Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009
Phil H
during the year 2009 were categorized and listed according to manner
of collision and assignment of fault. Primary results are that 11 of
25 fatalities (44%) were determined to be the fault of the cyclist;
while 14 of 25 (56%) were the fault of a motor vehicle driver. The
most common manner of collision is when a driver strikes a cyclist
from behind"
Of the 14 driver caused fatalities there were 6 traffic citations, 7
criminal indictments and 1 neither.
Phil H
carl...@comcast.net
wrote:
Dear Phil,
For anyone curious, 2007-2009 state-by-state fatal traffic crash site
data with maps:
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-30/ncsa/STSI/USA%20WEB%20REPORT.HTM
Click on a state, such as Arizona, search down to "pedalcyclist" for
the fatalities by county, and then click on the link for the map:
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-30/ncsa/STSI/4_AZ/2009/Arizona_Map_17_GIS_DATA_2009.HTM
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
James
>The
> most common manner of collision is when a driver strikes a cyclist
> from behind"
What the ~!?
Calling Frank Krygowski to the terminal...
(He just loves to write about what he calls "fear from the rear".
According to Frank, we shouldn't be concerned at all that we might be
hit from behind.)
JS.
Frank Krygowski
Hits from the rear are responsible for a large percentage of cyclist
fatalities. But cyclist fatalities are extremely rare. (There were
not even 700 in all the U.S. in 2009, if I recall correctly, compared
with over 4000 pedestrians, and tens of thousands of motor vehicle
occupants.) In the US, there are at _least_ 8 million miles ridden
between bike fatalities.
The vast majority of bike crashes or wrecks are caused by something
you see in front of you, not behind you. Most common causes of bike
crashes are simple road hazards - things like gravel, potholes,
slippery stuff, cracks that swallow wheels, etc. After that, there
are cars that turn left in front of you (left in the US), cars that
right hook you, cars that pull out of stop signs or driveways, car
doors that open in front of you. There are a surprising number of
bike-bike crashes, too.
If you worry about the minuscule chance of being killed from behind,
and therefore spend a lot of time gazing into your rear view mirror,
you're almost certainly _more_ likely to get into a wreck from a left
cross, a right hook, a door, a pull-out, a pothole, a slippery spot,
or even a dog.
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
P.S. And while data collection on this is poor, there are some strong
indications that a large percentage of the "hit from behind" cyclists
are riding in the dark without lights or reflectors.
- Frank Krygowski
DirtRoadie
> If you worry about the minuscule chance of being killed from behind,
> and therefore spend a lot of time gazing into your rear view mirror,
> you're almost certainly _more_ likely to get into a wreck from a left
> cross, a right hook, a door, a pull-out, a pothole, a slippery spot,
> or even a dog.
Wow! Now there's the voice of reason.
I especially like the "if....therefore" part.
Let's recognize the other issues.
If you are obsessed with the possibilty of being hit from the right
you will undoubtedly never look to the left and will be creamed by
something coming from the left that you didn't see. It's pretty
obvious, isn't it?
Geez if you are watching for potholes you will never see dogs.
OMG ,I 'm done with riding. There is just NO way to keep track of what
's going on around you.
DR
DirtRoadie
> P.S. And while data collection on this is poor, ...
No shit? Who'd a thunk it?
"Tom Sherman °_° -->"
> No shit? [...]
See <http://www.lileks.com/institute/gallery/bran/2.html>.
--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
"LOCAL CACTUS EATS CYCLIST" - AVOGADRO V
Peter Cole
> On Nov 16, 11:01 pm, James<james.e.stew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 17, 2:33 pm, Phil H<pholma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The
>>> most common manner of collision is when a driver strikes a cyclist
>>> from behind"
>>
>> What the ~!?
>>
>> Calling Frank Krygowski to the terminal...
>>
>> (He just loves to write about what he calls "fear from the rear".
>> According to Frank, we shouldn't be concerned at all that we might be
>> hit from behind.)
>
> Hits from the rear are responsible for a large percentage of cyclist
> fatalities. But cyclist fatalities are extremely rare. (There were
> not even 700 in all the U.S. in 2009, if I recall correctly, compared
> with over 4000 pedestrians, and tens of thousands of motor vehicle
> occupants.) In the US, there are at _least_ 8 million miles ridden
> between bike fatalities.
That's just a guess.
Even if true, assuming 80K bike lifetime miles (not very much for a
serious cyclist), that's a 1:100 chance. Too damn high.
>
> The vast majority of bike crashes or wrecks are caused by something
> you see in front of you, not behind you. Most common causes of bike
> crashes are simple road hazards - things like gravel, potholes,
> slippery stuff, cracks that swallow wheels, etc. After that, there
> are cars that turn left in front of you (left in the US), cars that
> right hook you, cars that pull out of stop signs or driveways, car
> doors that open in front of you. There are a surprising number of
> bike-bike crashes, too.
The Portland study was interesting in that it recorded that about 50% of
"serious traumatic events" involved motor vehicles.
> If you worry about the minuscule chance of being killed from behind,
> and therefore spend a lot of time gazing into your rear view mirror,
> you're almost certainly _more_ likely to get into a wreck from a left
> cross, a right hook, a door, a pull-out, a pothole, a slippery spot,
> or even a dog.
The problem of "hit from behind" crashes is that there's not much a
cyclist can do to prevent them, that's what makes them so disturbing.
DirtRoadie
> If you worry about the minuscule chance of being killed from behind,
> and therefore spend a lot of time gazing into your rear view mirror, .......
This also makes CLEAR the danger of rear view mirrors. They should be
outlawed immediately.
DR
Duane Hébert
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2010/05/17/quebec-cycling-accident.html
This link shows some statistics regarding cycling accidents in Quebec.
While there are some rear ends at night it's not a large percentage.
BTW, if you look at the table that shows the number of deaths by
category, you will see the listing "pietons" which means pedestrians
listed just below "occupants de bicyclette" which means cyclists.
Considering that cyclists comprise ~ 16% of the population
http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/programs/environment-utsp-casestudyactivetransportation-1971.htm
it doesn't seem that there is this vastly greater number of pedestrians
being killed than cyclists. I don't have stats on the % of people that
walk but I imagine it's higher than 16%.
What I find curious is that there have been around 15 cycling deaths per
year in a province of 8 million while there are as you say ~700 in a
country of 300 million. What is the percentage of cycling in the states
these days?
Ed
Hi Frank,
I would love to get some constructive criticism -- can you be more
specific?
I am not a professional researcher but I would like to improve.
Regarding "large percentage" being dark without lights:
I think the data, poor though it may be, shows that is not at all the
case:
There were 10 hit-from-behind cases.
Only 4 were in darkness. I tend to believe that all of these victims
were meeting their lighting requirement/duty (to have a rear reflector
or light). In at least two of the cases the police specifically said
to the media words to the effect of "the bicyclist was doing
everything right", or something.
Additionally, ALL FOUR were struck by alcohol-involved drivers, and
generated indictments for manslaughter (and IIRC all 4 resulted in
conviction of either manslaughter or neg hom); I am told
authoritatively that to prove any homicide charge here the prosecution
must show the collision was the fault of the defendant, and not simply
that the defenant was DUI.
Other anecdotal evidence is that several (3 by my count) were somewhat
hard-core roadies doing night training during our (Phoenix) hot
weather months, and not, say, homeless transients just out rolling
around. (I don't say that to sound cold. every life is sacred; but all
things being equal some groups of cyclists are more likely than others
to have a reflector or light).
Oh, and by the way; all four were hit-and-run drivers.
The other 6 were in the light. One was listed as dawn and that guy
specifically had a reflector (and large/slow vehicle triangle). the
dusk victim's driver complained of sun glare.
James
> The other 6 were in the light. One was listed as dawn and that guy
> specifically had a reflector (and large/slow vehicle triangle). the
> dusk victim's driver complained of sun glare.
