> And the uselessness of bicycle helmets.
>>
>
> My relevant experience is significant and leads me to a different
> conclusion, even though I have a pretty good idea of the low risk
> of head injuries, and of the limitations of a helmet to prevent them.
>
Well, the foam bicycle hat can work as a decent bump and scrape
protector (assuming you do not land on your face), but the inability to
prevent serious brain trauma is well established.
> In any case, I was talking above about humoring the peace of mind that
> fledgling bicyclists need to get on the road and eventually gain the
> experience that will offer them a more realistic concept of the risk.
> It's fine to offer them imformation that puts the risks and benefits
> in context, but there is no subsititute for experience, and branding
> them unduly fearful suckers won't encourage them to take the plunge.
> If wearing a helmet is the placebo they need to get out there and to
> stick with it, they'll find out that it's not so scary after all.
>
I think this would offer much more benefit for those people:
<http://cyclingsavvy.org/about/3-part-course/>.
Active safety >> passive safety.
>> I feel no significant additional danger when I ride a
>> bike/trike/velomobile without a foam hat, but always wear a Snell
>> 2010M certified full-face helmet on a scooter (powered, not push) [1]
>> or motorcycle.
>>
>
> Most of my bicycle rides are bareheaded, and when I rode motorcycles,
> even that was sometimes sans helmet.
>
I like having serious abrasion protection.
>> E.g.<http://www.flickr.com/photos/19704682@N08/6003841817/in/set-72157627344771070/>.
>>
>
> Neat bike. I would probably ride that bareheaded *and* barefooted.
With all the nasty stuff on the road, at least sandals are indicated.
Unlike your (or your parents') Vespa of yesteryear, current Honda
scooters have 4-cycle engines, fuel injection, electronic engine
management, and a 3-way catalytic converter. No rattle from "piston
slap", smoke, or exhaust smell. :)
"\"T°m Sherm@n >
Proper motorcycle helmets protect the head to some extent when it comes
into contact with the ground, but are too hot to wear while cycling.
Bicycle foam hats provide about the same level of protection as a thick
toque, unless the toque has a fuzzy ball [1], in which case the toque is
superior.
[1] E.g.
<http://artbeat.name/buyredmittenscanada.ca/RedMittenImages/2010-toque-photo.jpg>.
Peter Cole
Apparently that hasn't happened in Idaho, and they've been doing it for
something like 25 years.
Peter Cole
> On 8/6/2011 12:50 PM, Peter Cole wrote:
> > [...]
>> I hate queuing up behind long lines of hot, exhaust spewing vehicles
>> jammed curb to curb.[...]
>
> That only happens a few times a year (at special events) where I live in
> Iowa. :)
>
I can believe that, but the context of my comments was dense urban areas.
Frank Krygowski
> Frank Krygowski<frkrygo...@gEEmail.com> writes:
>
>> Dan wrote:
>>> Frank Krygowski<frkrygo...@gEEmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Many years ago, the eminent British researcher...
>>>>
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Really, how safe does cycling have to be, and by how much do its
>>>> benefits have to exceed the tiny risk, before we say "Stop
>>>> worrying. It's safe enough"?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Safe enough for what? Safe enough to do? Don't we all do it?
>>
>> No, not for some definitions of "we."
>>
>
> Who is your audience for this post?
Your "we" could have referred to the audience of your post, or the
people of your town, or Americans as a group, or residents of Earth.
In any case, there are plenty of people who do not ride bikes because
they falsely believe the risks outweigh the benefits. I believe the
readers of this newsgroup, _and_ the writers of "safety" articles, _and_
Safe Kids Inc., _and_ legislators, _and_ bicycle advocates should all be
saying "Stop worrying. Cycling is safe enough."
If you want to improve some specific danger area, fine. I'd suggest
starting with door zone bike lanes. But on average, cycling is
certainly safe enough.
> ..I'm mostly
> just in it to Ride Bike. You go ahead on and make the world a better
> place - and go ahead and share information with us FWIW (and thanks
> for both); but give *us* some credit and spare us the lectures.
Dan, as always, you're welcome to stop reading at any moment. None of
this is mandatory. But it is a discussion group, and I will discuss things.
--
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
>
>
> That's really the issue. It's not whether, as you say, cycling is safe
> enough to do -- we apparently all agree that it is -- but could it
Of course "... can be made safer..." applies to every activity on earth.
>... -- and I'd add -- more convenient and more
> pleasant. On our local expressways we have "HOV" (high occupancy
> vehicle) dedicated lanes. I'd like the same in the city. I hate queuing
> up behind long lines of hot, exhaust spewing vehicles jammed curb to
> curb. I'd like to take a little space from the road hogs. Ideally, I'd
> like my own signals, or even signal timings, and I'd like exemptions
> from traffic controls along the lines of "Idaho stops". I'd like to see
> a reduction in urban areas from the default thickly settled speed limit
> of 30 mph to a more reasonable 20. Simple stuff that would make cycling
> safer, more pleasant and more convenient.
I agree with reduced speed limits in any place where a pedestrian or
cyclist could be expected to be traveling.
The rest of the factors you mention would not give me measurable
benefit, and would give some detriments. Even in the core of downtown
Pittsburgh at rush hour (really, gridlock hour), I've never needed a
separate bike lane to avoid vehicles jammed curb to curb. And separate
signal phases would slow everyone down even more.
And such wish lists so seldom mention any education efforts!
--
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
> On 8/6/2011 11:22 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>>
>> bike boxes and bike lanes and bike paths because ordinary roads are so
>> dangerous."
>
> If people, currently cycling or not, want to ride with some separation
> from vehicular traffic, why stand in their way? To each their own.
I don't believe I have ever prevented anyone from riding separated from
motor vehicle traffic. I may think hanging your bike on your car,
driving 15 miles to a bike path, riding back and forth, then driving
home is silly, but I've never prevented it.
What I'd like to prevent is people saying "Riding a bike is too
dangerous unless you're separated from motor vehicle traffic." I
dispute that statement just as you might dispute "We need to invade
Saudi Arabia to ensure our oil supply."
> You can't control the world, you should stop trying.
:-) You can't control my saying "Bicycling is safe." You should stop
trying.
>> Cyclists seem astonishingly willing to accept anti-bike propaganda, and
>> to claim they would have died if not for their special hat, or special
>> paint on the road.
>
> Why do you care what some people think? I don't. I'm ambivalent about
> helmets but utterly opposed to MHL's. What's so hard? Live and let live.
Why do I care about the helmet hysteria? Because helmeteers have the
stated goal of making it illegal to ride without a helmet. Because they
routinely misrepresent cycling as dangerous. Because there have been
attempts - a few successful - to portray a cyclist as having been
negligent for not using a helmet to protect himself from a careless
motorist. Because helmeteers have used dishonest arguments, underhanded
politics, and falsified data in pursuit of their agenda. And so on.
"Live and let live" works well when everyone plays by that same rule.
It doesn't work so well when others say "I'm going to make you live the
way I want you to live."
--
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
>
> And the surest way to get people out of their cars and using bikes
Really? Seems to me that public bike share systems have been much more
successful than bike lanes.
> (Also, don't berate them as irrational cowards for their choice to
> wear a helmet. It takes experience to develop a realistic concept
> of the risk.)
I'm not aware of anyone using the word "coward" in that context. But
please, don't pretend that the natural order is for people to
automatically strap styrofoam to their heads for simple bike rides.
That never happened until there were years of advertisements, fear
mongering, propaganda, lies, regulations and laws.
--
- Frank Krygowski
Dan
> On 8/6/2011 5:32 PM, Dan wrote:
>> "T°m Sherm@n"<""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI$southslope.net"> writes:
>>
>>> On 8/6/2011 3:37 PM, Dan wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>> And the surest way to get people out of their cars and using bikes
>>>> instead is to create dedicated space and bike facilites from what is
>>>> now essentially space dedicated to cars - space that bicyclists may
>>>> have a *right* to use, but that die-hard cagers think is too dangerous
>>>> to ride in, and that cagers think belongs exclusively to them.