We had a veteran killed earlier this year. Got run over from behind
by a bus. The bus driver said the sun was in his eyes.
JS.
Phil H
>
> - Show quoted text -
The full report Manner and Fault in Bicyclist Traffic Fatalities:
Arizona 2009 is aavailable in pdf format:
http://azbikelaw.org/report/2009CyclistFatals.pdf
Phil H
Frank Krygowski
First, understand that any small data set may vary greatly from the
averages shown in a larger sampling of data. This is true whether
you're measuring temperatures around the inside of your house, or
counting cyclist crashes and fatalities in a particular area. Arizona
data for 2009 may be anomalous, and give far different results from
Arizona between 1989 and 2009. And Phoenix data may not apply well to
Santa Fe, or to Miami or Cleveland. If you don't have long-term data
for your specific city, it's probably best to go with national
averages, or long-term data for similar locales.
Second, according to reading and corresponding I've done, there are
fairly significant shortcomings in bike accident data collection.
Riley Geary (whose efforts have been described in various cycling
publications) has studied this intensely, and found great
discrepancies in data from neighboring, near-identical counties, which
led him to conclude that sometimes cops at the scene just don't get
things right, probably because the forms they use aren't designed to
capture data we might be interested in. One of those data types is
lighting at night, according to Geary. It's just not reliably
recorded by cops. There _may_ be a "Proper equipment?" box, but the
cop might not even think lights matter enough to be "proper."
But for contrasting data, here's a quote from
http://www.floridabicycle.org/freedomfromfear.html
by Mighk Wilson:
"I collect a good deal of information about cycling crashes. It’s part
of my job as a bike coordinator. Regrettably, what most people get to
see are just raw numbers and media reports. (Some are even echoing
these reports in their arguments to get cyclists removed from the
roads.)
"For example: in Orange, Seminole and Osceola Counties there were 644
bicyclists-versus-motorist crashes in 1994; 11 resulted in death.
Scary thought, huh? But how many of those involved a cyclist driving
on the right side of the roadway (not on the sidewalk) during daylight
hours and obeying the signs, signals and rules of the road? Only 74,
and of those not one was a fatality. Of those 11 deaths, 8 occurred at
night, and 5 involved cyclists hit from behind. (How often do you see
a cyclist out at night without lights?) The other 3 daytime deaths
involved kids who failed to yield (ages 10, 15 and 16). These are the
proportions of crash types you’ll see in most Florida cities.
"Of those 74 crashes, 24 involved an overtaking motorist, and that’s
the type of crash people fear most. That’s 24 daytime, non-fatal,
motorist-overtaking crashes for an entire year for an area with more
than 1.1 million licensed motorists (not including tourists). That
means only one motorist out of 46,000 (0.002%) in our area in 1994 was
so incompetent as to hit a bicyclist from behind in broad daylight.
Only 13 resulted in significant injuries and only 4 in incapacitating
injuries. Only 2 of the 24 motorists claimed they "did not see" the
cyclist."
I'll add that getting hit from behind can come from cyclist actions.
Failure to control a narrow lane can certainly contribute, if a
motorist is tempted to squeeze by when he shouldn't. In fact, I (and
most of the skilled cyclists I know) consider controlling a lane to be
the best defense against being hit from behind. But for many
cyclists, fear of being run down from behind causes them to try to
allow motorists to pass when they shouldn't - an exactly backwards
strategy.
FWIW, when riding at night or in other low-visibility conditions, I
think a rear light is far, far better than just a rear reflector. But
in any case, I wouldn't be overly concerned with getting hit from the
rear. There's far more important stuff going on in front of you.
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
Regarding sun in drivers' eyes: If the sun is low in the sky, and
you're between a motorist and the sun, you may indeed be invisible. A
sensible motorist should be using his visor properly to shade his
eyes, and driving at a speed where he won't hit anything or anybody;
but lots of motorists don't understand that.
So be aware of low-sun situations. It's really bad only for a few
minutes before sunset or after sunrise. It's probably easy enough to
avoid.
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
Fine.
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
> On 11/17/2010 12:27 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > not even 700 in all the U.S. in 2009, if I recall correctly, compared
> > with over 4000 pedestrians, and tens of thousands of motor vehicle
> > occupants.) In the US, there are at _least_ 8 million miles ridden
> > between bike fatalities.
>
> That's just a guess.
That "guess" is from John Pucher's data, in the paper _Making Walking
& Cycling Safer," from Transportation Quarterly, Vol. 54, No. 3,
summer 2000. He cites Sources: U.S. Department of Transportation,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Traffic Safety Facts;
and USDOT, Federal Highway Administration, Nationwide Personal
Transportation Study and Highway Statistics.
That doesn't guarantee it's absolutely correct, but it's far from
being a guess. I should mention, that's the lowest estimate I've
seen for miles ridden between fatalities in the US.
> Even if true, assuming 80K bike lifetime miles (not very much for a
> serious cyclist), that's a 1:100 chance. Too damn high.
Is there a number you would not claim "too damn high?" Probably not.
And note that the estimate is the grand average, based on all the
fatalities of all the riders. Your hypothetical 80k mile serious
cyclist should have a far smaller chance of being one of those
fatalities, because he's almost certainly riding on the right side of
the road, not riding while drunk, he probably _is_ using lights if he
rides at night, he's probably not riding out of driveways into the
paths of motorists, etc.
Remember Moritz's survey of adult bike commuters who were LAB
members? They averaged 11 years or 32,000 miles between crashes that
caused at least $50 damage or required any medical treatment.
> The problem of "hit from behind" crashes is that there's not much a
> cyclist can do to prevent them, that's what makes them so disturbing.
Yep, it's a psychological thing. People have greater fear for rare
events that they can't do anything about, than they do for common
events that they _could_ control, but don't. That's why people are
irrationally afraid of commercial aviation, but not of far riskier
motoring.
- Frank Krygowski
DirtRoadie
> On Nov 17, 1:22 am, DirtRoadie <DirtRoa...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> > OMG, I'm done with riding.
>
> Fine.
Frank you PROMISED you were through with me. Now go away and let me
criticize your looney logic (nice oxymoron) in peace.
So do you or do you not use a rear view mirror?
Now don't lie. The archives will catch up with you.
DR
"Tom Sherman °_° -->"
> [...]
> Yep, it's a psychological thing. People have greater fear for rare
> events that they can't do anything about, than they do for common
> events that they _could_ control, but don't. That's why people are
> irrationally afraid of commercial aviation, but not of far riskier
> motoring.
>
butbutbut, you do not have to deal with TSA goons while motoring.
--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.
carl...@comcast.net
<frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>And note that the estimate is the grand average, based on all the
>fatalities of all the riders. Your hypothetical 80k mile serious
>cyclist should have a far smaller chance of being one of those
>fatalities, because he's almost certainly riding on the right side of
>the road, not riding while drunk, he probably _is_ using lights if he
>rides at night, he's probably not riding out of driveways into the
>paths of motorists, etc.
Dear Frank,
Speaking of not riding while drunk . . .
"One In Three Fatal Bicycle Accidents Linked To Alcohol"
Drinking alcohol and bicycling don’t mix well, say Johns Hopkins
researchers, whose study of 466 Maryland bicyclists found that a third
of fatally injured riders had elevated blood alcohol levels at the
time of their accident. In addition, a blood alcohol concentration of
0.08 grams per deciliter – the legal level of drunkenness in most
states – was found to increase the rider’s risk of fatal or serious
injury by 2,000 percent. . . .
http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/press/2001/FEBRUARY/010220.HTM
***
A few examples, the first from today's newspaper . . .
***
Cyclist gets DUI ticket after unsteady ride through major Boulder
intersection
By John Aguilar, Camera Staff Writer
Posted: 11/16/2010 12:53:58 PM MST
A University of Colorado student who steered her bicycle into a car on
28th Street and then careened into a median twice -- falling to the
ground each time -- got up and kept right on riding until an officer
finally pulled her over, police said.
Patricia Forget, 19, was arrested Saturday night on suspicion of
driving a bike under the influence and riding a bike in a careless
manner.
"I shouldn't ride my bike home," she told police, according to a
report. "I'm too drunk."
Police said Forget's blood alcohol level was 0.215, more than twice
the legal level for driving.
The incident made for the fifth arrest this year by Boulder police of
a suspected drunken cyclist. DUI arrests of cyclists in the city have
steadily increased over the last few years -- one was recorded in
2007, three in 2008 and five last year.
Forget declined to speak to the Camera on Tuesday.
She was spotted by a Boulder police officer around 11:30 p.m. heading
northbound on 28th Street toward Valmont Road on a Gary Fisher
mountain bike. She entered the intersection on a red light and crashed
into a vehicle that was going westbound on Valmont, the officer
reported. He said the driver of the car apparently saw Forget coming
and remained stationary as she approached.
The officer said Forget -- who had stuck her hand out on the hood of
the vehicle -- pushed herself off and continued riding until she
slammed into a median on the north side of Valmont Road. She fell off
her bicycle, got back on, and again struck the curb of the median,
falling to the ground a second time.
The officer flipped on his lights and pulled Forget over at 29th
Street and Valmont Road.
He reported that her eyes were red and watery and that she laughed at
inappropriate moments. Forget failed voluntary roadside maneuvers, the
officer said, and admitted to having three or four drinks that
evening.
She was booked into jail, and her bicycle was confiscated and placed
into evidence.
http://www.dailycamera.com/cu-news/ci_16627639
***
Boulder bicyclist suspected of drunken pedaling
Denver Post staff and wire reports
Posted: 08/11/2010 01:00:00 AM MDT
Police arrested a 38-year-old Boulder man Monday on suspicion of
biking while intoxicated after he admitted to hitting a car and trying
to run a red light, according to the Daily Camera.
Officers who were on foot near 28th Street and Valmont Road saw Jonas
Rizzo almost crash his bike about 4:40 p.m. Monday, Detective Melissa
Kampf told the Camera. When police contacted him, Kampf said, he was
visibly drunk and he told them he hit a car while trying to run a red
light.
He was booked and released from the Boulder County Jail.
http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_15736744
***
Suspected drunken bicyclist dies in Weld wreck
By Kieran Nicholson
The Denver Post
Posted: 08/28/2009 09:51:11 AM MDT
Updated: 08/28/2009 03:52:05 PM MDT
A 44-year-old bicyclist, suspected of being drunk, died Thursday night
in Weld County when he was hit by one car and then a second vehicle.
Jeff Cleveland of Longmont was riding a bicycle west on Colorado 119
near Weld County Road 7 at about 8:50 p.m. when he was hit by a 2006
Hyundai Accent in the right lane of the road, according to a media
release by the Colorado State Patrol.
Cleveland was thrown from the bicycle and then hit by a second car, a
gold 2001 Dodge Stratus, which also was heading west and was in the
left lane, the State Patrol said.
Cleveland, who died at the scene, is suspected of bicycling under the
influence of alcohol, said Trooper David Hall, a State Patrol
spokesman.
Cleveland was riding his bike on the right shoulder and turned into
the path of the car in the right lane, according to the patrol.
"It's not safe to drink and drive anything, even a bike," Hall said.
Neither of the motorists, Chandler Jeff, 46, of Longmont and Luis
Molina, 19, of Dacono, was injured in the incident.
An investigation into the fatal accident shut the highway for about
three hours Thursday night.
The incident remains under investigation.
http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_13222992
***
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
James
> Speaking of not riding while drunk . . .
>
> "One In Three Fatal Bicycle Accidents Linked To Alcohol"
Dear Carl,
Why is it that we tend to focus on the death statistics and overlook
the serious injuries?
Regards,
James.
Andre Jute
guard. Rear gunner Krygowski wanted for rear guard defense!"
Don't you think this is cruel and unusual punishment for Frank, Phil?
After all, he's convinced us, and a few weakminded acolytes, that
there are no, repeat no, fatal bicycle accidents in the States, and
the few people on bicycles who die aren't really bicyclists but
drunks, or otherwise deserving of their fate, and the hit and run
motorists who kill them should stick around to accept the plaudits of
grateful Citizens for a Cycling America (CACA). Why do you keep
feeding his obsession?
Andre Jute
Just the fax mam, I'll get the e-mail later
Tºm Shermªn °_°
> "Calling rear gunner Krygowski. Rear gunner Krygowski to the rear
> guard. Rear gunner Krygowski wanted for rear guard defense!"
<yawn>
--
T榦 Sherm泄 - 42.435731,-83.985007
kolldata
makes me weep for the pro Bill Bunko
Frank Krygowski
>
>
> Dear Carl,
>
> Why is it that we tend to focus on the death statistics and overlook
> the serious injuries?
One reason is that data on deaths is much more robust than data on
serious injuries. In fact, even the definition of "death" is much
more clear than the definition of "serious injuries."
Another reason is that counts of fatalities and counts of serious
injuries tend to move in parallel. IOW, situations that cause lots of
fatalities also tend to cause lots of serious injuries. Riding in
cars is an example.
But James, if you are interested in serious injuries, you should find
some good data on serious injuries while cycling and post it,
especially if it tells us something new.
- Frank Krygowski
Andre Jute
$southslope.net"> wrote:
> On 11/18/2010 5:49 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
>
> > "Calling rear gunner Krygowski. Rear gunner Krygowski to the rear
> > guard. Rear gunner Krygowski wanted for rear guard defense!"
> >[...]
>
> <yawn>
>
> --
> I am a vehicular cyclist.
Aren't you the same little rat-faced hypocrite who's always whining
about me putting people's names in headlines? Oh, right, I know who
you are now. The one who thinks Mussolini was der Fuhrer of the Third
Reich. Ignorant as well as hypocritical. No wonder you and the fascist
homogenizer Krygowski are birds of a feather. -- Andre Jute
Jay Beattie
> On Nov 18, 6:32 am, James <james.e.stew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Dear Carl,
>
> > Why is it that we tend to focus on the death statistics and overlook
> > the serious injuries?
>
> One reason is that data on deaths is much more robust than data on
> serious injuries. In fact, even the definition of "death" is much
> more clear than the definition of "serious injuries."
>
> Another reason is that counts of fatalities and counts of serious
> injuries tend to move in parallel. IOW, situations that cause lots of
> fatalities also tend to cause lots of serious injuries. Riding in
> cars is an example.
Actually, a lot of things that used to be fatal are not -- like car
accidents and wars. At the other end of the spectrum, see:
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/11/bicycling_in_por...
http://blog.oregonlive.com/commuting/2010/11/read_the_ohsu_bike_injur...
Bicycling has a 20% injury rate if you count scraped palms. -- Jay
Beattie.
Andre Jute
> makes me weep for the pro Bill Bunko
Why is it that when you're being deliberately nasty, Daniels, -- as
distinct from your normal mode of involuntary nastiness -- your
language always improves almost to comprehensibility?
Just asking.
Andre Jute
On behalf of mankind, though.
Andre Jute
advice:
On Nov 18, 5:11 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> But James, if you are interested in serious injuries, you should find
> some good data on serious injuries while cycling and post it,
No, James should certainly not be reading anything, even cycling
injury statistics, 'while cycling', nor should he 'post it' or
anything else 'while cycling'. While he's operating his bicycle, he
should NOT read and NOT operate a computer. One would think that even
Krygowski would know that. Perhaps there are no cycling safety classes
at whatever that place is where they let Krygo loose on the students
with a welding torch in his hand.