>>>>
>>> I prefer economic incentives to get people of of their giant cages -
>>> an $8/gallon tax would be a start.
>>>
>>
>> I'm all about that, too.
>>
> Especially the "I need a big vehicle for safety" (and screw other road
> users) people. How about taking driving seriously, so you do not get
> into accidents in the first place?
>
You said it, brother. (You know I'm all about that, too... but it's
not exactly "the surest way to get people out of their cars and using
bikes instead".)
>>>> (Also, don't berate them as irrational cowards for their choice to
>>>> wear a helmet. It takes experience to develop a realistic concept
>>>> of the risk.)
>>>
>>> And the uselessness of bicycle helmets.
>>>
>>
>> My relevant experience is significant and leads me to a different
>> conclusion, even though I have a pretty good idea of the low risk
>> of head injuries, and of the limitations of a helmet to prevent them.
>>
> Well, the foam bicycle hat can work as a decent bump and scrape
> protector (assuming you do not land on your face), but the inability
> to prevent serious brain trauma is well established.
>
DANGER! DANGER!
I don't care for typical bicycle helmets without a hard shell. My
*extensive* relevant experience leads me to conclude that my bicycle
helmet is an excellent bump and scrape protector. The skull and head
assembly itself seems to provide very good protection against serious
brain trauma - such that it's kind of hard to practically augment
much. That said, the hard shell of my bicycle helmet is capable of
deflecting things that might conceivably even penetrate the skull
otherwise, and the foam liner of diffusing forces that might otherwise
crack the skull open, and the whole business of protecting against all
sorts of other unpleasantness, not to mention (or, I guess I am about
to) that the freedom to tumble in a crash without awkwardly protecting
your head against every bump and scrape could conceivably prevent a
broken leg ;-)
I don't kid myself about the limitations of the foam liner in
attenuating brain slosh, though it may help a little.
(Why do I feel like I've let myself get sucked into a religious
argument?) In any case, I was talking about...
>> In any case, I was talking above about humoring the peace of mind that
>> fledgling bicyclists need to get on the road and eventually gain the
>> experience that will offer them a more realistic concept of the risk.
>> It's fine to offer them imformation that puts the risks and benefits
>> in context, but there is no subsititute for experience, and branding
>> them unduly fearful suckers won't encourage them to take the plunge.
>> If wearing a helmet is the placebo they need to get out there and to
>> stick with it, they'll find out that it's not so scary after all.
>>
> I think this would offer much more benefit for those people:
> <http://cyclingsavvy.org/about/3-part-course/>.
>
> Active safety >> passive safety.
>
Three hours in a parking lot watching each other take turns learning to
stop and go and balance and steer?
Three hours in a classroom discussing video and animation? (Uh-oh,
"Students discover that bicycle drivers are equal road users, with the
right and ability to control their space.")
A three hour experiential tour of Orlando roads? In a *group*? Stopping
to survey and discuss each exercise location? (The picture even shows
the group standing around *looking* at the road.) Not much experience,
if you ask me.
I'm not saying it wouldn't be good for the kind people that sort of
thing does any good, but do you really think telling people that riding
a bike is just like driving their car will be the surest way for them
to overcome their unrealistic fears and get out of their cars and use
bikes instead?
There is no substitute for experience in offering a realization. Humor
them their placebo if that's what it takes.
>>> I feel no significant additional danger when I ride a
>>> bike/trike/velomobile without a foam hat, but always wear a Snell
>>> 2010M certified full-face helmet on a scooter (powered, not push) [1]
>>> or motorcycle.
>>>
>>
>> Most of my bicycle rides are bareheaded, and when I rode motorcycles,
>> even that was sometimes sans helmet.
>>
> I like having serious abrasion protection.
>
>>> E.g.<http://www.flickr.com/photos/19704682@N08/6003841817/in/set-72157627344771070/>.
>>>
>>
>> Neat bike. I would probably ride that bareheaded *and* barefooted.
>
> With all the nasty stuff on the road, at least sandals are indicated.
>
Good point, though even with shoes on I don't put my foot down without
looking to see what I might be stepping on.
> Unlike your (or your parents') Vespa of yesteryear, current Honda
> scooters have 4-cycle engines, fuel injection, electronic engine
> management, and a 3-way catalytic converter. No rattle from "piston
> slap", smoke, or exhaust smell. :)
>
Oh, yes - they're nice. I notice that pickup trucks have gotten a lot
fancier, too.
Dan
> Peter Cole wrote:
>>
>>
>> That's really the issue. It's not whether, as you say, cycling is safe
>> enough to do -- we apparently all agree that it is -- but could it
>> (easily) be made safer...
>
> Of course "... can be made safer..." applies to every activity on earth.
>
>>... -- and I'd add -- more convenient and more
>> pleasant. On our local expressways we have "HOV" (high occupancy
>> vehicle) dedicated lanes. I'd like the same in the city. I hate queuing
>> up behind long lines of hot, exhaust spewing vehicles jammed curb to
>> curb. I'd like to take a little space from the road hogs. Ideally, I'd
>> like my own signals, or even signal timings, and I'd like exemptions
>> from traffic controls along the lines of "Idaho stops". I'd like to see
>> a reduction in urban areas from the default thickly settled speed limit
>> of 30 mph to a more reasonable 20. Simple stuff that would make cycling
>> safer, more pleasant and more convenient.
>
> I agree with reduced speed limits in any place where a pedestrian or
> cyclist could be expected to be traveling.
>
Hold on a sec' - where should a cyclist *not* be expected to travel?
> The rest of the factors you mention would not give me measurable
> benefit, and would give some detriments. Even in the core of downtown
> Pittsburgh at rush hour (really, gridlock hour), I've never needed a
> separate bike lane to avoid vehicles jammed curb to curb.
Oh, *you* haven't needed it, so it would not give *you* measurable
benefit. Got it.
> And
> separate signal phases would slow everyone down even more.
>
And your reduced speed limits every place there could be somebody
walking or riding a bike?
> And such wish lists so seldom mention any education efforts!
>
What for. I thought you said it was safe enough already.
Dan
> Dan wrote:
>>
>> And the surest way to get people out of their cars and using bikes
>> instead is to create dedicated space and bike facilites ...
>
> Really? Seems to me that public bike share systems have been much
> more successful than bike lanes.
>
I'll bet you money that there aren't any public bike share programs
in any places that don't have bike lanes.
>> (Also, don't berate them as irrational cowards for their choice to
>> wear a helmet. It takes experience to develop a realistic concept
>> of the risk.)
>
> I'm not aware of anyone using the word "coward"
Fuck you.
> ... in that context. But
> please, don't pretend that the natural order is for people to
> automatically strap styrofoam to their heads for simple bike
> rides.
Fuck you, asshole!
> That never happened until there were years of advertisements,
> fear mongering, propaganda, lies, regulations and laws.
>
The work of "helmeteers", I suppose.
"\"T°m Sherm@n >
Yes, but why would sane people choose to live in such places?
"\"T°m Sherm@n >
> Frank Krygowski<frkrygo...@gEEmail.com> writes:
>> I agree with reduced speed limits in any place where a pedestrian or
>> cyclist could be expected to be traveling.
>>
>
> Hold on a sec' - where should a cyclist *not* be expected to travel?
Controlled access roadways with minimum speed limits.
"\"T°m Sherm@n >
> "T°m Sherm@n"<""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI$southslope.net"> writes:
>
>> On 8/6/2011 5:32 PM, Dan wrote:
>>> "T°m Sherm@n"<""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI$southslope.net"> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 8/6/2011 3:37 PM, Dan wrote:
> [...]
about riding a bicycle, which is more valuable than a placebo.