Every time I come to RBT I'm amazed, most often at something Krygowski
says. How can a guy who proposes himself as a cycling spokesman for
all of us be so stupid as to advise people to read and operate a
computer on their bikes?
Andre Jute
If I were dumbfounded more often, I'd be dumbstruck, and if I mix with
Krygo much longer, I'll just be dumb; the virus that made him so
stupid is most likely contagious
Jay Beattie
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oops, bad links. Try
http://blog.oregonlive.com/commuting/2010/11/read_the_ohsu_bike_injury_stud.html
carl...@comcast.net
Dear James,
Dead is worse than a serious injury. Similarly, a serious injury is
worse than a minor injury, so we focus on serious injuries and
overlook minor injuries, and minor injuries are worse than near
misses, and so on.
Dead is also easier to agree on and count than a serious injury. Most
bicyclists die on the spot and make the newspapers. (Lingering cases
like a friend's uncle, who broke his neck when a front fender failed
and took about two years to die of complications, are rare.)
In contrast, what's a "serious" injury? The usual definition is
anything that leads to a full day or more in the hospital, which
misses some rather horrifying injuries that modern medicine
successfully treats and discharges with surprising speed.
A rider can suffer a "serious" injury and take a day or two to admit
that his back, knee, ribs, wrist, or face hurts so much that he needs
to see a doctor. After an office visit, it may then take a few more
days to schedule surgery, which may lead to a day or more in the
hospital. It's iffy whether this will be counted as a bicycle injury.
***
Incidentally, medical advances skew historical data. Modern death
rates are much lower than they "ought" to be because victims now
survive what used to be fatal wounds--we now survive leg, chest,
belly, and head wounds that routinely killed people in accidents,
wars, and crimes.
For example, a greater proportion of assault victims used to die,
turning into homicide statistics. You died of a festering leg wound,
of peritonitis after a belly wound, of complications after chest and
head wounds. You didn't get the modern emergency treatment that
routinely saves lives.
In 1903, Officer Slater accidentally shot himself in the leg while
trying to stop a drunken pharmacist who had just shot Slater's
partner. Slater died the next day of his leg wound, something that
would be astonishing with modern medicine.
This trend toward survival is reflected in military statistics, which
show modern casualties surviving wounds that routinely killed soldiers
within living memory.
And it suggests that bicyclists were more likely to die from
accidents in the past. That is, many posters can probably remember
times when a bicycle accident was more likely to be fatal just because
treatment was nowhere near as good.
Thoreau is a good reminder of how much we take for granted. His
brother John nicked himself shaving in 1842 and died of tetanus.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
James
> On Nov 18, 6:32 am, James <james.e.stew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Dear Carl,
>
> > Why is it that we tend to focus on the death statistics and overlook
> > the serious injuries?
> Another reason is that counts of fatalities and counts of serious
> injuries tend to move in parallel.
However when there is a small sample of deaths there will likely be a
much larger sample of serious injuries, hence better data
statistically speaking.
JS
James
So you're saying because it's too difficult to assess bicycling
accidents that don't result in a death, we should just ignore that
dataset. Hmm, me thinks there's likely a whole range of accidents the
statisticians don't know or care about. How comforting.
Regards,
James.
James
$southslope.net"> wrote:
> <yawn>
With nothing more useful to add.
JS.
Frank Krygowski
Perhaps, if you can find the data at all.
Another problem - related to what I've already mentioned - is that
even if a definition is agreed upon, there is a spectrum of "serious"
injury. A broken collarbone would probably meet most definitions of
"serious," but it's in a completely different league than, say, a
collapsed lung or an amputated leg.
I just skimmed the paper Jay linked. I see that their definition of
"serious traumatic event" was "any medical treatment sought." So if a
person falls and skins his knee and he (or his mommie) says "I want
the doctor to clean that," it becomes a "serious" injury. If he
cleans it himself, it's not serious. That indicates the data isn't
necessarily better.
- Frank Krygowski
AMuzi
>> <yawn>
James wrote:
> With nothing more useful to add.
Saved the trouble of checking Mr Sherman's face book page to
check his mood at that moment.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
carl...@comcast.net
Dear James,
No, you're saying that.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
James
Dear Carl,
It is the net result.
Cheers,
James.
Bill Sornson
TYVM!
kolldata
James
Which one? They all look alike.
JS.
kolldata
you missed the point.
how's the gizmoid coming alog ?
James
> you missed the point.
>
> how's the gizmoid coming alog ?
Sorry mate, I only catch a small portion of your points. Must be
tuned to different channels.
Gizmoid?
J.
Dan O
Dan O
The thing you were making.
kolldata
rating outside of same.
what I see are very long sight lines. no shoulders off course exceptin
the dirt berm averaing maybe 3-4 miles of it each side but then some
riders fight for it so there you have it. Most Desert people I've met
tend tube ill tempered but maybe that's my fault. My count is a good
70% are borderline nuerotics. Its the heat ?
The irrigation systems are fascinating. Green water cooling thru the
barren desert, whispering reeds: peaceful like a large cathedral.
Riding is like that.
Dan
kolldata
forgot
Dan O
> On Nov 18, 7:15 pm, kolldata <datak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > the casualties are elsewhere like Feenix ? Feenix has a 110% negative
> > rating outside of same.
>
> > what I see are very long sight lines. no shoulders off course exceptin
> > the dirt berm averaing maybe 3-4 miles of it each side but then some
> > riders fight for it so there you have it. Most Desert people I've met
> > tend tube ill tempered but maybe that's my fault. My count is a good
> > 70% are borderline nuerotics. Its the heat ?
>
> > The irrigation systems are fascinating. Green water cooling thru the
> > barren desert, whispering reeds: peaceful like a large cathedral.
> > Riding is like that.
>
> forgot
>
>
Wow! That is awesome! Thanks for the new wallpaper :-)
<snip>
kolldata
<twshermanDEL...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
> On 11/17/2010 9:21 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > Yep, it's a psychological thing. People have greater fear for rare
> > events that they can't do anything about, than they do for common
> > events that they _could_ control, but don't. That's why people are
> > irrationally afraid of commercial aviation, but not of far riskier
> > motoring.
>
> butbutbut, you do not have to deal with TSA goons while motoring.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
> I am a vehicular cyclist.
yeah butbutbut yawl don't havum in your backyard either. you fail to
understand the problem.
kolldata
And the night shall be filled with music and the cares that infest the
day shall fold their tents like the Arabs and as silently steal away.
~Longfellow
James
Thanks, Dan. I feel like blind deer that is not moving.
JS.
James
<twshermanDEL...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
> On 11/17/2010 12:30 AM, DirtRoadie wrote:
>
> > No shit? [...]
>
> See <http://www.lileks.com/institute/gallery/bran/2.html>.
DirtRoadie did not write the "[...]"
BTW, dates are better, and if all else fails, BeetleLax makes your
ringo.
JS.
carl...@comcast.net
Dear James,
No, I didn't say that. You said it, putting words in my mouth and
picking a foolish quarrel.
Goodbye,
Carl Fogel
kolldata
carl lives in the desert
James
> On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 17:30:43 -0800 (PST), James
>
>
>
Dear Carl,
Your "goodbye" sounds kinda final. I think you get my point anyway.
We only get about 4 cyclists dead in Victoria per annum. Using those
statistics to say cycling is not potentially dangerous, or to identify
what are most dangerous scenarios is pointless.
Goodbye,
James Steward.
James
> carl lives in the desert
heat affected.
Andre Jute
Sherman hasn't added anything at all. He stole the headline "André
Jute is doing that thing that makes people dislike him" from some
fellow called Hank who, as far as I could tell, got so bored with
sending that one refrain month after month, he went away and ate
sulphuric acid. Besides being a thief, and insular and ignorant, as
I've detailed, Sherman is dull. That's probably the height of wit in
the nowhere reaches of Wisconsin, to yawn into someone face. The most
amusing thing about Sherman is that Dolan, not exactly an incisive
judge of men, thinks Sherman is marginally smarter than he appears!
Christ, if Sherman were a rat in a cage in my lab, I would die of
boredom.
Andre Jute
A little wit goes a long way. Among the Shermans it has to.
(PeteCresswell)
>Sorry mate, I only catch a small portion of your points. Must be
>tuned to different channels.
That one went right over my head too.
Can anybody explain?
--
PeteCresswell
Frank Krygowski
>
> We only get about 4 cyclists dead in Victoria per annum. Using those
> statistics to say cycling is not potentially dangerous, or to identify
> what are most dangerous scenarios is pointless.
IOW:
"Cyclist fatalities are incredibly rare. Therefore we can't use
cyclist fatalities to pretend that cycling is very dangerous.
"So to advance our effort to pretend that cycling is extremely
dangerous, we'll have to use other injuries. Hmm... Maybe we can use
"serious" injuries, and define those as "any injury that the person
(or his mommie) takes to the doctor. We can imply that each one of
those is likely to ruin someone's life. With a little luck, we can
conflate skinned knees with broken legs, and get a bigger grant for
our next study!"
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
>
> So you're saying because it's too difficult to assess bicycling
> accidents that don't result in a death, we should just ignore that
> dataset. Hmm, me thinks there's likely a whole range of accidents the
> statisticians don't know or care about. How comforting.
Last night, I read through the article on Portland bike commuter
injuries: Hoffman, Lambert et.al., _Bicycle Commuter Injury
Prevention_, Journal of Trauma, V 69 No 5 Nov 2010.
It does just what James likes: It attempts to inflate the "Danger!"
impression attached to cycling by diligently capturing every tiny
injury, no matter how slight, that any bicyclist in its study
population received in an entire year.
Their technique was specifically designed to record even tiny injuries
that a cyclist might forget about five weeks later. From their
description, it sounds like if a cyclist pinched his finger in his
brake lever, that's a "traumatic event" and would get recorded. If a
cyclist had any medical person look at the injury, no matter how
slight, it got recorded as a "serious traumatic event."
So what did they find? Although not called out this way, they found
one "traumatic event" (i.e. tiny boo-boo or worse) every 6,700 miles
of commuting in Portland. They found one "serious traumatic
event" (e.g. the nurse put a band-aid on your blister or worse) every
25,600 miles of bike commuting.
As in all such studies, defining "serious" as "visited a doctor or
nurse" is certainly weak logic. The judgment of "serious" is thus up
to the person responsible for the trip to the treatment, as opposed to
the medically trained person. It completely prevents a doctor saying
"Oh, that's a trivial injury, too small to bother with." It means
hypochondria and outstanding medical coverage will be confounding
factors, just as health care group membership and over-protection
apparently were in the 1989 Thompson & Rivara paper.
And indeed, few as they are, the most common "traumatic" or "serious
traumatic" event in this Portland paper was an injury to "Skin/Soft
Tissue." I guess that they didn't want to come out and say "road
rash" or "skinned knee."
But still: If it takes, on average, 25,000 miles commuting in a major
city to trigger _any_ visit to any doctor, even for a skinned knee, it
sounds like cycling is really not very dangerous at all.
We should stop pretending bicycling is dangerous. It does us no good.
- Frank Krygowski
DirtRoadie
> On Nov 18, 5:30 pm, James <james.e.stew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Their technique was specifically designed to record even tiny injuries
> that a cyclist might forget about five weeks later.
I have had many injuries that were healed and forgotten five weeks
later. That hardly rendered them retroactively inconsequential.
But in any case, Frank, you have my blessing, (indeed my
encouragement) to not wear a helmet.
DR
DirtRoadie
> We should stop pretending there are any dangers in bicycling. It does us no good.
Sure, Frank, anything you say.
Duane Hébert
> On Nov 18, 5:30 pm, James<james.e.stew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> So you're saying because it's too difficult to assess bicycling
>> accidents that don't result in a death, we should just ignore that
>> dataset. Hmm, me thinks there's likely a whole range of accidents the
>> statisticians don't know or care about. How comforting.
>
> Last night, I read through the article on Portland bike commuter
> injuries: Hoffman, Lambert et.al., _Bicycle Commuter Injury
> Prevention_, Journal of Trauma, V 69 No 5 Nov 2010.
>
> It does just what James likes: It attempts to inflate the "Danger!"
> impression attached to cycling by diligently capturing every tiny
> injury, no matter how slight, that any bicyclist in its study
> population received in an entire year.
James is saying that using only fatalities and not other cycling
injuries is skewing the data if the data is used to determine whether
cycling is dangerous. Are you disagreeing with that?
Accusing him of trying to inflate the danger and then phrasing it
as "diligently capturing every tiny injury ..." is irritating.
Duane Hébert
> On Nov 18, 11:26 pm, James<james.e.stew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> We only get about 4 cyclists dead in Victoria per annum. Using those
>> statistics to say cycling is not potentially dangerous, or to identify
>> what are most dangerous scenarios is pointless.
>
> IOW:
You mean in your other words.
> "Cyclist fatalities are incredibly rare. Therefore we can't use
> cyclist fatalities to pretend that cycling is very dangerous.
>
> "So to advance our effort to pretend that cycling is extremely
> dangerous, we'll have to use other injuries. Hmm... Maybe we can use
> "serious" injuries, and define those as "any injury that the person
> (or his mommie) takes to the doctor. We can imply that each one of
> those is likely to ruin someone's life. With a little luck, we can
> conflate skinned knees with broken legs, and get a bigger grant for
> our next study!"
Why not ask the OP what his suggestion is instead of assigning
one to him that is so ridiculous?
DirtRoadie
> Accusing him .... is irritating.
But then, Frank has little to say that is NOT irritating.
DR
James
> On Nov 18, 11:26 pm, James <james.e.stew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > We only get about 4 cyclists dead in Victoria per annum. Using those
> > statistics to say cycling is not potentially dangerous, or to identify
> > what are most dangerous scenarios is pointless.
>
> IOW:
>
> "Cyclist fatalities are incredibly rare. Therefore we can't use
> cyclist fatalities to pretend that cycling is very dangerous.
I said _potentially_ dangerous or to identify what are most dangerous
scenarios. You are putting your own antihelmetarian spin on what I
didn't say for your purpose.
> "So to advance our effort to pretend that cycling is extremely
> dangerous, we'll have to use other injuries. Hmm... Maybe we can use
> "serious" injuries, and define those as "any injury that the person
> (or his mommie) takes to the doctor. We can imply that each one of
> those is likely to ruin someone's life. With a little luck, we can
> conflate skinned knees with broken legs, and get a bigger grant for
> our next study!"
I didn't say that. Frank Krygowski is telling lies again.
JS.
Frank Krygowski
James, it should be obvious that I wasn't seriously quoting you. But
that's certainly the direction you were going - looking harder to find
bad news about bicycling.
You're not alone. It's naive to think that there is not a large
collection of people who profit, one way or another, from portraying
cycling as dangerous.
In some cases, the profit is monetary, coming from sales of their
"safety" products, from getting a badly needed publication in some
journal or other (thus avoiding the "perish" part of "publish or
perish"), from getting grant funds to study the "problem," from
getting consultants fees for dreaming up solutions to the "problem,"
etc.
In other cases, the profit is not monetary, but psychological. There
are many who have a psychological need to save others, whether from
eternal damnation, from moral vices, or from dangers that may shorten
their lives - whether that vice is eating the wrong food, or not using
sunscreen, or (horrors!) riding a bicycle.