> [...]
>>>> E.g.<http://www.flickr.com/photos/19704682@N08/6003841817/in/set-72157627344771070/>.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Neat bike. I would probably ride that bareheaded *and* barefooted.
>>
>> With all the nasty stuff on the road, at least sandals are indicated.
>>
>
> Good point, though even with shoes on I don't put my foot down without
> looking to see what I might be stepping on.
>
Maybe not in rainy Oregon, but on a hot, sunny day asphaltic pavement
can have a surface temperature up to about 65°C (150°F), which is not
something I want to put a bare foot (or a bear foot [1]) on. Not to
mention the asphalt might stick to your foot.
>> Unlike your (or your parents') Vespa of yesteryear, current Honda
>> scooters have 4-cycle engines, fuel injection, electronic engine
>> management, and a 3-way catalytic converter. No rattle from "piston
>> slap", smoke, or exhaust smell. :)
>>
>
> Oh, yes - they're nice. I notice that pickup trucks have gotten a lot
> fancier, too.
>
No fiddling with a choke, easy starts when cold, no "holes" in the
throttle response, and no warm-up needed to prevent stumbling/stalling
when opening the throttle. And the front disc brake actually provide
good modulation and stopping power. :)
[1] As the bear would become angry at me, which is not a good thing.
Simon Lewis
> On 8/6/2011 5:32 PM, Dan wrote:
>> "T°m Sherm@n"<""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI$southslope.net"> writes:
>>
>>> On 8/6/2011 3:37 PM, Dan wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>> And the surest way to get people out of their cars and using bikes
>>>> instead is to create dedicated space and bike facilites from what is
>>>> now essentially space dedicated to cars - space that bicyclists may
>>>> have a *right* to use, but that die-hard cagers think is too dangerous
>>>> to ride in, and that cagers think belongs exclusively to them.
>>>>
>>> I prefer economic incentives to get people of of their giant cages -
>>> an $8/gallon tax would be a start.
>>>
>>
>> I'm all about that, too.
>>
> Especially the "I need a big vehicle for safety" (and screw other road users)
> people. How about taking driving seriously, so you do not get into accidents in
> the first place?
Serious Q : are you such a complete idiot as your posts suggest?
Do you know what an "accident" is?
Are you aware that people are "human" and that things fail, and shit
happens, and adverse weather conditions affect perception?
Idiots like you make real cyclists and people who try to encourage
people to cycle look like extremist nut cases.
Peter Cole
> On 8/6/2011 10:26 PM, Peter Cole wrote:
>> On 8/6/2011 4:21 PM, "T°m Sherm@n" > wrote:
>>> On 8/6/2011 12:50 PM, Peter Cole wrote:
>>> > [...]
>>>> I hate queuing up behind long lines of hot, exhaust spewing vehicles
>>>> jammed curb to curb.[...]
>>>
>>> That only happens a few times a year (at special events) where I live in
>>> Iowa. :)
>>>
>>
>> I can believe that, but the context of my comments was dense urban areas.
>
> Yes, but why would sane people choose to live in such places?
>
Lots of reasons. One relevant to this thread: the potential to live
car-free and/or use a bicycle for most of your transportation.
Peter Cole
In aggregate, yes, which is one reason that it makes sense to promote
cycling on a social level. As for the comparison with long-odds
gambling, in the context of risk/reward, that's a matter of
self-interest, not altruism. If one were to assume altruistic motives,
we'd live in a very different world. My comments were about the world we
live in. Human nature, for whatever reason, seems to favor gambling the
likely small loss against the unlikely large win vs. the other way
around. Perhaps a better way to promote cycling during the various "Bike
Weeks" would be to randomly give out a few large prizes rather than free
drinks and energy bars to everyone.
Peter Cole
> Peter Cole wrote:
>>
>>
>> That's really the issue. It's not whether, as you say, cycling is safe
>> enough to do -- we apparently all agree that it is -- but could it
>> (easily) be made safer...
>
> Of course "... can be made safer..." applies to every activity on earth.
Yes, but the key word being "easier". There's always a point of
diminishing returns in risk reduction -- the location of which is
usually where the argument rages, this case being no exception.
> >... -- and I'd add -- more convenient and more
>> pleasant. On our local expressways we have "HOV" (high occupancy
>> vehicle) dedicated lanes. I'd like the same in the city. I hate queuing
>> up behind long lines of hot, exhaust spewing vehicles jammed curb to
>> curb. I'd like to take a little space from the road hogs. Ideally, I'd
>> like my own signals, or even signal timings, and I'd like exemptions
>> from traffic controls along the lines of "Idaho stops". I'd like to see
>> a reduction in urban areas from the default thickly settled speed limit
>> of 30 mph to a more reasonable 20. Simple stuff that would make cycling
>> safer, more pleasant and more convenient.
>
> I agree with reduced speed limits in any place where a pedestrian or
> cyclist could be expected to be traveling.
I would assume by that you mean the only exception would be limited
access highways. I think that exception should be obvious and not
particularly relevant to dense urban areas.
>
> The rest of the factors you mention would not give me measurable
> benefit, and would give some detriments. Even in the core of downtown
> Pittsburgh at rush hour (really, gridlock hour), I've never needed a
> separate bike lane to avoid vehicles jammed curb to curb.
If so, either you or Pittsburgh are unusual. Being impeded by vehicular
traffic, whether cycling or on foot, significantly detracts from the
convenience of either. By reducing the advantage of cycling it is made
less attractive as an alternative. If priority is given to vehicular
traffic over other modes it is discriminatory and an effective social
subsidy of motor traffic. I think the only thing that could make this
not painfully obvious is some form of dogmatic myopia.
> And separate
> signal phases would slow everyone down even more.
Giving cyclists an "early green", for instance, might slow some
motorists slightly, but I doubt it would have any real cross-town trip
time effect. Giving cyclists a head start allows them to not have to
contend with vehicles at intersections, particularly turning vehicles.
It is similar in principle to pedestrian signal phases -- a slight
inconvenience to motorists, but a big convenience to others.
Early greens and bike boxes only level the playing field slightly, but
in such a distorted landscape even that tiny bit seems huge. Motorist
convenience has been the driving force behind road design for so long
that people don't see the bias. It's not helpful when cyclists become
the blind leading the blind. Bicycles are "vehicles" only in an absurdly
pedantic sense. In the end it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy: roads
are designed for motorists because only motorists use them.
> And such wish lists so seldom mention any education efforts!
Again, the context of my comments was specifically dense urban environs.
I don't believe there's anything about them that makes education more or
less beneficial.
The thing that does distinguish rural vs. urban risks to cyclists is the
greater degree of hazard presented by vehicles in urban settings. This
translates into a greater percentage of "cyclist not at fault"
incidents. One could then argue that a well educated cyclist might be at
a much lower risk in a rural setting, while the benefit of education
might be reduced comparatively in the city. A specific counter-example
might be dooring hazard, where one could argue that education ("don't
ride there") provides the most effective strategy, but as successful as
that may be as a pragmatic approach, it still has the unfortunate side
effect of putting the onus on the cyclist even though the fault
obviously lies elsewhere. In this manner, education alone, takes on an
inescapable "blame the victim" bias. An alternative would be to simply
remove the risk of dooring by eliminating parallel parking. Given the
impracticality of doing this in all places it seems reasonable to
continue with education and legal approaches to lower the hazard, but
specific modifications to bike routes (AKA facilities) make more sense
than an education-only approach.
Cyclists have specific needs, they do not "fare best" when treated as
the operators of "vehicles", but when they're treated as cyclists. A
dogma based on a false premise is unavoidably a false dogma.