The first step in saving those poor souls is to convince them of the
error of their ways. And that's done by explaining the terrible
consequences. That's what the authors of that article were doing -
looking very hard to find _some_ terrible consequences. It couldn't
be deaths, there weren't enough. It couldn't even be ER visits - not
enough of those either. So it was "Any tiny injury at all." Or "Any
injury that a medical person looked at," which were ludicrously termed
"serious."
I think you've aligned yourself with those authors, by your admission
that there are almost no bike fatalities in your area, so you want to
look for lesser injuries. You want to show - somehow - that cycling
really is dangerous.
I admit, I've got my own motives. I get satisfaction out of promoting
cycling. And I get satisfaction out of fixing ignorance, especially
by using correct data. Therefore, it may be that you and I will never
really agree on these issues.
- Frank Krygowski
DirtRoadie
> There
> are many who have a psychological need to save others, whether from
> eternal damnation, from moral vices, or from dangers that may shorten
> their lives - whether that vice is eating the wrong food, or not using
> sunscreen, or (horrors!) riding a bicycle.
Then conceded :
> I admit, I've got my own motives. I get satisfaction out of promoting
> cycling. And I get satisfaction out of fixing ignorance, especially
> by using correct data.
Excellent self analysis.
James
No, wrong again. I'm interested in why there is an overwhelming
interest in dead cyclists while the seriously injured ones are not so
interesting. It is obvious that it makes the statisticians job
harder, however the conditions under which an accident occurs,
regardless of the outcome, may be more insightful.
> You're not alone. It's naive to think that there is not a large
> collection of people who profit, one way or another, from portraying
> cycling as dangerous.
How do I profit?
If you are not a little bit savvy or if you are very unlucky, cycling
can be very dangerous, indeed life threatening. Luckily we are mostly
savvy enough that we mostly stay safe. There are still the unlucky
ones.
> In some cases, the profit is monetary, coming from sales of their
> "safety" products, from getting a badly needed publication in some
> journal or other (thus avoiding the "perish" part of "publish or
> perish"), from getting grant funds to study the "problem," from
> getting consultants fees for dreaming up solutions to the "problem,"
> etc.
If the problem exists that motorists need better education, don't you
think it's worth pursuing?
> I think you've aligned yourself with those authors, by your admission
> that there are almost no bike fatalities in your area, so you want to
> look for lesser injuries. You want to show - somehow - that cycling
> really is dangerous.
<snip>
Wrong again. I want to know what accidents happened and how they
could be avoided or reduced. You really don't need to go off the deep
end with your antihelmetarianisms.
James.
Andre Jute
If only it were true. I was horrorstruck that Krygowski, who has been
repeatedly exposed by everyone here as lying about the data, can now
claim he's 'using correct data' without at least half a dozen people
pointing it out.
Frank Krygowski lies and lies and lies. So what else is new?
Andre Jute
Hold the map the other way round, Krygo; you got it upside down.
DirtRoadie
No disagreement here except that it may be harsh to call his words
"lies" when his delusions are very real to him.
I did not think his laughable reference to his "fixing ignorance" and
using "correct data" required any further explanation.
But Frank's own words regarding the "psychological" disorders of
others illustrate that he suffers from (and admits) having similar
delusions and the same "disorder" that he describes.
DR
Andy
> On Nov 16, 11:01 pm, James <james.e.stew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 17, 2:33 pm, Phil H <pholma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >The
> > > most common manner of collision is when a driver strikes a cyclist
> > > from behind"
>
> > What the ~!?
>
> > Calling Frank Krygowski to the terminal...
>
> > (He just loves to write about what he calls "fear from the rear".
> > According to Frank, we shouldn't be concerned at all that we might be
> > hit from behind.)
>
> Hits from the rear are responsible for a large percentage of cyclist
> fatalities. But cyclist fatalities are extremely rare. (There were
> not even 700 in all the U.S. in 2009, if I recall correctly, compared
> with over 4000 pedestrians, and tens of thousands of motor vehicle
> occupants.) In the US, there are at _least_ 8 million miles ridden
> between bike fatalities.
>
> The vast majority of bike crashes or wrecks are caused by something
> you see in front of you, not behind you. Most common causes of bike
> crashes are simple road hazards - things like gravel, potholes,
> slippery stuff, cracks that swallow wheels, etc. After that, there
> are cars that turn left in front of you (left in the US), cars that
> right hook you, cars that pull out of stop signs or driveways, car
> doors that open in front of you. There are a surprising number of
> bike-bike crashes, too.
>
> If you worry about the minuscule chance of being killed from behind,
> and therefore spend a lot of time gazing into your rear view mirror,
> you're almost certainly _more_ likely to get into a wreck from a left
> cross, a right hook, a door, a pull-out, a pothole, a slippery spot,
> or even a dog.
>
> - Frank Krygowski
Riding on sidewalks is an excellent way to reduce those "unwanted
events."
The number of bicylists in Pearland, Texas has really increased due to
the job and economy.
We have a bike lane in the downtown area, but I usually use the
sidewalks during the going to/coming home
time of the day.
Bicylists get to see all kinds of interesting things and there are
financial payoffs.
Some items I have found in dumpsters include:
Fully functional P-4 system to replace my old P-3.
(Just had to fabricate a front cover.)
Bike rack that mounts on most any car.
I am currently cold-calling in my job search.
I lock up my bike, and try every store.
Have a great day,
Andy
http://intouch.org/magazine/daily-devotional
http://www.happynews.com
Andy
> On Nov 16, 10:27 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If you worry about the minuscule chance of being killed from behind,
> > and therefore spend a lot of time gazing into your rear view mirror,
> > you're almost certainly _more_ likely to get into a wreck from a left
> > cross, a right hook, a door, a pull-out, a pothole, a slippery spot,
> > or even a dog.
>
> I especially like the "if....therefore" part.
>
> Let's recognize the other issues.
> If you are obsessed with the possibilty of being hit from the right
> you will undoubtedly never look to the left and will be creamed by
> something coming from the left that you didn't see. It's pretty
> obvious, isn't it?
> Geez if you are watching for potholes you will never see dogs.
> OMG ,I 'm done with riding. There is just NO way to keep track of what
> 's going on around you.
>
> DR
All dogs do are chase.
You might want to stop pulling that bone on a rope 2. :-)
Andy
> On Nov 17, 4:21 pm, James <james.e.stew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 18, 5:43 am, Ed <ebei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > The other 6 were in the light. One was listed as dawn and that guy
> > > specifically had a reflector (and large/slow vehicle triangle). the
> > > dusk victim's driver complained of sun glare.
>
> > We had a veteran killed earlier this year. Got run over from behind
> > by a bus. The bus driver said the sun was in his eyes.
>
> Regarding sun in drivers' eyes: If the sun is low in the sky, and
> you're between a motorist and the sun, you may indeed be invisible. A
> sensible motorist should be using his visor properly to shade his
> eyes, and driving at a speed where he won't hit anything or anybody;
> but lots of motorists don't understand that.
>
> So be aware of low-sun situations. It's really bad only for a few
> minutes before sunset or after sunrise. It's probably easy enough to
> avoid.
>
> - Frank Krygowski
Best advice for bicyclists is the same as for driving a car.
I make the assumption that everyone out there is trying to hit me.
Frank Krygowski
> On Nov 20, 9:44 am, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > James, it should be obvious that I wasn't seriously quoting you. But
> > that's certainly the direction you were going - looking harder to find
> > bad news about bicycling.
>
> No, wrong again. I'm interested in why there is an overwhelming
> interest in dead cyclists while the seriously injured ones are not so
> interesting.
This should be obvious. Death always arouses the most interest
because it is in a way the ultimate "serious" outcome.
And as explained, "seriously injured" is a much more difficult thing
to define. Death is counted pretty much the same way in all countries
and in all studies. But we just looked at a study that defined
"serious" as "any injury a doctor or nurse looks at." It would take
years of hard work to get researchers to agree on what "serious"
means. That's unlikely to happen.