"\"T°m Sherm@n >
> "T°m Sherm@n"<""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI$southslope.net"> writes:
>
>> On 8/6/2011 5:32 PM, Dan wrote:
>>> "T°m Sherm@n"<""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI$southslope.net"> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 8/6/2011 3:37 PM, Dan wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>> And the surest way to get people out of their cars and using bikes
>>>>> instead is to create dedicated space and bike facilites from what is
>>>>> now essentially space dedicated to cars - space that bicyclists may
>>>>> have a *right* to use, but that die-hard cagers think is too dangerous
>>>>> to ride in, and that cagers think belongs exclusively to them.
>>>>>
>>>> I prefer economic incentives to get people of of their giant cages -
>>>> an $8/gallon tax would be a start.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm all about that, too.
>>>
>> Especially the "I need a big vehicle for safety" (and screw other road users)
>> people. How about taking driving seriously, so you do not get into accidents in
>> the first place?
>
> Serious Q : are you such a complete idiot as your posts suggest?
>
> Do you know what an "accident" is?
>
> Are you aware that people are "human" and that things fail, and shit
> happens, and adverse weather conditions affect perception?
>
proper brakes and handling is much safer that relying on the sheer bulk
of a rolling living room, and much less dangerous to others. No it will
not save everyone all the time, but neither will planting one's fat ass
in a fat ass SUV.
I think we should make everyone ride motorcycles, as it would soon thin
the herd by weeding out the incompetent. :)
As for inclement weather, slow the hell down to a safe speed. Duh.
> Idiots like you make real cyclists and people who try to encourage
> people to cycle look like extremist nut cases.
A nut case is believing all the crap shoveled out by the anti-cycling
farcilities (sic) promoters and the Liddite foam bicycle hat sellers.
"\"T°m Sherm@n >
> On 8/7/2011 12:12 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> I agree with reduced speed limits in any place where a pedestrian or
>> cyclist could be expected to be traveling.
>
> I would assume by that you mean the only exception would be limited
> access highways. I think that exception should be obvious and not
The problem with controlled access roads in dense urban areas is too
much access. Get rid of the interchanges in the cities, and it would
make it much quicker to traverse them on the way to one's destination.
"\"T°m Sherm@n >
People can do that in areas with less than a quarter of a million
people, without all the negatives huge population concentrations bring.
Frank Krygowski
> "T°m Sherm@n"<""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI$southslope.net"> writes:
>
>> Well, the foam bicycle hat can work as a decent bump and scrape
>> protector (assuming you do not land on your face), but the inability
>> to prevent serious brain trauma is well established.
>>
>
> DANGER! DANGER!
You're misunderstanding the conversation, Dan. I don't recall Tom every
claiming that bicycling is very dangerous. Quite the opposite.
> I don't care for typical bicycle helmets without a hard shell. My
> *extensive* relevant experience leads me to conclude that my bicycle
> helmet is an excellent bump and scrape protector.
Of course, you should realize you're some of the best living evidence
for the principle of risk compensation.
>> I think this would offer much more benefit for those people:
>> <http://cyclingsavvy.org/about/3-part-course/>.
>>
>> Active safety>> passive safety.
>>
>
> Three hours in a parking lot watching each other take turns learning to
> stop and go and balance and steer?
>
> Three hours in a classroom discussing video and animation? (Uh-oh,
> "Students discover that bicycle drivers are equal road users, with the
> right and ability to control their space.")
>
> A three hour experiential tour of Orlando roads? In a *group*? Stopping
> to survey and discuss each exercise location? (The picture even shows
> the group standing around *looking* at the road.) Not much experience,
> if you ask me.
What was it about your life that gave you such an anti-education bent?
Whether it was playing sports, doing engineering, playing a musical
instrument, riding bike or whatever, I've found that getting some good
instruction made skills much easier to acquire.
That doesn't mean that one plays like Joshua Bell or Kevin Burke after
three hours of fiddle lessons. But it does mean that nobody plays like
Joshua Bell or Kevin Burke if they've never had a lesson.
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
> Frank Krygowski<frkrygo...@gEEmail.com> writes:
>
>> cyclist could be expected to be traveling.
>>
>
> Hold on a sec' - where should a cyclist *not* be expected to travel?
Around here, we have limited access highways. One would not expect a
bicyclist to travel on them, because it's illegal.
Also, FWIW, I don't see a need to reduce speed limits below the current
55 mph on country highways. I do fine riding most of those roads just
as they are.
--
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
> As for the comparison with long-odds
> likely small loss against the unlikely large win vs. the other way
> around.
Ropiek's book _How Risky Is It Really?_ deals with that, and with lots
more on the psychology of risk. Yes, humans are bad at making rational
decisions involving extremely unlikely events.
> Perhaps a better way to promote cycling during the various "Bike
> Weeks" would be to randomly give out a few large prizes rather than free
> drinks and energy bars to everyone.
I think that large prize idea is a good one. (Although organizers could
do both, and maybe that's optimum.)
--
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
> On 8/7/2011 12:12 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>> The rest of the factors you mention would not give me measurable
>> benefit, and would give some detriments. Even in the core of downtown
>> Pittsburgh at rush hour (really, gridlock hour), I've never needed a
>> separate bike lane to avoid vehicles jammed curb to curb.
>
> If so, either you or Pittsburgh are unusual. Being impeded by vehicular
> traffic, whether cycling or on foot, significantly detracts from the
> convenience of either.
Yes, being _significantly_ impeded by anything at all does significantly
detract from the convenience of _any_ mode of transportation. That
includes weather delays when flying, trains that are late, crowds of
zoning-out walkers on a MUP, etc. This is life in our universe, like it
or not.
But I have essentially never been significantly delayed by car traffic.
Occasionally, rarely, I've missed a green light that I could have
caught; yet that doesn't meet the definition of "significant" in my
book. And contrary to the claims of some others, I've never seen a
traffic jam so curb-to-curb that I couldn't filter forward on a bike
when I chose to. As it is, I rarely choose to... but again, that's
because the delays haven't been significant.
IME, the most serious problem with downtown gridlock at 5 PM Friday is
the occasional driver's explosion of chaotic behavior. Things like the
fuming driver who suddenly says "#%$!! I'm just going to whip a U-turn
and get out of this jam!" and does something totally unexpected, with no
warning nor caution. But a stripe of paint has zero influence on such
people. You just have to learn to be alert.
But there's that "learning" thing again.
>> And separate
>> signal phases would slow everyone down even more.
>
> Giving cyclists an "early green", for instance, might slow some
> motorists slightly, but I doubt it would have any real cross-town trip
> time effect. Giving cyclists a head start allows them to not have to
> contend with vehicles at intersections, particularly turning vehicles.
Yeah. I get that already by not being too far to the right at an
intersection. That keeps me visible in a motorist's attention zone, and
prevents right hooks. (There's that "learning" thing again.)
> Early greens and bike boxes only level the playing field slightly...
Are you aware that Portland's green bike boxes haven't been shown to
work? Last I heard, data shows just as many intersection conflicts as
before.
> Cyclists have specific needs, they do not "fare best" when treated as
> the operators of "vehicles", but when they're treated as cyclists. A
> dogma based on a false premise is unavoidably a false dogma.
The obvious question is, what does one choose to believe? Seems most
people make their pick, then call the opposing view "dogma." And you've
chosen the dogma that says "The only way for biking to be safe and
popular is by adding facilities that change the rules of the road."
My decades of experience have shown me that the rules of the road work
really, really well.
And then, of course, there's the data confirming that...
--
- Frank Krygowski
SMS
> "T°m Sherm@n"<""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI$southslope.net"> writes:
>
>>> [...]
>>> And the surest way to get people out of their cars and using bikes
>>> instead is to create dedicated space and bike facilites from what is
>>> now essentially space dedicated to cars - space that bicyclists may
>>> have a *right* to use, but that die-hard cagers think is too dangerous
>>> to ride in, and that cagers think belongs exclusively to them.
>>>
>> I prefer economic incentives to get people of of their giant cages - an
>> $8/gallon tax would be a start.
>>
>>> wear a helmet. It takes experience to develop a realistic concept
>>> of the risk.)
>>
>
> road. How is that useless?
I did not see the original post in this thread, but I expect that it was
claiming that helmets reduce the level of cycling.
As most people are well aware, there has never been any scientifically
and statistically sound survey or study that has shown that helmets,
whether mandatory or compulsory, reduce cycling levels.
Another study on the subject (for Canada), in Injury Prevention
Magazine, concluded "Helmet legislation is not associated with changes
in ridership."
<http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/16/4/219.abstract>. But be
warned, Injury Prevention is a an international peer-reviewed journal
for health professionals and others in injury prevention. They used
actual real data. They did not stand on a corner counting some cyclists
and not counting others in order to achieve the result they desired!
Dan
> Dan wrote:
>> "T°m Sherm@n"<""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI$southslope.net"> writes:
>>
>>> Well, the foam bicycle hat can work as a decent bump and scrape
>>> protector (assuming you do not land on your face), but the inability
>>> to prevent serious brain trauma is well established.
>>>
>>
>> DANGER! DANGER!
>
> You're misunderstanding the conversation, Dan. I don't recall Tom
> every claiming that bicycling is very dangerous. Quite the opposite.
>
DANGER! DANGER! ... is what the die-hard cager too afraid to take the
plunge is going to hear when you say something like, "... inability to
prevent serious brain trauma is well established."
My present point in this discussion is what is "the surest way to get
cagers out of their cars an dusing bikes instead".
>> I don't care for typical bicycle helmets without a hard shell. My
>> *extensive* relevant experience leads me to conclude that my bicycle
>> helmet is an excellent bump and scrape protector.
>
> Of course, you should realize you're some of the best living evidence
> for the principle of risk compensation.
>
Heh. Fat lot you know. I might put it on the flip side: I know how
and when to be more cautious than normal.
>>> I think this would offer much more benefit for those people:
>>> <http://cyclingsavvy.org/about/3-part-course/>.
>>>
>>> Active safety>> passive safety.
>>>
>>
>> Three hours in a parking lot watching each other take turns learning to
>> stop and go and balance and steer?
>>
>> Three hours in a classroom discussing video and animation? (Uh-oh,
>> "Students discover that bicycle drivers are equal road users, with the
>> right and ability to control their space.")
>>
>> A three hour experiential tour of Orlando roads? In a *group*? Stopping
>> to survey and discuss each exercise location? (The picture even shows
>> the group standing around *looking* at the road.) Not much experience,
>> if you ask me.
>
> What was it about your life that gave you such an anti-education bent?
>
> Whether it was playing sports, doing engineering, playing a musical
> instrument, riding bike or whatever, I've found that getting some good
> instruction made skills much easier to acquire.
>
> That doesn't mean that one plays like Joshua Bell or Kevin Burke after
> three hours of fiddle lessons. But it does mean that nobody plays
> like Joshua Bell or Kevin Burke if they've never had a lesson.
>
I am all about education - *love* it! Especially the public schools -
one of the best things going - a great equalizer that kids all deserve.
And I said - and you snipped - without indication - that that sort of
education course may be good for the kind of people that that sort of
thing does any good.
My present point in this discussion is what is "the surest way to get
cagers out of their cars and using bikes instead", and I maintain that
experience riding is the only best way for them to realize that bi-
cycling is not so dangerous as they seem to believe, and that facilities
are the surest way to get them to take the plunge, and that they don't
need anyone treating them like idiot, chickenshit babies if they a
helmet makes them more comfortable and give them the extra sense of
security that lets them keep riding long enough to learn how it really
is.
"\"T°m Sherm@n >
> On 8/6/2011 3:21 PM, Simon Lewis wrote:
>> "T°m Sherm@n"<""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI$southslope.net"> writes:
>>
>>> And the uselessness of bicycle helmets.
>>
>> Bicycle helmets protect the skull if it comes into contact with the
>> road. How is that useless?
>
> I did not see the original post in this thread,
Then have the basic decency not to comment.
> <snip Scharfian delusionalism>
"\"T°m Sherm@n >
> [...]
> I am all about education - *love* it! Especially the public schools -
> one of the best things going - a great equalizer that kids all deserve.
Including the indoctrination in "American Exceptionalism" and crony
capitalism?
Dan
> On 8/7/2011 11:52 AM, Dan wrote:
>> [...]
>> I am all about education - *love* it! Especially the public schools -
>> one of the best things going - a great equalizer that kids all deserve.
>> [...]
>
> Including the indoctrination in "American Exceptionalism" and crony
> capitalism?
>
Okay, admittedly not all kids are raised - as mine have quite
successfully I can proudly say - to think for themselves, but
in my experience many fine public school teachers *and* school systems
*do* make this a priority and can make up for some of this that is
missing from the home and other influences.
I was thinking more along the lines of access, and of the uplifting
effect that said equal access and a few good teachers can offer.
(I also love PBS.)
Lou Holtman
> On 8/7/2011 11:52 AM, Dan wrote:
>> [...]
>> I am all about education - *love* it! Especially the public schools -
>> one of the best things going - a great equalizer that kids all deserve.
>> [...]
>
> Including the indoctrination in "American Exceptionalism" and crony
> capitalism?
>
Man, you must have a tough life getting upset about so many things.
Lou
Dan
> Frank Krygowski <frkrygo...@gEEmail.com> considered Sun, 07 Aug
> Well, that's what lotteries do as well - keep handing out lots of
> little prizes, just to keep people playing, with the occasional well
> publicised big win.
>
> In a cycling promotion context, that would be handing out the free
> drinks, energy bars, etc, with a few sets of panniers, new chains, or
> service vouchers, and an annual draw for a custom built bike.
Cagers don't care about any of that stuff (well, maybe the bike - which
they figure they can sell for cash). And even not quite committed
bicyclists won't be motivated to ditch the car by prizes - even if
you keep giving them and keep giving them. The will to ride day in
and day out can only come from within - the joy of riding itself (or
maybe sometimes the need to get fit or die).
"\"T°m Sherm@n >
Sorry that I think for myself.
If you had to live here, you would be angry too at what is, compared to
what could *easily* be.
Michael Press
"Jay Beattie" <jbea...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
> The laws appear to be totally meaningless -- I see as many or more people on
> phones these days than I did before the law. What amazes me is the number
> of people walking and talking, texting, apping, etc., etc. It seems like
> everyone on the sidewalks downtown is on the phone. Who are they
> talking/texting to? What is so important? I see asswipes on bikes talking
> on the phone. I read some guy the riot act the other day who was riding
> like a fool while talking on a cellphone. Incessant yakking has become the
> new opiate of the masses. People are utterly afraid to shut up and listen
> to themselves think these days.
That last sentence nails it. They will get fed up with it eventually.
«l'enfer, c'est les autres»
"Uryy vf bgure crbcyr."
--
Michael Press
Peter Cole
Yeah if you want to shop at Wal-Mart and eat fast food.
Michael Press
Frank Krygowski <frkrygo...@gEEmail.com> wrote:
I agree with what you say here all down the line, Frank.
When I drive a car I am easily frustrated.
When I ride the bike, much less so. Therefore
when I ride the bike I remember what it is
for the car drivers and make contact with them.
It reduces their frustration.
--
Michael Press
Peter Cole
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> As for the comparison with long-odds
>> gambling... Human nature, for whatever reason, seems to favor gambling
>> the
>> likely small loss against the unlikely large win vs. the other way
>> around.
>
> Ropiek's book _How Risky Is It Really?_ deals with that, and with lots
> more on the psychology of risk. Yes, humans are bad at making rational
> decisions involving extremely unlikely events.
Human's might also be considered irrational at making decisions
involving mortality. How much would you pay for one more year of life?
For your spouse? For your child?