So the most interesting thing is the same thing that's easiest to
define, and that which has the best data records. It's going to be
very hard to convince many people to abandon those facts.
> It is obvious that it makes the statisticians job
> harder, however the conditions under which an accident occurs,
> regardless of the outcome, may be more insightful.
If you're trying to find the specific details of road conditions and
operator mistakes that lead to crashes, you're right, more data is
better. But you'll always have the problem that some things are too
minor to bother with. It's common for "Safety!" zealots to decry the
fact that not all bike crashes are reported to police - as if every
time a jogger tripped and fell, it was reported to police! One has to
draw a line, and say some events aren't important enough to worry
about.
Now, Carol Tan did excellent work on details of bike crashes in the
US. Her "crash type manual" is a great resource. You can find places
to download it, I'm sure. But whether you'll ever get such a work
done for your area, I don't know. I'd think it unlikely - it's a huge
project.
> If you are not a little bit savvy or if you are very unlucky, cycling
> can be very dangerous, indeed life threatening. Luckily we are mostly
> savvy enough that we mostly stay safe. There are still the unlucky
> ones.
But that's true of every activity in the world. It doesn't have much
to do with evaluating or improving (if necessary) any one activity's
level of safety.
> If the problem exists that motorists need better education, don't you
> think it's worth pursuing?
I do. I've stated that pretty often.
> > I think you've aligned yourself with those authors, by your admission
> > that there are almost no bike fatalities in your area, so you want to
> > look for lesser injuries. You want to show - somehow - that cycling
> > really is dangerous.
>
> <snip>
>
> Wrong again. I want to know what accidents happened and how they
> could be avoided or reduced.
OK, I can accept that.
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
>
>
> Riding on sidewalks is an excellent way to reduce those "unwanted
> events."
That's been researched many times. AFAIK, there is no study that's
ever found sidewalk cycling to be anywhere near as safe as riding on
the road.
- Frank Krygowski
Dan O
To say the least.
Dan O
I ran out of wine again and had to run to the store. Dark, cold, wet,
wet leaves. Popped a couple of warmup wheeljies heading for main
street. Come to the stop sign, and holy crap - not only are there
cars coming, there are lots of them coming both ways (Friday night -
must be a game.) Roll up onto the sidewalk (just about fell over
there), but then saw a truckload of christmas trees or something
coming one way going slow, and a gap behind a pickup truck coming the
other way... no McGaskill, but wheelied off the curb and squirted
across :-)
Thought about it later. Of course I should have rolled up to the stop
sign, assumed the position, and showed those motorists how to cycle
properly (lights notwithstanding).
> The number of bicylists in Pearland, Texas has really increased due to
> the job and economy.
>
> We have a bike lane in the downtown area, but I usually use the
> sidewalks during the going to/coming home
> time of the day.
>
> Bicylists get to see all kinds of interesting things and there are
> financial payoffs.
>
> Some items I have found in dumpsters include:
>
> Fully functional P-4 system to replace my old P-3.
> (Just had to fabricate a front cover.)
>
I run OS/2 1.3 on my 386.
<snip>
Peter Cole
Stutts, J. & Hunter, W. (1999) Injuries to Pedestrians and Bicyclists �
An Anlysis Based on Hospital Emergency Department Data. FHWA-RD-99-078.
Federal Highway Administration.
http://katana.hsrc.unc.edu/cms/downloads/Injury_to_PedBike_Analysis.pdf
"These findings lend strong support to previous research (summarized in
chapter 2) carried out in this country, as well as in Australia,
New Zealand, and a number of European countries, showing that reliance
on official road accident statistics greatly underestimates the
number of injured bicyclists and pedestrians."
"Finally, it is interesting to draw perspective from numbers that have
been reported nationally concerning injured pedestrians and
bicyclists. Two obvious sources for information on events that involve a
motor vehicle are the Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS)
and the General Estimates System (GES). According to FARS data, 830
bicyclists were killed in collisions with motor vehicles in 1995,
including 136 in California, 50 in New York, and 35 in North Carolina
(NHTSA, 1996). For pedestrians, the corresponding numbers
were 5,585 overall, 825 in California, 412 in New York, and 188 in North
Carolina. Information on injured bicyclists and pedestrians,
based on GES data, is only available at the national level: an estimated
61,000 bicyclists and 84,000 pedestrians were injured in
collisions with motor vehicles (NHTSA, 1996).
These numbers, based on police crash reports, only reflect the "tip of
the iceberg" as far as injuries to pedestrians and bicyclists are
concerned."
Similar to recent Portland statistics, this study found about 1/2 of ER
admissions for bike crashes in the road involved motor vehicles.
Of those, ~1/4 resulted in hospital admission.
Peter Cole
http://katana.hsrc.unc.edu/cms/downloads/Injury_to_PedBike_Analysis.pdf
"Combining the two sources of information, the Commission was able to
conclude, for example, that the risk of
injury for children riding bicycles in the street was about eight times
greater than riding on bicycle paths, and nearly two times greater
than riding on sidewalks"
Frank Krygowski
>
>
> "These findings lend strong support to previous research (summarized in
> chapter 2) carried out in this country, as well as in Australia,
> New Zealand, and a number of European countries, showing that reliance
> on official road accident statistics greatly underestimates the
> number of injured bicyclists and pedestrians."
Not to mention injured gardeners, injured aerobic dancers, injured
weightlifters, injured kids playing tag or hopscotch!
The fundamental principle is that of _course_ many injuries are
unrecorded, because most injuries are too minor to matter. This is
true no matter what the activity. It generates complaints only from
those who make it their mission to "dangerize" a particular activity.
For some reason, bicycling seems to attract the attention of a
disproportionate number of those people.
And by the way, those gardeners, aerobic dancers and weightlifters? I
have on file a paper which I've cited before. A poll similar to the
Portland paper found that doing any of those activities for exercise
generates more injuries than does riding a bicycle for exercise.
Powell, et. al., _Injury Rates from Walking, Gardening, Weightlifting,
Outdoor Bicycling and Aerobics_, Medicine & Science in Sports &
Exercise, V 20, pp. 1243-9, 1998. Bicycling was the safest of all
those activities, according to their poll results.
Why are some bicyclists so intent on overstating bicycling's minimal
dangers? Is it some weird macho thing?
- Frank Krygowski
DirtRoadie
> Why are some bicyclists so intent on overstating bicycling's minimal dangers?
Why are some engineers in Ohio so ignorantly intent on posing
inaccurate rhetorical questions using exaggerations? Is it some ethnic
thing?
DR
Tim McNamara
Peter Cole <peter...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 11/19/2010 10:28 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > On Nov 19, 9:28 pm, Andy<chocolatemint77...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Riding on sidewalks is an excellent way to reduce those "unwanted
> >> events."
> >
> > That's been researched many times. AFAIK, there is no study that's
> > ever found sidewalk cycling to be anywhere near as safe as riding
> > on the road.
>
> http://katana.hsrc.unc.edu/cms/downloads/Injury_to_PedBike_Analysis.pd
> f
>
> "Combining the two sources of information, the Commission was able to
> conclude, for example, that the risk of injury for children riding
> bicycles in the street was about eight times greater than riding on
> bicycle paths, and nearly two times greater than riding on sidewalks"
For six year olds that seems likely to be reasonable, for adult possibly
not. I don't recall ever seeing numbers about that. The Minnesota
Department of Health data about head injury fatalities only breaks out
"on road" and "off road" "pedalcyclists" without being specific as to
what "off road" means (e.g., mountain biking, paved trails, etc.).
Adults riding a bike on sidewalks also pose a danger to other sidewalk
users, of course.
--
Gotta make it somehow on the dreams you still believe.
Tim McNamara
Peter Cole <peter...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Similar to recent Portland statistics, this study found about 1/2 of
> ER admissions for bike crashes in the road involved motor vehicles.
I would have expected that proportion to be much higher, just because I
expect the risk of injury to be much higher if the crash involves a 4000
pound mobile object.
Dan O
> On Nov 20, 9:06 am, Peter Cole <peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "These findings lend strong support to previous research (summarized in
> > chapter 2) carried out in this country, as well as in Australia,
> > New Zealand, and a number of European countries, showing that reliance
> > on official road accident statistics greatly underestimates the
> > number of injured bicyclists and pedestrians."
>
> Not to mention injured gardeners, injured aerobic dancers, injured
> weightlifters, injured kids playing tag or hopscotch!
>
> The fundamental principle is that of _course_ many injuries are
> unrecorded, because most injuries are too minor to matter. This is
> true no matter what the activity. It generates complaints only from
> those who make it their mission to "dangerize" a particular activity.
> For some reason, bicycling seems to attract the attention of a
> disproportionate number of those people.
>
Frank, please just consider who all's reading this for a moment.
"dangerize"?
<snip>
Dan O
> On Nov 18, 5:30 pm, James <james.e.stew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > So you're saying because it's too difficult to assess bicycling
> > accidents that don't result in a death, we should just ignore that
> > dataset. Hmm, me thinks there's likely a whole range of accidents the
> > statisticians don't know or care about. How comforting.
>
> Last night, I read through the article on Portland bike commuter
> injuries: Hoffman, Lambert et.al., _Bicycle Commuter Injury
> Prevention_, Journal of Trauma, V 69 No 5 Nov 2010.
>
> It does just what James likes: It attempts to inflate the "Danger!"
> impression attached to cycling by diligently capturing every tiny
> injury, no matter how slight, that any bicyclist in its study
> population received in an entire year.
>
> description, it sounds like if a cyclist pinched his finger in his
> brake lever, that's a "traumatic event" and would get recorded. If a
> cyclist had any medical person look at the injury, no matter how
> slight, it got recorded as a "serious traumatic event."
>
> So what did they find? Although not called out this way, they found
> one "traumatic event" (i.e. tiny boo-boo or worse) every 6,700 miles
> of commuting in Portland. They found one "serious traumatic
> event" (e.g. the nurse put a band-aid on your blister or worse) every
> 25,600 miles of bike commuting.
>
> As in all such studies, defining "serious" as "visited a doctor or
> nurse" is certainly weak logic. The judgment of "serious" is thus up
> to the person responsible for the trip to the treatment, as opposed to
> the medically trained person. It completely prevents a doctor saying
> "Oh, that's a trivial injury, too small to bother with." It means
> hypochondria and outstanding medical coverage will be confounding
> factors, just as health care group membership and over-protection
> apparently were in the 1989 Thompson & Rivara paper.
>
> And indeed, few as they are, the most common "traumatic" or "serious
> traumatic" event in this Portland paper was an injury to "Skin/Soft
> Tissue." I guess that they didn't want to come out and say "road
> rash" or "skinned knee."
>
> But still: If it takes, on average, 25,000 miles commuting in a major
> city to trigger _any_ visit to any doctor, even for a skinned knee, it
> sounds like cycling is really not very dangerous at all.
>
> We should stop pretending bicycling is dangerous. It does us no good.
>
I'm fighting off paronychia from the 1 cm avulsion I sustained a few
weeks ago. And I seem to have Lightfoot syndrome in my neck (though
that may be likely unrelated to the particular fall)
Dan O
AMuzi
In my experience, sidewalks and 'paths' dump cyclists onto
streets at points unanticipated by other traffic.
It's one thing to cross an intersection where most
participants expect cross traffic. It's quite another 15
feet away between/behind hedges, parked cars and other sight
line obstructions.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
DirtRoadie
It is probably not the unidentified and anonymous members of "those
who make it their mission to 'dangerize' a particular activity."
Maybe Frank will be more successful than OJ in his quest to find these
elusive folks.
DR
Duane Hebert
"Phil W Lee" <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote in message
news:rp2ge6tfg0g95q2tv...@4ax.com...
> Dan O <danov...@gmail.com> considered Fri, 19 Nov 2010 21:23:01
> comparisons will be made with other activities where such inflated
> figures for "serious" injuries are not used.
Questioning the inaccurate use of less than adequate statistics is
not trying to inflate the danger. If you guys want to use statistics to
make a point, you should be able to respond to the question without
resorting to insulting innuendo and hyperbole.
> You simply cannot use figures for comparison which are collected in
> such different ways and using such widely varying criteria
Of course not. But you can't cherry pick figures that make your
argument either.
You can get some statistics based on those actually showing up
in ERs and then subsequently being admitted. Not sure about where
you are, but skinned knees don't usually get hospital rooms here.
But to counter that possibility by claiming someone who takes
5 weeks to recover from an injury is inconsequential makes
your argument sound weak, to say the least.
Dan O
> Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> considered Fri, 19 Nov 2010 21:23:01
> -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:
>
>
>
> comparisons will be made with other activities where such inflated
> figures for "serious" injuries are not used.
>
I don't really give a flying fig about numbers (except those like
dropout spacing). I only know that I was just soaking my paronychia
in a Sponge Bob cup of magnesium sulfate while hosing walnut slime off
the driveway with the other hand :-)
DirtRoadie
Since your injury is statistically insignificant, you can just ignore
it.
DR
Peter Cole
That's why I only cited those 2 stats from the study I linked. I does go
into some more detail about the category of injury, but the severity
mostly has to be inferred. I figure hospital admission is as good as
anything. I'd consider a broken bone a fairly serious injury, but one
that doesn't usually warrant an admission (unless it's your headbone).
(PeteCresswell)
>Why are some bicyclists so intent on overstating bicycling's minimal
>dangers? Is it some weird macho thing?
I think part of it might come from the huge variation in local
riding conditions.
I've been to California a couple times and comparing cycling
conditions there to where I live (Southeastern Penna, USA) is on
the order of comparing downtown Mogadishu (SP?) with Amsterdam.
Ok, a little poetic license there... but the diff is so vast that
somebody in the California I've seen just couldn't relate until
they'd been here.
--
PeteCresswell
Duane Hebert
"DirtRoadie" <DirtR...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:df08d520-7ada-4a5a...@30g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
Especially in the sense of trying to do anything in the
future to prevent or ameliorate it (like sweeping the
drive ahead of time) as that would just be the same
as fear mongering.
(PeteCresswell)
>That's been researched many times. AFAIK, there is no study that's
>ever found sidewalk cycling to be anywhere near as safe as riding on
>the road.
Varying conditions and mile-by-mile judgment calls.
Take Matson Ford road coming out of West Conshocken Penna up the
ridge towards Radnor: Traffic routinely moving at 55-60 mph (at
least 20 mph over the limit), nice straightaway for steering with
the knees while checking email, women wearing hair curlers
rushing home so as not to miss Jerry Springer, very narrow
shoulder mitigated by parking areas/business entrances.
But past the businesses, there's no more mitigation. But there
*is* a nice wide sidewalk - virtually unused AFIK from several
years of passing through.
If somebody is on a bike with fat enough tires to handle the
sidewalk and rides that stretch on the road instead they're being
foolish - and inconsiderate.
If they're used to holding 25-30 mph on 23mm tires, I can't speak
to it.... but for me, noodling along at 12-14 on my 38's it's a
no-brainer.
Anybody who says otherwise is probably an indictment of my
communication skills and just needs to go there and see the
situation firsthand.
Lotta that around here...
--
PeteCresswell
(PeteCresswell)
>In my experience, sidewalks and 'paths' dump cyclists onto
>streets at points unanticipated by other traffic.
+1
--
PeteCresswell