Sometimes you can make it an apples to apples choice -- e.g. years
gained by putative health benefits vs. years lost via accidents, but
sometimes not, often safety costs have to be weighed against life span
losses, and that requires a dollar valuation.
Probability is often counter-intuitive, witness the famous Monty Hall
problem.
You can say people are irrational, but that irrationality is the product
of millions of years of evolution that enabled every single one of our
ancestors to survive long enough to at least reproduce, all the way back
to the beginnings of life.
Game theory studies the outcomes of various decision making strategies,
but it has been famously observed, at least in some scenarios, that the
only ones who behaved "rationally" were "psychopaths and economists".
AMuzi
"... millions of years of evolution that enabled every
single one of our ancestors to survive long enough to at
least reproduce ..."
Not a very demanding standard.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
"\"T°m Sherm@n >
Gee, I have alternatives to both of those. *WITHIN* reasonable cycling
distance. :)
Contrary to myth, Iowa is *not* a northern version of Mississippi or
other backwards [1] southern state.
[1] Any place that approves of flying the Confederate Flag is *not* modern.
Peter Cole
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> On 8/7/2011 12:12 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>
>>> The rest of the factors you mention would not give me measurable
>>> benefit, and would give some detriments. Even in the core of downtown
>>> Pittsburgh at rush hour (really, gridlock hour), I've never needed a
>>> separate bike lane to avoid vehicles jammed curb to curb.
>>
>> If so, either you or Pittsburgh are unusual. Being impeded by vehicular
>> traffic, whether cycling or on foot, significantly detracts from the
>> convenience of either.
>
> Yes, being _significantly_ impeded by anything at all does significantly
> detract from the convenience of _any_ mode of transportation. That
> includes weather delays when flying, trains that are late, crowds of
> zoning-out walkers on a MUP, etc. This is life in our universe, like it
> or not.
I'm not talking about acts of god, I'm talking about planned congestion
and associated delays. You know, that stuff people go to school to learn.
> But I have essentially never been significantly delayed by car traffic.
> Occasionally, rarely, I've missed a green light that I could have
> caught; yet that doesn't meet the definition of "significant" in my
> book. And contrary to the claims of some others, I've never seen a
> traffic jam so curb-to-curb that I couldn't filter forward on a bike
> when I chose to. As it is, I rarely choose to... but again, that's
> because the delays haven't been significant.
If you didn't need to filter then the queue didn't last more than one
light cycle. Lucky you. I wouldn't call that gridlock. You might not be
aware that many/most people would not be comfortable filtering at all,
particularly between lines of traffic. You have an elitist view of
cycling. Tell a grandmother with her grandchildren in tow to filter
between lines of rush hour traffic. I would love to see how that's
received, even in the cycling utopia of Pittsburgh.
> IME, the most serious problem with downtown gridlock at 5 PM Friday is
> the occasional driver's explosion of chaotic behavior. Things like the
> fuming driver who suddenly says "#%$!! I'm just going to whip a U-turn
> and get out of this jam!" and does something totally unexpected, with no
> warning nor caution. But a stripe of paint has zero influence on such
> people. You just have to learn to be alert.
>
> But there's that "learning" thing again.
Maybe you could invent an alternative to Ritalin. Something
"educational". Work it into your blame the victim seminar. Pass out hair
shirts. Maybe you could replace ghost bikes with bikes of shame. Paint
them red. Just another inattentive fool who got what she deserved.
>>> And separate
>>> signal phases would slow everyone down even more.
>>
>> Giving cyclists an "early green", for instance, might slow some
>> motorists slightly, but I doubt it would have any real cross-town trip
>> time effect. Giving cyclists a head start allows them to not have to
>> contend with vehicles at intersections, particularly turning vehicles.
>
> Yeah. I get that already by not being too far to the right at an
> intersection. That keeps me visible in a motorist's attention zone, and
> prevents right hooks. (There's that "learning" thing again.)
In curb to curb gridlock, that's not an option. Your logic would have us
abandon express and HOV lanes as well as pedestrian light cycles. Just
"educate" them to dodge traffic.
>> Early greens and bike boxes only level the playing field slightly...
>
> Are you aware that Portland's green bike boxes haven't been shown to
> work? Last I heard, data shows just as many intersection conflicts as
> before.
You've got to define "not working".
>> Cyclists have specific needs, they do not "fare best" when treated as
>> the operators of "vehicles", but when they're treated as cyclists. A
>> dogma based on a false premise is unavoidably a false dogma.
>
> The obvious question is, what does one choose to believe? Seems most
> people make their pick, then call the opposing view "dogma." And you've
> chosen the dogma that says "The only way for biking to be safe and
> popular is by adding facilities that change the rules of the road."
You should capitalize "Rules of the Road". You make them sound like they
came down from the mount carved in stone.
> My decades of experience have shown me that the rules of the road work
> really, really well.
Compared to what? Different rules of the road or anarchy?
> And then, of course, there's the data confirming that...
Again, define "work".
I've seen the "data", it confirms nothing. Besides, it isn't the data
you're citing, it's your interpretation of the data. Critical difference.
You seem unaware that there is a spectrum of opinion, and your views are
extreme in that they describe a static, Panglossian world. Such rigid
thinking is dogmatic and deeply conservative. Dogmatism isn't merely
holding an opinion*. Politics is the art of compromise and road sharing
is a completely political negotiation. There are no absolutes, and the
current state of affairs reflects the historical dominance of certain
interests, and priorities, no more. You are doing nothing more than
rationalizing the status quo. That is reflexive, irrational resistance
to change, the very definition of conservatism. It is based on the
notion that the status quo had a functional evolution and therefore
represents the "best of possible worlds", AKA Panglossianism.
What you fail to recognize is that the world has changed, and
particularly in dense urban areas, vehicular traffic has been judged to
present more of a problem than a solution. The particular compromise
reached over decades is now being renegotiated. Do you really think all
of these bike sharing programs are merely gimmicks?
Your position is not particularly rational, in fact it is quite
arbitrary, and at this point in time you're on the wrong side of
history. You won't turn the clock back to Forester's 50's, no matter how
hard you try. Nobody's listening.
*Definition of DOGMATISM
1
: positiveness in assertion of opinion especially when unwarranted or
arrogant
2
: a viewpoint or system of ideas based on insufficiently examined premises
Michael Press
Simon Lewis <simonle...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "T°m Sherm@n" <""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI$southslope.net"> writes:
>
> > On 8/6/2011 3:37 PM, Dan wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> And the surest way to get people out of their cars and using bikes
> >> instead is to create dedicated space and bike facilites from what is
> >> now essentially space dedicated to cars - space that bicyclists may
> >> have a *right* to use, but that die-hard cagers think is too dangerous
> >> to ride in, and that cagers think belongs exclusively to them.
> >>
> > I prefer economic incentives to get people of of their giant cages - an
> > $8/gallon tax would be a start.
> >
> >> (Also, don't berate them as irrational cowards for their choice to
> >> wear a helmet. It takes experience to develop a realistic concept
> >> of the risk.)
> >
> > And the uselessness of bicycle helmets.
>
> Bicycle helmets protect the skull if it comes into contact with the
> road. How is that useless?
They might protect against superficial abrasions
at the cost of inducing other injuries. A helmet
can hit something and drive the temple piece of
eyeglasses into the skin, when the bare head
would never have hit in the first place. Notice
how bicycling helmets are going over to hard
shells. That is a tacit admission that soft shell
helmets grip the road and induce torsional neck
injuries.
--
Michael Press
"\"T°m Sherm@n >
>> But I have essentially never been significantly delayed by car traffic.
>> Occasionally, rarely, I've missed a green light that I could have
>> caught; yet that doesn't meet the definition of "significant" in my
>> book. And contrary to the claims of some others, I've never seen a
>> traffic jam so curb-to-curb that I couldn't filter forward on a bike
>> when I chose to. As it is, I rarely choose to... but again, that's
>> because the delays haven't been significant.
>
> If you didn't need to filter then the queue didn't last more than one
> light cycle. Lucky you. I wouldn't call that gridlock. You might not be
> aware that many/most people would not be comfortable filtering at all,
> particularly between lines of traffic. You have an elitist view of
> cycling. Tell a grandmother with her grandchildren in tow to filter
> between lines of rush hour traffic. I would love to see how that's
> received, even in the cycling utopia of Pittsburgh.
Filtering is legal on motos in California. You can also filter in
Moscow (Russia, not Iowa):
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XihQeZpwqpE&feature=player_embedded>.
Peter Cole
> On 8/7/2011 8:10 AM, Peter Cole wrote:
>> On 8/7/2011 12:12 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> [...]
>>> I agree with reduced speed limits in any place where a pedestrian or
>>> cyclist could be expected to be traveling.
>>
>> I would assume by that you mean the only exception would be limited
>> access highways. I think that exception should be obvious and not
>> particularly relevant to dense urban areas.[...]
>
> The problem with controlled access roads in dense urban areas is too
> much access. Get rid of the interchanges in the cities, and it would
> make it much quicker to traverse them on the way to one's destination.
>
Except for those coming and going from the city, the very reason those
highways were built in the first place.
I'm sure that Boston is typical, with the exception that the Atlantic
Ocean limits our Easterly options, in that originally highways developed
in a "hub & spoke" pattern to bring workers to urban jobs from suburban
residences, following and extending streetcar lines. In recent decades,
demographics have changed, with many employers relocating to the suburbs
and many residents relocating to the city. The former phenomenon creates
a lot of suburb to suburb commutes, sometimes served by "beltways"
circling the city, but many such commutes have the shortest path through
the city. That particular commuting pattern defies an easy solution.
Urban residents being understandably intolerant of elevated expressways
blighting their expensive real estate, the only vehicular solution is to
bury them, something Boston recently did partially at a truly horrific
cost. Not a generic solution in the "new economy".
A rational and equitable policy would be to discourage "through
commutes" as they provide no benefit to either urban residents or
workers and they make poor use of precious urban space. Not
surprisingly, that is the exact opposite of your recommendation.
Peter Cole
Quite demanding actually. See Darwin.
Peter Cole
Now that's a low standard.
Peter Cole
If that was the grandmother, I didn't see the kids.
(PeteCresswell)
><http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XihQeZpwqpE&feature=player_embedded>.
YAOD
Yet Another Organ Donor.
--
PeteCresswell
Peter Cole
> Are you aware that Portland's green bike boxes haven't been shown to
> work? Last I heard, data shows just as many intersection conflicts as
> before.
Maybe you haven't been following:
http://bikeportland.org/2010/09/14/psu-bike-box-evaluation-finds-that-bike-boxes-work-39441
"\"T°m Sherm@n >
Back in the day (first non-leather helmets in the 1970's to 199x
something), almost all [1] bicycle helmets had hard shells. I still
have a Kiwi helmet with a shell that is about 4mm thick (and the helmet
has a mass of 420g).
[1] Even the SkidLid™ had a hard covering:
<http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fc/SkidLid_01.gif>.
SMS
> Maybe you haven't been following:
>
> http://bikeportland.org/2010/09/14/psu-bike-box-evaluation-finds-that-bike-boxes-work-39441
But this was actual research, from an accredited university. In the
world of hearsay, this has no credibility. He heard that the boxes don't
work, and that settles it. "I heard" is much more credible than an
actual study!
"\"T°m Sherm@n >
I would be fine with re-routing the controlled access roads to the
periphery or beyond and eliminating many that currently go through the
urban core. The key would be to limit exchanges, since otherwise urban
sprawl develops around them.
"\"T°m Sherm@n >
Pity if a nice bike got trashed.
"\"T°m Sherm@n >
So is being more patient and polite than the residents of large cities
on the northeastern US seaboard.
Jay Beattie
"Peter Cole" <peter...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:j1n4qm$v88$1...@dont-email.me...
I think they are goofy and non-sensical -- you have this box; you're in the
middle of the traffic lane, and then immediately past the intersection is a
normal width bike lane that by law you have to be in. Why put bikes in the
middle of traffic in a green box and then have them get over immediately
after the intersection. Is it a display area?. That picture shows the
cyclist in the bike lane -- not the box. He's lining up for the Hawthorne
bridge. My office is about two blocks away.
The best part about the green boxes is that they become slippery when wet
after about four seasons of hard wear, lots of rain and some snow. If they
wanted to put road money to good use, they could have repaved SW Columbia,
which is about two blocks south and is a nightmare to ride on.
About being held up by cars -- I was descending Germantown road at a walk
yesterday because of all the GD cars. When you build suburbia just over the
hill, it turns the twisty little descents into busy arterials. Totally
miserable. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqllO_J9_wA (this guy had clear
sailing -- unfortunately cuts out the twisty bottom section).
-- Jay Beattie.
--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ne...@netfront.net ---
Jym Dyer
>> and proper statistical analyses over gut feelings and
>> conventional "wisdom".
> The problem is thinking in shades of gray -- something
> Frank has difficulty with, too.
=v= Good grief. Frank provided info for all of us to think
whatever the heck we want to think about it. You two reply
by slagging him for it?
=v= I'm aware that many people aren't swayed by facts and
a deeper understanding of statistics. That doesn't mean
these things should never be mentioned. Again, good grief.
Thank you, Frank,
<_Jym_>
Peter Cole
The information is rather old news, at least qualitatively. I have no
real interest in whether the benefit ratio is 77 to 1 or 1.1 to 1. I
don't think anyone disputes the likelihood that cycling provides a net
positive health benefit, there have been a slew of studies that claimed
this and, as far as I know, not a single one that claimed otherwise.
What you took out of context and apparently didn't get from the thread
was that Frank takes such data and spins it to conclude that anyone with
safety concerns is being a "fear monger". "Danger! Danger!" & all that.
That's essentially a straw man argument. The real question isn't what
the net health benefit is but whether cycling can't be easily made safer.
If he would just reference the article without editorializing about
helmets and/or facilities his posts would be fine.
Peter Cole
I have no idea what you're talking about (as usual). Urban sprawl is an
oxymoron. Suburban sprawl is a recognized problem.
Peter Cole
You're hardly an exemplar, are you?
"\"T°m Sherm@n >
>>> Frank makes the mistake of thinking people value facts
>>> and proper statistical analyses over gut feelings and
>>> conventional "wisdom".
>> The problem is thinking in shades of gray -- something
>> Frank has difficulty with, too.
>
> =v= Good grief. Frank provided info for all of us to think
> whatever the heck we want to think about it. You two reply
> by slagging him for it?
>
missed the point. :)
> =v= I'm aware that many people aren't swayed by facts and
> a deeper understanding of statistics. That doesn't mean
> these things should never be mentioned. Again, good grief.
> Thank you, Frank,
> <_Jym_>
Do not always be so literal.
"\"T°m Sherm@n >
Do not confuse Usenet with real life.
Peter Cole
So, your avatar is a New Yorker?
You are seriously full of shit, you know that?
Peter Cole
> "Peter Cole"<peter...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:j1n4qm$v88$1...@dont-email.me...
>> On 8/7/2011 12:26 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>>> Are you aware that Portland's green bike boxes haven't been shown to
>>> work? Last I heard, data shows just as many intersection conflicts as
>>> before.
>>
>> Maybe you haven't been following:
>>
>> http://bikeportland.org/2010/09/14/psu-bike-box-evaluation-finds-that-bike-boxes-work-39441
>
> I think they are goofy and non-sensical -- you have this box; you're in the
> middle of the traffic lane, and then immediately past the intersection is a
> normal width bike lane that by law you have to be in. Why put bikes in the
> middle of traffic in a green box and then have them get over immediately
> after the intersection. Is it a display area?.
No time to read the articles or referenced studies?
> The best part about the green boxes is that they become slippery when wet
> after about four seasons of hard wear, lots of rain and some snow. If they
> wanted to put road money to good use, they could have repaved SW Columbia,
> which is about two blocks south and is a nightmare to ride on.
Why should road repaving come out of cycling budgets?
> About being held up by cars -- I was descending Germantown road at a walk
> yesterday because of all the GD cars. When you build suburbia just over the
> hill, it turns the twisty little descents into busy arterials. Totally
> miserable. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqllO_J9_wA (this guy had clear
> sailing -- unfortunately cuts out the twisty bottom section).
Pavement looked good.
Patrick Lamb
<peter...@verizon.net> wrote:
>On 8/6/2011 11:45 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> Lou Holtman wrote:
>>
>>> What does 7:1 etc mean? What is benefit to risk ratio?
>>
>> The ratio is an estimate of the number of years of life gained for every
>> year of life lost due to cycling. Obviously, it's an estimate, and one
>> that's complicated to construct.
>>
>> But researchers have previously estimated the effects on longevity of
>> various behaviors and environmental factors. This cycling research
>> attempts to aggregate those effects as they relate to cycling, vs. not
>> cycling (which typically means motoring).
>>
>> For example, one factor is breathing various concentrations of polluted
>> air. (That applies to cyclists, motorists and bystanders - but "Danger!
>> Danger!" people like Duane make noise about only the effect on
>> cyclists.) Anyway, researchers can use measured data to estimate the
>> amount of air pollution inhaled by cyclists and by motorists, and
>> compute how many years of life are expected to be lost for each group.
>> (That one's small, and worse for motorists, BTW.)
>>
>> They can also examine data on the health benefits of moderate exercise,
>> and use that to estimate the number of years of life gained by regular
>> cycling. That factor is quite large in favor of the cyclists.
>>
>> Finally, the big one in most people's minds: They can look at data on
>> frequency of traffic crashes and see how likely a cyclist is to get
>> killed or seriously injured while riding. They can work that into the
>> computation as well. However, it turns out it's relatively tiny. Despite
>> the fear mongering, loss of life while cycling is a very, very tiny risk.
>>
>> Again, Mayer Hillman's computations many years ago (around 1990, IIRC)
>> put cycling's benefit:risk at 20:1. De Hartog's came out at 7:1 or 9:1
>> for different groups of cyclists. This latest comes out 77:1 - i.e. for
>> each population year of life lost due to cycling-related factors, there
>> are 77 years of life gained. Cycling is tremendously beneficial.
>>
>> The differences in these estimates are large, of course. But no matter
>> which a person chooses, it shows that fears of cycling are unjustified,
>> and that we don't need weird measures to reduce the mythical danger levels.
>>
>
>But it's like an inverse lottery. Every one is likely to get a small
>benefit, but a few are destined for a big loss. Ken K. and J. Brandt
>being two examples. I'd say, given (apparent) human nature, that
>lotteries are an attractive form of gambling, while cycling is an
>unattractive one.
I think you're missing the other payout. The additional exercise is
expected to reduce things like strokes, cardiac arrest, and pulmonary
embolism. That's a big benefit (skip the life-ending event), with,
I'm guessing, a modest frequency.
The trouble is, nobody expects they're going to throw a blood clot
like that. No, one of the largest people I've worked with tells me
his cholesterol is low, so he doesn't need to lose weight. Personally,
I'm overweight but active, so I'm not at risk, and so on. So don't try
to scare any of us into taking better care of ourselves, because we're
not the next victim. No, sir!
Which leads neatly back into the original post about the difference
between our perception of risk, and the statistical risk we actually
face.
Pat
Patrick Lamb
<jbea...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>
>"AMuzi" <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote in message
>news:j1jnpv$642$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>> I'm 7x more satisfied than the texting putz trying to run over me.
>
>The laws appear to be totally meaningless -- I see as many or more people on
>phones these days than I did before the law. What amazes me is the number
>of people walking and talking, texting, apping, etc., etc. It seems like
>everyone on the sidewalks downtown is on the phone. Who are they
>talking/texting to? What is so important? I see asswipes on bikes talking
>on the phone. I read some guy the riot act the other day who was riding
>like a fool while talking on a cellphone. Incessant yakking has become the
>new opiate of the masses. People are utterly afraid to shut up and listen
>to themselves think these days.
>
>-- Jay Beattie.
I think you're overestimating the amount of thinking that's going on
these days.
Pat
SMS
> I think they are goofy and non-sensical -- you have this box; you're in the
> middle of the traffic lane, and then immediately past the intersection is a
> normal width bike lane that by law you have to be in. Why put bikes in the
> middle of traffic in a green box and then have them get over immediately
> after the intersection.
Very good reasons if you look at the source of so many car bike
collisions in big cities. They need to fix the surface if the paint
becomes slippery, but the concept is very good. They've combined
education with the program so vehicles know what to do.
SMS
> I have no idea what you're talking about (as usual). Urban sprawl is an
> oxymoron. Suburban sprawl is a recognized problem.
Yes, technically you're correct on that, though they mean "suburban
sprawl" when they say "urban sprawl."
A political group I'm involved with got a nastygram from the Sierra Club
when we quoted their opposition to suburban sprawl, agreeing with them
that it made no sense to add housing to the suburbs where there is no
mass transit and not enough schools, while in the urban core there are
empty schools and little-used mass transit.
Yesterday I was on a ride along a multi-use path that is the only
practical way to do commutes from where I live down to the industrial
area where companies like Google have their HQ. To ride there on surface
streets would be maddening because of all the traffic lights, freeway
on/off ramps, and railroad tracks. It could be done but it would be a
longer ride both in time and distance. Much of the route is actually not
very scenic as it threads among freeways, but it is almost a straight
line. Google is expanding and has proposed an overpass for bicycles and
buses over the trail,
<http://www.mv-voice.com/news/show_story.php?id=4469> which I think is
okay (given all the other overpasses/underpasses already in existence),
but that some people oppose.
Peter Cole
No, that's exactly the type of modest benefit I was describing.
Conversely, in my case I was recently diagnosed with a serious cardiac
condition thought to be at least acerbated by my years of vigorous
cycling. Fortunately it was caught in time, and now is being controlled,
but it was life threatening. My cardiologist (a leading expert on the
condition) says his practice is full of cyclists and rowers. I wouldn't
call my case typical, but it's not apparently rare, either.
> Which leads neatly back into the original post about the difference
> between our perception of risk, and the statistical risk we actually
> face.
I think that was my point. Just like the lottery, we tend to misjudge
long odds, for either good or bad consequences.
"\"T°m Sherm@n >
I am suggesting separating intercity and intracity traffic as much as
possible, to prevent the intracity travelers from causing excessive
delays to the intercity travelers.
Jay Beattie
"SMS" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:4e3f4a28$0$2152$742e...@news.sonic.net...
There are boxes at probably fourteen intersections -- so the likelihood of
these boxes doing much in terms of driver education is questionable. The
first PSU study (and in fact the only one I remember) actually saw no
benefit -- but I guess that has changed. Now they're saving cyclists from
catastrophe. And for Peter, the City has a limited transportation budget
that includes mundane road repairs along with bicycle infrastructure, except
when they hide bull shit infrastructure in our water bills (which is an
entirely different issue), so yes, build a green box and you don't fix a pot
hole. There is only so much money. Riding on broken pavent and weaving
around in traffict to avoid smashing a rim or doing a header is far more
likely problematic to me than infrequent conflicts at stop lights. I ride at
least six days a week in PDX, and I can say with certainty that there are
more pressing problems -- way more.
The good new, based on a story tonight on the national news, is that
Portland is the pin-ball capital of the US.